A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews

ue
i 5
i
»
; y »
. wat % 5 :
,
Pas ‘ Anat \e
an ws, : 4 y
“¢ a .
AY " ‘a.
iy \
My
‘
Mp, .
ig Zs
My Se
Pnee Ke i
Mi 9 Hi 2

T Ob2SbGTO T42T E

1S JO ALISHSAINN

Che
Anternational Critical Commentary

on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and

Hew Cestaments.

UNDER THE PRESENT EDITORSHIP OF

THE REv. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
Sometime Master of University College, Durham

PLANNED AND FOR YEARS EDITED BY

THE LATE REv. PROFESSOR SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.LitT?v.
THE Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
THE LATE REv. PROFESSOR CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt,

x ye ny

bl 7
ibe’ y

,
Lae.
} Ai
: y Gee 7

Lio

= : ; eee euneteny) bee J a

+ iii ea a a

a ages! AB RUT i as aul ah

" w ‘fia ait whey. ua ihe HP yen ripe |

HHA yt Heer E SH fA t/a ake oat dik 5
AE SOE RA geek GT

went all EIN BET eTHIA ahaa aie STS wath We ao

THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY

A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY

ON THE

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

BY

JAMES MOFFATT
D.D., D.Litt., Hon. M.A. (Oxon.)

Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED
FOR
Pres CLARE EDINBURGH
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS

Hirst) EDITION, = =). stO24!
Latest REPRINT . . 1963

The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved

TO THE MEMORY OF

THREE SCOTTISH EXPOSITORS OF IIPOS EBPAIOYS:
A. B. BRUCE,

A. B. DAVIDSON,

AND

MARCUS DODS.

ny e, vy ae we ay

, a” ad OL y erray Were aT Lao J a ane y
p.
iy " a |
; F
J
1 r
7 Ty
ius
¥7
(
y ( , tae
‘4 |
ae
i j
i" ?
1
4b
Ai ;
avn
a i
> i]
rN y py h Me re va . } re
i : 1 |

s
a ne ioe a

My, Mae naa, aetill

PREFACE.

IT is ten years since this edition was first drafted.
Various interruptions, of war and peace, have prevented
me from finishing it till now, and I am bound to acknow-
ledge the courtesy and patience of the editor and the
publishers. During the ten years a number of valuable
contributions to the subject have appeared. Of these as
well as of their predecessors I have endeavoured to take
account; if I have not referred to them often, this has
been due to no lack of appreciation, but simply because,
in order to be concise and readable, I have found it
necessary to abstain from offering any catena of opinions
in this edition. The one justification for issuing another
edition of IIpdés “EBpaiovs seemed to me to lie in a fresh
point of view, expounded in the notes—fresh, that is, in
an English edition. I am more convinced than ever
that the criticism of this writing cannot hope to make
any positive advance except from two negative con-
clusions. One is, that the identity of the author and of
his readers must be left in the mist where they already
lay at the beginning of the second century when the
guess-work, which is honoured as “ tradition,” began. The
other is, that the situation which called forth this remark-
able piece of primitive Christian thought had nothing to do
with any movement in contemporary Judaism. The writer
of IIpos ‘E8patovs knew no Hebrew, and his readers were
in no sense ‘E8paio. These may sound paradoxes. I
agree with those who think they are axioms, At any
ix

x PREFACE

rate such is the point of view from which the present
edition has been written ; it will explain why, for example,
in the Introduction there is so comparatively small space
devoted to the stock questions about authorship and date.

One special reason for the delay in issuing the book
has been the need of working through the materials
supplied for the criticism of the text by von Soden’s
Schriften des Neuen Testaments (1913) and by some
subsequent discoveries, and also the need of making a
first-hand study of the Wisdom literature of Hellenistic
Judaism as well as of Philo. Further, I did not feel
justified in annotating IIpos ‘EBpaiouvs without reading
through the scattered ethical and philosophical tracts
and treatises of the general period, like the De Mundo
and the remains of Teles and Musonius Rufus,

“A commentary,” as Dr. Johnson observed, “must arise
from the fortuitous discoveries of many men in devious
walks of literature.” No one can leave the criticism of a
work like IIpos ‘E8paious after twelve years spent upon
it, without feeling deeply indebted to such writers as
Chrysostom, Calvin, Bleek, Riehm, and Riggenbach, who
have directly handled it. But I owe much to some
eighteenth-century writings, like L. C. Valckenaer’s Scholia
and G. D. Kypke’s Odservationes Sacrae, as well as to
other scholars who have lit up special points of inter-
pretation indirectly. Where the critical data had been
already gathered in fairly complete form, I have tried
to exercise an independent judgment; also I hope some
fresh ground has been broken here and there in ascertain-
ing and illustrating the text of this early Christian
masterpiece.

JAMES MOFFATT.

GLASGOW, I5¢h February 1924.

CONTENTS.

—>—_
PREFACE . : - : ,
INTRODUCTION A
§ 1. Origin and Aim . :
§ 2. Religious Ideas .
§ 3. Style and Diction
§ 4. Text, Commentaries, etc. A
COMMENTARY j 3 : 5
INDEXES . ; ; F ;

I. Greek :
II. Subjects and Authors

III. Quotations, etc., of the Old Testament.

PAGE

xill—Ixxvi
X1ll

XXX

lvi

lxiv

. wie, ae, |
fort f . ; rie. si
3 S wi” oat Te ae ws ui nie
Sek sol) ; | ; ON, WED relia
aA F aan :
i i =. sina P i) wolty ee
‘ a aE. — weet y; eg

7

INTRODUCTION.

—+—_

§ 1. ORIGIN AND AIM.

(i.)

Durinc the last quarter of the first century A.D. a little master-
piece of religious thought began to circulate among some of the
Christian communities. The earliest trace of it appears towards
the end of the century, in a pastoral letter sent by the church
of Rome to the church of Corinth. The authorship of this
letter is traditionally assigned to a certain Clement, who
probably composed it about the last decade of the century.
Evidently he knew Ipés “EBpatous (as we may, for the sake of
convenience, call our writing); there are several almost verbal
reminiscences (cp. Dr. A. J. Carlyle in Zhe Mew Testament tn the
Apostolic Fathers, pp. 44f., where the evidence is sifted). This
is beyond dispute, and proves that our writing was known at
Rome during the last quarter of the first century. A fair speci-
men of the indebtedness of Clement to our epistle may be seen
in a passage like the following, where I have underlined the
allusions :

2-5 a vr > , A ar , 3 a , la
3625 ds dv dravyacpa THs meyaAwovvys aitov, ToroUTH peilwy
2 ‘ > aN 7 8 , + r ‘
éotly ayyéAwv, dow diadopwrepov ovopa KexAnpovo-
CD acted het ir Aaa ad es Dt et Race pe ee ae Gall | A
pnkev’ yéypamra. yap ovTws*
6 rolav Tovs ayyéAous adTov mvevpara
%\ ‘ ‘ > A ‘ r2
Kal Tous AetTOUpyovs avTod 7upos pAocya.
pa ch haat A baie air tata ach ed
2 N \ a en > A 4 > < 8 , e
émt dé TO vid abtov OUTS EimeEV O OeaTOTYS
Ov! > ,
vids pov el ov,
pert Dumedkes ee abd)
/ ,
eym onmepov yeyevvynka oe
»” > > A“ A , m” ‘ 4
airnoat rap enor, Kal dHcw co. evn tHv KAnpovopiav
gov Kal TV KaTdcxeciv Gov Ta TEpaTa THS 7s.

‘ , / ‘\ Denies
kat maAw A€yet 7pos avToV
xiii

xiV THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Kaov ex deEt@v prov,

¢ vA cal \ > , e 4 fal ~
€wWs av 6a TOUS €xOpous aou bromooLov TWV TOOWV gov.

4, > ¢ > , e La) ‘ > , A
tives ov of €xXOpol; of datdor Kal avTiTacodpevae TA
GeAjpate adrov.

To this we may add a sentence from what precedes:

218 Suvarat Tots meipagouévors Bon-
Ojoa. . - 3) Karavojcare Tov
dméaroXov kal dpxvepéa THs duodoylas
quay Inoody.

361 "Inoodvy Xpiordv rov apxrepéa
Tv mporpopav judy, Tov mpooTarny
kal BonOdv ris doGevelas Huay.

The same phrase occurs twice in later doxologies, da rod
apxtepéws Kal mpootdrov (tov Yuyav Hudv, 615) (judy, 641) “Inood
Xpicrod. There is no convincing proof that Ignatius or
Polykarp used IIpés ‘ERpaiovs, but the so-called Epistle of
Barnabas contains some traces of it (e.g. in 4° 556 and 617-19),
Barnabas is a second-rate interpretation of the OT ceremonial
system, partly on allegorical lines, to warn Christians against
having anything to do with Judaism; its motto might be taken
from 3° iva py mpocpnocwpeba ds mpoonrvrtor (v./. érnAvrot) TE
éexe(vwy vow. In the homily called 2 Clement our writing is
freely employed, e.g. in

11° Wore, ddeApol pov, uh dupuxd-
pev, GANG EXtloavres Urropelvwmev, va
walTov wus dv Komigwmeba, miords yap
éorw 6 émayyeddmevos Tas dvTimoOlas
drodtdbvar éxdorTw Epywv avrod.

1° drobéuevor éxetvo 8 mepixelueda
végpos TH avTov Oedjoe.

164 mpocevxh 5& éx Kadjs ouver-
djcews.

“Tt seems difficult, in view
resist the conclusion that the
consciously influenced by that
in The New Testament in the
2 Clement is, in all likelihood,

10% xaréxwuev Thy duoroylay ris
édmldos dkdwh, miords yap 6 émayye-
Adpmevos.

12! rocotrov Exovres mepikeluevory
jutv védos waptupwr, &yKov arrobémevor
mdvra. nits

13)8 mpocevxerbe mepl jucv* med6-
peda yap bre Kady ouveldnow Exomev,

of the verbal coincidences, to
language of 2 Clement is un-
of Hebrews” (Dr. A. J. Carlyle
Apostolic Fathers, p. 126). As
a product either of the Roman

or of the Alexandrian church, where IIpds ‘EB8paiovs was early
appreciated, this becomes doubly probable.
There is no reason why Justin Martyr, who had lived at

Rome, should not have known

of it (see on 3! 114 etc.) is barely beyond dispute.

it; but the evidence for his use
Hermas,

however, knew it; the Sepherd shows repeated traces of it (cf.

Zahn’s edition, pp. 439 f.).

It was read in the North African

church, as Tertullian’s allusion proves (see p. xvii), and with par-
ticular interest in the Alexandrian church, even before Clement

INTRODUCTION xv

wrote (cp. p. xviii). Clement’s use of it is unmistakable, though
he does not show any sympathy with its ideas about sacrifice.!
Naturally a thinker like Marcion ignored it, though why it shared
with First Peter the fate of exclusion from the Muratorian canon
is inexplicable. However, the evidence of the second century
upon the whole is sufficient to show that it was being widely
circulated and appreciated as an edifying religious treatise,
canonical or not.
(ii.)

By this time it had received the title of [pds “EBpaiovs.
Whatever doubts there were about the authorship, the writing
never went under any title except this in the later church ; which
proves that, though not original, the title must be early.
‘EBpato.? was intended to mean Jewish Christians. ‘Those who
affixed this title had no idea of its original destination ; other-
wise they would have chosen a local term, for the writing is
obviously intended for a special community. They were struck
by the interest of the writing in the OT sacrifices and priests,
however, and imagined in a superficial way that it must have
been addressed to Jewish Christians. “E@pato. was still an
archaic equivalent for “Iovdato.; and those who called our writing
IIpés ‘EGpaiovs must have imagined that it had been originally
meant for Jewish (ze. Hebrew-speaking) Christians in Palestine,
or, in a broader sense, for Christians who had been born in
Judaism. The latter is more probable. Where the title origin-
ated we cannot say; the corresponding description of 1 Peter
as ad gentes originated in the Western church, but ITpds ‘EGpatous
is common both to the Western and the Eastern churches.
The very fact that so vague and misleading a title was added,
proves that by the second century all traces of the original
destination of the writing had been lost. It is, like the Ad
Familiares of Cicero’s correspondence, one of the erroneous
titles in ancient literature, “hardly more than a reflection of the
impression produced on an early copyist” (W. Robertson Smith).
The reason why the original destination had been lost sight of,
was probably the fact that it was a small household church—not
one of the great churches, but a more limited circle, which may
have become merged in the larger local church as time went on.
Had it been sent, for example, to any large church like that at
Rome or Alexandria, there would have been neither the need

1Cp. R. B. Tollington’s Clement of Alexandria, vol. ii. pp. 225 f.

2It is quite impossible to regard it as original, in an allegorical sense, as
though the writer, like Philo, regarded 6 ‘Efpaios as the typical believer who,
a second Abraham, migrated or crossed from the sensuous to the spiritual

world. The writer never alludes to Abraham in this connexion ; indeed he
never uses ‘Efpaios at all.

xvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

nor the opportunity for changing the title to [pos “EGpavovs.
Our writing is not a manifesto to Jewish Christians in general,
or to Palestinian Jewish Christians, as mpos “Efpatovs would
imply; indeed it is not addressed to Jewish Christians at all.
Whoever were its original readers, they belonged to a definite,
local group or circle. That is the first inference from the writing
itself; the second is, that they were not specifically Jewish
Christians. The canonical title has had an unfortunate influence
upon the interpretation of the writing (an influence which is still
felt in some quarters). It has been responsible for the idea,
expressed in a variety of forms, that the writer is addressing
Jewish Christians in Palestine or elsewhere who were tempted,
e.g., by the war of a.D. 66-70, to fall back into Judaism; and
even those who cannot share this view sometimes regard the
readers as swayed by some hereditary associations with their
old faith, tempted by the fascinations of a ritual, outward system
of religion, to give up the spiritual messianism of the church.
All such interpretations are beside the point. The writer never
mentions Jews or Christians. He views his readers without any
distinction of this kind; to him they are in danger of relapsing,
but there is not a suggestion that the relapse is into Judaism, or
that he is trying to wean them from a preoccupation with Jewish
religion. He never refers to the temple, any more than to cir-
cumcision. It is the tabernacle of the pentateuch which interests
him, and all his knowledge of the Jewish ritual is gained from the
LXX and later tradition. The LXX is for him and his readers
the codex of their religion, the appeal to which was cogent,
for Gentile Christians, in the early church. As Christians, his
readers accepted the LXX as their bible. It was superfluous to
argue for it; he could argue from it, as Paul had done, as a
writer like Clement of Rome did afterwards. How much the
LXX meant to Gentile Christians, may be seen in the case of a
man like Tatian, for example, who explicitly declares that he
owed to reading of the OT his conversion to Christianity (4d
Graecos, 29). It is true that our author, in arguing that Christ
had to suffer, does not appeal to the LXX. But this is an
idiosyncrasy, which does not affect the vital significance of the
LXX prophecies. The Christians to whom he was writing had
learned to appreciate their LXX as an authority, by their mem-
bership in the church. Their danger was not an undervaluing
of the LXX as authoritative ; it was a moral and mental danger,
which the writer seeks to meet by showing how great their re-
ligion was intrinsically. This he could only do ultimately by
assuming that they admitted the appeal to their bible, just as they
admitted the divine Sonship of Jesus. There may have been
Christians of Jewish birth among his readers; but he addresses

INTRODUCTION XVli

his circle, irrespective of their origin, as all members of the
People of God, who accept the Book of God. The writing, in
short, might have been called ad genfes as aptly as First Peter,
which also describes Gentile Christians as 6 Aads, the People
(cp. on 21"). The readers were not in doubt of their religion.
Its basis was unquestioned. What the trouble was, in their case,
was no theoretical doubt about the codex or the contents of
Christianity, but a practical failure to be loyal to their principles,
which the writer seeks to meet by recalling them to the full mean-
ing and responsibility of their faith; naturally he takes them
to the common ground of the sacred LXX.

We touch here the question of the writer’s aim. But, before
discussing this, a word must be said about the authorship.

Had IIpés ‘Efpatouvs been addressed to Jews, the title would have been
intelligible. Not only was there a [ovva}ywyi ‘EfSp[alwy] at Corinth (cp.
Deissmann’s Light from the East, pp. 13, 14), but a cvvaywyi Aifpéwy at Rome
(cp. Schiirer’s Geschichte des Jud. Volkes*, iii. 46). Among the Jewish
guvaywyat mentioned in the Roman epitaphs (cp. N. Miiller’s Dze judische
Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom. . ., Leipzig, 1912, pp. 110f.), there
is one of ‘E8péor, which Miiller explains as in contrast to the synagogue of
“‘vernaclorum” (BepydxAa, Bepvaxdrjovot), z.e. resident Jews as opposed to
immigrants ; though it seems truer, with E. Bormann (Wzener Studien, 1912,
pp. 383f.), to think of some Kultgemeinde which adhered to the use of
Hebrew, or which, at any rate, was of Palestinian origin or connexion.

(iii.)

The knowledge of who the author was must have disappeared
as soon as the knowledge of what the church was, for whom he
wrote. Who wrote IIpds “EBpaiovs? We know as little of this
as we do of the authorship of Zhe Whole Duty of Man, that
seventeenth-century classic of English piety. Conjectures sprang
up, early in the second century, but by that time men were no
wiser than we are. The mere fact that some said Barnabas,
some Paul, proves that the writing had been circulating among
the adespota. It was perhaps natural that our writing should
be assigned to Barnabas, who, as a Levite, might be sup-
posed to take a special interest in the ritual of the temple—
the very reason which led to his association with the later
Epistle of Barnabas. Also, he was called vios zrapaxArjoews
(Ac 436), which seemed to tally with He 13” (rod Adyou rijs
mapaxAnoews), just as the allusion to “beloved” in Ps 127?
(=2 S 12%4f) was made to justify the attribution of the psalm
to king Solomon. The difficulty about applying 2% to a man
like Barnabas was overlooked, and in North Africa, at any rate,
the (Roman ?) tradition of his authorship prevailed, as Tertullian’s
words in de pudicitia 20 show: ‘‘volo ex redundantia alicuius
etiam comitis apostolorum testimonium superinducere, idoneum

6

xVlll THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistrorum. Extat
enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis auctoritati
viri, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore :
‘aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potes-
tatem ?’ (rt Co 9°). Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola
Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum. Monens itaque
discipulos, omissis omnibus initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere,”
etc. (quoting He 64). What appeals to Tertullian in IIpds
‘Efpaiovs is its uncompromising denial of any second repentance.
His increasing sympathy with the Montanists had led him to
take a much less favourable view of the Shepherd of Hermas
than he had once entertained; he now contrasts its lax tone
with the rigour of IIpos “Epaiovs, and seeks to buttress his
argument on this point by insisting as much as he can on the
authority of IIpds “Efpaiovs as a production of the apostolic
Barnabas. Where this tradition originated we cannot tell.
Tertullian refers to it as a fact, not as an oral tradition; he
may have known some MS of the writing with the title BapvaBa
mpos ‘EBpaious (émurtoAy), and this may have come from Montanist
circles in Asia Minor, as Zahn suggests. But all this is guessing
in the dark about a guess in the dark.

Since Paul was the most considerable letter-writer of the
primitive church, it was natural that in some quarters this
anonymous writing should be assigned to him, as was done
apparently in the Alexandrian church, although even there
scholarly readers felt qualms at an early period, and endeavoured
to explain the idiosyncrasies of style by supposing that some
disciple of Paul, like Luke, translated it from Hebrew into
Greek. This Alexandrian tradition of Paul’s authorship was
evidently criticized in other quarters, and the controversy drew
from Origen the one piece of enlightened literary criticism which
the early discussions produced. “Ore 6 yapaxtynp ths AcLews Tis
mpos “EBpatous érvyeypappevys emurtodAns ovK exer TO ev Adyw
idwwtikov TOD arocrdXov, dporoynoavtos éaurov iduityv elvor Td
Adyw (2 Co 11°), rouréote TH Ppdoe, GAAQ eoTiv H emioToAH
aouvvéce tHS A€Eews “EAANvixwrépa, mwas 6 emiorapevos Kptvery
dpdcewy Suaopas dporoyjoar av. maAdAw Te ad OTe TA vornpaTa
THs emiotoAns Oavpaoid eat, Kal ov devTepa THY amroaToALKOv
bporoyoupevov ypappatwv, Kal TovTO dv cupdyoat elvar ddnbes was
6 Tpovéxwv TH avayvwece TH amrootoAKy. . . . “Eya 8 drodauvo-
pevos elroy. av OTe Ta ev VOHpata Tov amoaToAov éotiv, 7 Se
dpdois Kai 7 avvGeois aropvynpovevoavTos Twos TA ATooTONLKG, Kal
woTEpEl TXOALOypadycavTds Twos TA cipynueva Drd TOD didacKadov.
el tus ovv exxAnola Eyer tavtnv THY émiatoAHV ws IlavAov, avtyn
eVdokimeitw Kal eri ToUTwW. ov yap €iky ol apyator avopes Os IlavAov
aitiv mapadedwxact, tis d& 6 ypawas Ti erictoAny, TO pev aANGEs

INTRODUCTION xix

eds oldey (quoted by Eusebius, H.Z. vi. 25. 11-14).! Origen is
too good a scholar to notice the guess that it was a translation
from Hebrew, but he adds, 7 5é «is Has POdcaca ioropia, ird
TLVWV pev Aeyovtwv, OTe KXipas 6 yevopevos ér(o Koos ‘Pwpatwv
Eypawpe TV emarohyy, t7d tiwy d€ Ott Aovkas 6 ypawas TO
evayyeAtov kal tas IIpagers. The idea that Clement of Rome
wrote it was, of course, an erroneous deduction from the echoes
of it in his pages, almost as unfounded as the notion that Luke
wrote it, either independently or as an amanuensis of Paul—a
view probably due ultimately to the explanation of how his
gospel came to be an apostolic, canonical work. Origen yields
more to the ‘‘ Pauline” interpretation of IIpds “Efpaious than is
legitimate ; but, like Erasmus at a later day,? he was living in
an environment where the “Pauline” tradition was almost a
note of orthodoxy. Even his slight scruples failed to keep the
question open. In the Eastern church, any hesitation soon
passed away, and the scholarly scruples of men like Clement of
Alexandria and Origen made no impression on the church at
large. It is significant, for example, that when even Eusebius
comes to give his own opinion (/.£. ili. 38. 2), he alters the
hypothesis about Clement of Rome, and makes him merely
the translator of a Pauline Hebrew original, not the author
of a Greek original. As a rule, however, [pos “EBpatouvs was
accepted as fully Pauline, and passed into the NT canon of the
Asiatic, the Egyptian, and the Syriac churches without question.
In the Syriac canon of A.D. 400 (text as in Souter’s Zext and
Canon of NNT, p. 226), indeed, it stands next to Romans in
the list of Paul’s epistles (see below, § 4). Euthalius, it is true,
about the middle of the fifth century, argues for it in a way
that indicates a current of opposition still flowing in certain
quarters, but ecclesiastically [pos “E@patouvs in the East as a
Pauline document could defy doubts. The firm conviction of
the Eastern church as a whole comes out in a remark like that
of Apollinarius the bishop of Laodicea, towards the close of the
fourth century : Tov yéypamTat OTe Xapaxrnp éore THS Droctacews
6 vios; mapa TO droorodw IlavAw é€v tH mpos “EBpaiovs. Ovx
exxAnovacerat. “Ag ov kariyyedn TO evayyéAvov Xpiorov, TLavAov
elvan memiorevtat 4 emcatoAn (Dial. de sancta Trin. 422).

It was otherwise in the Western church, where IIpds “Efpaiovus
was for long either read simply as an edifying treatise, or, if
regarded as canonical, assigned to some anonymous apostolic

1 There is a parallel to the last words in the scoffing close of an epigram
in the Greek Anthology (ix. 135) : ypdwe tis ; olde Oeds Tivos elvexev ; olde Kal
avrés.

2 Uta stilo Pauli, quod ad phrasin attinet, longe lateque discrepat, ita
ad spiritum ac pectus Paulinum vehementer accedit.”

XX THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

writer rather than to Paul. Possibly the use made of [pos
‘EBpaiovs by the Montanists and the Novatians, who welcomed
its denial of a second repentance, compromised it in certain
quarters. Besides, the Roman church had never accepted the
Alexandrian tradition of Paul’s authorship. Hence, even when,
on its merits, it was admitted to the canon, there was a strong
tendency to treat it as anonymous, as may be seen, for example,
in Augustine’s references. Once in the canon, however, it
gradually acquired a Pauline prestige, and, as Greek scholar-
ship faded, any scruples to the contrary became less and less
intelligible. It was not till the study of Greek revived
again, at the dawn of the Reformation, that the question was
reopened.

The data in connexion with the early fortunes of IIpds ‘E8palous in church
history belong to text-books on the Canon, like Zahn’s Geschichte d. NT
Kanons, i. 283 f., 577f., ii. 160f., 358f. ; Leipoldt’s Geschichte d. NT Kanons,
i. pp. 188f., 219f.; and Jacquier’s Le Mouveau Testament dans L’ Eglise
Chrétienne, i. (1911).

Few characters mentioned in the NT have escaped the
attention of those who have desired in later days to identify
the author of IIpés “E@paiovs. Apollos, Peter, Philip, Silvanus,
and even Prisca have been suggested, besides Aristion, the
alleged author of Mk 16%?0, J have summarized these views
elsewhere (Juztrod. to Lit. of NT.°, pp. 438-442), and it is super-
fluous here to discuss hypotheses which are in the main due to
an irrepressible desire to construct NT romances. Perhaps our
modern pride resents being baffled by an ancient document, but
it is better to admit that we are not yet wiser on this matter
than Origen was, seventeen centuries ago. ‘The author of Ipods
“EBpaiovs cannot be identified with any figure known to us in
the primitive Christian tradition. He left great prose to some
little clan of early Christians, but who they were and who he
was, 70 pev GAnGes Geds oldev. To us he is a voice and no more.
The theory which alone explains the conflicting traditions is that
for a time the writing was circulated as an anonymous tract.
Only on this hypothesis can the simultaneous emergence of
the Barnabas and the Paul traditions in different quarters be
explained, as well as the persistent tradition in the Roman
church that it was anonymous. As Zahn sensibly concludes,
“those into whose hands IIpds “EBpaiovs came either looked
upon it as an anonymous writing from ancient apostolic times, or
else resorted to conjecture. If Paul did not write it, they
thought, then it must have been composed by some other
prominent teacher of the apostolic church. Barnabas was such
a man.” In one sense, it was fortunate that the Pauline
hypothesis prevailed so early and so extensively, for apart from

INTRODUCTION xxi

this help it might have been difficult for [pos “EBpatous to win
or to retain its place in the canon. But even when it had been
lodged securely inside the canon, some Western churchmen still
clung for a while to the old tradition of its anonymity,! although
they could do no more than hold this as a pious opinion.
The later church was right in assigning Lpos “Efpaiouvs a
canonical position. The original reasons might be erroneous
or doubtful, but even in the Western church, where they con-
tinued to be questioned, there was an increasing indisposition
to challenge their canonical result.

(iv.)

Thrown back, in the absence of any reliable tradition, upon
the internal evidence, we can only conclude that the writer was
one of those personalities in whom the primitive church was
more rich than we sometimes realize. ‘Si l’on a pu comparer
saint Paul 4A Luther,” says Ménégoz, ‘nous comparerions
volontiers l’auteur de l|’Epitre aux Hébreux a Mélanchthon.”
He was a highly trained d:ddcxados, perhaps a Jewish Christian,
who had imbibed the philosophy of Alexandrian Judaism before
his conversion, a man of literary culture and deep religious
feeling. He writes to what is apparently a small community or
circle of Christians, possibly one of the household-churches, to
which he was attached. For some reason or another he was
absent from them, and, although he hopes to rejoin them before
long, he feels moved to send them this letter (1375) to rally
them. It is possible to infer from 13% (see note) that they
belonged to Italy ; in any case, IIpds ‘EBpaious was written either
to or from some church in Italy. Beyond the fact that the
writer and his readers had been evangelized by some of the
disciples of Jesus (2° *), we know nothing more about them.
The words in 23 4 do not mean that they belonged to the second
generation, of course, in a chronological sense, for such words
would have applied to the converts of any mission during the
first thirty years or so after the crucifixion, and the only other
inference to be drawn, as to the date, is from passages like 10%.
and 13”, viz. that the first readers of Ipos “EGpaious were not
neophytes ; they had lived through some rough experiences, and
indeed their friend expects from them a maturity of experience
and intelligence which he is disappointed to miss (51!) ; also,

1 According to Professor Souter (Zext and Canon of NT, p. 190) the
epistle is ignored by the African Canon (c. 360), Optatus of Mileue in
Numidia (370-385), the Acts of the Donatist Controversy, Zeno of Verona,
an African by birth, and Foebadius of Agen (06. post 392), while ‘‘ Ambrosi-

aster” (fourth century?) ‘‘uses the work as canonical, but always as an
anonymous work.”

Xxil THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

their original leaders have died, probably as martyrs (cp. on 137).
For these and other reasons, a certain sense of disillusionment
had begun to creep over them. IIpés ‘Efpaiovs is a Adyos
tapaxA\yoews, to steady and rally people who are zetpafopevor,
their temptation being to renounce God, or at least to hesitate
and retreat, to relax the fibre of loyal faith, as if God were too
difficult to follow in the new, hard situation. Once, at the
outset of their Christian career, they had been exposed to mob-
rioting (10%), when they had suffered losses of property, for the
sake of the gospel, and also the loud jeers and sneers which
pagans and Jews alike heaped sometimes upon the disciples.
This they had borne manfully, in the first glow of their en-
thusiasm. Now, the more violent forms of persecution had
apparently passed; what was left was the dragging experience
of contempt at the hand of outsiders, the social ostracism and
shame, which were threatening to take the heart out of them.
Such was their rough, disconcerting environment. Unless an
illegitimate amount of imagination is applied to the internal data,
they cannot be identified with what is known of any community
in the primitive church, so scanty is our information. Least of
all is it feasible to connect them with the supposed effects of the
Jewish rebellion which culminated in A.D. 70. Ipods ‘EBpaious
cannot be later than about A.D. 85, as the use of it in Clement
of Rome’s epistle proves; how much earlier it is, we cannot
say, but the controversy over the Law, which marked the Pauline
phase, is evidently over.

It is perhaps not yet quite superfluous to point out that the use of the
present tense (e.g. in 7% 7° 8% g®f- 131°) is no clue to the date, as though this
implied that the Jewish temple was still standing. The writer is simply
using the historic present of actions described in scripture. It is a literary
method which is common in writings long after A.D. 70, ¢.g. in Josephus,
who observes (c. Afzo7, i. 7) that any priest who violates a Mosaic regulation
amnybpevra uyjre Tots Bwuots maploracbar unre weréxew THS AAAs ayiorelas
(so Ant. iii, 6. 7-12, xiv. 2. 2, etc.). Clement of Rome similarly writes as
though the Mosaic ritual were still in existence (40-41, T@ yap dpxuepel W5iac
Necroupylat dedouévac elolv . . . Kal Aevirars tdrat diaxoviar émlxewrar...
mporpépovrat Ovolac év ‘Iepovoadtu uévy), and the author of the Ef. ad
Diognet. 3, writes that ol 6é ye Ovolais adr@ Oe aluaros cal xvlons Kal dAoKaUTW-
parwv émiredetv olduevor kal ravrats Tats rimais adrév yepalpew, ovdév por
Soxovor diadépew Tov els TA kwhda Thy adrhy éevdecxkvupévwy Pidrotiulay, The
idea that the situation of the readers was in any way connected with the crisis
of A.D. 66-70 in Palestine is unfounded. IIpés ‘ESpalouvs has nothing to do
with the Jewish temple, nor with Palestinian Christians. There is not a
syllable in the writing which suggests that either the author or his readers
had any connexion with or interest in the contemporary temple and ritual of
Judaism ; their existence mattered as little to his idealist method of argu-
ment as their abolition. When he observes (81%) that the old d:a0%4xn was
éyyds agavcuod, all he means is that the old régime, superseded now by
Jesus, was decaying even in Jeremiah’s age.

INTRODUCTION XXili

(v.)

The object of Ilpds ‘EBpatous may be seen from a_ brief
analysis of its contents. ‘The writer opens with a stately para-
graph, introducing the argument that Jesus Christ as the Son of
God is superior (xpeirtwv) to angels, in the order of revelation
(11-218), and this, not in spite of but because of his incarnation
and sufferings. He is also superior (xpe(rrwv) even to Moses
(364), as a Son is superior to a servant. Instead of pursuing
the argument further, the writer then gives an impressive bible
reading on the gsth psalm, to prove that the People of God
have still assured to them, if they will only have faith, the divine
Rest in the world to come (3°-4!°). Resuming his argument,
the writer now begins to show how Jesus as God’s Son is superior
to the Aaronic high priest (414-5!°). This is the heart of his
subject, and he stops for a moment to rouse the attention of his
readers (511-620) before entering upon the high theme. By a
series of skilful transitions he has passed on from the Person of
the Son, which is uppermost in chs. 1-4, to the Priesthood
of the Son, which dominates chs. 7-8. Jesus as High Priest
mediates a superior (xpeirrwv) order of religion or dcajxy than
that under which Aaron and his successors did their work for the
People of God, and access to God, which is the supreme need of
men, is now secured fully and finally by the relation of Jesus to
God, in virtue of his sacrifice (620-8!%), The validity of this
sacrifice is then proved (g!—10!8); it is absolutely efficacious, as
no earlier sacrifice of victims could be, in securing forgiveness
and fellowship for man. The remainder of the writing (10!°-13”*)
is a series of impressive appeals for constancy. The first (101°?)
is a skilful blend of encouragement and warning. He then
appeals to the fine record of his readers (10%), bidding them be
worthy of their own past, and inciting them to faith in God by
reciting a great roll-call of heroes and heroines belonging to God’s
People in the past, from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs (11"*°).
He further kindles their imagination and conscience by holding
up Jesus as the Supreme Leader of all the faithful (12%), even
along the path of suffering; besides, he adds (12*1"), suffering
is God’s discipline for those who belong to his household. To
prefer the world (121217) is to incur a fearful penalty; the one
duty for us is to accept the position of fellowship with God, ina .
due spirit of awe and grateful confidence (121°). A brief note
of some ethical duties follows (137), with a sudden warning
against some current tendencies to compromise their spiritual
religion (13816), A postscript (13!7*4), with some fersonalia,
ends the epistle.

It is artificial to divide up a writing of this kind, which is not

XXIV THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

a treatise on theology, and I have therefore deliberately abstained
from introducing any formal divisions and subdivisions in the
commentary. ‘The flow of thought, with its turns and windings,
is best followed from point to point. So far as the general plan
goes, it is determined by the idea of the finality of the Christian
revelation in Jesus the Son of God. This is brought out (A) by
a proof that he is superior to angels (11~218) and Moses (3!-),
followed by the special exhortation of 3-413, Thus far it is
what may be termed the Personality of the Son which is discussed.
Next (B) comes the Son as High Priest (4!4~7°8), including the
parenthetical exhortation of 54-629, The (C) Sacrifice of this
High Priest in his Sanctuary then (81-1018) is discussed, each of
the three arguments, which are vitally connected, laying stress
from one side or another upon the absolute efficacy of the
revelation. This is the dominant idea of the writing, and it
explains the particular line which the writer strikes out. He
takes a very serious view of the position of his friends and
readers. They are disheartened and discouraged for various
reasons, some of which are noted in the course of the epistle.
There is the strain of hardship, the unpleasant experience of
being scoffed at, and the ordinary temptations of immorality,
which may bring them, if they are not careful, to the verge of
actual apostasy. ‘The writer appears to feel that the only way to
save them from ruining themselves is to put before them the
fearful and unsuspected consequences of their failure. Hence
three times over the writer draws a moving picture of the fate
which awaits apostates and renegades (64f 1026f 1215f), But the
special line of argument which he adopts in 5-10!8 must be
connected somehow with the danger in which he felt his friends
involved, and this is only to be explained if we assume that their
relaxed interest in Christianity arose out of an imperfect concep-
tion of what Jesus meant for their faith. He offers no theoretical
disquisition ; it is to reinforce and deepen their conviction of the
place of Jesus in religion, that he argues, pleads, and warns,
dwelling on the privileges and responsibilities of the relationship
in which Jesus had placed them. All the help they needed, all
the hope they required, lay in the access to God mediated by
Jesus, if they would only realize it.

This is what makes the writing of special interest. In the
first place (a) the author is urged by a practical necessity to
think out his faith, or rather to state the full content of his faith,
for the benefit of his readers. Their need puts him on his
mettle. “Une chose surtant,” says Anatole France, ‘‘donne le
lattrait 4 la pensée des hommes: c’est l’inquiétude. Un esprit
qui n’est point anxieux m/’irrite ou m’ennuie.” In a sense all
the NT writers are spurred by this anxiety, but the author

INTRODUCTION XXV

of IIpos “EBpatovs pre-eminently. It is not anxiety about his
personal faith, nor about the prospects of Christianity, but about
the loyalty of those for whom he feels himself responsible ; his
very certainty of the absolute value of Christianity makes him
anxious when he sees his friends ready to give it up, anxious on
their behalf, and anxious to bring out as lucidly and persuasively
as possible the full meaning of the revelation of God in Jesus.
What he writes is not a theological treatise in cold blood, but
a statement of the faith, alive with practical interest. The
situation of his readers has stirred his own mind, and he bends
all his powers of thought and emotion to rally them. There is a
vital urgency behind what he writes for his circle. But (4), more
than this, the form into which he throws his appeal answers to
the situation of his readers. He feels that the word for them is
the absolute worth of Jesus as the Son of God; it is to bring
this out that he argues, in the middle part of his epistle, so
elaborately and anxiously about the priesthood and sacrifice of
Jesus. The idealistic conception of the two spheres, the real
and eternal, and the phenomenal (which is the mere oxa and
brodevrypa, a TapaoAy, an avtirvmov of the former), is applied to
the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which inaugurates and realizes the
eternal d:ayjxn between God and man. In a series of contrasts,
he brings out the superiority of this revelation to the OT da6yjxy
with its cultus. But not because the contemporary form of the
latter had any attractions for his readers. It is with the archaic
oxynvy described in the OT that he deals, in order to elucidate
the final value of Jesus and his sacrifice under the new d:a6jxn,
which was indeed the real and eternal one. ‘To readers like his
friends, with an imperfect sense of all that was contained in their
faith, he says, “‘Come back to your bible, and see how fully it
suggests the positive value of Jesus.” Christians were finding
Christ in the LXX, especially his sufferings in the prophetic
scriptures, but our author falls back on the pentateuch and the
psalter especially to illustrate the commanding position of Jesus
as the Son of God in the eternal d:a6yxn, and the duties as well
as the privileges of living under such a final revelation, where
the purpose and the promises of God for his People are realized
as they could not be under the OT dcadyjxn. Why the writer
concentrates upon the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus in this
eternal order of things, is due in part to his general conception
of religion (see pp. xliif.). For him there could be no religion
without a priest. But this idea is of direct service to his readers,
as he believes. Hence the first mention of Jesus as dpyuepevs
occurs as a reason for loyalty and confidence (2%). Nothing
is more practical in religion than an idea, a relevant idea power-
fully urged. When the writer concentrates for a while upon

XXV1 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

this cardinal idea of Jesus as dpxepevs, therefore, it is because
nothing can be more vital, he thinks, for his friends than to show
them the claims and resources of their faith, disclosing the
rich and real nature of God’s revelation to them in his Son.
Access to God, confidence in God, pardon for sins of the past,
and hope for the future—all this is bound up with the d:a6yxy of
Christ, and the writer reveals it between the lines of the LXX,
to which as members of the People of God his friends naturally
turned for instruction and revelation. This dvaOy«y, he argues,
is far superior to the earlier one, as the Son of God is superior to
angels and to Moses himself; nay more, it is superior in efficacy,
as the real is superior to its shadowy outline, for the sacrifice
which underlies any d:a6xy is fulfilled in Christ as it could not
be under the levitical cultus. The function of Christ as high
priest is to mediate the direct access of the People to God, and
all this has been done so fully and finally that Christians have
simply to avail themselves of its provisions for their faith and
need.

What the writer feels called upon to deal with, therefore, is
not any sense of disappointment in his readers that they had not
an impressive ritual or an outward priesthood, nor any hankering
after such in contemporary Judaism; it is a failure to see that
Christianity is the absolute religion, a failure which is really
responsible for the unsatisfactory and even the critical situation
of the readers. To meet this need, the writer argues as well as
exhorts. He seeks to show from the LXX how the Christian
faith alone fulfils the conditions of real religion, and as he
knows no other religion than the earlier phase in Israel, he takes
common ground with his readers on the LXX record of the first
5.a0y«n, in order to let them see even there the implications and
anticipations of the higher.

But while the author never contemplates any fusion of
Christianity with Jewish legalism, and while the argument betrays
no trace of Jewish religion as a competing attraction for the
readers, it might be argued that some speculative Judaism had
affected the mind of the readers. No basis for this can be
found in 13%, Yet if there were any proselytes among the
readers, they may have felt the fascination of the Jewish system,
as those did afterwards who are warned by Ignatius (ad Philad.
6, etc.), “‘ Better listen to Christianity from a circumcised Chris-
tian than to Judaism from one uncircumcised.” “It is mon-
strous to talk of Jesus Christ and iovdaifew” (ad Magnes. 10).
This interpretation was put forward by Haring (Studien und
Kritiken, 1891, pp. 589f.), and it has been most ingeniously
argued by Professor Purdy (Zxfosttor®, xix. pp. 123-139), who
thinks that the emphasis upon “Jesus” means that the readers

INTRODUCTION XXVIl

were exposed to the seductions of a liberal Judaism which offered
an escape from persecution and other difficulties by presenting
a Christ who was spiritual, divorced from history; that this
liberal, speculative Judaism came forward as “‘a more developed
and perfected type of religion than Christianity”; and that,
without being legalistic, it claimed to be a traditional, ritualistic
faith, which was at once inward and ceremonial. The objection
to such interpretations,! however, is that they explain zgnotum
per ignotius. We know little or nothing of such liberal Judaism
in the first century, any more than of a tendency on the part of
Jewish Christians to abandon Christianity about A.D. 70 for their
ancestral faith. Indeed any influence of Jewish propaganda,
ritualistic or latitudinarian, must be regarded as secondary, at
the most, in the situation of the readers as that is to be inferred
from IIpos “EBpatovs itself. When we recognize the real method
and aim of the writer, it becomes clear that he was dealing with
a situation which did not require any such influence to account
for it. The form taken by his argument is determined by the
conception, or rather the misconception, of the faith entertained
by his friends; and this in turn is due not to any political or
racial factors, but to social and mental causes, such as are
sufficiently indicated in IIpds “Efpaious itself. Had the danger
been a relapse into Judaism of any kind, it would have implied
a repudiation of Jesus Christ as messiah and divine—the very
truth which the writer can assume! What he needs to do is not
to defend this, but to develop it.

The writing, therefore, for all its elaborate structure, has a
spontaneous aim. It is not a homily written at large, to which
by some afterthought, on the part of the writer or of some editor,
a few personalia have been appended in ch. 13. The argu-
mentative sections bear directly and definitely upon the situa-
tion of the readers, whom the writer has in view throughout,
even when he seems to be far from their situation. Which brings
us to the problem of the literary structure of [pds “EBpadovs.

(vi.)

See especially W. Wrede’s monograph, Das diterarische Ratsel d. Hebraer-
briefs (1906), with the essays of E. Burggaller and R. Perdelwitz in Zeztschrift
fiir Neutest. Wissenschaft (1908, pp. 110f.; 1910, pp. 59f., 105f.); V.
Monod’s De titulo epistulae vulgo ad Hebraeos inscriptae (1910); C. C.

1Cp., further, Professor Dickie’s article in Axfositor®, v. pp. 371 f. The
notion that the writer is controverting an external view of Christ’s person,
which shrank, ¢.g., from admitting his humiliation and real humanity, had
been urged by Julius Kogel in Die Verborgenhett Jesu als des Messias
(Greifenswald, 1909) and in Der Sohn und die Sohne, ein exegetische Studie
2u Heb. 2°38 (1904).

XXVIii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Torrey’s article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1911), pp. 137-156 ;
J. W. Slot’s De letterkundige vorm v. d. Brief aan de Hebraer (1912), with
J. Quentel’s essay in Revue Bibligue (1912, pp. 50f.) and M. Jones’ paper
in Expositor’, xii. 426 f.

The literary problem of IIpos ‘EGpaiovs is raised by the
absence of any address and the presence of personal matter in
ch. 13. Why (a) has it no introductory greeting? And why (4)
has it a postscript? As for the former point (a), there may have
been, in the original, an introductory title. [pds “E@patous opens
with a great sentence (11£), but Eph 1° is just such another,
and there is no reason why the one should not have followed a
title-address any more than the other! It may have been lost
by accident, in the tear and wear of the manuscript, for such
accidents are not unknown in ancient literature. This is, at
any rate, more probable than the idea that it was suppressed
because the author (Barnabas, Apollos?) was not of sufficiently
apostolic rank for the canon. Had this interest been operative,
it would have been perfectly easy to alter a word or two in the
address itself. Besides, Ilpés “Efpatovs was circulating long
before it was admitted to the canon, and it circulated even after-
wards as non-canonical; yet not a trace of any address, Pauline
or non-Pauline, has ever survived. Which, in turn, tells against
the hypothesis that such ever existed—at least, against the
theory that it was deleted when the writing was canonized. If
the elision of the address ever took place, it must have been
very early, and rather as the result of accident than deliberately.
Yet there is no decisive reason why the writing should not have
begun originally as it does in its present form. Nor does this
imply (4) that the personal data in ch. 13 are irrelevant. IIpos
“EBpaiovs has a certain originality in form as well as in content ;
it is neither an epistle nor a homily, pure and simple. True,
down to 129 (or 1317) there is little or nothing that might not
have been spoken by a preacher to his audience, and Valckenaer
(on 4°) is right, so far, in saying, ‘‘haec magnifica ad Hebraeos
missa dissertatio oratio potius dicenda est quam epistola.” Yet
the writer is not addressing an ideal public; he is not composing
a treatise for Christendom at large. It is really unreal to ex-
plain away passages like 5" ro%%f y24f and 13!® as rhetorical
abstractions.

II pds “EBpadous was the work of a diddcxados, who knew how
to deliver a Adyos wapaxAyjoews. Parts of it probably represent
what he had used in preaching already (e.g. 3”). But, while it
has sometimes the tone of sermon notes written out, it is not a

1 Ep. Barnabas begins with dded¢goi, ol'rws Set Huds ppoveiv mept 'Inood
Xpitrod ws mepl Oeod, etc. ; 2 Clement starts with a greeting, xalpere, viol
xal Ovyarépes, ev dvéuart kuplou Tod dyamijcavros Huds év elphyp.

INTRODUCTION XX1X

Semonwiny themair ‘To strike out 1g!+42* or 1391-7, 16-12 22
(Torrey)! does not reduce it from a letter or epistle to a sermon
like 2 Clement. Thus, e.g., a phrase like 11°? (see note) is as
intelligible in a written work as in a spoken address. It is only
by emptying passages like 5"% and 10% of their full meaning
that anyone can speak of the writer as composing a sermon at
large or for an ideal public. Part of the force of 5", e.g., is due
to the fact that the writer is dealing with a real situation, pleading
that in what he is going to say he is not writing simply to display
his own talent or to please himself, but for the serious, urgent
need of his readers. ‘They do not deserve what he is going to
give them. But he will give it! A thoroughly pastoral touch,
which is lost by being turned into a rhetorical excuse for de-
ploying some favourite ideas of his own. According to Wrede,
the author wrote in 13!%1 on the basis of (Philem ?*) 2 Co
111.12 t9 make it appear as though Paul was the author, and then
added 138 on the basis of Ph 2!* 23 24; but why he should mix
up these reminiscences, which, according to Wrede, are contra-
dictory, it is difficult to see. Had he wished to put a Pauline
colour into the closing paragraphs, he would surely have done
it in a lucid, coherent fashion, instead of leaving the supposed
allusions to Paul’s Roman imprisonment so enigmatic. But, though
Wrede thinks that the hypothesis of a pseudonymous conclusion
is the only way of explaining the phenomena of ch. 13, he agrees
that to excise it entirely is out of the question. Neither the
style nor the contents justify such a radical theory,” except on
the untenable hypothesis that 1-12 is a pure treatise. The
analogies of a doxology being followed by personal matter (e.g.
2 Ti 418, 1 P 4" etc.) tell against the idea that IIpos “Efpaiovs
must have ended with 131, and much less could it have ended
with 13!7. To assume that the writer suddenly bethought him,
at the end, of giving a Pauline appearance to what he had
written, and that he therefore added 13°", is to credit him with
too little ability. Had he wished to convey this impression, he
would certainly have gone further and made changes in the
earlier part. Nor is it likely that anyone added the closing
verses in order to facilitate its entrance into the NT canon by
bringing it into line with the other epistles. The canon was
drawn up for worship, and if Ipos “EBpaious was originally a
discourse, it seems very unlikely that anyone would have gone

1 To excise 13!-7 as a ‘‘ formless jumble of rather commonplace admoni-
tions” is a singular misjudgment.

2 The linguistic proof is cogently led by C. R. Williams in the Journal
of Biblical Literature (1911), pp- 129-136, who shows that the alleged
special parallels between He 13 and Paul are neither so numerous nor so
significant as is commonly supposed, and that the only fair explanation of
He 13 as a whole is that it was written to accompany I-12.

XXX THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

out of his way, on this occasion, to add some enigmatic personal
references. In short, while IIpés “E8patouvs betrays here and
there the interests and methods of an effective preacher, the
epistolary form is not a piece of literary fiction; still less is it
due (in ch. 13) to some later hand. It is hardly too much to
say that the various theories about the retouching of the 13th
chapter of IIpds “E@patous are as valuable, from the standpoint
of literary criticism, as Macaulay’s unhesitating belief that Dr.
Johnson had revised and retouched Cecz/za.

§ 2. THE Re ticious IpDEas.

In addition to the text-books on NT theology, consult Riehm’s Lehrbegriff
des Hebrierbriefs* (1867), W. Milligan’s Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood
of our Lord (1891), Ménégoz’s La Théologie de [ Epitre aux Hébreux (1894),
A. Seeberg’s Der Tod Christi (1895), A. B. Bruce’s The Epistle to the
Hebrews (1899), G. Milligan’s Zhe Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(1899), G. Vos on *‘The Priesthood of Christ in Hebrews” (Princeton
Theological Review, 1907, pp. 423f., 579 f.), Du Bose’s Highpriesthood and
Sacrifice (1908), A. Nairne’s he Epistle of Priesthood (1913), H. L.
MacNeill’s Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1914), H. A. A.
Kennedy’s Zheology of the Epistles (1919, pp. 182-221), and E, F. Scott’s
The Epistle to the Hebrews (1922).

Many readers who are not children will understand what Mr
Edmund Gosse in Father and Son (pp. 89 f.) describes, in telling
how his father read aloud to him the epistle. ‘‘ The extraordinary
beauty of the language—for instance, the matchless cadences and
images of the first chapter—made a certain impression upon my
imagination, and were (I think) my earliest initiation into the
magic of literature. I was incapable of defining what I felt, but
I certainly had a grip in the throat, which was in its essence a
purely aesthetic emotion, when my father read, in his pure, large,
ringing voice, such passages as ‘The heavens are the work of
Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou remainest, and they
shall all wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt Thou
fold them up, and they shall be changed ; but Thou art the same,
and Thy years shall not fail.’ But the dialectic parts of the
epistle puzzled and confused me. Such metaphysical ideas as
‘laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works’
and ‘crucifying the Son of God afresh’ were not successfully
brought down to the level of my understanding. . . . The
melodious language, the divine forensic audacities, the magnifi-
cent ebb and flow of argument which make the Epistle to the
Hebrews such a miracle, were far beyond my reach, and they
only bewildered me.” They become less bewildering when they
are viewed in the right perspective. The clue to them lies in the

INTRODUCTION XXxi

philosophical idea which dominates the outlook of the writer, and
in the symbolism which, linked to this idea, embodied his
characteristic conceptions of religion. We might almost say that,
next to the deflecting influence of the tradition which identified
our epistle with the Pauline scheme of thought and thereby
missed its original and independent contribution to early Christi-
anity, nothing has so handicapped its appeal as the later use of it
in dogmatic theology. While the author of Ipods “EBpaious often
turned the literal into the figurative, his theological interpreters
have been as often engaged in turning the figurative expressions
of the epistle into what was literal. A due appreciation of
the symbolism has been the slow gain of the historical method
as applied to the classics of primitive Christianity. There is
no consistent symbolism, indeed, not even in the case of the
dpxtepevs ; in the nature of the case, there could not be. But
symbolism there is, and symbolism of a unique kind.

(i.)

The author writes from a religious philosophy of his own—
that is, of his own among the NT writers. The philosophical
element in his view of the world and God_ is fundamentally
Platonic. Like Philo and the author of Wisdom, he interprets
the past and the present alike in terms of the old theory (cp. on
8° 10!) that the phenomenal is but an imperfect, shadowy trans-
cript of what is eternal and real. He applies this principle to the
past. What was all the Levitical cultus in bygone days but a
faint copy of the celestial archetype, a copy that suggested by its
very imperfections the future and final realization? In such
arguments (chs. 7-10) he means to declare “that Christianity
is eternal, just as it shall be everlasting, and that all else is only
this, that the true heavenly things of which it consists thrust
themselves forward on to this bank and shoal of time, and took
cosmical embodiment, in order to suggest their coming ever-
lasting manifestation.” 1 The idea that the seen and material is
but a poor, provisional replica of the unseen and real order of
things (7a éroupavia, Ta ev Tots odpavots, TA wy TaXevdpeva), pervades
IIpés “EBpaiovs. Thus faith (11!) means the conviction, the
practical realization, of this world of realities, not only the belief
that the universe does not arise out of mere dawodpeva, but the
conviction that life must be ordered, at all costs, by a vision of
the unseen, or by obedience to a Voice unheard by any outward
ear. Similarly the outward priest, sanctuary, and sacrifices of
the ancient cultus were merely the shadowy copy of the real, as
manifested in Jesus with his self-sacrifice, his death being, as

1A. B. Davidson, Biblical and Literary Essays (p. 317).

XXXil THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Sabatier says, “‘une fonction sacerdotale, un acte transcendant
de purification rituelle, accompli hors de ’humanité” (Za Doctrine
de ! Expiation, p. 37). Such is the philosophical strain which
permeates IIpos “EGpaiouvs. The idea of heavenly counterparts is
not, of course, confined to Platonism; it is Sumerian, in one of
its roots (cp. on 8°), and it had already entered apocalyptic.
But our author derives it from his Alexandrian religious philo-
sophy (transmuting the xdopos vontdés into the more vivid and
devotional figures of an ofkos or modus Geov, a watpis Or even a
oKnvi) dAnOuvy), just as elsewhere he freely uses Aristotelian ideas
like that of the réAos or final end, with its reAeiwors or sequence of
growth, and shows familiarity with the idea of the ééis (514). The
teAewois (see on 5%) idea is of special importance, as it denotes
for men the work of Christ in putting them into their proper
status towards God (see on 21°), ‘*Bya single offering he has
made the sanctified perfect for all time” (rereActwxev, 1014), the
offering or mpoopopa being himself, and the “‘ perfecting” being
the act of putting the People into their true and final relation
towards God. This the Law, with its outward organization of
priests and animal sacrifices, could never do; “us the Law has a
mere shadow of the bliss that is to be, instead of representing
the reality of that bliss (viz. the ‘perfect’ relationship between
God and men), it can never perfect those who draw near” (10!).

This gives us the focus for viewing the detailed comparison
between the levitical sacrifices and priests on the one hand and
the xpetrrwy Jesus. ‘You see in your bible,” the writer argues,
‘the elaborate system of ritual which was once organized for the
forgiveness of sins and the access of the people to God. All
this was merely provisional and ineffective, a shadow of the
Reality which already existed in the mind of God, and which is
now ours in the sacrifice of Jesus.” Even the fanciful argument
from the priesthood of Melchizedek (6?°—7!”)—fanciful to us, but
forcible then—swings from this conception. What the author
seeks to do is not to prove that there had been from the first a
natural or real priesthood, superior to the levitical, a priesthood
fulfilled in Christ. His aim primarily is to discredit the levitical
priesthood of bygone days; it was anticipated in the divine
order by that of Melchizedek, he shows, using a chronological
argument resembling that of Paul in Gal 3%, on the principle
that what is prior is superior. But what leads him to elaborate
specially the Melchizedek priesthood is that it had already played
an important role in Jewish speculation in connexion with the
messianic hope. Philo had already identified Melchizedek out-
right with the Logos or possibly even with the messiah. Whether
the author of IIpos “Efpadovs intends to contradict Philo or not,
he takes a different line, falling back upon his favourite psalm,

INTRODUCTION Xxxili

the rroth, which in the Greek version, the only one known to
him, had put forward not only the belief that messiah was iepeds eis
Tov aiava Kata tH Tagw MeAyioédex, but the Alexandrian belief
in the pre-existence of messiah (v.8 ék yaorpos mpd éwoddpou
é£eyévvynad oe). Here then, by Alexandrian methods of exegesis,
in the pentateuch text combined with the psalm, he found
scripture proof of an original priesthood which was not levitical,
not transferable, and permanent. This priesthood of Melchize-
dek was, of course, not quite a perfect type of Christ’s, for it
did not include any sacrifice, but, as resting on personality,
not on heredity,! it did typify, he held, that eternal priesthood of
the Christ which was to supersede the levitical, for all the ancient
prestige of the latter. As this prestige was wholly biblical for
the writer and his readers, so it was essential that the disproof of
its validity should be biblical also. Though he never uses either
the idea of Melchizedek offering bread and wine to typify the
elements in the eucharist, in spite of the fact that Philo once
allegorized this trait (de Leg. Alleg. iii. 25), or the idea of
Melchizedek being uncircumcised (as he would have done, had
he been seriously arguing with people who were in danger of
relapsing into contemporary Judaism), he does seem to glance
at the combination of the sacerdotal and the royal functions.
Like Philo, though more fully, he notices the religious signi-
ficance of the etymology ‘king of righteousness” and “ king of
peace,” the reason being that throughout his argument he
endeavours repeatedly to preserve something of the primitive
view of Jesus as messianic king, particularly because the idea of
the divine Baoireia plays next to no part in his scheme of
thought. Sometimes the combination of the sacerdotal and
royal metaphors is incongruous enough, although it is not
unimpressive (é.g. 101213), Primarily it is a survival of the
older militant messianic category which is relevant in the first
chapter (see 1°), but out of place in the argument from the
priesthood ; the reference is really due to the desire to reaffirm
the absolute significance of Christ’s work, and by way of anticipa-
tion he sounds this note even in 7!-% Later on, it opens up
into an interesting instance of his relation to the primitive
eschatology. To his mind, trained in the Alexandrian philo-
sophy of religion, the present world of sense and time stands
over against the world of reality, the former being merely
the shadow and copy of the latter. There is an archetypal

1 The writer is trying to express an idea which, as Prof. E. F. Scott
argues (pp. 207f.), ‘‘ underlies all our modern thought—social and political
as well as religious,” viz. that true authority is not prescriptive but personal ;
‘the priesthood which can bring us nearer God must be one of inherent
character and personality.”

¢

XXX1V THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

order of things, eternal and divine, to which the mundane order
but dimly corresponds, and only within this higher order, eternal
and invisible, is access to God possible for man. On sucha
view as this, which ultimately (see pp. xxxi-xxxii) goes back to
Platonic idealism, and which had been worked out by Philo, the
real world is the transcendent order of things, which is the
pattern for the phenomenal universe, so that to attain God man
must pass from the lower and outward world of the senses to the
inner. But how? Philo employed the Logos or Reason as
the medium. Our author similarly holds that men must attain
this higher world, but for him it is a oxnvy, a sanctuary, the real
Presence of God, and it is entered not through ecstasy or mystic
rapture, but through connexion with Jesus Christ, who has not
only revealed that world but opened the way into it. The
Presence of God is now attainable as it could not be under the
outward cultus of the oxyvy in the OT, for the complete sacrifice
has been offered ‘‘in the realm of the spirit,” thus providing for
the direct access of the people to their God. The full bliss of the
fellowship is still in the future, indeed; it is not to be realized
finally until Jesus returns for his people, for he is as yet only their
mpodpomos (62°), The primitive eschatology required and received
this admission from the writer, though it is hardly consonant
with his deeper thought. And this is why he quotes for example
the old words about Jesus waiting in heaven till his foes are
crushed (10! 18), He is still near enough to the primitive period to
share the forward look (see, e.g., 27f 928 1037), and unlike Philo, he
does not allow his religious idealism to evaporate his eschatology.
But while this note of expectation is sounded now and then, it
is held that Christians already experience the powers of the
world to come. The new and final order has dawned ever since
the sacrifice of Jesus was made, and the position of believers is
guaranteed. ‘‘ You have come to mount Sion, the city of the
living God.” The entrance of Jesus has made a fresh, living
way for us, which is here and now open. ‘“ For all time he is
able to save those who approach God through him, as he is
always living to intercede on their behalf.” Christians enjoy the
final status of relationship to God in the world of spirit and
reality, in virtue of the final sacrifice offered by Jesus the Son.

(ii.)
What was this sacrifice? How did the writer understand it ?
(a) The first thing to be said is that in his interpretation of the
sacrifice of Jesus, he takes the piacular view. Calvin (Jmsti¢. ii.
15. 6) maintains that, as for the priesthood of Christ, “ finem et
usum eius esse ut sit mediator purus omni macula, qui sanctitate

INTRODUCTION XXXV

sua Deum nobis conciliet. Sed quia aditum occupat justa
maledictio, et Deus pro judicis officio nobis infensus est, ut nobis
favorem comparet sacerdos ad placandam iram ipsius Dei, piacu-
lum intervenire necesse est. . . . Qua de re prclixe apostolus
disputat in epistola ad Hebraeos a septimo capite fere ad finem
usque decimi.” Matthew Arnold is not often found beside
Calvin, but he shares this error. ‘Turn it which way we will,
the notion of appeasement of an offended God by vicarious
sacrifice, which the Epistle to the Hebrews apparently sanctions,
will never truly speak to the religious sense, or bear fruit for
true religion ” (S¢. Paul and Protestantism, p. 72). Arnold saves
himself by the word “apparently,” but the truth is that this
idea is not sanctioned by IIpds “EGpadovs at all. The interpreta-
tion of Calvin confuses Paul’s doctrine of expiation with the
piacular view of our author. The entire group of ideas about
the law, the curse, and the wrath of God is alien to Ipods
*EBpatovs. The conception of God is indeed charged with
wholesome awe (cp. on 127% 2%); but although God is never
called directly the Father of Christians, his attitude to men is
one of grace, and the entire process of man’s approach is
initiated by him (2° 137°). God’s wrath is reserved for the
apostates (107931) ; it does not brood over unregenerate men, to
be removed by Christ. Such a notion could hardly have occurred
to a man with predilections for the typical significance of the OT
ritual, in which the sacrifices were not intended to avert the
wrath of God so much as to reassure the people from time to
time that their relations with their God had not been interrupted.
The function of Christ, according to our author, is not to appease
the divine wrath (see on 2° 17), but to establish once and for all
the direct fellowship of God with his people, and a picturesque
archaic phrase like that in 1274 about the aiya pavticpod cannot
be pressed into the doctrine that Jesus by his sacrifice averted or
averts the just anger of God. On the other hand, while the
author knows the primitive Christian idea of God’s fatherhood,
it is not in such terms that he expresses his own conception of
God. Philo (De Exsecrationibus, 9) describes how the Jews in
the diaspora will be encouraged to return to Israel and Israel’s
God, particularly by his forgiving character (evi pev clmeckeia kal
xpynorornte TOU Tapakadoupevov ovyyvopnv ™po TLiwpias det Tierv-
tos); the end of their approach to God, he adds, otdév €repov 7
evapeotety TO Oe Kabarep viovs ratpi. But the author of Ipods
*EBpaious lays no stress upon the Fatherhood of God for men;
except in connexion with the discipline of suffering, he never
alludes to the goodness of God as paternal, even for Christians,
and indeed it is only in OT quotations that God is called even
the Father of the Son (15 55). He avoids, even more strictly

XXXV1 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

than Jesus, the use of love-language. The verb dya7ay only
occurs twice, both times in an OT citation ; dydz7y is also used
only twice, and never of man’s attitude towards God. There is
significance in such linguistic data; they corroborate the
impression that the author takes a deep view (see on 129) of the
homage and awe due to God. Godly reverence, etAdBera (see
on 57), characterized Jesus in his human life, and it is to charac-
terize Christians towards God, #.e. an awe which is devoid of
anything like nervous fear, an ennobling sense of the greatness
of God, but still a reverential awe. This is not incompatible
with humble confidence or with a serious joy, with rappycia
(cp. on 3!6). Indeed “‘all deep joy has something of the awful
in it,” as Carlyle says. “Eywyev xapu is the word of our author
(1228) ; the standing attitude of Christians towards their God is
one of profound thankfulness for his goodness to them. Only,
it is to be accompanied pera edAaBelas cai déovs. We are to feel
absolutely secure under God’s will, whatever crises or catastrophes
befall the universe, and the security is at once to thrill (see on
212) and to subdue our minds. Hence, while God’s graciousness
overcomes any anxiety in man, his sublimity is intended to
elevate and purify human life by purging it of easy emotion and
thin sentimentalism. This is not the primitive awe of religion
before the terrors of the unknown supernatural; the author
believes in the gracious, kindly nature of God (see on 2!9, also
610 1 316 etc.), but he has an instinctive horror of anything like a
shallow levity. The tone of IIpés “EBpaiovs resembles, indeed,
that of 1 P 117 (et warépa érixadeiobe Tov dmporwrodAnmTws Kpivovta
Kata TO éxaoTouv épyov, év PoBw Tov THs Tapotkias tpav xpovov
dvaotpapyre) ; there may be irreverence in religion, not only in
formal religion but for other reasons in spiritual religion. Yet
the special aspect of our epistle is reflected in what Jesus once
said to men tempted to hesitate and draw back in fear of
suffering : ‘‘I will show you whom to fear—fear Him who after
He has killed has power to cast you into Gehenna. Yes, I tell
you, fear Him” (Lk 125), This illustrates the spirit and
situation of IIpds ‘EBpadovs, where the writer warns his friends
against apostasy by reminding them of 6 eds fav and of the
judgment. We might almost infer that in his mind the dominant
conception is God regarded as transcendental, not with regard
to creation but with regard to frail, faulty human nature. What
engrosses the writer is the need not so much of a medium
between God and the material universe, as of a medium between
his holiness and human sin (see on 12”),

(4) As for the essence and idea of the sacrifice, while he
refers to a number of OT sacrifices by way of illustration, his
main analogy comes from the ritual of atonement-day in the

INTRODUCTION XXXVIl

levitical code (Lv 16), where it was prescribed that once a year
the highpriest was to enter the inner shrine by himself, the shrine
within which stood the sacred box or ark symbolizing the divine
Presence. ‘The elaborate sacrifices of the day are only glanced
at by our author. Thus he never alludes to the famous scape-
goat, which bore away the sins of the people into the desert.
All he mentions is the sacrifice of certain animals, as propitiation
for the highpriest’s own sins and also for those of the nation.
Carrying some blood of these animals, the priest was to smear
the tAacryprov or cover of the ark. This had a twofold object.
(i) Blood was used to reconsecrate the sanctuary (Lv 16!®),
This was a relic of the archaic idea that the life-bond between
the god and his worshippers required to be renewed by sacred
blood ; “the holiness of the altar is liable to be impaired, and
requires to be refreshed by an application of holy blood.”?!
Our author refers to this crude practice in 9%. But his
dominant interest is in (ii) the action of the highpriest as he
enters the inner shrine; it is not the reconsecration of the
sanctuary with its altar, but the general atonement there made
for the sins of the People, which engrosses him. The application
of the victim’s blood to the iNaorypiov by the divinely appointed
highpriest was believed to propitiate Yahweh by cleansing the
People from the sins which might prevent him from dwelling
any longer in the land or among the People. The annual
ceremony was designed to ensure his Presence among them, ‘‘to
enable the close relationship between Deity and man to continue
undisturbed. The logical circle—that the atoning ceremonies
were ordered by God to produce their effect upon himself—was
necessarily unperceived by the priestly mind” (Montefiore,
Hibbert Lectures, p. 337). What the rite, as laid down in the
bible, was intended to accomplish was simply, for the author of
IIpos “EBpaious, to renew the life-bond between God and the
People. This sacrifice offered by the highpriest on atonement-
day was the supreme, piacular action of the levitical cultus.
Once a year it availed to wipe out the guilt of all sins, whatever
their nature, ritual or moral, which interrupted the relationship
between God and his People.? For it was a sacrifice designed
for the entire People as the community of God. The blood of
the victims was carried into the inner shrine, on behalf of the
People outside the sanctuary ; this the highpriest did for them,
as he passed inside the curtain which shrouded the inner shrine,
Also, in contrast to the usual custom, the flesh of the victims,
instead of any part being eaten as a meal, was carried out and
burned up. In all this the writer finds a richly symbolic

1W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites (1907), pp. 408 f.
2 Cp. Montefiore, of. czt., pp. 334 f.

XXXVill THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

meaning (9). Jesus was both highpriest and victim, as he
died and passed inside the heavenly Presence of God to
establish the life-bond between God and his People. Jesus did
not need to sacrifice for himself. Jesus did not need to sacrifice
himself more than once for the People. Jesus secured a
forgiveness which the older animal sacrifices never won. And
Jesus did not leave his People outside; he opened the way for
them to enter God’s own presence after him, and in virtue of his
self-sacrifice. So the author, from time to time, works out the
details of the symbolism. He even uses the treatment of the
victim’s remains to prove that Christians must be unworldly
(1314) ; but this is an after-thought, for his fundamental interest
lies in the sacrificial suggestiveness of the atonement-day which,
external and imperfect as its ritual was, adumbrated the reality
which had been manifested in the sacrifice and ascension of
Jesus.

Yet this figurative category had its obvious drawbacks, two
of which may be noted here. One (a) is, that it does not allow
him to show how the sacrificial death of Jesus is connected with
the inner renewal of the heart and the consequent access of
man to God. He uses phrases like dyidéfew (see on 2!) and
xaOapilew and reAevotv (this term emphasizing more than the
others the idea of completeness), but we can only deduce from
occasional hints like 9! what he meant by the efficacy of the
sacrificial death. His ritualistic category assumed that such a
sacrifice availed to reinstate the People before God (cp. on 97),
and this axiom sufficed for his Christian conviction that every-
thing depended upon what Jesus is to God and to us—what he
is, he is in virtue of what he did, of the sacrificial offering of
himself. But the symbol or parable in the levitical cultus went
no further. And it even tended to confuse the conception of
what is symbolized, by its inadequacy; it necessarily separated
priest and victim, and it suggested by its series of actions a time-
element which is out of keeping with the eternal order. Hence
the literal tendency in the interpretation of the sacrifice has led
to confusion, as attempts have been made to express the con-
tinuous, timeless efficacy of the sacrifice. That the death was
a sacrifice, complete and final, is assumed (e.g. 727 g!# 1010 12. 14),
Yet language is used which has suggested that in the heavenly
oxnvy this sacrifice is continually presented or offered (e.g. 7%
and the vg. mistranslation of 1o!? “hic autem unam pro peccatis
offerens hostiam in sempiternum sedit”). The other drawback
(4) is, that the idea of Jesus passing like the highpriest at once
from the sacrifice into the inner sanctuary (¢.e. through the
heavens into the Presence, 414) has prevented him from making
use of the Resurrection (cp. also on 13!*). The heavenly sphere

INTRODUCTION XXxix

of Jesus is so closely linked with his previous existence on earth,
under the category of the sacrifice, that the author could not
suggest an experience like the resurrection, which would not
have tallied with this idea of continuity.

On the other hand, the concentration of interest in the
symbol on the sole personality of the priest and of the single
sacrifice enabled him to voice what was his predominant belief
about Jesus. How profoundly he was engrossed by the idea of
Christ’s adequacy as mediator may be judged from his avoidance
of some current religious beliefs about intercession. Over and
again he comes to a point where contemporary opinions (with
which he was quite familiar) suggested, ¢.g., the intercession of
angels in heaven, or of departed saints on behalf of men on
earth, ideas like the merits of the fathers or the atoning efficacy
of martyrdom in the past, to facilitate the approach of sinful
men to God (cp. on 114° 1217- 23: 24 etc.). These he deliberately
ignores. In view of the single, sufficient sacrifice of Jesus, in
the light of his eternally valid intercession, no supplementary
aid was required. It is not accidental that such beliefs are left
out of our author’s scheme of thought. It is a fresh proof of
his genuinely primitive faith in Jesus as the one mediator. The
ideas of the perfect Priest and the perfect Sacrifice are a theo-
logical expression, in symbolic language, of what was vital to the
classical piety of the early church; and apart from Paul no
one set this out so cogently and clearly as the writer of [pos
‘Efpaiovs.

(iii.)
Our modern symbolism does no sort of justice to the ancient
idea of priesthood. Matthew Arnold says of Wordsworth :

“He was a priest to us all,
Of the wonder and bloom of the world,
Which we saw with his eyes, and were glad.”

That is, ‘‘ priest” means interpreter, one who introduces us to a
deeper vision, one who, as we might put it, opens up to us a
new world of ideas. Such is not the ultimate function of Christ
as iepevs in our epistle. Dogmatic theology would prefer to
call this the prophetic function of Christ, but the priestly office
means mediation, not interpretation. The function of the high-
priest is to enter and to offer: eicépyeoOar and zpoodepew forming
the complete action, and no distinction being drawn between the
two, any more than between the terms “priest” and “ high-
priest.”

The fundamental importance of this may be illustrated from
the recourse made by Paul and by our author respectively to the

xl THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Jeremianic oracle of the new covenant or d:a@yxyn. Paul’s main
interest in it lies in its prediction of the Spirit, as opposed to
the Law. What appeals to Paul is the inward and direct intui-
tion of God, which forms the burden of the oracle. But to our
author (87-13 1015-18) it is the last sentence of the oracle which
is supreme, #.e. the remission of sins; “‘I will be merciful to their
iniquities, and remember their sins no more.” He seizes the
name and fact of a ‘‘new” covenant, as implying that the old
was inadequate. But he continues: “If the blood of goats and
bulls, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on defiled persons,
give them a holiness that bears on bodily purity, how much more
will the blood of Christ, who in the spirit of the eternal offered
himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, cleanse your con-
science from dead works to serve a living God? He mediates a
new covenant for this reason, that those who have been called
may obtain the eternal deliverance they have been promised,
now that a death has occurred which redeems them from the
transgressions involved in the first covenant” (9515), That is,
the conclusion of Jeremiah’s oracle—that God will forgive and
forget—is the real reason why our author quotes it. There can
be no access without an amnesty for the past; the religious
communion of the immediate future must be guaranteed by a
sacrifice ratifying the pardon of God.

This difference between Paul and our author is, of course,
owing to the fact that for the latter the covenant! or law is sub-
ordinated to the priesthood. Change the priesthood, says the
writer, and #/so facto the law has to be changed too. The cove-
nant is a relationship of God and men, arising out of grace, and
inaugurated by some historic act; since its efficiency as an insti-
tution for forgiveness and fellowship depends on the personality
and standing of the priesthood, the appearance of Jesus as the
absolute Priest does away with the inferior law.

This brings us to the heart of the Christology, the sacrifice
and priestly service of Christ as the mediator of this new cove-
nant with its eternal fellowship.

Men are sons of God, and their relation of confidence and
access is based upon the function of the Son kar’ é£6xyv. The
author shares with Paul the view that the Son is the Son before
and during his incarnate life, and yet perhaps Son in a special
sense in consequence of the resurrection—or rather, as our
author would have preferred to say, in consequence of the ascen-
sion. This may be the idea underneath the compressed clauses
at the opening of the epistle (11°). ‘‘God has spoken to us by

1 As Professor Kennedy points out, with real insight : ‘‘all the terms of
the contrast which he works out are selected because of their relation to the
covenant-conception ” (p. 201),

INTRODUCTION xli

a Son—a Son whom he appointed heir of the universe, as it
was by him that he had created the world. He, reflecting God’s
bright glory and stamped with God’s own character, sustains the
universe by his word of power; when he had secured our
purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the
Majesty on high; and thus he is superior to the angels, as he
has inherited a Name superior to theirs. For to what angel did
God ever say—

‘Thou art my Son,
To-day have I become thy Father’?”

(referring to the ancient notion that the king first became con-
scious of his latent divine sonship at his accession to the throne).
The name or dignity which Christ inherits, as the result of his
redemptive work, is probably that of Son; as the following
quotation from the OT psalm suggests, the resurrection or
exaltation may mark, as it does for Paul, the fully operative
sonship of Christ, the only way to inherit or possess the
universe being to endure the suffering and death which purified
human sin and led to the enthronement of Christ. Our author
holds that this divine being was sent into the world because he
was God’s Son, and that he freely undertook his mission for
God’s other sons on earth.

The mission was a will of God which involved sacrifice.
That is the point of the quotation (10°) from the 4oth psalm
—not to prove that obedience to God was better than sacrifice,
but to bring out the truth that God’s will required a higher kind
of sacrifice than the levitical, namely, the personal, free self-
sacrifice of Christ in the body. Even this is more than self-
sacrifice in our modern sense of the term. It is “by this will,”
the writer argues, that “‘we are consecrated, because Jesus Christ
once for all has offered up his body.” No doubt the offering is
eternal, it is not confined to the historical act on Calvary. ‘‘He
has entered heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God
on our behalf” (924): ‘‘he is always living to make intercession
for us” (7). Still, the author is more realistic in expression than
the tradition of the Zestament of Levi (3), which makes the
angel of the Presence in the third heaven offer a spiritual and
bloodless sacrifice to God in propitiation for the sins of ignorance
committed by the righteous. Our author assigns entirely to Christ
the intercessory functions which the piety of the later Judaism
had already begun to divide among angels and departed saints,
but he also makes the sacrifice of Jesus one of blood—a realism
which was essential to his scheme of argument from the
entrance of the OT high priest into the inner shrine.

The superior or rather the absolute efficacy of the blood of

xlii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Christ depends in turn on his absolute significance as the
Son of God; it is his person and work which render his self-
sacrifice valid and supreme. But this is asserted rather than
explained. Indeed, it is asserted on the ground of a presupposi-
tion which was assumed as axiomatic, namely, the impossibility
of communion with God apart from blood shed in sacrifice
(9*). For example, when the writer encourages his readers by
reminding them of their position (1274), that they ‘“‘have come
to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant and to the sprinkled
blood whose message is nobler than Abel’s,” he does not mean
to draw an antithesis between Abel’s blood as a cry for vengeance
and Christ’s blood as a cry for intercession. The fundamental
antithesis lies between exclusion and inclusion. Abel’s blood
demanded the excommunication of the sinner, as an outcast
from God’s presence; Christ’s blood draws the sinner near and
ratifies the covenant. The author denies to the OT cultus of
sacrifice any such atoning value, but at the same time he reaffirms
its basal principle, that blood in sacrifice is essential to communion
with the deity. Blood offered in sacrifice does possess a religious
efficacy, to expiate and purify. Without shedding of blood there
is no remission. We ask, why? But the ancient world never
dreamt of asking, why? What puzzles a modern was an axiom
to the ancient. The argument of our epistle is pivoted on this
postulate, and no attempt is made to rationalize it.

In the Law of Holiness, incorporated in Leviticus, there is
indeed one incidental allusion to the rationalé of sacrifice or
blood-expiation, when, in prohibiting the use of blood as a food,
the taboo proceeds: ‘‘the life of the body is in the blood, and
I have given it to you for the altar to make propitiation for
yourselves, for the blood makes propitiation by means of the
life” (ze. the life inherent in it). This is reflection on the
meaning of sacrifice, but it does not carry us very far, for it only
explains the piacular efficacy of blood by its mysterious potency
of life. Semitic scholars warn us against finding in these words
(Lv 171!) either the popular idea of the substitution of the victim
for the sinner, or even the theory that the essential thing in
sacrifice is the offering of a life to God. As far as the Hebrew
text goes, this may be correct. But the former idea soon became
attached to the verse, as we see from the LXX—+r6 yap ala
avrov dvri THs Wuxns éftAdoerar. This view does not seem to be
common in later Jewish thought, though it was corroborated by
the expiatory value attached to the death of the martyrs (e.g.
4 Mac ¢722). It is in this later world, however, rather than in
the primitive world of Leviticus, that the atmosphere of the idea
of IIpds ‘EBpaious is to be sought, the idea that because Jesus
was what he was, his death has such an atoning significance as

INTRODUCTION xliii

to inaugurate a new and final relation between God and men,
the idea that his blood purifies the conscience because it is 47s
blood, the blood of the sinless Christ, who is both the priest
and the sacrifice. When the author writes that Christ “in the
spirit of the eternal” (914) offered himself as an unblemished
sacrifice to God, he has in mind the contrast between the annual
sacrifice on the day of atonement and the sacrifice of Christ
which never needed to be repeated, because it had been offered
in the spirit and—as we might say—in the eternal order of
things. It was a sacrifice bound up with his death in history,
but it belonged essentially to the higher order of absolute reality.
The writer breathed the Philonic atmosphere in which the
eternal Now over-shadowed the things of space and time (see
on 15), but he knew this sacrifice had taken place on the cross,
and his problem was one which never confronted Philo, the
problem which we moderns have to face in the question: How
can a single historical fact possess a timeless significance? How
can Christianity claim to be final, on the basis of a specific
revelation in history? Our author answered this problem in his
own way for his own day.

(iv.)

For him religion is specially fellowship with God on the
basis of forgiveness. He never uses the ordinary term kowwvia,
however, in this sense. It is access to God on the part of
worshippers that is central to his mind; that is, he conceives
religion as worship, as the approach of the human soul to the
divine Presence, and Christianity is the religion which is religion
since it mediates this access and thereby secures the immediate
consciousness of God for man. Or, as he would prefer to say,
the revelation of God in Jesus has won this right for man as it
could not be won before. For, from the first, there has been a
People of God seeking, and to a certain extent enjoying, this
access. God has ever been revealing himself to them, so far as
was possible. But now in Jesus the final revelation has come
which supersedes all that went before in Israel. The writer
never contemplates any other line of revelation; outside Israel
of old he never looks. It is enough for him that the worship of
the OT implied a revelation which was meant to elicit faith,
especially through the sacrificial cultus, and that the imperfec-
tions of that revelation have now been disclosed and superseded
by the revelation in Jesus the Son. Faith in this revelation is in
one aspect belief (42). Indeed he describes faith simply as the
conviction of the unseen world, the assurance that God has
spoken and that he will make his word good, if men rely upon

xliv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

it; he who draws near to God must believe that he exists and
that he does reward those who seek him (115). Faith of this
noble kind, in spite of appearances to the contrary, has always
characterized the People. Our author rejoices to trace it at
work long before Jesus came, and he insists that it is the saving
power still, a faith which in some aspects is indistinguishable
from hope, since it inspires the soul to act and suffer in the
conviction that God is real and sure to reward loyalty in the
next world, if not in the present. Such faith characterized Jesus
himself (218 122). It is belief in God as trustworthy, amid all
the shows and changes of life, an inward conviction that, when
he has spoken, the one thing for a man to do is to hold to
that word and to obey it at all costs. This is the conception
of faith in the early and the later sections of the writing (37
10%-12?), The difference that Jesus has made—for the writer
seems to realize that there is a difference between the primitive
faith and the faith of those who are living after the revelation in
Jesus—is this, that the assurance of faith has now become far
more real than it was. Though even now believers have to
await the full measure of their reward, though faith still is hope
to some extent, yet the full realization of the fellowship with
God which is the supreme object of faith has been now made
through Jesus. In two ways. (i) For faith Jesus is the inspiring
example; he is the great Believer who has shown in his own
life on earth the possibilities of faith.t In order to understand
what faith is, we must look to Jesus above all, to see how faith
begins and continues and ends. But (ii) Jesus has not only
preceded us on the line of faith; he has by his sacrifice made
our access to God direct and real, as it never could be before.
Hence the writer can say, ‘‘let us draw near with a full assurance
of faith and a true heart, in absolute assurance of faith” since
‘“‘we have a great Priest over the house of God.” “We have
confidence to enter the holy Presence in virtue of the blood of
Jesus.” He does not make Jesus the object of faith as Paul
does, but he argues that only the sacrifice of Jesus opens the
way into the presence of God for sinful men.

This is the argument of the central part of the writing
(chs. 7-10). Religion is worship, and worship implies sacrifice ;
there is no access for man to God without sacrifice, and no

1 “Tt was by no divine magic, no mere ‘breath, turn of eye, wave of
hand,’ that he ‘joined issue with death,’ but by the power of that genuinely
human faith which had inspired others in the past” (MacNeill, p. 26).
Bousset’s denial of this (7heol. Literaturzettung, 1915, p. 431f.: ‘‘man
wird bei dem Jesus d. Hebrierbriefe so wenig wie bei dem paulinischen noch
im strengen Sinne von einem subjectivem Glauben Jesu reden kénnen”’) is as
incomprehehsible as his desperate effort to explain He 57! from the fixed
ideas of the mystery-religions.

INTRODUCTION xlv

religion without a priest (see on 7"). The relations between
God and his People from the first! have been on the basis of
sacrifice, as the bible shows, and the new revelation in Jesus
simply changes the old sacrificial order with its priesthood for
another. The writer starts from a profound sense of sin, as an
interruption of fellowship between God and man. He thoroughly
sympathizes with the instinct which underlay the ancient practice
of sacrifice, that fellowship with God is not a matter of course,
that God is accessible and yet difficult of access, and that human
nature cannot find its way unaided into his presence. Thus he
quotes the goth psalm (see p. xli), not to prove that God’s will
is fellowship, and that to do the will of God is enough for man,
apart from any sacrifice, but to illustrate the truth that the will
of God does require a sacrifice, not simply the ethical obedience
of man, but the self-sacrifice with which Jesus offered himself
freely, the perfect victim and the perfect priest. All men now
have to do is to avail themselves of his sacrifice in order to
enjoy access to God in the fullest sense of the term. ‘“ Having
a great Highpriest who has passed through the heavens, let us
draw near.”

The conception of religion as devotion or worship covers a
wide range in IIpos “EBpaious. It helps to explain, for example
(see above, p. xxxvili), why the writer represents Jesus after death
not as being raised from the dead, but as passing through the
heavens into the inner Presence or sanctuary of God with the
sacrifice of his blood (414 9). It accounts for the elaboration
of a detail like that of 9%°, and, what is much more important, it
explains the “sacrificial” delineation of the Christian life. In
this éA70wH oxnvy (82), of God’s own making, with its @vorac-
miptov (13}°), Christians worship God (Aarpevew, 9 12% 131°) ;
their devotion to him is expressed by the faith and loyalty which
detach them from this world (13!*!4) and enable them to live
and move under the inspiration of the upper world ; indeed their
ethical life of thanksgiving (see on 2!*) and beneficence is a
sacrifice by which they honour and worship God (13! 1°), a
sacrifice presented to God by their dépxvepeds Jesus. The writer
never suggests that the worship-regulations of the outworn cultus
are to be reproduced in any rites of the church on earth; he
never dreamed of this, any more than of the 7yovpevor being
called “priests.” The essence of priesthood, viz. the mediation
of approach to God, had been absolutely fulfilled in Jesus, and
in one sense all believers were enabled to follow him into the
inner oxynv7j, where they worshipped their God as the priests of
old had done in their oxnvy, and as the People of old had never

1 ¢.e. from the inauguration of the 6.a67xn at Sinai, though he notes that
even earlier there was sacrifice offered (11°).

xlvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

been able to do except through the highpriest as their represen-
tative and proxy. But, while the worship- idea is drawn out
to describe Christians, in IIpos “Efpaious its primary element
is that of the eternal function of Christ as dpyepeds in the
heavenly oxnvy.

(v.)

Symbolism alters as the ages pass. The picture-language i in
which one age expresses its mental or religious conceptions
often ceases to be intelligible or attractive to later generations,
because the civic, ritual, or economic conditions of life which had
originally suggested it have disappeared or changed their form.
This well-known principle applies especially to the language of
religion, and it is one reason why some of the arguments in Ipods
“Epaiovs are so difficult for the modern mind to follow. There
are other reasons, no doubt. ‘The exegetical methods which the
author took over from the Alexandrian school are not ours.
Besides, historical criticism has rendered it hard for us moderns
to appreciate the naive use of the OT which prevails in some
sections of Ips “EBpaiovs. But, above all, the sacrificial analogies
are a stumbling-block, for we have nothing to correspond to what
an ancient understood by a “‘priest” and sacrifice. Dryden was
not poetic when he translated Vergil’s ‘‘sacerdos” in the third
Georgic (489) by “holy butcher,” but the phrase had its truth.
The business of a priest was often that of a butcher; blood
flowed, blood was splashed about. It was in terms of such
beliefs and practices that the author of [pds ‘E8patouvs argued,
rising above them to the spiritual conception of the self-sacrifice
of Jesus, but nevertheless starting from them as axiomatic. The
duty of the modern mind is to understand, in the first place,
how he came by these notions; and, in the second place, what
he intended to convey by the use of such symbolic terms as
“ blood,” ‘ highpriest,” and “sacrifice.”

The striking idea of Christ as the eternal dpyuepevs, by whom
the access of man to God is finally and fully assured, may have
been a flash of inspiration, one of the notes of originality and
insight which mark the writer’s treatment and restatement of the
faith. But originality is not depreciated by the effort to trace
anticipations. What led him to this view? After all, the most
brilliant flashes depend upon an atmosphere already prepared
for them. They are struck out of something. In this case, it is
not enough to say that the conception was merely the transfer-
ence to Jesus of the Philonic predicates of the Logos, or the
result of a bible-reading in the pentateuch. In the pentateuch
the writer found proofs of what he brought to it, and the argu-
ments in chs. 7-10 really buttress ideas built on other foundations.

INTRODUCTION xlvii

(a) Once the conception of a heavenly sanctuary became
current, the notion of a heavenly dpxcepevs would not be far-fetched
for a writer like this. Philo had, indeed, not only spoken of the
Logos as a highpriest, in a metaphorical sense, z.e. as mediating
metaphysically and psychologically the relations between the
worlds of thought and sense, but in an allegorical fashion spoken
of “two temples belonging to God, one being the world in which
the highpriest is his own Son, the Logos, the other being the
rational soul” (de Somnits, i. 37). Our writer is much less
abstract. Like the author of the Apocalypse (see on 41), he
thinks of heaven in royal and ritual imagery as well as in civic,
but it is the ritual symbolism which is more prominent. During
the second century B.c. the ideas of a heavenly sanctuary and
a heavenly altar became current in apocalyptic piety, partly owing
to the idealistic and yet realistic conception (see on 8°) that in
heaven the true originals were preserved, the material altar and
sanctuary being, like the earthly Jerusalem, inferior representations
of transcendent realities. From this it was a natural develop-
ment to work out the idea of a heavenly highpriest. By
“natural” I do not mean to undervalue the poetical and re-
ligious originality of the writer of [pds “Efpaiovs. The author
of the Apocalypse of John, for example, fails to reach this idea,
and even in the enigmatic passage in the vision and confession of
Levi (Zestaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Levi 5), where
the seer tells us, ‘I saw the holy temple, and upon a throne of
glory the Most High. And he said to me, Levi, I have given
thee the blessings of priesthood until I come and sojourn in the
midst of Israel”—even here, though the levitical priesthood, as
in our epistle, is only a temporary substitute for the presence of
God, the heavenly sanctuary has no highpriest. Nevertheless
it was the idea of the heavenly sanctuary which held one
germ of the idea of the heavenly highpriest for the author of
II pos “Efpaious, as he desired to express the fundamental signifi-
cance of Jesus for his faith.

(4) Another factor was the speculations of Philo about the
Logos as highpriest (de Migrat. Abrah. 102, de Fug. 108 ff.),
though the priestly mediation there is mainly between man and
the upper world of ideas. The Logos or Reason is not only the
means of creating the material cosmos after the pattern of the
first and real world, but inherent in it, enabling human creatures
to apprehend the invisible. This is Philo’s primary use of the
metaphor. It is philosophical rather than religious. Yet the
increased prestige of the highpriest in the later Judaism prompted
him to apply to the Logos functions which resemble intercession
as well as interpretation. Vague as they are, they were familiar
to the author of our epistle, and it is probable that they helped

xl viii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

to fashion his expression of the eternal significance of Jesus as
the mediator between man and God. The Logos as highpriest,
says Philo (de Soman. ii. 28), for example, is not only duwpos,
6AdkAnpos, but peOdpids Tis Heod <Kai avOpwrov> divas, Tod pev
éAarrwv, avOpdrov Sé xpeitrwv. Then he quotes the LXX of Ly
1617, The original says that no man is to be with the highpriest
when he enters the inner shrine, but the Greek version runs, érav
eiain eis TA Ayia THV Gylwv 6 apxLEepEds, avOpwrros ovK état, and Philo
dwells on the literal, wrong sense of the last three words, as if
they meant “the highpriest is not to be a man.” ‘“ What will
he be, if he is not a man? God? I would not say that (ox
ay eto). . . . Nor yet is he man, but he touches both extremes
(exarépwv tav dkpwv, as av Bacews Kal Kepadqys, epamrdpevos).”
Later (¢did. 34) he remarks, “if at that time he is not a man, it
is clear he is not God either, but a minister (Ae:roupyds Oeod) of
God, belonging to creation in his mortal nature and to the
uncreated world in his immortal nature.” Similarly he pleads,
in the de sacerdot. 12, that the function of the highpriest was to
mediate between God and man, tva da pécov tivds avOpwrot pev
iAdoxwvtat Oedv, Beds dé Tas xdpitas avOpwros Srodiaxdvy Twi
xpwpmevos dpeyn Kat xopyyyj. Here we may feel vibrating a need of
intercession, even although the idea is still somewhat theosophic.

(c) A third basis for the conception of Christ’s priesthood lay
in the combination of messianic and sacerdotal functions which
is reflected in the rroth psalm (see above, p. xxxiii), which in the
Testaments of the Patriarchs (Reuben 68) is actually applied to
Hyrcanus the Maccabean priest-king, while in the Zest. Levi (18)
functions which are messianic in all but name are ascribed to a
new priest, with more spiritual insight than in the psalm itself.
The curious thing, however, is that this Priest discharges no
sacerdotal functions. The hymn describes his divine attestation
and consecration—‘“and in his priesthood shall sin come to an
end, and he shall open the gates of paradise and shall remove
the threatening sword against Adam.” That is all. Probably
the passing phase of expectation, that a messiah would arise from
the sacerdotal Maccabees, accounts for such a fusion of messiah
and priest. In any case its influence was not wide. Still, the
anticipation is not unimportant for the thought of IIpds “EBpaious,
which rests so much upon the mystical significance of that psalm.
Paul had seen the fulfilment of Ps rro! in the final triumph
of Christ as messiah over his foes (1 Co 157 % Sei yap adrév
Bacirevew axpts ob 67 wdvtas tods éxOpods bad Tods 7ddas adrod).
But meantime Christ was in living touch with his church on earth,
and Paul can even speak, in a glowing outburst, of his effective
intercession (Ro 8% 6s kat évtvyxdve. trép judv). This is at
least the idea of the highpriesthood of Christ, in almost every-

INTRODUCTION xlix

thing except name, though Paul says as much of the Spirit (Ro
877 kata Oeov évrvyxaver irép ayiwv). Later, in the Fourth Gospel,
a similar thought reappears; Christ is represented in priestly
metaphor as interceding for his People (17!*), and the phrases
(1717-19) about Jesus consecrating himself (as priest and victim)
that thereby his disciples may be “consecrated” év 79 éAnOela (i.e.
in the sphere of Reality), indicate a use of dyid£ew which ex-
presses one of the central ideas of [pos ‘EBpaiovs. But in the
latter writing the idea is explicit and elaborate, as it is nowhere
else in the NT, and explicit on the basis of a later line in the
troth psalm, which Paul ignored. Our author also knew and
used the earlier couplet (101%), but he draws his cardinal argu-
ment from v.4 ov ef tepevs cis aidva Kata thy Taéw MeAyoédex.

(vi.)

There is a partial anticipation of all this in the Enochic
conception of the Son of Man. No doubt, as Volz warns us
( Judische Eschatologie, p. 9°), we must not read too much into
such apocalyptic phrases, since the Son of Man is an x quantity
of personal value in the age of expected bliss and salvation.
Still, the pre-existent messiah there is Son of Man as transcen-
dent and in some sense as human; he must be human, “ Man,”
in order to help men, and he must be transcendent in order to
be a deliverer or redeemer. But the author of IIpos “EGpaiovus,
like Paul, significantly avoids the term Son of Man, even in 25;
and although he has these two ideas of human sympathy and of
transcendency in close connexion, he derives them from his
meditation upon the real Jesus ultimately, not from any apoca-
lyptic speculations. What he meant by the term “‘Son of God”
is not quite plain. Philo had regarded the Logos as pre-
existent and as active in the history of the people, and so he
regards Christ ; but while it seems clear (see on 5°) that Christ
is priest for him because he was already Son, the further ques-
tions, when did he become priest? and how is the Sonship
compatible with the earthly life?—these are problems which
remain unsolved. The interpretation of the function of Jesus
through the phrase in the 2nd psalm (see on 15) hardly clears up
the matter any more than in the case of Justin Martyr (D7a/. 88).
Later on, Hippolytus, or whoever wrote the homily appended
(chs. xi.-xii.) to the Zpzst. Diognet., faced the problem more
boldly and beautifully by arguing that “the Word was from
the very beginning, appeared new, was proved to be old, and
is ever young as he is born in the hearts of the saints. He
is the eternal One, who to-day was accounted Son” (6 onpepov
vios AoyicGeis, 11°). Here “to-day” refers to the Christian era ;

] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

evidently the problem left by the author of IIpds “Epaiovs, with
his mystical, timeless use of the 2nd psalm, was now being felt
as a theological! difficulty. But this is no clue to how he himself
took the reference. There is a large section in his thought upon
Christ as the eternal, transcendental Son which remains obscure
to us, and which perhaps was indefinite to himself. He took over
the idea of the divine Sonship from the primitive church, seized
upon it to interpret the sufferings and sacrificial function of Jesus
as well as his eternal value, and linked it to the notion of the
highpriesthood ; but he does not succeed in harmonizing its
implications about the incarnate life with his special yvaous of
the eternal Son within the higher sphere of divine realities.

At the same time there seems no hiatus! between the meta-
physical and the historical in the writer’s conception of Jesus, no
unreconciled dualism between the speculative reconstruction and
the historical tradition. In Ipods “EBpaious we have the ordinary
primitive starting-point, how could a divine, reigning Christ ever
have become man? The writer never hints that his readers
would question this, for they were not tempted by any Jewish
ideas. He uses the category of the Son quite frankly, in order
to express the absolute value of the revelation in Jesus ; it is his
sheer sense of the reality of the incarnate life which prompts him
to employ the transcendental ideas. He does not start from a
modern humanist view of Jesus, but from a conviction of his
eternal divine character and function as Son and as dpxtepevs, and
his argument is that this position was only possible upon the
human experience, that Jesus became man because he was Son
(21), and is dpxtepeds because once he was man.

(a) For our author Jesus is the Son, before ever he became
man, but there is no definite suggestion (see on 12”) that he
made a sacrifice in order to become incarnate, no suggestion
that he showed his xdépis by entering our human lot (& tpas
extoyevoey tAoVaLOS Gy, éavTov exevwrey ev SmowwpaTe avOpdrrwv
yevopevos). Our author feels deeply the suffering of Jesus in the
days of his flesh, but it is the final sacrifice at the end of his life
which is emphasized. That he suffered as the eternal Son is
understood : also, that it was voluntary (10°), also that it was
his human experience which qualified him to offer the perfect
sacrifice, by God’s xdpis. But, apart from the (2®) allusion to
the temporary inferiority to angels, the writer does not touch the
moving idea of the kenotic theories of the incarnation, viz. the
‘sense of sacrifice on the part of a pre-existent One.” ?

(2) Since he knew nothing of the sombre view of the odpé

1 As H. J. Holtzmann (Meutest. Theologie*, ii. 337) and Pfleiderer (p. 287)
imagine.

2H. R. Mackintosh, The Person of Christ, pp. 265 f.

INTRODUCTION li

which pervaded the Pauline psychology, he found no difficulty
in understanding how the sinless Jesus could share human flesh
and blood. The sinlessness is assumed, not argued (cp. on
41° 57). Yet the writer does not simply transfer it as a dogmatic
predicate of messiahship to Jesus. One of the characteristics
which set Ips “E@paiovs apart in the early Christian literature is
the idea that Jesus did not possess sinlessness simply as a pre-
rogative of his divine Sonship or as a requisite for the validity
of his priestly function. It was nota mere endowment. The idea
rather is that he had to realize and maintain it by a prolonged
moral conflict év tais juepas THs capKds aitod. This view goes
back to direct historical tradition, with its deeply marked im-
pression of the personality of Jesus, and no sort of justice is done
to IIpés ‘EBpaiovs if its conceptions of the human Son as sinless
are referred to a theoretical interest or dogmatic prepossession.
Such an interpretation is bound up with the view that Ipés
“Efpaious represents the more or less arbitrary fusion of an his-
torical tradition about Jesus with a pre-Christian christology.
But it is not enough to speak vaguely of materials for such a
christology floating in pre-Christian Judaism and crystallizing
round the person of Jesus, once Jesus was identified with the
messiah. The crystallization was not fortuitous. What Lfpos
“E®paiovs contains is a christology which implies features and
characteristics in Jesus too definite to be explained away as
picturesque deductions from messianic postulates or Philonic
speculations. These undoubtedly enter into the statement of
the christology, but the motives and interests of that christology
lie everywhere. The writer’s starting-point is not to be sought
in some semi-metaphysical idea like that of the eternal Son as a
supernatural being who dipped into humanity for a brief interval
in order to rise once more and resume his celestial glory; the
mere fact that the eschatology is retained, though it does not
always accord with the writer’s characteristic view of Christ, shows
that he was working from a primitive historical tradition about
Jesus (see above, pp. xlivf.). To this may be added the fact
that he avoids the Hellenistic term cwr7p, a term which had been
associated with the notion of the appearance of a deity hitherto
hidden.! The allusions to the historical Jesus are not numerous,
but they are too detailed and direct to be explained away; he
preached owrnpia, the message of eschatological bliss; he be-
longed to the tribe of Judah; he was sorely tempted, badly

1 He does not use the technical language of the mystery-religions (ep. on
64), and they cannot be shown to have been present continuously to his mind.
If the argument from silence holds here, he probably felt for them the same
aversion as the devout Philo felt (de Sacrz/. 12), though Philo on occasion
would employ their terminology for his own purposes.

lii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

treated, and finally crucified outside Jerusalem. These are the
main outward traits. But they are bound up with an inter-
pretation of the meaning of Jesus which is not a mere deduction
from messianic mythology or OT prophecies, and it is unreal, in
view of a passage like 5%", ¢.g., to imagine that the writer was
doing little more than painting in a human face among the
messianic speculations about a divine Son.

(c) Neither is the sinlessness of Jesus connected with the
circumstances of his human origin. No explanation at all is
offered of how this pre-existent Son entered the world of men.
It is assumed that he did not come out of humanity but that he
came into it ; yet, like Paul and the author of the Fourth Gospel
(1), our author is not interested in questions about the human
birth. Even when he describes the prototype Melchizedek as
“without father and mother” (7%), he is not suggesting any
parallel to the Christ; the phrase is no more than a fanciful
deduction from the wording or rather the silence of the legend,
just as the original priest-king Gudea says to the goddess in the
Sumerian tale, ‘‘ I have no mother, thou art my mother; I have
no father, thou art my father.” It is impossible to place this
allusion beside the happy misquotation in 10° “a body thou
hast prepared for me,” and to argue, as Pfleiderer (p. 287) does,
that the incarnation is conceived as purely supernatural. All we
need to do is to recall the Alexandrian belief, voiced in a passage
like Wisd 819 (‘I was the child of fine parts: to my lot there
fell a good soul, or rather being good I entered a body un-
defiled”); the good soul is what we call the personality, the
thinking self, to which God allots a body, and birth, in the ordinary
human way, is not incompatible with the pre-existence of the
soul or self which, prior to birth, is in the keeping of God. The
author of IIpés “EBpaiovs could quite well think of the incarna-
tion of Jesus along such lines, even although for him the pre-
existent Christ meant much more than the pre-existent human
soul.

The meaning of the incarnation is, in one aspect, to yield a
perfect example of faith (127) in action; in another and, for the
writer, a deeper, to prepare Jesus, by sympathy and suffering, for
his sacrificial function on behalf of the People. The rationalé
of his death is that it is inexplicable except upon the fact of his
relationship to men as their representative and priest before
God (2!'!£), From some passages like 5% 7’, it has been in-
ferred that Jesus had to offer a sacrifice on his own behalf as
well as on behalf of men (ze. his tears and cries in Gethsemane),
or that he only overcame his sinful nature when he was raised
to heaven. But this is to read into the letter of the argument
more than the writer ever intended it to convey. The point of

INTRODUCTION liii

his daring argument is that the sufferings of Jesus were not
incompatible with his sinlessness, and at the same time that they
rendered his sacrifice of himself absolutely efficacious. The
writer is evidently in line with the primitive synoptic tradition,
though he never proves the necessity of the sufferings from OT
prophecy, as even his contemporary Peter does, preferring, with
a fine intuition in the form of a religious reflection, to employ
the idea of moral congruity (2!°).

(vii.)

The symbolism of the highpriesthood and sacrifice of Jesus
in the heavenly sanctuary is therefore designed to convey the
truth that the relations of men with God are based finally upon
Jesus Christ. In the unseen world which is conceived in this
naive idealistic way, Jesus is central ; through him God is known
and accessible to man, and through him man enjoys forgiveness
and fellowship with God. When Paul once wrote, ra dvw
dpoveire, Ta Gvw Cyreite, if he had stopped there he would have
been saying no more than Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius might
have said and did say. But when he added, ot 6 Xpiords éorw
(év deta rod Oeod xaOypevos), he defined the upper sphere in a
new sense. So with the author of IIpos “EBpaiovs. In the real
world of higher things, “everything is dominated by the figure
of the great High Priest at the right hand of the Majesty in the
Heavens, clothed in our nature, compassionate to our infirmities,
able to save to the uttermost, sending timely succour to those
who are in peril, pleading our cause. It is this which faith
sees, this to which faith clings as the divine reality behind and
beyond all that passes, all that tries, daunts, or discourages the
soul: it is this in which it finds the exs realissimum, the very
truth of things, all that is meant by God.”?

Yet while this is the central theme (chs. 7-10), which the
writer feels it is essential for his friends to grasp if they are to
maintain their position, it is one proof of the primitive character
of IIpos ‘Efpaious that it preserves traces of other and more
popular ideas of Christianity. Thus (a) there is the primitive
idea of the messiah as the heir, who at the resurrection inherits
full power as the divine Son or KAypovopos. Strictly speaking,
this does not harmonize with the conception of the Son as
eternal, but it reappears now and then, thrown up from the
eschatological tradition which the author retains (see above,
pp. xxxiiif.). (4) The isolated reference to the overthrow of
the devil is another allusion to ideas which were in the back-
ground of the writer’s mind (see on 2141), (c) The scanty

1 Denney, Zhe Death of Christ, pp. 239, 240.

liv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

use made of the favourite conception of Jesus as the divine
Kupuos (see below, p. Ixiii) is also remarkable. This is not one of
the writer’s categories; the elements of divine authority and
of a relation between the Kvpios and the divine Community
are expressed otherwise, in the idea of the Highpriest and the
People.

Furthermore the category of the Highpriesthood itself was
not large enough for the writer’s full message. (a) It could not
be fitted in with his eschatology any more than the idea of the
two worlds could be. The latter is dovetailed into his scheme
by the idea of faith as practically equivalent to hope (in 10°) ;
the world to come actually enters our experience here and now,
but the full realization is reserved for the end, and meantime
Christians must wait, holding fast to the revelation of God in
the present. The former could not be adjusted to the eschat-
ology, and the result is that when the writer passes to speak in
terms of the primitive expectation of the end (10%-12%), he
allows the idea of the Highpriesthood to fall into the back-
ground. In any case the return of Jesus is connected only
with the deliverance of his own People (928). He does not
come to judge; that is a function reserved for God. The
end is heralded by a cataclysm which is to shake the whole
universe, heaven as well as earth (11% 1226), another conception
which, however impressive, by no means harmonizes with the
idea of the two spheres. But the writer’s intense consciousness of
living in the last days proved too strong for his speculative theory
of the eternal and the material orders. (4) Again, the High-
priesthood was inadequate to the ethical conceptions of the
writer. It did involve ethical ideas—the cleansing of the con-
science and the prompting of devotion and awe, moral con-
secration, and inward purity (these being the real ‘“‘ worship ”) ;
but when he desires to inspire his readers he instinctively turns
to the vivid conception of Jesus as the dpynyds, as the pioneer
and supreme example of faith on earth.

The latter aspect brings out the idea of a contemplation
of Jesus Christ, a vision of his reality (cp. 3! 122), which,
when correlated with the idea of a participation in the higher
world of reality, as embodied in the Highpriest aspect, raises
the question, how far is it legitimate to speak of the writer as
mystical ?

(viii.)
To claim or to deny that he was a mystic is, after all, a
question of words. He is devoid of the faith-mysticism which

characterizes Paul. Even when he speaks once of believers being
wéroxo. Xpirrod (3!4), he means no more than their membership

INTRODUCTION lv

in the household of God over which Christ presides ; there is no
hint of the personal trust in Christ which distinguishes “ faith”
in Paul. As important is the consideration that the writer does
not take the sacrifices of the levitical cultus as merely symbolizing
union with God. Such is the genuinely mystical interpretation.
To him, on the other hand, sacrifice is an action which bears
upon man’s relation to God, and it is from this point of view
that he estimates and criticizes the levitical cultus. But while
technically he is not a mystic, even in the sense in which that
much-abused term may be applied to any NT writer, he has
notes and qualities which might be called “mystical.” To call
him an “idealist” is the only alternative, and this is misleading,
for idealism suggests a philosophical detachment which is not suit-
able to IIpos “EBpaiovs. On the other hand, his profound sense
of the eternal realities, his view of religion as inspired by the
unseen powers of God, his conception of fellowship with God as
based on the eternal presence of Jesus in heaven—these and
other elements in his mind mark him as a definitely unworldly
spirit, impatient of any sensuous medium, even of a sacrificial
meal, that would interpose between the human soul and God.
Not that he uses any pantheistic language; he is more careful
to avoid this than a writer like the author of First John. His
deep moral nature conceives of God as a transcendent Majestic
Being, before whom believers must feel awe and reverence, even
as they rejoice and are thankful. He has a wholesome sense of
God’s authority, and an instinctive aversion to anything like a
sentimental, presumptuous piety (see above, pp. xxxvf.). Yet
as he speaks of the Rest or the City of God, as he describes the
eternal Sanctuary, or the unshaken order of things, or as he
delineates the present position of God’s People here in their
constant dependence on the unseen relation between Christ and
God, he almost tempts us to call him “‘ mystical,” if ‘‘ mysticism ”
could be restricted to the idea that the human soul may be
united to Absolute Reality or God. MHe is certainly not
mystical as Philo is;! there is no hint in IIpds “Epavous, for
example, of an individualistic, occasional rapture, in which the
soul soars above sense and thought into the empyrean of the
unconditioned. He remains in close touch with moral realities
and the historical tradition. But the spirituality of his outlook,
with its speculative reach and its steady openness to influences
pouring from the unseen realities, hardly deserves to be de-
nied the name of “ mystical,” simply because it is neither wistful
nor emotional.

1 The soundest account of Philo’s ‘‘ mysticism” is by Professor H. A. A.
Kennedy in Phzlo’s Contribution to Religion, p. 211 f.

lvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

§ 3. STYLE AND DICTION.

(i.)

IIpos “EBpaovs is distinguished, among the prose works of
the primitive church, by its rhythmical cadences. The writer
was acquainted with the oratorical rhythms which were popular-
ized by Isokrates, and although he uses them freely, when he
uses them at all, his periods show traces of this rhetorical
method. According to Aristotle’s rules upon the use of paeans
in prose rhythm (/#ez. ili. 8. 6-7), the opening ought to be
—-vVvcv, while .JJ- should be reserved for the conclusion.
Our author, however, begins with i pe an introductory
rhythm (cp. 1° 3!%) which seems to be rather a favourite with

vvw~

GI SAS vv
him, ¢.g. 3! ofev adeAd, 71° ert ane ev 7, 12% BAerere pn, cere

doar
o Oe Geos, though he varies it with an anapaest and an iambus
vun-un (e.g. 21 #5 14 1116 16 odK eraucx, 12! etc.), or -—U-—
(as in 5}? 64 77, see below, 13° avrds yap eipyx, etc.), or —--—-——
(as in 2% 3° 118 muoredoar yap dei, 11°9 etc.), or even occasionally
with three trochees -L-VT-vw (eg. 128), or -Y——-— (12! 1338
etc.), or -L ..-— (e.g. 138 41%), or even two anapaests (e.g. 16
5!1 13!), or -—-VT — (13%). He also likes to carry on or even
to begin a new sentence or paragraph with the same or a similar
rhythm as in the end of the preceding, eg. -L.s--U---— in
4. and 4)3, or Juc== ~——~.Im 77, and, 7%,, on.as ino)!
(--.---=----* ~lU--U----=-TL LL --) and 9g!
(--T---¥ CU -- CU XC ~—), OF ~-- V4 o— as into”
and to!!, and to repeat a rhythm | twice in succession, as, ¢.,
—-VT-- J in 28 (TyAccavrys 4 SY, Hrs apxiv Aa), VU--- in
410 (6 yap cioeA Oy eis THV . . . am TOV Epywv adtod), OF —-L—-U-—
1 a Nene a As) St
in 12! (rovyapody Kat mets tTHALKOUT Exovtes). The standard
closing rhythm . U. — does not clearly occur till 113 (yeyovévar),
114 (ere AaAct), 112° (BaotAéws), and 1274; it is not so frequent as,
Of. wo — (77 29 926 1054 85 7718-15. 28 738 etc.). He also likes
to close with a single or an echoing rhythm like -- ---— in 13
(avvys ev bWAois), 219 (ar wy TeAE@oa), 218 Laas mreipacGeis
. . pevors BonOjoa), or ——J-— in TH (6@Onoera .

owrnpiav), 114 (kev TH Oe@ . . . adrov Tod ‘8 zi) ete. A
curious variety in almost parallel clauses occurs in 11}

yw ~ w
€oTLV ws TLOTLS eNa raneueny UTOTTACLS

TpayLaTwv eae ou Brexopevay

INTRODUCTION lvii

where the cross cadences are plain, as in Isokrates often. But
at the end of sentences, as a rule, he prefers .. .—J (zape-
prdpev, 21 8°), or —L—~= (js Nadodper, 2° 7&7 etc.) or —L---
(wy reActGoar, 21° 218 314 43.11 7721 etc.), sometimes the weighty
—-—~ (217 82 10% 119 111 etc.), or V-U— (4) 5% 12 0% 18. 27
118) now and then, or one or even two (5!!) anapaests, often
ending on a short syllable.

He is true to the ancient principle of Isokrates, however, that
prose should be mingled with rhythms of all sorts, especially
iambic and trochaic, and there even happen to be two trimeters
in 12/4, besides the similar rhythm in 121326, Also he secures
smoothness often by avoiding the practice of making a word
which begins with a vowel follow a word which ends with a
vowel (Set 7a hwvyjevta pi) cvprinztew). Parallelisms in sound,
sense, and form are not infrequent. These ocxyjpara of Isokrates

can be traced, ¢.g., in 123 where, by avriecis, Ov . . . ravTwy
answers to és . . . troordcews aitod, as d¢ ob . . . éxoincer to
pépwv . . . Svvdyews aitod, or as in 111, which is, however, a

case Of zapicwors or parallelism in form. As in Wisdom, the
accumulation of short syllables, a characteristic of the later
prose, is frequent in IIpos “Efpaious (e.g. in 21+? wore rapapy. . .

Nai Nat) Nar? NaN Nad Ned, - ~~ -~w~o vy ~~ ~ ww

Aoyos eyevero BeBatos, 6° 1° kar exopeva . . . ov yap adiKos o Geos),
10% z11% 19 728.9 134 etc.). At the same time, [pos “Efpatous
is not written in parallel rhythm, like Wisdom (cp. Thackeray’s
study in Journal of Theological Studies, vi. pp. 232f.); it is
a prose work, and, besides, we do not expect the same
Opportunities for using even prose-rhythms in the theological
centre of the writing, though in the opening chapters and
towards the close, the writer has freer play. One or two samples
may be cited, e.g., in the two parallel clauses of 1?:

7 ee eee _ —

ov €Oyxev KAnpovopov TavTwv

ww ~~ ~ ~~
ée OU KQ@L €7TOLNOEV TOUS AlLwVvas,

vL vv

or in 13 where acews avrov answers tO apews avtov. In 216 the
two clauses begin with —-—-— and end with eruAapuPBavera, the
verb being obviously repeated to bring out the anapaestic
rhythm. The “cretic” (-VU-), which is particularly frequent,
is seen clearly in a carefully wrought passage like 4°! ;

- - vw

€l y2p QUTOUS Iynoous KGTET AVC EV

viii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

ovk av mept adAns eAaAer peta Tavt(a) ynepas

vw ~~ ~ ~

ap(a) amoXererar caSBatirpos Tw Aaw Tov Geov

yy “~ Net, Nod. ~ a

o yap aceAOwv es THY KaTaTavoW avToU

Vw vw ww Vw
KQL QUTOS KQATETAVOEV

vw

aTro TWv Epywv QvuTOu

Ngee Nadia Nes), ae ROE es 6 2) BS

woTrep amo Twv LoLwy o Geos.

There is a repeated attempt at balance, e.g. of clauses, like
(ry:

SD Nd) INS
npya2cavTo Stxatoouvnv

vy - Ns

ETT ETUKOV erayyeAwy,

where both have the same number of syllables and end on the

same rhythm; or, in the next verse, where dvvayuv zupos is

echoed in epvyov aoe. while there is a similar harmony of sound
in the closing syllables of

Vw we
upot ev 7roAeuw

7 vy

wav adXotpiwv,

and in vv.%" and °8 the balancing is obvious in
ev dovw paxaipyns
mepinrOov ev
voTtepovpevor OAL3

- 7

€v EpypLtars
or in the chiming of 8 and °°:

Kat omndaiois Kat TOLS OTaLS TNS NS

~
Kat ouvTo. mavtTes paptupybevtes 6.

INTRODUCTION lix

As for the bearing of this rhythmical structure on the text, it
does not affect the main passages in question (e.g. 29 62); it
rather supports and indeed may explain the omission of ro before
vid in 11, and of 6A in 2°, as well as the right of peAAdvtwv to
stand in 91! and in ro!; it might favour, however, éyyéAwv yevo-
pevos instead of yevomevos tOv dyyéAwv in 14, and the insertion of
9 oretpa in 1111 and of dpe in 1218, if it were pressed ; while, on the
other hand, as employed by Blass, it buttresses the wrong insertion
of pexpt Teous BePaiav in 3°, and inferior readings like ovyxexepac-
pevous and dxovobetow in 4”, éxdexopevors (D*) in 9%8, ei in 127, év
XoAW in 12), and évéyeoGar in 132%. But the writer is not shackled
to orixor, though his mind evidently was familiar with the rhythms
in question.

(ii.)

There are traces of vernacular Greek, but the language and
style are idiomatic on the whole. Thus the perfect is sometimes
employed for the sake of literary variety, to relieve a line of aorists
(e.g. 1117-8), and indeed is often used aoristically, without any
subtle intention (cp. on 7° etc.); it is pedantic to press signifi-
cance into the tenses, without carefully watching the contemporary
Hellenistic usage. The definite article is sparingly employed.
Me . . . dé, on the other hand, is more common, as we might
expect from the antithetical predilections of the author in his
dialectic. As for the prepositions, the avoidance of ovy is re-
markable (cp. on 1214), all the more remarkable since our author
is fond of verbs compounded with ovv. Oratorical imperatives
are used with effect (e.g. 31:1? 7* 10% etc.), also double (15 113.14
125-7) and even triple (31618) dramatic questions, as well as single
ones (2%-4 711 91514 10% 1752 12%). The style is persuasive,
neither diffuse nor concise. The writer shows real skill in man-
aging his transitions, suggesting an idea before he develops it (e.g.
in 217 56). He also employs artistically parentheses and asides,
sometimes of considerable length (e.g. kas . . . Katdravotv
pov 3711 513.14 85 7113-16), now and then slightly irrelevant (e.g. 34),
but occasionally, as in Plato, of real weight (e.g. 216 712; oidev

. vopos 7!9 104; micros yap 6 érayyetAdpevos 1073; dy ovK Hv
a&wos 6 Koopos 11°8 1314); they frequently explain a phrase (rod7’
eotw Tov dudBorov 214; todr’ éotw Tors adeAgors aitav 75; 6 Aads
yap er abris vevowoOernrat 711; yris . . . eveotnkdtag®; TotT eoTw
. . +» Kticews 91! ; rotr Eat THS TapKos aiTod 107° 12°), especially
an OT citation (e.g. 41° 618 72-7; airwes Kata vopov zpoodépovtat 108)
on which the writer comments in passing. One outstanding feature
of the style (for IIpés “EBpaious is Aeéus xateorpappévy, not A€éis
eipduevy in the sense of rapid dialogue) is the number of long,
carefully constructed sentences (¢.g. 13 274 214.15 31215 412.18

In THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

1-3 g7-10 64-6 616-20 71-3 84-6 92-5 g6-10 g24-26 yoll-13 yo19-25 7124-26 y 71.2
1218-24), Yet his short sentences are most effective, e.g. 218 45 1018,
and once at least (3!%1!8) there is a touch of the rapid, staccato
diatribé style, which lent itself to the needs of popular preach-
ing. He loves a play on words or assonance, e.g. kapdia movnpa
amutias év TH amootnvat (317), mapaxadcite EavTods . . . ayxpis
ov TO onpepov Kadetrat (31%), Eeuafev ad dv éexabev (58), KaAod Te

cal ‘ a -
Kat Kakov (514), drag mpocevexGeis eis TO TOANGY aveveyKelv apaprtias

(928), rorotrov €xovres Tepikeipwevov Huly VEpos papTipwy . . . TPEXW-
fev TOV TpoKeiwevovy Huty ayava (12!), ekA€AnoOe THs twapaxAyceEws
. as pyde exAvov (12°), wévoveav rdAw GAXA THY péAAovEav (1314).
Also he occasionally likes to use a term in two senses, e.g. Cov
yap 6 Adyos Tod Peod . . . pds dv Hutv 6 Adyos (41: 18), and diabyxn
ing From first to last he is addicted to the gentle practice of
alliteration, e.g. moAvpeps Kat toAuTpoTws mwadat 6 eds AaAjoas
Tos Tatpacw ev Tots mpopyrats (11), raca wapafacis Kal tapaKoy
(22), apjxev att@ avuTdraxtov (28), tov ardaroXov Kat apxtepéa (3'),
Kaito... . . ad kataBoAjs Koopov (4°), evOvpyorewv Kal evvordv (4)),
aratwp, ayntwp, ayeveadoyntos (7°), dua TO adtHs aobevés Kal dvw-
dedres (718), cis 7d wavTeAes . . . TOS TpOTEPXomevous . . . TavTOTE
Cav (7%), of kexAnuevor THS alwviov KAypovouias (g!), eionrADev ayta
Xpicros avtirima tov dAnOivGv, GAN cis adrdv (94), érel Eder adrov
moAAdkts rabeiv ard KataBoAns Koopov (97°), dag emi ovvtedela TOV
aidvey eis abernow THS duaptias (97°), aroKetra Tots avOpwrrots ara
dmobaveiv (927), év avrats avapvyois duaptiov (10%), advvarov yap
aipa tavpwv Kal tpaywv adaipety amaprias (104), OAiWerw Oearpilo-
prevor (10°), ef pev exeivns euvynpovevov ad ns e€éBynoav (11)), raca
pev maidela pos ev TO rapov (1214), reprrcorépws 5é rapakadG TovTo
movjoat (131%). On the other hand, he seems deliberately to
avoid alliteration once by altering dvebéunv into éroinaa (8°).

One or two other features of his style are remarkable. There
is, for example, the predilection for sonorous compounds like
picOarrodocia and evzepiocraros, and also the love of adjectives in a
privative, which Aristotle noted as a mark of the elevated style
(Rhet. iii. 6. 7); in Ipods “EBpaiovs there are no fewer than
twenty-four such, while even in the historical romance miscalled
3 Mac. there are no more than twenty. Other items are the
fondness for nouns ending in -ts (cp. on 24), the extensive use of
periphrases (cp. on 411), and of the infinitive and the preposition
(see on 3!2), The use of a word like te is also noticeable.
Apart from eleven occurrences of re xai, and one doubtful case
of re... 7€... Kai (67), re links (a) substantives without any
preceding «ai or d€; (4) principal clauses, as in 127; and (c) par-
ticipial clauses, as in 1° 64. Emphasis is generally brought out
by throwing a word forward or to the very end of the sentence,

INTRODUCTION Ixi
The writer is also in the habit of interposing several words
between the article or pronoun and the substantive ; e.g.

4 Py {3 > > ‘ , ”
1* dvahopwrepov rap avtovs Kex\ynpovounkey Ovopa,
4® ov« Gy repi adAns éAdAe peta Taita Hepas.

toll ras aitas moAAdKis tpoadépwv Ovaias.
10l? yiav tirép duaptiav mpocevéyxas Ovoiav.
we

~ , ,
1027 aupos Endos eo blew peAXovtos Tos tzrevavTiovs.
, , ‘ cal cal
123 tov Tovattny trouevevyKOTa td TOY dyapTwrAdyv eis adTov
dvriAoylav.

Further, his use of the genitive absolute is to be noted, e.g.,
in—
2* ovveripaptrpotvtos Tod Geov «TX.
41 xataXeuromevys ... avtod (seven words between py ore
and dox7 Tis).
4° Katto. TOV epywy . . . yevnbevTwr.
72 nerarBeuevys yap THS Lepwovrns.
8! ovrwy TOV rpoodepovTwY KaTa Vvomov TA SHpa.
9° rovtwr dé ottw KaTerKevacpevv.

g® rovro SnAotvtos tov IIvevpatos tov “Ayiov . .. ere Tis
TpWOTNS TKYNVAS Exovons TTAoW.

15 4 , , b <3

9! davarov yevopevov . . . tapaBdcewy (ten words between

o7ws and 7. é. AaBdow).
g!9 Aadnbeions yap maons evtoAjs . . . Mavoéus.
10° Exovciws yap dpaptavovTwv 1pydv.
114 paptupoivtos emi Tots Swpors aitod Tov Geod.

Finally, there is an obvious endeavour to avoid harsh hiatus,
sometimes by the choice of a term (e.g. dure for or, as in
Polybius and Theophrastus, or axprs for axpu, or os for dre), and
a distinct fondness for compound verbs; Moulton (ii. 11),
reckoning by the pages of WH, finds that while Mark has 5°7
compound verbs per page, Acts 6°25, Hebrews has 8’o, and Paul
only 3°8.

ie vocabulary is drawn from a wide range of reading.
Whether he was a Jew by birth or not, he goes far beyond the
LXX. His Greek recalls that of authors like Musonius Rufus
and the philosophical Greek writers, and he affects more or less
technical philosophical terms like aic@nrnpiov, dyproupyds, GéAnots,
perprorabeiv, TeAedw, TéAos, Tiuwpia, and wtmrodeyya. He was
acquainted with the books of the Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and
perhaps even Philo. This last affinity is strongly marked. The
more he differs from Philo in his speculative interpretation of
religion, the more I feel, after a prolonged study of Philo, that
our author had probably read some of his works; it is not easy

Ixil THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

to avoid the conclusion that his acquaintance with the Hellenistic
Judaism of Alexandria included an acquaintance with Philo’s
writings. However this may be, the terminology of the Wisdom
literature was as familiar to this early Christian d:dacxaXos as to
the author of James.!

As for the LXX, the text he used—and he uses it with some
freedom in quotations—must have resembled that of A (cp.
Buchel in Studien und Kritiken, 1906, pp. 508-591), upon the
whole. It is to his acquaintance with the LXX that occasional
‘“‘Semitisms” in his style may be referred, e.g. the ér éoxdrov of
11, the xapdia dmuorias of 3), the év ro A€yer Oar Of 3), the Opdvos
Ths xapitos of 416 and the phrases in 579° and 12. But this is a
minor point. We note rather that (a) he sometimes uses LXX
terms (e.g. dvvayets) in a special Hellenistic sense, or in a sense of
hisown. (4) Again, it is the use of the contents of the LXX which
is really significant. The nearest approach to IIpos “Efpaiovs, in
its treatment of the OT, is the speech of Stephen, the Hellenistic
Jewish Christian, in Ac 7158, where we have a similar use of the
typological method and a similar freedom in handling the OT
story (cp. EB. 4791, e.g. Ac 729=He 1127), which proves how
men like these writers, for all their reverence for the LXX, sat
wonderfully free to the letter of the scripture and employed,
without hesitation, later Jewish traditions in order to interpret it
for their own purposes. But Stephen’s reading of the OT is
not that of IIpds “Efpaiovs. The latter never dwells on the
crime of the Jews in putting Jesus to death (12° is merely a
general, passing allusion), whereas Stephen makes that crime
part and parcel of the age-long obstinacy and externalism which
had characterized Israel. In IIpos “Ef8paéous, again, the kAn-
povopia of Palestine is spiritualized (3"*), whereas Stephen merely
argues that its local possession by Israel was not final. Stephen,
again, argues that believers in Jesus are the true heirs of the OT
spiritual revelation, not the Jews; while in Ipods ‘“EGpaious the
continuity of the People is assumed, and Christians are regarded
as ipso facto the People of God, without any allusion to the Jews
having forfeited their privileges. Here the author of IIpos
“Efpaious differs even from the parable of Jesus (cp. on 11); he
conveys no censure of the historical Jews who had been
responsible for the crucifixion. The occasional resemblances
between Stephen’s speech and IIpds “Efpaiovs are not so signifi-
cant as the difference of tone and temper between them, e.g. in
their conceptions of Moses and of the angels (cp. on He 2?).
For another thing, (c) the conception of God derives largely

1 On the philosophical background of ideas as well as of words, see A. R.
Eagar in Hermathena, xi. pp. 263-287; and H. T. Andrews in Zxfosztor*,
xiv. pp. 348f.

INTRODUCTION xiii

from the element of awe and majesty in the OT (see on 13
418 1080. 81 722%), This has been aiready noted (see pp. xxxvf.).
But linguistically there are characteristic elements in the various
allusions to God. Apart altogether from a stately term like
Meyadwowvy (1° 81) or Adgéa (9°), we get a singular number of
indirect, descriptive phrases like é¢ 6y ra wdvra kat & ob ra
mavta (21°), rH roijoavte airdv (37), mpos dv piv & Adyos (43%),
tov dvvapevoy owlev aitov é« Gavdrov (57), 6 émayyeAdpuevos
(10% 1111), tov doparov (1177), tov dx’ obpavav xpyparilovra (1275),
After 11, indeed, there is a slight tendency to avoid the use of
6 @eds and to prefer such periphrases of a solemn and even
liturgical tone. It is noticeable, ¢.g., that while 6 6eds occurs
about seventy-eight times in 2 Co (which is about the same
length as Ilpos ‘E8paiovs), it only occurs fifty-five times in the
latter writing. The title (6) Kvpuos is also rare; it was probably
one of the reasons that suggested the quotation in 11% (xipre),
but it is mainly applied to God (1214), and almost invariably
in connexion with OT quotations (7?! 8? 88 1016 1930 726 136),
Once only it is applied to Jesus (2°), apart from the solitary use of
6 kvptos Hav in 714 (+ "Ingots, 33. 104. 2127) and in the doxology
with ‘Ijcots (137°). It is nota term to which the author attaches
special significance (cp. on 774). "Iyaovs, as in (i) 29 (rov 8
Bpaxd tT map’ adyyédous HAattwpévov Br€ropev “Inoodv), (ii) 3}
(katavojoare Tov drdaToAov Kal dpxtepéa THS Sporoyias pov
"Incotv), (iii) 4!* (€xovres otv apxtepea péyav dieAnAvOdTa Tors
ovpavovs, “Incody), (iv) 62° (drov mpddpopos ixép Hyav ciojdOev
Ingots), (v) 7% (xara tocovrov Kal Kpettrovos Siabjxyns yéyovev
éyyvos ‘Inoots), (vi) 10! (év rH alate “Incod), (vii) 122 (tov ris
mistews apxnyov Kai TeAewriv “Inoodv), (vili) 1274 (Kat diaOjxns
véas pecity ‘Inood), (ix) 13)? (dd Kat “Inoots), (x) 1329 (rov
Toweva Tov TpoBdtwv Tov peyav ev aipate diabyjKyns aiwviov, Tov
Kvptov pov “Incody), is generally the climax of an impressive
phrase or phrases. The unique use of this name in such con-
nexions soon led to liturgical or theological expansions, as, e.g.,
31 (+ Xpurrdv, C*° K L W 104. 326. 1175 syr arm Orig. Chrys.)
67 (+ Xpiords, D), 10! (+ rod Xpiorod, 1827 vg), 1312 (+6, 5 [as
Col 317]. 330 [as Col 3!”]. 440 [as Ro 811]. 623. 635. 1867. 2004:
+6 xvpios, 1836: Xpioros, 487), 137° (+ Xpiordv, DW 5. 104. 177.
BAG 29.0123. 496.547. 623°. 6354 1O31.°5S37. 1591 lat?
syr™ Chrys.). Xpuords (3° g1!- 24), or 6 Xpiords (314 55 61 gl4- 28.
1176), has also been altered ; ¢.g. 3! (kupiov, 256. 2127: Geod, 635 :
om. Tod, 467), 55 (om. 6, 462), 61 (cov, 38. 2005: om. 429), 974
(+6 C°DW 104. 256. 263. 326. 467. 1739. 2127 arm: “Inaois,
823 vg Orig.), but less seriously. "Iyoots Xpiords only occurs
thrice (ro! 138 21),

Ixiv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

So far as vocabulary and style go, there are certain affinities between
IIpés ‘EBpatous and (a) the Lucan writings, (4) 1 Peter, and, to a less degree,
(c) the Pastoral Epistles; but an examination of the data indicates that the
affinities are not sufficient to do more than indicate a common atmosphere of
thought and expression at some points. I do not now feel it safe to go
beyond this cautious verdict. The author of IIpds ‘E8palous has idiosyncrasies
which are much more significant than any such affinities. His literary re-
lations with the other NT writers, if he had any, remain obscure, with two
exceptions. Whether he had read Paul’s epistles or not, depends in part on
the question whether the quotation in 10°” was derived outright from Ro
12)° or from some florz/egium of messianic texts; but, apart from this, there
are numerous cases of what seem to be reminiscences of Paul. As for
I Peter, our author has some connexion, which remains unsolved, with what
probably was an earlier document.

To sum up. He has a sense of literary nicety, which
enters into his earnest religious argument without rendering it
artificial or over-elaborate. He has an art of words, which is
more than an unconscious sense of rhythm. He has the style
of a trained speaker; it is style, yet style at the command
of a devout genius. ‘‘Of Hellenistic writers he is the freest
from the monotony that is the chief fault of Hellenistic com-
pared with literary Greek; his words do not follow each other
in a mechanically necessary order, but are arranged so as to
emphasize their relative importance, and to make the sentences
effective as well as intelligible. One may say that he deals with
the biblical language (understanding by this the Hellenistic
dialect founded on the LXX, not merely his actual quotations
from it) . . . as a preacher, whose first duty is to be faithful,
but his second to be eloquent” (W. H. Simcox, Zhe Writers of
the IVT, p. 43).

§ 4. TExT, COMMENTARIES, ETC.

(i.)

The textual criticism of IIpds “EGpaiovs is bound up with the
general criticism of the Pauline text (cp. Homans in the
present series, pp. xiii ff.), but it has one or two special features
of its own, which are due in part (a) to the fact of its exclusion
from the NT Canon in some quarters of the early church, and
(4) also to the fact that the Pauline F (Greek text) and G are
wholly, while BC H MN W p# and 048 are partially, missing.
It is accidental that the Philoxenian Syriac version has not
survived, but the former phenomenon (a) accounts for the
absence of IIpos ‘Efpaiovs not simply from the Gothic version,
but also from the old Latin African bible-text for which
Tertullian and Cyprian, the pseudo-Augustinian Speculum and
*« Ambrosiaster,” furnish such valuable evidence in the case of

INTRODUCTION Ixv

the Pauline epistles. The (4) defectiveness of B, etc., on the
other hand, is to some extent made up by the discovery of the
two early papyrus-fragments.

The following is a list of the MSS and the main cursives, the
notations of Gregory and von Soden being added in brackets,
for the sake of convenience in reference :

CopicumM INDEx.

® saec. iv. (v.) {or : 6 2).

Av 55) Ve [o2 : 6 4].

Bas) 1v; [03 : 61] cont. 1-9'%: for remainder cp. cursive
293.

Caley: [04 : 6 3] cont. 24-776 gl5_r0% 1218-735,

LO a [06 : a 1026] cont. 11~13°°. Codex Claromontanus

is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is
poorly! reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.)
E=codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of
the latter (11-125) is therefore of no independent
value (cp. Hort in WH, §§ 335-337); for its
Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex
Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of IIpds
"EB8palovs has not been preserved, see below,
p:; xix.

|: eae Ay (ors : @ 1022] cont. 138 211-16 318-18 412-15 791-7. 32-38
1210-15 73°4-25 : mutilated fragments, at Moscow
and Paris, of codex Coislinianus.

Kee a 1X: {or8 : [).

| ness Wat a [020 : a 5] cont. 113!

Mi oe ax [o121 : @ 1031] cont. 11-45 12-13,

Neo Six [0122 : a 1030] cont. 58-6.

Pie ix [025 : a 3] cont. 1-128 12-135,

Pose, av {a 1034] cont. 2!45° ro%&r11!% 11-127: Oxyrhyn-

chus Papyrt, iv. (1904) 36-48. The tendency,
in 245°, to agree with B ‘“‘in the omission of
unessential words and phrases... gives the
papyrus peculiar value in the later chapters,
where B is deficient” ; thus p’® partially makes
up for the loss of B after 9%. Otherwise the
text of the papyrus is closest to that of D.
Dice ya Wav: {a 1043] cont. 9!*%: Oxyrhynchus Papyri, viii.
(1911) II-13.
(vi. ?) viii.-ix. [044 : 6 6] cont. 11-3"! 9!%-13%,
(iv.-vi.) [I] cont, 11-8 9-12 24-7-12-14 "34-6. 14-16 48-6. 12-14 65-7
61-3 10-13. 20 71-2, 7-11. 18-20. 27-28 Q1.7-9 ol-d. 9-11. 16-19.
25-27 95-8. 16-18. 26-29. 35-88 76-7. 12-15. 22-24, 31-33, 38-40
12}+ 7-9 16-18, 25-27 37-9. 16-18. 23-25. WT WSS in
Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp.
of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexan-
drian text, and is ‘‘quite free from Western
readings.”

z«

1 An instance may be found in 10%, where a corrector of D obelized the
first and last letters of dvevdiu¢éuevor and wrote over it Geatpi¢éuevo. In E
we get the absurd wdifouerofearorfouevor (cp. Gregory’s Textkritik des NT,
i. 100).

é

Ixvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

048 saec. v. [a 1] cont. 1159-134, Codex Patiriensis is a
palimpsest.

OlA2 a, nex: [0].

OUST ae) Xil- [x4].

Three specimens of how the MSS group themselves may be
printed. (a) shows the relation between M and the papyrus p!*:
M agrees with p’ in eight places:
3! Inoodr.
3° ddéys obros (+K L vg, alone).
31 wavra.
3° édv.
3° bua év Soxiuacla.
3)° rabrp.
338 tus €& budv.
4? ovyKek(€)pacpuévous.
It opposes p!® (+B) in
37+ dry.
3° 8s.
3° + wéxpe TéXous BeBalav.
3° + Me.
4° ody.
42+77 before katdravow.

M has some remarkable affinities with the text of Origen (e.g. 1° 1° 2}).
(2) exhibits the relations of x and D*, showing how A and B agree with them
on the whole, and how p” again falls into this group:

x and D* agree in

1? position of éroinsrev AB M 8* ody AB
18 +xal before 7 pafdos AB M 8* om. rév lepéwy AB
2} mapapuapev ATB™ 8" om. adrévafter pixpod A B
27 +xal karéornoas . 9° xepouBly (alone of un-
cou A cials)
2)5 SovAlas 9? Kad’ Hy AB
3! om. Xpiordv AB M p®| 9?! épavricev A
3* wdvra AB Mp! 09% om. 6 before Xpisrés A
gt Taury AB Mp#®|/10%om. of ,, da A
3)? d:” (so 79) AB M p'§| ro! odros A
3 Kkatadurouérns (alone), 1018 §idvo.ay A
except for p!% 107 \edoveuévor
4" mpoelpnrat A(B)_ p?8| 118 7d BXemduevor A p
45 cuvrabjjoa ASB 11)9 duvarés
416 EXeos AB 11°? + is A he
5° be adrjy AB 11% érecay A p%
5° wept duapriay AB 11°? ne ydp A
6° om. Tod Kérou AB 1154 waxaipns (so1i®?) A
618 om. pév AB 125 zadlas A
7> Aevl 12° position of éore A ps
75 om.7év before’ ASpadu B 12° modu (so 12”) A
7p », Medrxucedéx B 127) xrpouos (alone)
7 airijs AB 13° Kaxouxoupévwv A M
711 vevowobérnrat AB 134 ydp A M
716 capkivns AB 13° éxés Ay \y aM.
717 waprupetrat AB 137! om. épy@
8? om. xal before ovx dy-
Opwiros B

INTRODUCTION Ixvii

(c) exhibits characteristic readings of H, with some of its
main allies:

18 xadapicudv RACE) ere vg arm
2 doulas 8 Dkr 181 FP
33 ms cE buGy pSx A C H MP vg pesh arm boh
34 rod Xpiorod yey. 8 AB CD WH MP vg
317 rlow 6é Ry 18 AD) H AY sah
4)? évepyns Nera (GoD H P KL vg
4)? Yuxiis x AB C Inte y 1e L(vg arm boh)
4 curradjoat ReaD CG Dra
10! @uvclas(—airav) A CD H KL vg
to! als Dey EL L
10! duvarac D H KL vg boh
10? om. ovK Ee (vg) pesh
10? xexabapicuévous & D H P
10° qvddxnoas AS (CDA Welt P
10 rots deculas p& A ID} Jal vg pesh boh
10% éaurous eA. H vg boh
10°4 jrapéw pex* A Dp ELS vg boh
10% weydAnv mic8. & A D WH le
10°? ypovie? xe A DWH iP KL
10° wou éx ticrews 8 A Hie vg arm
12" aoa é px A jo dal KL vg pesh boh
123 roujoare x A D H KL
12) airijs (p35) At H P
1216 qirob xe IDF dal 1D ASI
137! om. Tay alwvwy CoD H arm
13” udr ROAD (CDW Ht M vg pesh arm boh sah
137° dun. TAS (CD H PMK _vg pesh (arm) boh
CURSIVES.
Isaec. x. [6 254] | 189 saec. xiii. [6 § ®]
PH os) | Sable [ier ae 203 ,, xii. [a 203]
5» xiv. [6 453] 206 ,, xill. [a 365]
6 ,, xiii. [6 356] cont. 17-9% | 209 ,, xiv. [5 457]
107-135 216 ,, xiv. [a 469]
Be gy Seb (I@ seh 217 ,, xi. [a 1065] cont. 11-68
Born ix.—x. [6 48] Hort’s 17 218 ,, xiii. [6 300]
35 55 xiii. [5 309] 221 ,, x, [a 69]
BS een kil. [0355] 226 ,, xi. [5 156]
AD rg | Fabs OVE 227 ,, xii. [a 258]
69 ,, xv. [6 505] 241 4, xi. [5 507]
88 ,, xii. [a 200] 242 ,, xii. [5 206]
go 3, xvi. [5 652] 253 ,, xi. [5 152]
93 » x. [a 51) 255 +, xi. [a 174]
nek fy seb fOr 256 ,, xii. [a 216]
104 ,, xi. [a 103] 257 4, xiv. [a 466]
A 5 Sah |e 263 ,, xili.—xiv. [6 372]
177 5, xi. [a 106] 293 5, xv. [a 1574] cont. 94-13%
Tote. xi. [a 101] 296 ,, xvi. [5 600]

188 ,, xii. [a 200] 323. 5, ‘xi.—xii. [a 157]

Ixviil THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

326 saec. xii. [a 257] 941 saec. xiii. [6 369]

327 ,, xiii. [0%] 999 ,, xiii. [6 353]

330) 53) -xil. [0 250) 1108 ,, xiii. [a 370]

337. 5, xii. [a 205] 1149 ,, xiii. [5 370]

B7TN) 5s) XIVe| ar LAS iil Cont — nomial Tez mes x. [a 74] cont. 11-35 6%
378 4, xii. [a 258] 13%

383. ,, xiii. [a 353] cont. 11-137 1243.45) Xil- 0) 198)
AIS 5, XVa(K-) [oe 5sollicont 1-245) exter so)
rau 1288 (81) xi. [a 162]

42455) Xe [O24 EoresiGy TUNE veal Sats [G3 uyZe)|

429 ,, xili.—xiv. [a 398] L3TO} os n exIs LOLTSO}

AQT ss) xXit) [lor200) ES TOmss. Xienlaylrol

ASO) 53) Xie 72) 1522 ,, xiv. [a 464]

440 ,, xii. |6 260] 1525 4, xiii. [a 361] cont. 11-78
4425 xii) O28] 1610 ,, xiv. [a 468]

A450) us) Ser eans2 1611 ,, xii. [a 208]

460 ,, xiii.—xiv. [a 397] 1739 5, |x [a 78]

461 ,, xiii. [a 359] 1758 ,, xiii. [a 396] cont. 11-13!
462 ,, xv. [a 502] 1765 ,, xiv. [a 486]

ASTmr ne xTa [a1] 1827 ,, xiii. [a 367]

489 ,, xiv. [6 459] Hort’s 102 1831 ,, xiv. [a 472]

491 ,, xi. [6 152] 1836 ,, x. [a 65]

KOON 53) Xl. LOLOL] TOOT Mss iets [anro2)|

522 ,, xvi. [d 602] 1838 ,, xi. [a 175]

5475, xi [0457] 1845 5, x. [a 64]

614 ,, xiii. [a 364] 1852 5, xi. [a 114]\cont. 111
623%) 35) sexi: (ar 73)) 1867 ,, =xi.—xii. [a 154]

G33 5; ola, TON] 11S 720 eee Xil./ [7209]

630). xXIei [ako] TOV ee Xia 52i)

642°", i) xv: fa §52) cont;, Y—7"5 | 108! 45, x. [a 62]
98-13% 1898 ,, x. [a 70]

794 5, xiv. [6 454] 1906 ,, xi. [O 7101)

808 ,, xii. [5 203] TOOSI Es hee Xda Oe ace]

823 ,, xiii. [5 368] TOR2 0s x.-xi. [a 1066]

876 ,, xiii. [a 356] 2004 455 x. [a 56]

913. ,,_ xiv. [a 470] 2055 4, xiv. [a 1436] cont. 1'-7?
915 ,, xiii. [a 382] pip a Satls jie) olor

917. ,, xii. [a 264] 2138) 0.5) we XI- agtnO}

O19) 55) Xie llasr13)] 2143 ,, xi.—xii. [a 184]

920 ,, x. [a55] 2147 5, xii. [6 299]

O27) sn Xin [lore

Of these some like 5 and 33 and 442 and 999 and 1908, are
of the first rank; von Soden pronounces 1288 ‘“‘a very good
representative” of his H text. Yet even the best cursives, like
the uncials, may stray (see on 416). As a specimen of how one
good cursive goes, I append this note of some characteristic
readings in 424**:

1® om. av’rod after duvduews M Orig def vg
om. 7uav RAV BIDE MP

2° xwpls M Orig

3! om. Xpiordv i) FASB DE CTE. def vg sah

38 bs De 4 (Me def vg

31° rabry a: -A‘B D* M

INTRODUCTION lxix

-4! risrews
-5!2 duds (om. Twa)

8* om. TG lepewr x AB D* Je detvg
9° Kad’ iv x ANB D* f vg
9° kadapiferar (avdyKn) DF Orig
10! dvvavrac e AY DDC Pisce; D* One]
10” om. Aéyer KUpLos x* De JE defvg
10*4 deculors AH D* (Orig ??) fvg
11° om. avroo n= ARDS P defvg
12)5 airijs A P
12 am’ otpavod 8 M b
12° gelow x A CM fvg

LaTIN VERSIONS.
A. Old Latin (vt), saec. ii. (?)-iv.

Hebrews is omitted in the pseudo-Augustinian Specu/um (=m) and in
codex Boernerianus (=g), but included in—

d@ (Latin version of D)

e ( ”? ” ” E)

Fi ” ” 9» F)

r (codex Frisingensis: saec. vi., cont. 6975 78-8! 977-117)
zx*(__,, Bodleianus: ,, ix., cont. 1117)

Of these, 7 (corresponding to the text used by Augustine), with the few
quotations by Priscillian, represents the African, d (in the main)! and x? the
European, type of the Old Latin text; but / is predominantly vulgate, and
it is doubtful whether x? is really Old Latin. On the other hand, some
evidence for the Old Latin text is to be found occasionally in the following
MSS of—

B. Vulgate (vg), saec. iv.

am (Codex Amiatinus : saec. vii.—viii.)
field) (a, ee uldensisiiy iss) vile)
cav( ,, Cavensis: Ay gb) :
Zoli (Ges ee eh oletanus!s) ts.) vill) Spanish
harl( ,, Harleianus': ,, viii.)
(ss) ‘Colbertinus2 sy sxi:)

Though ¢ is an Old Latin text for the gospels, Hebrews and the rest of the
NT are vulgate ; but He 10-11 in hav/ (which elsewhere has affinities with
am and fu/a) is Old Latin, according to E. S. Buchanan (7he Zpzstles and
Apocalypse from the codex Harletanus [z= Wordsworth’s Z,), numbered Harl.
1772 in the British Museum Library, 1913). Both in arv/ and in e,
11°83 has a special capitulation ; 4a7/, which adds after ‘‘the prophets” in

1 The text of d corresponds to that of Lucifer of Cagliari (saec. iv.), who
quotes 3°-4!° and 41-18 in his treatise De nom conuenzendo cum haereticis,
xi. (CSEZ., vol. xiv.). According to Harnack (Studzen zur Vulgata des
Hebraerbriefs, 1920) it is d, not 7, which underlies the vulgate (cp. J. Belser
on ‘‘die Vulgata u. der Griech. Text im Hebriaerbrief,” in 7heolog. Quartal-
schrift, 1906, pp. 337-369).

c*

Ixx THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

1132_** Ananias azarias misahel daniel helias helisaeus”—apparently points
to 11382 having been at one time added to the original text which ran
(112-38); ‘in hac enim testimonium habuerunt seniores qui per fidem
uicerunt regna,” etc. Of these MSS, /fz/d represents an Italian text, cav and
tol a Spanish (the former with some admixture of Old Latin) ; am (whose text
is akin to fw/d) is an Italian text, written in Great Britain. At an early
date the Latin versions were glossed, however (cp. on 7} 11”).

EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

sah = Sahidic (saec. iii.-iv.): Zhe Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern
Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. I-13I.

boh = Bohairic (saec. vi.-vii.): Zhe Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern
Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-
555.

In sah IIpds ‘Efpalous comes very early in the Pauline canon, immediately
after Romans and Corinthians, even earlier than in the first (A.D. 400)
Syriac canon, whereas in boh it comes between the Pauline church letters and
the Pastorals. The latter seems to have been an early (z.e. a fourth century)
position in the Eastern or Alexandrian canon, to judge from Athanasius
(Fest. Ep. xxxix.); it reappears in the uncials x A B! W. Not long
afterwards, at the Synod of Carthage (can. 39), in A.D. 397, it is put be-
tween the Pauline and the Catholic epistles, which seems to have been the
African and even the (or, a) Roman order. This reflects at least a doubt
about its right to stand under Paul’s name, whereas the order in sah and the
primitive Syriac canon reflects a deliberate assertion of its Pauline authorship.
The Alexandrian position is intermediate.

The data of the Egyptian versions are of special interest, as several of the
uncials have Egyptian affinities or an Egyptian origin, and as IIpds “Efpatous
was early studied at Alexandria. Thus, to cite only one or two, boh is right,
as against sah, ¢.g. in the rendering of mpés in 17, in omitting dw (3°), in
rendering rogrdcews as ‘confidence ” in 3'4, in rendering év Aaveld (4*) ‘in
David,” in reading wa6ety in 9%, in rendering trécracis by ‘‘ assurance”
(so syr arm) in 11}, in taking caAovpevos by itself (118), in keeping é\c@dcOnoay
before émplo@noav (1137, though éreipdoOnoay, =were tempted, is inferior to
sah’s omission of any such term), in reading émayyeAlay (11%9, where sah
agrees with W in reading the plural), etc. On the other hand, and in a large
number of cases, sah is superior, ¢e.g. at 2'7 (‘‘a merciful and faithful high-
priest”), at 3° (omitting péxpe Tédous BeBalav), at 4? (ovyKexepacuévos), in
rendering xpat@uev (4'4) ‘let us hold on to,” in maintaining eds in 6° (for
“Lord” in boh), in omitting 70d xérov in 61, in reading lepe’s (with W) in
7%8, in reading suey in 94, in rendering the last words of 9%, in rendering
du... dvridoylavy in 128 etc. Note also that sah agrees with arm in
inserting rs before éwaryeAlas in 4}, Uorepov Aéyer in 10'* 17, and ydp in 12")
while boh agrees with arm in adding elev in 18 and alwys at 5'°, and both
agree with arm in omitting «af in 18 Both translate eicepydueda (45) asa
future, read dmorlav in 4® (with vg and arm), omit kara ri 7. M. in wer.
take d-y.ov as an adjective in 9}, read wedAdvTwv in 9", take Fs in 117 to mean
the ark, read 4 oretpa in 111), render dyxov by ‘‘ pride” in 12}, take bmouévere
as imperative in 127, and refer aviv to rérov peravolas in 12!7, Sah has

Nee ee eee ee ee eee ee ee eee eee

1 Yet in the archetype of the capitulation system in B IIpds'Efpatous must
have stood between Galatians and Ephesians, which ‘‘is the order given in
the Sahidic version of the ‘Festal letter’ of Athanasius” (Kirsopp Lake,
The Text of the NT, p. 53)-

INTRODUCTION Ixxi

some curious renderings, ¢.g. ‘‘hewed out” for évexawlcev (10%), ‘‘ the
place of the blood” for aiuaros in 124, and actually ‘‘hanging for them
another time” (dvacravpoivras éavrois, 6%) ; in general it is rather more vivid
and less literal, though boh reads ‘‘ through the sea of Shari” [? slaughter] in
11” (sah is defective here), which is singular enough. On the other hand,
sah is more idiomatic. Thus it is in sah, not in boh, that vwOpol yévnade (612)
is rendered by ‘‘ become daunted.” The differences in a passage like 12
are specially instructive. Sah takes wavnyipec with what follows, boh with
ayyé\wy (‘‘ myriads of angels keeping festival”); on the other hand, sah is
right as against boh’s reading of rvevuare (v.*3), while both render ‘‘ God the
judge of all.” In v.* both render éw7yyeArat literally by ‘‘he promised,”
but boh translates wapahauBSdvorres in v.2 as a future and xdpw as ‘‘ grace,”
whereas sah renders correctly in both cases. In ch. 13, sah seems to read
mepipéper de in v.® (‘* be not tossed about ”), inserts épyw (as against boh), and
reads juiv in v.21; in v.* it reads dvéyeode; in v.%%, while boh renders
dmrodeduuévov by ‘‘released,” sah renders ‘‘our brother Timotheos whom I
sent” (which confuses the sense of the passage altogether), and, unlike boh,
omits the final dujv. It is significant that sah ! often tallies with y as against
d, e.g. in 6'8 (lcxupdv), 77" (apxeepeis), though with d now and then against 7,
as in 116 (6€), It agrees with @ and eth in reading mvedua in 17, ws tudor in
1/2 (as well as éAléevs), and xal rv Tpd-ywy in g!®, but differs from d almost as
often, and from eth in reading ravry in 3”, in omitting xara 7. 7. M. in 7”,
etc. Unexpectedly a collation of sah and of eth yields no material for a clear
decision upon the relation of the texts they imply.

Syriac VERSIONS.

For the Old Syriac, z.e. for the Syriac text of Hebrews prior to the vulgate
revision (Peshitta) of the fifth century, we possess even less material than in
the case of the Old Latin version. Hebrews belonged to the old Syrian canon,
but the primitive text can only be recovered approximately from (i) the
Armenian version,? which rests in part upon an Old Syriac basis—‘‘ readings
of the Armenian vulgate which differ from the ordinary Greek text, especially
if they are supported by the Peshitta, may be considered with some confidence
to have been derived from the lost Old Syriac” (F. C. Burkitt, Zz. 5004) ;
from (ii) the homilies of Aphraates (saec. iv), and from (iii) the Armenian
translation of Ephraem Syrus (saec. iv.), Commentarit in Epp. Pauli nunc
primum ex armenio in latinum sermonem a.patribus Mekitharistts translati
(Venice, 1893, pp. 200-242).

Hebrews is not extant in the Philoxenian version of A.D. 508, but the
Harklean revision of that text (A.D. 616-617) is now accessible in complete
form, thanks to R. L. Bensly’s edition (7he Harklean Version of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, 1178-13, now edited for the first time with Introduction and
Notes, Cambridge, 1889). The Peshitta version is now conveniently accessible
in the British and Foreign Bible Society’s edition of Zhe New Testament in
Syriac (1920).

1Tt rarely goes its own way, but the omission of any adjective at all with
avevuatos in g'4 is most remarkable ; so is the reading of duds for nuds in 13°
(where M Orig have one of their characteristic agreements in omitting any
pronoun).
2 Mr. F. C. Conybeare kindly supplied me with a fresh collation.

xxii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

The early evidence for the use of Ilpds “‘EBpaiovs may be
chronologically tabulated as follows :

MSS. VERSIONS. WRITEkS.

100-200 Clem. Rom.
200-300 (Old Syriac)(Old Latin) | Clem. Alex. Tertullian
Origen (-248)
300-400 | pl3 pls Eusebius (-340)
Basil (-379) Lucifer (-371)
B Sahidic (?) Cyril of Jerus. (-386) Priscillian (-385)
Apollinaris (-392) Ambrose (397)
x (2) vulgate (370-383) | Chrysostom (-407) Jerome (-420)
Theodore of Mopsuestia
400-500 |W (?) | peshitta (411-435) Augustine (-430)
Cyril of Alex. (—444)
aa Armenian | Theodoret (-458)
04
500-600 | D d
i fuld Ethiopic Fulgentius
r
600-700 harklean (616-617)
700-800 am Bohairic (?)
Y 7 tol
8 fore)
re MN f Sedulius Scotus
P cav
goo-1000 e (2)
O142

x A BC HM W W (with p!8) would represent von Soden’s
H text (approximating to WH’s Neutral), his I text (correspond-
ing to WH’s Western) being represented by K L P among the
uncials. But the difference between these in the Pauline corpus
are, he admits, less than in the case of the gospels. Bousset (in
Texte und Untersuchungen, xi. 4, pp. 45 f.) has shown that x° H
(which tend to agree with Origen’s text) have affinities with
Euthalius ; they carry with them a number of cursives (including
33. 69. 88. 104. 424**. 436 and 1908), and enable us to recon-
struct the archetype of codex Pamphili, ze. the third century
recension of Origen’s text. This group would therefore stand
midway between B 8 A C and the later K L (with majority of
cursives). But no exact grouping of the MSS is feasible. The
text has suffered early corruption at several places, e.g. 29 4? 71
10% rr# 1197 128 y218 and 1371, though only the first of these
passages is of real, religious importance. But, apart from this,
the earliest MSS betray serious errors (cp. on 7! 11%), as
though the text had not been well preserved. Thus B, for all its
services (e.g. in 67), goes wrong repeatedly (e.g. 18 18 4°), as does
x* (eg. 15 om. aird, 49 69 g!7 rore, 1032 duaprias), and even
p!8 in 4° (é€Aevoovrat), 1018 (duaprias), 111 (atdoracrs), etc. The
errors of W are mainly linguistic, but it reads évOvpynoews in 4}%,
mioatews in 64 etc. A test passage like 2!4, where “blood and
flesh” naturally passed into the conventional “flesh and blood,”

INTRODUCTION Ixxii!

shows the inferior reading supported not only by K and L,
as we might expect, but by / and /o/, the peshitta and eth.
Similarly the wrong reading paprupe? in 77 brings out not only
K and L again but C D syr and a group of cursives, 256. 326.
436. 1175. 1837. 2127. In 9%8 only arm inserts wiora after
drexdexomevors, but the similar homiletic gloss of 6:4 iorews
before or after eis owrnpiay turns up in A P syr’”, and in 38. 69.
218. 256. 263. 330. 436. 440. 462. 823, 1245. 1288. 1611. 1837.
1898. 2005. Ing! the gloss xat aAnOuwe is supported also by
A P as well as by boh and one or two cursives like 104. To
take another instance, the gloss kai daxpiwy (in 10%8) has only
D* among the uncials, but it is an Old Latin reading, though +
does not support it, and it was read in the original text of the
harklean Syriac. Again, in 11!%, what B. Weiss calls the
“obvious emendation” éyeryyyoav is supported by & L p#® ©
and 1739, while in the same verse kai ws 7 (xaOws, D) carries
with its AD K LP p}, and D © omit 7) rapa 76 xetAos. When
M resumes at 1279 it is generally in the company of s A D P
(as, ¢.g., 1278: 2 25 135-930) once (1227 om. ryv) with D* arm,
once with D* (om. éfovaiav, 131°), once with K L P (xaxox. 13%)
against & A D*. Such phenomena render the problem of
ascertaining any traditional text of IIpos “E@patovs unusually
difficult. Even the data yielded by Clement of Alexandria!
and the Latin and Egyptian versions do not as yet facilitate a
genealogical grouping of the extant MSS or a working hypo-
thesis as to the authorities in which a text free from Western
readings may be preserved.

(ii.)

The eighteen homilies by Origen (7253) are lost, though
Eusebius (cp. above, pp. xviii-xix) quotes two fragments on the
style and authorship. The ’AzoAoyia ’Opvyevots of Pamphilus
(partially extant in the Latin version of Rufinus) implies that
he also wrote a commentary on the epistle, but this is lost, and
the Syriac commentary of Ephraem Syrus (373) is only extant
in the Latin version of an Armenian version (cp. above, p. lxxi).
We are fortunate, however, in possessing the first important ex-
position of IIpés ‘EGpatous, viz. the homilies of Chrysostom (7407),
extant in the form of notes, posthumously published, which the
presbyter Constantine had taken down. Chrysostom’s com-
ments are drawn upon by most of the subsequent expositors.
The foremost of these Greek exegetes is Theodore of Mopsuestia
(+428), who is the first to show any appreciation of historical

1 The original text in one place at least (cp. on 11‘) can be restored by
the help of p!® and Clement.

IXx1V THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

criticism (Zheodori Mopsuestent in NT Commentaria quae reperiri
potuerunt, collegit O. F. Fritzsche, 1847, pp. 160-172). The
exposition by his contemporary Theodoret of Cyrrhus (+458) is
based almost entirely upon Chrysostom and Theodore of
Mopsuestia (Zheod. Comm. in omnes Pauli epistolas, ed. E. B.
Pusey, 1870, ii. 132-219). Similarly, the work of Oecumenius
of Tricca in Thrace (tenth century) contains large excerpts from
previous writers, including Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia,
and Photius (cp. Migne, PG. cxviii-cxix). Theophylact, arch-
bishop of Bulgaria (end of eleventh century), also draws upon
his predecessors (cp. Migne, PG. cxxiv), like Euthymius Ziga-
benus (beginning of twelfth century), a monk near Constanti-
nople. The latter’s commentary on Hebrews is in the second
volume (pp. 341 f.) of his Commentarii (ed. N. Calogeras, Athens,
1887). In a happy hour, about the middle of the sixth century,
Cassiodorus (Migne’s PZ. xx. p. 1120) employed a scholar called
Mutianus to translate Chrysostom’s homilies into Latin. This
version started the homilies on a fresh career in the Western
church, and subsequent Latin expositions, eg. by Sedulius
Scotus, W. Strabo, Alcuin, and Thomas of Aquinum, build on
this version and on the vulgate. An excellent account of
these commentaries is now published by Riggenbach in
Zahn’s Forschungen sur Gesch. des NTlichen Kanons, vol. viii.
(1907).

Since F. Bleek’s great edition (1828-1840) there has been a
continuous stream of commentaries; special mention may be
made of those by Delitzsch (lng. tr. 1867), Linemann (1867,
1882), Moses Stuart* (1860), Alford? (1862), Reuss (1860, 1878),
Kurtz (1869), Hofmann (1873), A. B. Davidson (1882), F.
Rendall (1888), C. J. Vaughan (1890), B. Weiss (in Meyer,
1897), von Soden (1899), Westcott? (1903), Hollmann? (1907),
E. J. Goodspeed (1908), A. S. Peake (Century Bible, n.d.), M.
Dods (1910), E. C. Wickham (1910), A. Seeberg (1912),
Riggenbach (1913, 1922), Windisch (1913), and Nairne (1918). .

Other works referred to, in this edition,! are as follows :—

Bengel (Bgl.). J. A. Bengelit Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742).
1aSS)0 ae . F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen
Griechisch : vierte, villig neugearbettete Auflage,
besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also,
Brief an die Hebrier, Text mit Angabe der

Rhythmen (1903).

1 Some references, in the textual notes, are the usual abbreviations, like
Amb.=Ambrose, Ath. or Athan.=Athanasius, Cosm.=Cosmas Indico-
pleustes (ed. E. O. Winstedt, Cambridge, 1909), Cyr. =Cyril of Alexandria,
Euth, =Euthalius, Hil. =Hilary, Lucif.= Lucifer, Sedul. =Sedulius Scotus,
Thdt. =Theodoret, Theod. = Theodore of Mopsuestia, etc.

BGT: «
BM. e
Pigii
JETER

Erasmus

Expositor

GCP, .

Helbing
TMA.
Josephus
1.9.
Magn.

Michel .

Mitteis-Wilcken

Moulton
OGIS. .
OP.
Pfleiderer
Philo

Radermacher.

Rein. P.
Syll.

INTRODUCTION Ixxv

Aegyptische Urkunden (Griechisch Urkunden),
ed. Wilcken (1895).

Greek Papyri in the British Museum (1893 f.).

E. A. Abbott, Déatessarica.

The Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899-1903, ed. J. S.
Black and T. K. Cheyne).

Adnotationes (1516), Jn epist. Pauli apostoli ad
flebraeos paraphrasis (1521).

Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J.
Hastings).

The Expositor. Small superior numbers indicate
the series.

Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde,
von L. Mitteis und U. Wilcken (1912), I.
Band.

Grammatik der Septuaginta, Laut- und Wort-
lehre, von R. Helbing (1907).

Inscriptiones Graecae Insul. Maris Aegaei
(1895 f.).

Flavit Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem
Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber.

The Old Testament in Greek according to the
Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).

Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (ed.
Kern, 1900).

Recueil @ Inscriptions Grecques (ed. C. Michel,
1900).

Grundsiige u. Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde
(1912).

ile H. Moulton’s Grammar of New Testament
Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).

Dittenberger’s Ovtentis Graect Inscriptiones
Selectae (1903-1905).

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell
and A. Hunt).

Primitive Christianity, vol. iii. (1910) pp. 272-

299.
Philonis Alexandriat Opera Quae Supersunt
(recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).
Neutestamentliche Grammatik (1911), in Lietz-
mann’s Handbuch sum Neuen Testament
(vol. i.).

Papyrus Grecs et Démotigues (Paris, 1905), ed.
Th. Reinach.

Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum? (ed.W. Ditten-
berger).

Ixxvi

Tebt. P.
Thackeray
Weiss

Zahn

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Tebtunis Papyri (ed. Grenfell and Hunt),
1902.

H. St J. Thackeray, 4 Grammar of the Old
Testament in Greek (1909).

B. Weiss, “‘ Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe”
(in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3),
also Der Hebrierbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher
Beleuchtung (1910).

Westcott and Hort’s Mew Testament in Greek
(1890, 1896).

Theodor Zahn’s Zinleitung in das NT, S§ 45-47.

COMMENTARY.

ee

THE final disclosure of God’s mind and purpose has been made
in his Son, who is far superior to the angels; beware then of
taking it casually and carelessly (11—24) !

The epistle opens with a long sentence (vv.!+), the subject
being first (vv.!- 2) God, then (vv.®: #) the Son of God ; rhetorically
and logically the sentence might have ended with év (+ 76 arm)
vid, but the author proceeds to elaborate in a series of dependent
clauses the pre-eminence of the Son within the order of creation
and providence. The main thread on which these clauses about
the Son’s relation to God and the world are strung is és...
exdficev év defiG THs pweyadwovvys. It is in this (including the
purging of men from their sins by His sacrifice) that the final
disclosure of God’s mind and purpose is made; 6 eds éAdAyoev
Mui év ud... Os... éxdfioev xrX. But the cosmic signifi-
cance of the Son is first mentioned (v.?) ; he is not created but
creative, under God. Here as in 2!° the writer explicitly stresses
the vital connexion between redemption and creation ; the Son
who deals with the sins of men is the Son who is over the
universe. This is again the point in the insertion of dépwy re ra
mavta KtA. before kabapiopov auaptiav romodpevos. The object
of insisting that the Son is also the exact counterpart of God (és dv
xtA. *4), is to bring out the truth that he is not only God’s organ
in creation, but essentially divine as a Son. In short, since the
object of the divine revelation (AaAetv) is fellowship between
God and men, it must culminate in One who can deal with sin,
as no prophet or succession of prophets could do; the line of
revelation év mpopyras has its climax év vid, in a Son whose
redeeming sacrifice was the real and effective manifestation of
God’s mind for communion.

As it is necessary to break up this elaborate sentence for the
purpose of exposition, I print it not only in Greek but in the
stately Vulgate version, in order to exhibit at the very outset
the style and spirit of IIpds ‘EBpadous.

I

2 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

TloAvpep@s kal moAuTpérws madat O
Oeds Aadhoas Tols marpdow é€v Tots
mpopirats én éaxdrov Tov juepev
TovTwy éhddnoev nuiv év vig, dv 2OnKe
kAnpovouov mavrwy, dt ob Kal érrolnoe
Tovs aldvas' ds Oy adTavyacua THs OdEns
kal xapakThp THs vrocTdcews aro,
gépwy Te TA TaVTA TH phuare Tis
Ouvdpews avrod, kabapiopoyv THY auap-
Tiav Toinodpmevos exdbicev ev dekia
THs meyadwotyns év WWndols, Troco’Tw
KpelrTwy yeviuevos TOV ayyé\wy bow
Stadopwrepov map avrovs KexAnpovd-
penxev bvoua,

brea

Multifariam et multis modis olim >
Deus loquens patribus in prophetis
novissime diebus istis locutus est

nobis in filio, quem constituit
heredem universorum, per quem
fecit et saecula, qui cum _ sit

splendor gloriae et figura substantiae
elus, portans quoque omnia verbo
virtutis suae, purgationem pecca-
torum faciens, sedit ad dexteram
majestatis in excelsis, tanto melior

angelis effectus quanto differen-
tius prae illis nomen _heredit-
avit.

1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our
fathers by the prophets, * but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a
Son—a Son whom he has appointed hetr of the universe, as tt was by him
that he created the world.

Greek prefaces and introductions of a rhetorical type were
fond of opening with zoAvs in some form or other (e.g. Sirach
prol. woAA@y kat peydAwv xtA.; Dion. Halic. de oratoribus antigquis,
mToAAnv xdpw «xTX., an early instance being the third Philippic of
Demosthenes, roAAGy, & avdpes “APnvaior, Noywv yryvopevwr KTA.).
Here modupep@s kat modutpdmws is a sonorous hendiadys for
“variously,” as Chrysostom was the first to point out (ro yap
ToAvpepas Kal ToAvTpOTwSsS TovTéoT. dtaddpws). A similar turn of
expression occurs in 2? wapaBdous Kat mapaxoy. The writer does
not mean to exclude variety from the Christian revelation; he
expressly mentions how rich and manysided it was, in 24. Nor
does he suggest that the revelation éy zpodyrais was inferior
because it was piecemeal and varied. There is a slight sugges-
tion of the unity and finality of the revelation év vid, as compared
with the prolonged revelations made through the prophets, the
Son being far more than a prophet; but there is a deeper
suggestion of the unity and continuity of revelation then and
now. IloAvpepas kat roAutpdrws really ‘“‘signalises the variety
and fulness of the Old Testament word of God” (A. B. David-
son). On the other hand, Christ is God’s last word to the world ;
revelation in him is complete, final and homogeneous.

Compare the comment of Eustathius on Odyssey, 11: wohurpérws dveyrvwp-
lcOn maow ols 7Oev eis yrHouw, mndevds avayvwpicuod cuumecdvTos Erépw
avayvwpicum@ Td cbvodov' G\Aws yap TH TeXeudxw, éTépws 5 Hvpuxdela, éréows
Tots dovAas, dAdov dé Tpdrov TY Aadpry, Kal dAws dvomolws dract. Iodvpepds,
according to Hesychius (= roAvoxédws), differs from moXurpérws (diapdpus,
motktAws), and, strictly speaking, is the adverb of woA\vuwepjs=manifold (Wis
72, where Wisdom is called mvedua povoyevés, modumepés). But no such dis-
tinction is intended here.

In mdédat (as Opposed to éx’ éoydrov tay jpepdv TovTw)

Oeds AnAyjoas, Aadety, here as throughout the epistle, is prac-

es 2.) THE FATHERS AND THE PROPHETS 3

tically an equivalent for A€yew (see Anz’s Sudsidia, pp. 309-310),
with a special reference to inspired and oracular utterances of
God or of divinely gifted men. This sense is as old as
Menander (6 vots yap éotw 6 Aadynowv Geos, Kock’s Comic.
Attic. Fragm. 70). Ot marépes in contrast to jets means OT
believers in general (cp. Jn 6°® 7%), whereas the more usual
NT sense of the term is “‘the patriarchs” (cp. Dzat. 1949-1950,
2553¢), #e. Abraham, etc., though the term (3° 8°) covers the
ancients down to Samuel or later (Mt 23°°). Our fathers or
ancestors (Wis 18°) means the Hebrew worthies of the far
past to whom Christians as God’s People, whether they had been
born Jews or not (1 Co 10! of marépes jpav), look back, as the
earlier Sirach did in his ratépwv dpvos (Sir 441-50), or the pro-
phet in Zec 15 (ot marépes ipav .. . Kal of mpopfrat). For ot
marépes = our fathers, cp. Prayer of Manasseh? (6c0s ray wrarépwr)
and Wessely’s Studien zur Palaographte und Papyruskunde, i. 64,
where boys are reckoned in a list atv tots ratpaor. The inser-
tion of Aor (p!2 ggg. 1836 boh sah Clem. Alex., Chrys. Pris-
cillian) is a correct but superfluous gloss. As for év tots mpody-
tats, mpopyrat is used here in a broader sense than in 11%; it
denotes the entire succession of those who spoke for God to the
People of old, both before and after Moses (Ac 3” 7°”), who is
the supreme prophet, according to Philo (de ebrtet. 21, de decalogo
33). Joshua is a prophet (Sir 46'), so is David (Philo, de agric.
12). In Ps 105! the patriarchs, to whom revelations are made,
are both God’s zpo@jra: and xpiorot. Later on, the term was
extended, as in Lk 1378 (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, xat wavras
rovs mpodytas, cp. He 11°), and still more in Mt 5}? (ros
mpodyjtas Tos mpo tpav). ‘lhe reason why there is no contrast
between the Son and the prophets is probably because the
writer felt there was no danger of rivalry ; prophecy had ceased
by the time that the Son came; the “‘prophet” belonged to a
bygone order of things, so that there was no need to argue
against any misconception of their function in relation to that of
the Son (Bar 851° ‘“‘in former times our fathers had helpers,
righteous men and holy prophets . . . but now the righteous
have been gathered and the prophets have fallen asleep”).

As no further use is made of the contrast between Jesus and
the prophets (who are only again mentioned incidentally in 11°),
it was natural that dyyéAos should be conjectured (S. Crellius,
Initium Toannis Evangelii restitutum, p. 238, independently by
Spitta in Stud. u. Kritiken, 1913, pp. 106-109) to have been the
original reading, instead of zpo¢yras. But “the word spoken
by angels” (2) does not refer to divine communications made
to the patriarchs; nor can ot warépes be identified with the
patriarchs, as Spitta contends (cf. U. Holzmeister in Zedtschrift

4 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [E Jha 2

fiir kathol. Theologte, 1913, pp. 805-830), and, even if it could,
mpopyrats would be quite apposite (cp. Philo, de Adrah. 22).
Why the writer selects rpopyras is not clear. But dvOpwots
would have been an imperfect antithesis, since the Son was
human. Philo (de Monarch. 9: éppnvets ydp eiow ot mpodyrat
Ocod kataxpwpévov Tois exeivwy dpyavots mpos dyAwow dv av eeAHon)
views the prophets as interpreters of God in a sense that might
correspond to the strict meaning of év, and even (Quaest. in Exod.
237 rod yap A€yovtos 6 mpodyTyns ayyeAos Kupiov éotiv) applies
dyyeAos to the prophet. But év here is a synonym for &d
(Chrys. épas ore kai 76 év 1a eoriv), as in 1 S 28° (amexpiOn aitd
KUptos év Tos évurviows Kal év Tots SyAots Kal ev Tots TpoPyrais).

In Test. Dan 1! [acc. to the tenth cent. Paris MS 938]!
and in LXX of Nu 24", Jer 23° [B: écydrwv, A Q*], 25!9 (49°9)
[B: ecxatwrv, AQ], 37 (30) % [AQ: ecxdrwv, BI, 20 388 er
éoxdrov érav), Dn 1olt [écxdrw ? écxdtrwv], Hos 3° [Q], é
éoxdrou TOV TpEpav appears, instead of the more common ér
écxatwv Tov nuepov, as a rendering of the phrase DY NNN?

A similar variety of reading occurs here; Origen, eg., Shas
éoyatwv without rovtwy (on La 47°) and eee (fragm. on John
3°1), while éoyarwv is read by 044, a few minor cursives, d and
the Syriac version. ‘The same idea is expressed in 1 P 1” by
ér éaxdtov tov xpdvwv, but the rotrwy here is unique. The
messianic mission of Jesus falls at the close of ¢hese days, or, as
the writer says later (97°), éri ouvreAcia tv aidvwv. These days
correspond to the present age (6 viv aiwv); the age (or world) to
come (6 péAAwv aidv, 6°) is to dawn at the second coming of
Christ (978 1087). Meantime, the revelation of God éy vid has
been made to the Christian church as God’s People (é\aAnoev
jpiv); the secs does not mean simply the hearers of Jesus on
earth, for this would exclude the writer and his readers (2°), and
é\dAyoev Covers more than the earthly mission of Jesus. There
is no special reference in éA\aAnoev to the teaching of Jesus ;
the writer is thinking of the revelation of God’s redeeming pur-
pose in Christ as manifested (vv.**) by the (resurrection and)
intercession in heaven which completed the sacrifice on the
cross. ‘This is the final revelation, now experienced by Christians.

The saying of Jesus quoted by Epiphanius (Haer. xxiii. 5, xli. 3, Ixvi. 42),
6 AadGy ev Tols mpoPpyjrats, lod mdperut, Was an anti- ~gnostic logion based
partly on this passage and partly on Is 528 eyo elut a’ros 6 Aad@y, mdperme.
The author of Hebrews is not conscious of any polemic against the OT
revelation as inferior to and unworthy of the Christian God. He assumes
that it was the same God who spoke in both Testaments: ‘‘Sed in hac

diversitate unum tamen Deus nobis proponit: nequis putet Legem cum
Evangelio pugnare, vel alium esse huius quam illius authorem” (Calvin).

1 The Armenian reading rovrwy after jywepav, instead of avrod, is incorrect,
and may even be a reminiscence of He 1’,

pg THE SON AND THE UNIVERSE 5

In év 2@yxev KAnpovdpor mdvtwy there is a parallel, perhaps
even an allusion, to the Synoptic parable: finally he sent his son
(Mt 2127), or, as Mark (12°) and Luke (201%) explicitly declare,
his de/oved son, though our author does not work out the sombre
thought of the parable. There, the son is the heir (obrds éorw o
kAnpovopos), though not of the universe. Here, the meaning of
dv €Onxev kXypovopov wdavtwy is the same: he was “appointed”
heir, he was heir by God’s appointment. It is the fact of this
position, not the time, that the writer has in mind, and we
cannot be sure that this “appointment” corresponds to the
elevation of v.? (édé@cev). Probably, in our modern phrase, it
describes a pre-temporal act, or rather a relationship which
belongs to the eternal order. The force of the aorist €Oyxev is
best rendered by the English perfect, “has appointed”; no
definite time is necessarily intended.

‘Nam ideo ille haeres, ut nos suis opibus ditet. Quin hoc elogio nunc
eum ornat Apostolus ut sciamus nos sine ipso bonorum omnium esse inopes ”
(Calvin). The reflection of Sedulius Scotus (alii post patrem haeredes sunt,
hic autem vivente Patre haeres est) is pious but irrelevant, for kAnpovopety
in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean, like its equivalent ‘‘inherit” in
Elizabethan English, no more than “‘ possess” or ‘‘ obtain » ; a KAnpovdmos
was a ‘‘possessor,” with the double aance of certainty and anticipation.
‘* Haeres” in Latin acquired the same sense; ‘‘ pro haerede gerere est pro
domino gerere, veteres enim ‘haeredes’ pro ‘dominis’ appellabant”
(Justinian, Zzs¢zt. ii. 19. 7).

In 8v 06 (Griesbach conj. d671) Kal €moince tols aidvas the
kai especially ! suggests a correspondence between this and the
preceding statement ; what the Son was to possess was what he
had been instrumental in making. Tots ai@vas here, though
never in Paul, is equivalent (247. 1147) to ra mdyta in v.8
(implied in zavrwv above), 7.e. the universe or world (11%). The
functions assigned by Jewish speculation to media like the Logos
at creation are here claimed as the prerogative of the Son. This
passing allusion to the function of Christ in relation to the
universe probably originated, as in the case of Paul, in the re-
ligious conception of redemption. From the redeeming function
of Christ which extended to all men, it was natural to infer His
agency in relation to creation as part of his pre-existence. The
notion is that “‘the whole course of nature and grace must find
its explanation in God, not merely in an abstract divine
arbitrium, but in that which befits the divine nature” (W.
Robertson Smith), ze. the thought behind 2% is connected with
the thought behind 11°. This may be due to a theological re-
flection, but the tendency to emphasize the moral rather than
the metaphysical aspect, whicl: is noticeable in [pos “Efpadovus as

1 An emphasis blurred by the rods ai@vas éxolncev of D® K L P harkl
Chrys. Theod. (Blass, von Sod.).

6 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (I. 3, 4.

in the Fourth Gospel, and even in Paul, is consonant with Philo’s
tendency to show the function of the Logos and the other inter-
mediate powers as religious rather than cosmical (cp. Bréhier’s
Les Idées Philos. et Religteuses de Philon @ Alexandrie, pp. 65 f.,
LET) 15 2,0 \alknerstacit plus chez Philon d’un explication du
monde mais du culte divin”; 174f., “la thése de Philon, qui
explique et produit la doctrine des intermédiaires, n’est pas
limpossibilité pour Dieu de produire le monde mais l’impossibilité
pour l’ame d’atteindre Dieu directement”). Yet Philo had
repeatedly claimed for his Logos, that it was the organ of
creation e S de sacerdot. 5, oyos 8 éorw eixov Oeod, & ob
cipTas 6 KOcmos ednptovpyetro), and this is what is here, as by
Paul, claimed for Christ. Only, it is a religious, not a cosmo-
logical, instinct that prompts the thought. The early Christian,
who believed in the lordship of Christ over the world, felt, as a
modern would put it, that the end must be implicit in the be-
ginning, that the aim and principle of the world must be essent-
ally Christian. This is not elaborated in ‘‘ Hebrews” any more
than in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 13); the author elsewhere prefers
the simple monotheistic expression (2!° 118). But the idea is
consonant with his conception of the Son. “If pre-existence is
a legitimate way of expressing the absolute significance of Jesus,
then the mediation of creation through Christ is a legitimate
way of putting the conviction that in the last resort, and in spite
of appearances, the world in which we live is a Christian world,
our ally, not our adversary” (Denney in ZRE. viii. 516f.).

3 He (bs av) reflecting God's bright glory and stamped with Gods own
character, sustains the universe with his word of power; when he had
secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the

Mayzesty on high ; * and thus he ts superior to (kpelrtwv) the angels, as he has
inherited a Name superior (Siapopwrepov, 8°) to theirs.

The unique relation of Christ to God is one of the unborrowed
truths of Christianity, but it is stated here in borrowed terms.
The writer is using metaphors which had been already applied in
Alexandrian theology to Wisdom and the Logos. Thus Wisdom
is an unalloyed emanation 74s rod ravtoxpdropos ddéys, aravyacpa

. pots aidiov (Wis 77> 26), and dravyaopa in the same sense
of reflection” occurs in Philo, who describes the universe as
oloy ayiwv dravyacpa, pipnua dpxervmrov (de plant. 12), the human
spirit as TUrov Twa Kal xapaxtypa Oetas Suvdpews (quod deter. pot.
ins. sol. 83), and similarly the Logos. yapaxryp is “the exact
reproduction,” as a statue of a person (OG/S. 363 yapaxripa
poppas evs); literally, the stamp or clear-cut impression made
by a seal, the very facsimile of the original. The two terms
aravyacpa and xapaxryp are therefore intended to bring out the
same idea.

I. 3.] THE FATHER AND THE SON 7

iméortaois =the being or essence of God, which corresponds to his dd&a
(= character or nature); it is a philosophical rather than a religious term, in
this connexion, but enters the religious world in Wis 167! (4 pév yap imé-
aracls govxTA.). Its physical sense emerges in the contemporary de Mundo, 4,
Tov év dépt pavtacudtwy Ta uev éore Kar Eudacw Ta 6é Kad’ Umdoracw., The
use of it as a term for the essence or substance of a human being is not un-
common in the LXX (e.g. Ps 39° 13915) ; cp. Schlatter’s Der Glaube im NT?
(1905), pp. 615f., where the linguistic data are arranged.

xapaxtyp had already acquired a meaning corresponding to the modern
‘* character ”’ (e.g. in Menander’s proverb, avdpds xapaxrnp éx Adyou yrwplfera,
Heauton Timoroumenos,11). The idea of xapaxrnp as replica is further illus-
trated by the Bereschith rabba, 52. 3 (on Gn 217): ‘* hence we learn that he
(Isaac) was the splendour of his (father’s) face, as like as possible to him.”

An early explanation of this conception is given by Lactantius (dzuzn.
instit. iv. 29), viz. that ‘‘the Father is as it were an overflowing fountain,
the Son like a stream flowing from it ; the Father like the sun, the Son as it
were a ray extended from the sun (radius ex sole porrectus). Since he is
faithful (cp. He 3?) and dear to the most High Father, he is not separated
from him, any more than the stream is from the fountain or the ray from
the sun ; for the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the sun’s light in
the ray.” But our author is content to throw out his figurative expressions,
How the Son could express the character of God, is a problem which he does
not discuss ; it is felt by the author of the Fourth Gospel, who suggests the
moral and spiritual affinities that lie behind such a function of Jesus Christ,
by hinting that the Son on earth taught what he had heard from the Father
and lived out the life he had himself experienced and witnessed with the
unseen Father. This latter thought is present to the mind of Seneca in
Epp. 6°: 8, where he observes that ‘‘Cleanthes could never have exactly re-
produced Zeno, if he had simply listened to him ; he shared the life of Zeno,
he saw into his secret purposes” (vitae eius interfuit, secreta perspexit). The
author of Hebrews, like Paul in Col 11-1’, contents himself with asserting
the vital community of nature between the Son and God, in virtue of which
(¢@épwv Te) the Son holds his position in the universe.

In the next clause, @¢pwyv! re ta mdvTa is not used in the sense
in which Sappho (fragm. 95, rdvta pepwv) speaks of the evening
star “bringing all things home,” the sheep to their fold and
children to their mother. The phrase means ‘upholding the
universe as it moves,” bearing it and bearing it on. “Thou
bearest things on high and things below,” Cain tells God in
Bereschith rabba, 23. 2, ‘but thou dost not bear my sins.”
Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse vehit omnia” (Seneca,
Epist. 31"). The idea had been already applied by Philo to the
Logos (e.g. de migrat. Abrah. 6, 6 Xoyos . . « 6 Tav GAwv KUPEp-
viTNS TNdaAdLovxel TA TUpTavTa: de Spec. legibus, 1. 81, Novos F éoriv
eixkav Oeod, 5° ob avpras 6 Kdcpos ednpoupyetro: de plant. 8, Noyos
8 6 dtd.os Geod Tod aiwviov Td 6xvpwratov Kal BeBaroratov Eepacpa
Tov d\wv €or). So Chrysostom takes it: dépwv . . . tovréoti,
kuBepvay, Ta Oiarimtovta ouyKkpatav. It would certainly carry on
the thought of & ob . . . aidvas, however, if ¢épew here could
be taken in its regular Philonic sense of “ bring into existence”
(eg. guis rer. div. haer. 7, 6 Ta pi) OvTa hépwv Kal TA TavTA yevvGV:

1 pavepay is, like dmoXe?rat in 4°, an error of B*.

8 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 8, 4.

de mutat. nom. 44, Tavta pépwv orovdata 6 Geos); this was the
interpretation of Gregory of Nyssa (A7PG. xlvi. 265), and it would
give a better sense to ‘‘word of power” as the fiat of creative
authority. But the ordinary interpretation is not untenable.

In TO prypate THs Suvdpews avTov, the airod (airod ?) refers to the Son,
not as in the preceding clause and in 11° to God. Hence perhaps its omission
by M 424** 1739 Origen.

With xadapiopov . . . dWndots the writer at last touches what
is for him the central truth about the Son; it is not the teaching
of Jesus that interests him, but what Jesus did for sin by his
sacrifice and exaltation. From this conception the main argu-
ment of the epistle flows. Ka@apiopov tov dyapridv is a Septua-
gint expression (eg. Job 7%! zotyow . . . Kabapurpov (72y) ris
dpaptias ov), though this application of x. to sins is much more
rare than that either to persons (Lv 151%) or places (1 Ch 2376,
2 Mac105). In2 P 19 (rod xafapicpod tov TdAa adirod dmaptidv)
it is filled out with the possessive pronoun, which is supplied here
by some (e.g. 7z@v D* K L harkl sah arm Athan. Chrys., dav &°).
Grammatically it=(a) purgation of sins, as xafapi€<w may be used
of the ‘‘removal” of a disease (Mt 83-4), or=(4) our cleansing
from sins (g!4 kaOapret tHv ovveidyow juav ard vexpdv épyur).
Before xaOapiopov the words d¢ éavrot (abrov) are inserted by
D HKLM 256 d harkl sah boh eth Orig. Athan. Aug. etc.
Av éavrod=ipse, as €avrd@=sua sponte. “Exdducev ev deéud is a
reminiscence of a favourite psalm (110) of the writer, though he
avoids its éx defuav. It denotes entrance into a position of divine
authority. ‘‘Sedere ad Patris dexteram nihil aliud est quam
gubernare vice Patris” (Calvin). “Ev tWAots, a phrase used by
no other NT writer, is a reminiscence of the Greek psalter and
equivalent to év tyioros: grammatically it goes with éxddure.
(The divine attribute of peyaAwovvy is for the first time employed
as a periphrasis for the divine A/ajesty.) This enthronement
exhibits (v.4) the superiority of the Son to the angels. “Ovoya is
emphatic by its position at the close of the sentence ; it carries
the general Oriental sense of ‘“‘rank” or “dignity.” The
precise nature of this dignity is described as that of sonship (v.5),
but the conception widens in the following passage (vv.%), and
it is needless to identify ovoza outright with vids, though vids
brings out its primary meaning. In togodtw kpeitrwv yevdpevos
(going closely with éxaf.cev) tév (accidentally omitted by B and
Clem. Rom.) éyyé\wv (emphatic by position) map’ adtods Kexdy-
povépnkey dvona, the relative use of 600s in NT Greek is con-
fined to Mk 7%8, but toowovros . . . da0s is a common Philonic
expression. Kpeirrwy (for which Clement of Rome in 36? sub-
stitutes the synonymous pect{wv) is an indefinite term = “ superior.”

I. 4, 5.] TRE SON AND THE ANGELS 9

Unlike Paul, the writer here and elsewhere is fond of using apa
after a comparative.

Kpelrrwy in this sense occurs in the contemporary (?) Aristotelian treatise
de Mundo, 391a (da 7d dOéaro T&v Kperrrévwv elvat), where 7a Kpeirréva
means the nobler Universe.

The sudden transition to a comparison between the Son and
the angels implies that something is before the writer’s mind.
Were his readers, like the Colossians to whom Paul wrote, in
danger of an undue deference to angels in their religion, a
deference which threatened to impair their estimate of Christ ?
Or is he developing his argument in the light of some contem-
porary belief about angels and revelation? Probably the latter,
though this does not emerge till 22. Meanwhile, seven oe
proofs (cp. W. Robertson Smith, Zxfositor?, i. pp. 5 f.) of v.4 are
adduced ; the two in v.° specially explain the d.adopwrepov
dvopa, while the five in vv.14 describe the meaning and force of
Kpeittwv tov ayyéAwv. The first two are:

5 For to what angel did God ever say,
‘* Thou art my son,
to-day have I become thy father” ?
Or again,
““T will be a father to him,
and he shall be a son to me” ?

The first quotation is from the znd Psalm (v.”), read as a
messianic prediction—which may have been its original meaning,
and certainly was the meaning attached to it by the early Chris-
tians, if not already by some circles of Judaism :!

vids pov «i av,

eyo onpEpov yeyevvynka oe.
Did the author take oyjpepov here, as perhaps in 37%, though not
in 138, in (a2) a mystical sense, or (4) with a reference to some
special phase in the history of Christ? (qa) tallies with Philo’s
usage: onpepov 8 eotiv 6 arépatos Kai dduekityTos aiwy . . . TO
awevdes dvoua aidvos (de fuga, 11, on Dt 4*), ews THs onpepov
Hpépas, Touréotw dei’ 6 yap aiwy aras TO onpEpov TapapeTpetrat
(deg. alleg. iii. 8 on Gn 354). (4) might allude either to the bap-
tism or to the resurrection of Christ in primitive Christian usage ;
the latter would be more congenial to our author, if it were
assumed that he had any special incident in mind. But he
simply quotes the text for the purpose of bringing out the title of
Son as applied to Christ, When we ask what he meant by
o7pepov, we are asking a question which was not present to his
mind, unless, indeed, “the idea of a bright radiance streaming
forth from God’s glory” (v.*) pointed in the direction of (a), as

1See G. H. Box, Zhe Ezra-Afocalypse, pp. lvi, lvii.

10 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 5, 6.

Robertson Smith thought. But the second line of the verse is
merely quoted to fill out the first, which is the pivot of the proof :
vids pov el cv. Sons of God is not unknown as a title for angels
in the Hebrew Old Testament (see 2&2. 4691). ‘‘ Sometimes
Moses calls the angels sons of God,” Philo observes (Quaest. in
Gen. 64—as being bodiless spirits). But the LXX is careful ta
translate: “sons of Elohim” by dyyeAou Oeod (e.g. in Gn 6% 4,
Job 16 2! 387), except in Ps 29! and 89’, where sons of God are
intended by the translator to denote human beings ; and no indi-
vidual angel is ever called vids.! As the author of [pds ‘EBpadous
and his readers knew only the Greek Bible, the proof holds good.
The second quotation is from 2 S 7}4:

Ee Niet SA > ,
yo €vopat ate eis Tarépa,
> SN ” ,
Kal aUuTOS EoTaL jot eis vIOV,

a promise cited more exactly than in 2 Co 6!§ and Rev 21’, but
with equal indifference to its original setting. Paul and the
prophet John apply it to the relationship between God and
Christians ; our author prefers to treat it as messianic. Indeed
he only alludes twice, in OT quotations, to God as the Father
of Christians (see Introd. p. xxxv).

The third quotation (v.°) clinches this proof of Christ’s unique
authority and opens up the sense in which he is xpeittwv trav
ayyédov :

and further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says,
‘© Let all Goa’s angels worship him.”

In étav $€ wad eioaydyy the term wdAw,, rhetorically trans-
ferred, answers to the vod of v.5; it is not to be taken with
eicayayn = “reintroduce,” as if the first “introduction” of the
Son had been referred to in v.24, A good parallel for this usage
occurs in Philo (deg. adleg. ill. g: 6 6€ wadw arodiwWpdoKwv Gedy
TOV pev ovdevos aitiov pyolv elvat, where wddw goes with Pycir).
Eioayew might refer to birth,? as, e.g., in Epictetus (iv. 1. 104,
ovdxi exeivds oe eionyayev) and pseudo-Musonius, ep. go (Her-
cher’s Epist. Graeci, 401 f.: od réxva povov eis TO yevos aG\Aa Kat
Towdde TEeKva elonyayes), Or simply to “introduction” (cp. Mitteis-
Wilcken, i. 2. 141 (110 B.C.), eiodéw Tov éwavrod vidv eis THY GUvobor).
Linguistically either the incarnation or the second advent might
be intended; but neither the tense of eicaydyn (unless it be
taken strictly as futuristic = ubi introduxerit) nor the proximity of

1 Jt is only Theodotion who ventures in Dan 375) to retain the literal
son, since from his christological point of view it could not be misunderstood
in this connexion.

2 Cp. M. Aurelius, v. 1, tocety Gv evexev yéyova kal Gv xdpw mpojymat els
Tov Kécpov.

I. 6.] THE SON AND THE ANGELS Il

médw is decisive in favour of the latter (6tav eicayayy might,
by a well-known Greek idiom, be equivalent to “when he speaks
of introducing, or, describes the introduction of”—Valckenaer,
etc.). Ipwrdroxos is Firstborn in the sense of superior. The
suggestion of Christ being higher than angels is also present in
the context of the term as used by Paul (Col 115 1), but it is
nowhere else used absolutely in the NT, and the writer here
ignores any inference that might be drawn from it to an inferior
sonship of angels. Its equivalent (cp. the v.//. in Sir 361") zpwro-
yovos is applied by Philo to the Logos. Here it means that
Christ was Son in a pre-eminent sense; the idea of priority
passes into that of superiority. A mpwrdroxos vids had a relation-
ship of likeness and nearness to God which was unrivalled. As
the context indicates, the term brings out the pre-eminent honour
and the unique relationship to God enjoyed by the Son among
the heavenly host.

The notion of worship being due only to a senior reappears in the Vita
Adae et Evae (14), where the devil declines to worship Adam: ‘‘I have no
need to worship Adam. . . I will not worship an inferior being who is my
junior. I am his senior in the Creation ; before he was made, I was already
made; it is his duty to worship me.” In the Ascenszo Isaiae (117%) the
angels humbly worship Christ as he ascends through the heavens where they
live ; here the adoration is claimed for him as he enters 7) olxoupév7.

The line kat mpockuynocdtwcay ait mdvtes dyyehor Oeod Comes
from a LXX addition to the Hebrew text of the Song of Moses
in Dt 324%, calling upon all angels to pay homage to Yahweh.
But the LXX text?! actually reads viot Geot, not dyyeAou Geod
(into which F corrects it)! Our author probably changed it into
dyyeXou Geov, recollecting the similar phrase in Ps 97? (zpocxv-
vnoare aiTO mavTes ol a&yyeAou airov),? unless, indeed, the change
had been already made. The fact that Justin Martyr (Dia/. 130)
quotes the LXX gloss with dyyedou, is an indication that this may
have been the text current among the primitive Christians.

The last four (vv.7!4) quotations carry on the idea of the
Son’s superiority to the angels:

7 While he says of angels (3rp6s=with reference to),

‘““ Who makes his angels into winds,
his servants into flames of fire,”
8 he says of the Son,

“* God zs thy throne for ever and ever,
and thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity:

® thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness,
therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee
with the otl of rejoicing beyond thy comrades” —

10 and,

‘** Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord,

1 As the song appears in A, at the close of the psalter, the reading is
dyyero (viol, R).
* Which acquired a messianic application (see Déat. 3134).

12 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (I. 7.

and the heavens are the work of thy hands:
Ul they will perish, but thou remainest,
they will all be worn out like a garment,
2 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle, and they will be changed,
but thou art the same,
and thy years never fatl.”

In v.’ the quotation (6 mov tots dyyéAous aitod mvevpara|
kal Tovs AEetToupyovs aiTod tupds PAdya) only differs from the LXX
by the substitution of rupos pAdya! for rip pr€yov (B: zupos
pdeya A®). The singular in fAdya and perhaps the recollection
that wvedua elsewhere in NT =“ wind” only in the singular,
led to the change of zvevpara into rvedua (D 1. 326. 424**. 1912.
1245. 2005 d sah eth Orig.). The author is taking the LXX
translation or mistranslation of Ps 1044 (6 wowv «7A., a nomina-
tive without a verb, as in 1 Co 319) to mean that God can reduce
angels to the elemental forces of wind and fire, so unstable is
their nature, whereas the person and authority of the Son are
above all change and decay. The meaning might also be that
God makes angels out of wind and fire;? but this is less apt.
Our author takes the same view as the author of 4 Esdras, who
(821) writes :

‘“‘ Before whom the heavenly host stands in terror,
and at thy word change to wind and fire.”

Rabbinic traditions corroborate this interpretation ; eg. ‘“ every
day ministering angels are created from the fiery stream, and
they utter a song and perish” (Chagiga, ed. Streane, p. 76), and
the confession of the angel to Manoah in Yalkut Shimeont, ii.
11. 3: “God changes us every hour . . . sometimes he makes
us fire, at other times wind.”

The interest of rabbinic mysticism in the nature of angels is illustrated by
the second century dialogue between Hadrian, that ‘‘ curiositatum omnium
explorator,” and R. Joshua ben Chananja (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der
Tannatten*, i, 171-172). The emperor asks the rabbi what becomes of the
angels whom God creates daily to sing His praise; the rabbi answers that
they return to the stream of fire which flows eternally from the sweat shed
by the Beasts supporting the divine throne or chariot (referring to the vision
of Ezekiel and the ‘‘ fiery stream” of Dn 7?°). From this stream of fire the
angels issue, and to it they return, Aevrouvpyol’s of angels as in Ps 1037!
(Aecroupyoi avrov, movolvTes TO BéAnma avTOv).

The fifth (vv. %) quotation is from Ps 457-8—a Hebrew
epithalamium for some royal personage or national hero, which
our author characteristically regards as messianic.

1 Aquila has rip AdBpov, Symm. tuplyny pddya.

2 As in Apoc. Bar. 21° (‘‘ the holy creatures which thou didst make from
the beginning out of flame and fire”) and 48° (‘‘ Thou givest commandment
to the flames and they change into spirits’).

I. 8, 9.] THE SON AND THE ANGELS 13

c , c ‘ > ‘ bal fal 2°

6 Opovos cov 6 eds eis TOV aidva TOD aidvos,

kat! paBdos THs evOUTyTOS 7 PaBdos THs Bacirelas Gov.”
nyarnoas Suxavocvvyny Kal éuionoas avop.tav’

d:a TodTO Expiaé oe 6 Oeds, 6 Geds cov,

” > AN , ‘\ 8 ‘ /

€Aawov aya\Aacews rapa? Tovs peToXoUS Gov.

The quotation inserts 77s before edOvrnros, follows A in pre-
ferring Tov ai@va Tov aidvos (rod ai@vos om. B 33) to aidva aidvos
(B), but prefers * B’s dvouiav (cp. 2 Co 6!) to A’s déixcav, and
agrees with both in prefixing 7 to the second (D K L P Cyr. Cosm.
Dam.) instead of to the first (8 AB M, etc.) paBd0s. The psalm
is not quoted elsewhere in NT (apart from a possible remini-
scence of 45°: ® in Rev 67), and rarely cited in primitive Christian
literature, although the messianic reference reappears in Irenaeus
(iv. 34. 11, quoting v.7). ‘O Qeds (sc. éorv rather than éorw) may
be (a) nominative (subject or predicate). This interpretation
(God is thy throne,” or, ‘thy throne is God”), which was
probably responsible for the change of cov after BaovAeas into
airod (SB), has been advocated, e.g., by Grotius, Ewald
(“thy throne is divine”), WH (“founded on God, the im-
movable Rock”), and Wickham (“represents God”). Tyndale’s
rendering is, ‘‘God thy seat shall be.” Those who find this
interpretation harsh prefer to (4) take 6 @eds as a vocative, which
grammatically is possible (= 6e¢, cp. 107 and Ps 3° 138!" etc.) ;
‘Thy throne, O God (or, O divine One), is for ever and ever.”
This (so sah vg, etc.) yields an excellent sense, and may well
explain the attractiveness of the text for a writer who wished to
bring out the divine significance of Christ; 6 @eés appealed to
him like «vpte in the first line of the next quotation. The sense
would be clear if 6 eds were omitted altogether, as its Hebrew
equivalent ought to be in the original ; but the LXX text as it
stands was the text before our author, and the problem is
to decide which interpretation he followed. (4) involves the
direct application of 6 6eds to the Son, which, in a poetical quota-
tion, is not perhaps improbable (see Jn 118 2075); in v.® it may
involve the repetition of 6 Geds (om. by Irenaeus, Apost. Preaching,
47—accidentally ?) as vocative, and does involve the rendering
of 6 Oe0s gov as the God of the God already mentioned. The
point of the citation lies in its opening and closing words: (i)
the Son has a royal and lasting authority (as 6 @eds?), in contrast

1 The addition of this kal is not to mark a fresh quotation (as in v.2°), but
simply to introduce the parallel line (as in v.!° kal épya xr2.).

2 Cp. Ps 110? paBdov duvduews cov (om. &) eEamooreNe? Kiptos.

3 For mapd with accus. in this sense, cp. above, v.4, and Is 53% &riuov Kal
éx\urdv mapa Tos viols Tay avOpaTwr.

4 dvoulay, B D (A* avoulas) M P lat harkl Ath. Eus., ddiclav 8 A 33 38.
218. 226. 919 Iren. Cosm.

14 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 9-12.

to the angels, and (11) he is anointed (€ypice!=6 Xpioros) more
highly than his companions—an Oriental metaphor referring
here, as in Is 61% ete., not to coronation but to bliss. If the
writer of Hebrews has anything specially in mind, it is angels
(127%) rather than human beings (314) as péroyo of the royal
Prince, whose superior and supreme position is one of intense
joy, based on a moral activity (as in 12%, where the passive side
of the moral effort is emphasized).

The sixth (vv.!?12) quotation is from Ps 1027-28 which in A
runs thus:

Kar apxas * ov, Kripte,® THY ynv euchincas,
Kal épya TOV XELPOV gov eigtv ot obpavot’

avtolt droXotvTat, ov dé diapevets,
\ ,

kal TavTes WS tuatiov TaAawwhynoovTat,
Nie \ / e\ / > \ eS, ,

kal @oel repiBoraov éAiEers adrods Kal dAXayynoovTat’
‘ XN ¢ JIN > \ AT ie > 2 s

cot 6€ 6 adres ei, Kai TA ETN Tov OvK exAEtWoucw.

The author, for purposes of emphasis (as in 2}%), has thrown
ov to the beginning of the sentence, and in the last line he has
reverted to the more natural ov (B). In the text of the epistle
there are only two uncertain readings, for the proposed change
of dianevers into the future duapevets (vg. permanebis) does not
really affect the sense, and D*’s as for écei is a merely stylistic
alteration. In }% two small points of textual uncertainty emerge.
(a) é\téers (A B D° K L P M fu Syr arm sah boh eth Orig. Chrys.)
has been altered into @AAdges (N* D* 327. g19 vt Tert. Ath.).
The same variant occurs in LXX, where dAdAadéers is read by &
for éA/fes, which may have crept into the text from Is 344, but is
more likely to have been altered into dAAdgers in view of a\Aayy-
govrat (eAtyyoovtat, arm). (6) ds ipdtioy (8 A B D* 1739 vt arm
eth) after avrovs is omitted by D° M vg syr sah boh Chrys. Ath.
Cyril Alex. Probably the words are due to homoioteleuton. If
retained, a comma needs to be placed after them (so Zimmer.) ;
they thus go with the preceding phrase, although one early ren-
dering (D d) runs: ‘‘(and) like a garment they will be changed.”

The psalm is taken as a messianic oracle (see Bacon in Zezt-
schrift fir die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1902, 280-285), which the
Greek version implied, or at any rate suggested; it contained
welcome indications of the Son in his creative function and also
of his destined triumph. The poetical suggestion of the sky as
a mantle of the deity occurs in Philo, who writes (de fuga, 20)

1 yplw, in contrast to addelpw, is exclusively metaphorical in NT (cp. Gray
in £42. 173), although neither Latin nor English is able to preserve the
distinction.

2 A classical and Philonic equivalent for év dpx7 (LXX again in Ps 119}%),

8 This title, which attracted our author, is an addition of the LXX.

4 Including 4 yi, but with special reference to oi ovpavoi.

I. 12-14. | THE SON AND THE ANGELS 15

that the Logos évéverar as éo Ora Tov Koopov* ynv yap Kal Vdwp Kal
dépa kal Tip Kal Ta ex TOUTwWY érupricxerat. But the quotation is
meant to bring out generally (i) the superiority of the Son as
creative (so v.”) to the creation, and (ii) his permanence amid
the decay of nature ;1 the world wears out,? even the sky (127°)
is cast aside, and with it the heavenly lights, but the Son remains
(“thou art thou,” boh); nature is at his mercy, not he at
nature’s. The close connexion of angels with the forces of
nature (v.7) may have involved the thought that this transiency
affects angels as well, but our author does not suggest this.

The final biblical proof (v.!%) is taken from Ps 1ro!, a psalm
in which later on the writer is to find rich messianic suggestion.
The quotation clinches the argument for the superiority of the Son
by recalling (v.%) his unique divine commission and authority :

18 To what angel did he ever say,

“* Sit at my right hand,
till IT make your enemies a footstool for your feet” ?

14 Arve not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for
the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation?

The Greek couplet —

10 > 5 é lol

Kalov éx deiav pov,

9 a “ ‘ > , e / a a

éws Gv 86 Tors éxOpovs cov tromdd.ov Tov TodaY Go,

corresponds exactly to the LXX ; D* omits ay as in Ac 2%, The
martial metaphor is (cp. Introd. pp. xxxiii f.) one of the primitive
Christian expressions which survive in the writer’s vocabulary
(epiro'2):

The subordinate position of angels is now (v.!4) summed up;
mdvres—all without distinction—are simply Nettoupytxa mvedpata
(without any power of ruling) eis Stakoviay dmootehNopeva (com-
missioned, not acting on their own initiative). According to the
Mechilta on Ex 14}, the Israelites, when crossing the Red Sea,
were shown ‘“‘squadrons upon squadrons of ministering angels”
(naw saxo by nivoan nivoan); cp. Heb. of Sir 43%, and
Dieterich’s Mithrasliturgie, p. 6, line 14, } apx7 Tod Nevroupyodvros
dvéyov (see above, v.”). Philo speaks of ayyeAor Aetroupyot (de
virtutibus, 74), Of tovs izodiaxdvovs aitod Tay duvdpewy ayyeXous (de
templo, 1), and in de plantatione, 4: Mwojs 88 évopate etOu3o\w
Xpwpevos dyyeAous mpocayopever, mperBevopevas Kai diayyeAovous

1 A pre-Christian Upanishad (Sacred Books of East, xv. 266) cries : ‘‘ Only

when men shall roll up the sky like a hide, will there be an end of misery,
unless God has first been known.”

* radatotc#at is a common word with ludriov, and the wearing-out of
clothes is a favourite metaphor for men (Is 50°, Sir 14'7) as well as for nature
(Is 51°). ILepe8oAatov is any covering for the body ; not simply a veil (1 Ca
111°), but a generic term (cp. Ps 104° &Buccos ws iwdriov 7d repi3ddatov avrod).

3 B reads diaxovias, as in 8° yudpacs for nuépa.

16 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS |I. 14.

Td TE Tapa TOD HyELOVOS ToLs UNKOOLS ayaha Kai TO Bacirel dv ciow
ot bryKoo. xpetor. “* Angels of the (divine) ministry ” was a com-
mon rabbinic term, and the writer concludes here that the angels
serve God, not, as Philo loved to argue, in the order of nature,
but in promoting the interests of God’s people ; this is the main
object of their existence. He ignores the Jewish doctrine voiced
in Test. Levi 3°, that in (the sixth?) heaven the angels of the
Presence (oi Aecrovpyotvtes Kai e&iAacKdpevor Tpds KUpLov él macaLs
tais dyvoias Tov dixaiwy) sacrifice and intercede for the saints,
just as in 110-12! he ignores the companion doctrine that the
departed saints interceded for the living. Later Christian specu-
lation revived the Jewish doctrine of angels interceding for men
and mediating their prayers, but our author stands deliberately
apart from this. Heaven has its myriads of angels (1279), but
the entire relation of men to God depends upon Christ. Angels
are simply servants (Aevroupyot, v.7) of God’s saving purpose for
mankind ; how these “angels and ministers of grace” further it,
the writer never explains. He would not have gone as far as
Philo, at any rate (ayyeAou . . . tepai Kai Geta pices, brodidkovor
Kal Urapxot TOU mpwTov Oeod, dv dv ola mpecBevtdv doa av Oedyjoy
TO yever Npav mpocberrica diayyé\Aa, de Abrahamo, 23).

In 84 tods peAovtas KAynpovopety gwtyptav (KA. gw. Only here
in NT), it is remarkable that cwrypia is mentioned for the first
time without any adjective or explanation. Evidently it had
already acquired a specific Christian meaning for the readers as
well as for the writer; no definition was required to differentiate
the Christian significance of the term from the current usage.
As owrnpia involves the sacrificial work of Christ (who is never
called owryp), it cannot be applied to the pre-Christian period
of revelation. Indeed in our epistle cwrnpia is invariably eschato-
logical. The outlook in the messianic oracles already quoted is
one of expectation; some future deliverance at the hands of
God or his messianic representative is anticipated. MédAovras
implies a divine purpose, as in 8° 118,

The phrase about tods péANovtas KAnpovopety cwtnpiay marks a
skilful transition to the deeper theme of the next passage, viz. the
relation of the Son to this owrypia (on 21° cp. W. Robertson Smith
in Exfositor*, i. pp. 138 f.). But the transition is worked out in
a practical warning (2!) to the readers, which not only explains
the underlying interest of the preceding biblical proofs, but leads
up effectively to the next aspect of truth which he has in mind:

1 We must therefore (5:4 Toro, in view of this pre-eminent authority of
the Son) pay closer attention to what we have heard, in case we drift away.
2 For if the divine word spoken by angels held good (éyévero BéBatos, proved
valid), zf transgression and disobedience met with due (évdixov =adequate, not
arbitrary) punishment in every case, *how shall we (iets, emphatic) escape

II. 1.] ATTENDING TO CHRISTIANITY L7,

the penalty for neglecting (amedjoavtes, if we ignore: Mt 22°) @ salvation
which (fis, inasmuch as it) was orzginally proclaimed by the Lord himself (not
by mere angels) axd guaranteed to us by those who heard him, * while God
corroborated their testimony with signs and wonders and a variety of miracu-
lous oe distributing the holy Spirit as it pleased him (avrod emphatic as
in Ro 3”).

Apart from the accidental omission of v.1 by M 1739, Origen, and of Te
(M P) in v.‘, with the variant wapappuapev (B° D°) for rapapvauev,* the only
textual item ‘of any moment, and it isa minor one, is the substitution of t7é for
dia in v.* by some cursives (69. 623. 1066. 1845), due either to the following
v6, or to the dogmatic desire of emphasizing the initiative of 6 k’pios. But
did here as in 6¢ dyyéAwv, meaning ‘‘ by,” is used to preserve the idea that
in Aadeiv the subject is God (11). The order of words (v.!) det repiocorep&s
mpocéxew nuds has been spoiled in & vg (repicoorepws det) and K L P (judas
TpogeXewv).

As elsewhere in Hellenistic Greek (e.g. Jos. Apion. i. 1, érei
dé cvxvors 6pa tals tro duopeveias wro TLVwY cipypevaus TpooeXovTas
Prac pypicus Kal Tois 7epl TV "Apxatohoyiay tr enov YEyPappevors
amictowvtas KTA.; Strabo, ii. I. 7, Tots wev amuoreiv .. . exeivy be
Tpowexetv), aeeeeety (sc. tov votv) is the opposite of amoreiv:
to “attend” is to believe and act upon what is heard. This is
implied even in Ac 8° and 16! (zpocéxew rots adovpévors td
IlavAov) where it is the attention of one who hears the gospel
for the first time; here it is attention to a familiar message.
Neptccotépws is almost in its elative sense of “with extreme
care”; “all the more” would bring out its force here as in 13)9
Certainly there is no idea of demanding a closer attention to the
gospel than to the Law. ‘“Hpas=we Christians (7ptv, 11), you and
I, as in v.32. The 7a dxovoGeévta (in tots dxouaetar) is the revela-
tion of the evayyéAvov (a term never used by our author), ze.
what 6 Oeds eAaAnoey Hiv ev vid, 1', and this is further defined
(in vv.*: 4) as consisting in the initial revelation made by Jesus on
earth and the transmission of this by divinely accredited envoys
to the writer and his readers (eis ypas €BeBawn). In the Zp.
Aristeas, 127, oral teaching is preferred to reading (ro yap Kadds
Chv €v TO Ta vOopipa ovvTypetv elvar’ TovTO dé emiTeAciobar did Tis
axpodcews TOAAG paddAov 7) dia THS dvayvwicews), and the evange-
lists of v.4 include otrwes €AdAnoav ipty tov Adyov Tod Geod (13°);
but while the news was oral, there is no particular emphasis as
that here. The author simply appeals for attentive obedience,
py] Tote mapapudpev (2 aor. subj.), z.e. drift away from (literally,
“be carried past” and so lose) the owrypia which we have
heard. Iapapéw in this sense goes back to Pr 37! vié, py
mapapuns, THpyoov b€ éuav BovdAny Kai évvoray (see Clem. FPaed. 111.

2 expevtbueba,, without an object (xplua vot Geod, Ro 23) as 12%, Sir 16%,
Delhss>.

2 Arm apparently read boTEphowmer, and P. Junius needlessly conjectured
mwapacupGpev (“‘ pervert them”).

2

18 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [..2.

xi. 58, 5:0 kat ovoréAAew xpi) Tas yuvatkas KoTplws Kat TEepLodlyyew
aidot cHdpovt, pH Tapappv@or THs GAnOeias); indeed the writer
may have had the line of Proverbs in mind, as Chrys. suggested.

The verb may have lost its figurative meaning, and may have been simply
an equivalent for ‘‘going wrong,” like ‘‘labi” in Latin (cp. Cicero, De
Offictts, i. 6, ‘‘labi autem, errare . . . malumet turpe ducimus”). Anyhow
apocéxerv must not be taken in a nautical sense (=moor), in order to round
off the ‘‘ drift away” of mapapéw, a term which carries a sombre significance
here (=maparirrew, 6°); unmore mapapuOuev, TovréoTe wy amodkwueba, mh
éxtrégwyev (Chrysostom).

In wv.2! we have a characteristic (e.g. 1078-3!) argument @ minort
ad matus ; if, as we know from our bible (the bible being the Greek
OT), every infringement of the Sinaitic legislation was strictly
punished —a legislation enacted by means of angels—how much
more serious will be the consequences of disregarding such a
(great, TnAtkavty) owrypia as that originally proclaimed by the
Lord himself! The tyAcxavrn is defined as (a) “directly in-
augurated by the Kvpros himself,” and (4) transmitted to us
unimpaired by witnesses who had a rich, supernatural endow-
ment; it is as if the writer said, “‘Do not imagine that the
revelation has been weakened, or that your distance from the
life of Jesus puts you in any inferior position ; the full power of
God’s Spirit has been at work in the apostolic preaching to which
we owe our faith.”

The reference in Adyos is to the Mosaic code, not, as Schoettgen thought,
to such specific orders of angels as the admonitions to Lot and his wife.

Aédyos is used, not vouos, in keeping with the emphasis upon
the divine Aadety in the context, and, instead of vouos Macéws
(10%8), 6 dv dyyéAwy AaAnGeis Adyos is chosen for argumentative
reasons. Here as in Gal 3! and Ac 7°8 58 (éXa ere tov vopor eis
duatayas ayyé\wv) the function of angels in the revelation of the
Law at Sinai is assumed, but without any disparaging tone such
as is overheard in Paul’s reference. The writer and his readers
shared the belief, which first appeared in Hellenistic Judaism,
that God employed angels at Sinai. Josephus (Azz. xv. 136,
Hpov b¢ Ta Kadota Tov OoypdTwv Kal Ta OoLWTAaTA TOV év Tots
vopors dt ayyéAwv Tapa Tod Geod pabdvrwr)! repeats this tradition,
but it went back to the LXX which altered Dt 33? into a definite
proof of angelic co-operation (é« defvGv abrod dyyeAou per airod)
and brought this out in Ps 6818. Rabbinic tradition elaborated
the idea. The writer, however, would not have claimed, like
Philo (de vita Mosis, 2°), that the Mosaic legislation was BeBata,
dodXevta, valid and supreme as long as the world endured.

1 This is from a speech of Herod inciting the Jews to fight bravely. ‘‘ In
such a speech,” as Robertson Smith observed, ‘fone does not introduce
doubtful points of theology.” The tenet was firmly held.

oes 3.] THE COMING OF CHRISTIANITY 19

MapdéBaors kai mapaxoy form one idea (see on 1!) ; as rapaxoy
(which is not a LXX term) denotes a disregard of orders or of
appeals (cp. Clem. Hom. x. 13, ei éxl rapaxoy Adywv Kpious ywverat,
and the use of the verb in Mt 18!" éay d€ wapaxovocn aitav xrh.,
or in LXX of Is 65!2 eAdAnoe kal rapykovcare), it represents the
negative aspect, mapdBaois the positive. Mic@amo8ocia is a
sonorous synonym (rare in this sombre sense of xdéAacus) for
picGos or for the classical prrfodocia. Some of the facts which
the writer has in mind are mentioned in 3!" and 10%8, The Law
proved no dead letter in the history of God’s people; it enforced
pains and penalties for disobedience.

In v.3 dpyhv AaBodoa is a familiar Hellenistic phrase; cp. e.g.
Philo in Quaest. in Exod. 12 (drav ot tov oraptav Kaprot Tehew-
Gicw, ot tav dévdpwv yevéoews apxnv AapBdvovow), and de vita
Mosis, 14 (riv apxjv tod yeverbar AdBov év Aiyizrw). The
writer felt, as Plutarch did about Rome, 7a ‘Pwpaiwy rpaypara
ovk dv evtaifa zpovhy dvvapews, pr) Getav Twa apxnv AaBovta Kai
pydev péya pide rapadokov éxoveav. The modern mind wonders
how the writer could assume that the owrnpia, as he conceives
it, was actually preached by Jesus on earth. But he was un-
conscious of any such difference. The Christian revelation was
made through the Jesus who had lived and suffered and ascended,
and the reference is not specifically to his teaching, but to his
personality and career, in which God’s saving purpose came to
full expression. Ot dxodcavtes means those who heard Jesus
himself, the atrémra: of Lk 114 (cp. the shorter conclusion to
Mark’s gospel: pera O€ tadta Kal atros 6 “Iycots . . . éfaréc-
reirev Ov adtav 70 tepdv Kal apfaprov Kypvypa THS aiwviov owrnpias).
If the Sinaitic Law éyévero BéBatos, the Christian revelation was
also confirmed or guaranteed to us—eis qpas (1 P 175 76 pra to
edayyedicbev eis tpas: Ac 272 “Incotv.. . dvdpa dro tov Oeod
amrodcderypevov eis tas) €BeBardOy. It reached us, accurate and
trustworthy. No wonder, when we realize the channel along which
it flowed. It was authenticated by the double testimony of men?
who had actually heard Jesus, and of God who attested and
inspired them in their mission. uvemupaptupety means “assent ”
in Lp. Aristeas, 191, and “corroborate” in the de Mundo, 400a
(cuvertaptupet S& xat 6 Bios amas), as usual, but is here a
sonorous religious term for ovppaprupety (Ro 81°), “ Coniunctio
ovv . .. hunc habet sensum, nos in fide euangelii confirmari
symphonia quadam Dei et hominum” (Calvin).

1In brd trav dxovedvTwy, bré is used, as invariably throughout IIpés
‘E8patous, of persons, which is a proof of good Greek. ‘‘ There is no more
certain test of the accuracy of individual Greek writers than their use of the
passives (or equivalent forms) with i7é andagenitive. In the best writers this

genitive almost invariably denotes personal, or at least ving objects” (W. J.
Hickie, on Andocides, De Mystertts, § 14).

20 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 4.

onu., Tep., Suv. in the reverse order describe the miracles of Jesus in Ac
2%; here they denote the miracles of the primitive evangelists as in 2 Co 12!*,
Philo, speaking of the wonderful feats of Moses before the Pharaoh, declares
that signs and wonders are a plainer proof of what God commands than any
verbal injunction (dre 6% Tov Beod tpavorépats xpnoudy dmodelEeor Tals da
onuelwy kal Tepatwv Td BovAnuwa dednwxKdros, vzt. Mos. i. 16).

As “God” (cov) is the subject of the clause, atrod (for which
D actually reads 6eod) refers to him, and zvevparos dyiov is the
genitive of the object after pepiopots (cp. 64). What is dis-
tributed is the Spirit, in a variety of endowments. To take
avrov with wvevuatos and make the latter the genitive of the
subject, would tally with Paul’s description of the Spirit dcacpody
idia éxdotw Kafas Bovrerat (1 Co 1214), but would fail to explain
what was distributed and would naturally require 7r@ pepiopo.
A fair parallel lies in Gal 3° 6 éziyopyyav iptv 7d rvedpa Kat
evepyav Suvdpers ev uty, where dvvdues also means “ miraculous
powers” or ‘‘mighty deeds” (a Hellenistic sense, differing from
that of the LXX=‘“‘forces”). In kata thy attod O6édnow,
as perhaps even in 7}8 (cp. Blass, 284. 3; Abbott’s Johannine
Grammar, 2558), the possessive airés is emphatic. @éAnow is
read by 8@ R for déyow in Ps 21% (cp. Ezk 28% py GedAjoe
GeAXynow). It is not merely a vulgarism for OéAnpa. ‘‘ OAnpua
n’est pas O€Anors, volonté ; GéAnpa désigne le vouloir concentré
sur un moment, sur un acte, l’ordre, le commandment” (Psichari,
Essai sur le grec de la Septante, 1908, p. 171n.). The writer is
fond of such forms (e.g. a6érnots, abAnows, alvecis, peradeots,
mpoaxvors). Naturally the phrase has a very different meaning
from the similar remark in Lucian, who makes Hesiod (D%s-
putatio cum FHesiode, 4) apologize for certain omissions in his
poetry, by pleading that the Muses who inspired him gave their
gifts as they pleased—ai deal d& ras éavrGv dwpeds ols Te dv eOeAwor.

The vital significance of the Son as the dpynyds of this
salvation”! by means of his sufferings on earth, is now devel-
oped (vv.5-18), This unique element in the Son has been already
hinted (13), but the writer now proceeds to explain it as the core of
Christ’s pre-eminence. The argument starts from the antithesis
between the Son and angels (v.°); presently it passes beyond
this, and angels are merely mentioned casually in a parenthesis
(v.16), The writer is now coming to the heart of his theme, how
and why the Son or Lord, of whom he has been speaking,
suffered, died, and rose. Vv.5° are the prelude to vv.118, The
idea underlying the whole passage is this : Aadeto@at 814 Tod Kupiou
meant much more than AadActoPat dv’ dyyéAwr, for the Christian
revelation of owrnpia had involved a tragic and painful experi-
ence for the Son on earth as he purged sins away. His present
superiority to angels had been preceded by a period of mortal

1In A x of Is 9° the messiah is called rarip rod wédovros alavos.

II. 5-9. ] THE SON AS SUPREME 21

experience on earth éy tats #épars THS GapKos airov. But this
sojourn was only for a time; it was the vital presupposition of
his triumph; it enabled him to die a death which invested him
with supreme power on behalf of his fellow-men ; and it taught
him sympathy (cp. Zimmer, in Studien und Kritiken, 1882,
pp. 413 f., on 2'5, and in WVZtichen Studien, 1. pp. 20-129, on
20-18),

° For the world to come, of which I (jets of authorship) am speaking,
was not put under the control of angels (whatever may be the case with the
present world). © One writer, as we know, has affirmed,

“* What ts man, that thou art mindful of him?
or the son of man, that thou carest for him?
7 For a little while thou hast put him lower than the angels,
crowning him with glory and honour,
8 putting all things under his feet.”
Now by} “‘ putting all things under him’”’* the writer meant to leave nothing
out of hts control. But, as it ts, we do not yet see ‘‘2ll things controlled” by
man; ° what we do see ts Jesus “who was put lower than the angels for a
little while” to suffer death, and who has been ‘‘crowned with glory and
honour,” that by Goa’s grace he might taste death for everyone.

Od yap dyyéhows (yap, as in Greek idiom, opening a new
question; almost equivalent to ‘“‘now”: ov yaép=non certe,
Valckenaer) bwérage (¢.e. 6 Oeds, as C vg add)—the writer is
already thinking of tréragas in the quotation which he is about
to make. In the light of subsequent allusions to péAAovta ayaa
(gt 10!) and 4 méAAovea 7oAts (13!4), we see that thy otkoupevyy
Thy pédNougay means the new order of things in which the cwrnpia
of 114 23 is to be realized (see 98), and from which already
influences are pouring down into the life of Christians. The
latter allusion is the pivot of the transition. The powers and
spiritual experiences just mentioned (in v.*) imply this higher,
future order of things (cp. 6% 5 especially dvvapes te peAXovTos
aiévos), from which rays stream down into the present. How
the ministry of angels is connected .with them, we do not learn.
But the author had already urged that this service of angels was
rendered to the divine authority, and that it served to benefit
Christians (1/4). This idea starts him afresh. Who reigns in
the new order? Not angels but the Son, and the Son who has
come down for a time into human nature and suffered death.
He begins by quoting a stanza from a psalm which seems
irrelevant, because it compares men and angels. In reality this
is not what occupies his mind; otherwise he might have put his
argument differently and used, for example, the belief that
Christians would hold sway over angels in the next world

(1 Co 62 8),

1 éy rw (sc. Né-yew, as $}%).
? The omission of this a’r@ by B d e arm does not alter the sense.

22 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [as i5- 7:

Philo (de opéficio, 29, ob wap’ bcov tararov yéyovev dvOpwros, dia Thy rat
qAdTTwrat) argues that man is not inferior in position because he was created
last in order; but this refers to man in relation to other creatures, not in rela-
tion to angels, as here.

The quotation (vv.%*4) from the 8th psalm runs:

ti eat avOpwros ote pipyvynoky! airod,

} vids avOpwrov Oru émurkérty avdrov;

nrAdtrwcas aitov Bpaxd te wap’ ayyéAovs,

d0€n Kal tiny éeotepavwoas adrov.

wavTa vrerakas UroKaTW TOV TOOMV avTOD.
The LXX tr. ovnds not incorrectly by déyyéAous, since the elohim
of the original probably included angels. This was the point of
the quotation, for the author of Hebrews. The text of the
quotation offers only a couple of items. (a) ri is changed into
tis (LXX A) by C*¥ P 104. 917. 1288. 1319. 1891. 2127 vt boh,
either in conformity to the preceding 71s or owing to the feeling
that the more common zis (in questions, e.g. 127, Jn 1254) suited
the reference to Christ better (Bleek, Zimmer). (4) The quota-
tion omits kai katéotyoas abrov ert Ta épya Tov xelpav cov before
mavta: it is inserted by 8 AC D* M P syr lat boh arm eth Euth.
Theodt. Sedul. to complete the quotation. It is the one line in
the sentence on which the writer does not comment ; probably
he left it out as incompatible with 11° (€pya rv xepov cov ciow
ot ovpavoi), although he frequently quotes more of an OT passage
than is absolutely required for his particular purpose.

In S:epaptipato 8€ mod tis (v.°), even if the dé is adversative,
it need not be expressed in English idiom. d:apaprvpeto Oar in
Greek inscriptions ‘‘ means primarily to address an assembly or a
king” (Hicks, in Classical Review, 1. 45). Here, the only place
where it introduces an OT quotation, it=attest or affirm. IlIov tis
in such a formula is a literary mannerism familiar in Philo (De
Ebriet. 14: elre yap mov ts), and zov later on (4*) recurs in a
similar formula, as often in Philo. The ts implies no modifica-
tion of the Alexandrian theory of inspiration ; his words are God’s
words (v.8). The psalm intends no contrast between 4\dtrwoas
«tA. and 8689 . . . éotepdvwoasaidtév. The proof that this wonder-
ful being has been created ina position only slightly inferior to
that of the divine host lies in the fact that he is crowned king
of nature, invested with a divine authority over creation. The
psalm is a panegyric on man, like Hamlet’s (‘What a piece of
work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in
form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like
an angel!” etc.), but with a religious note of wonder and gratitude
to God. In applying the psalm, however, our writer takes Bpayv re

1 wiuvioKy means mindfulness shown in act, and émicxémry, as always in
the NT, denotes personal care.

F134, 8:] HUMILIATION AND HONOUR 23

in the sense of “temporarily” rather than “slightly,” and so has
to make the “inferiority ” and “‘ exaltation ” two successive phases,
in applying the description to the career of Jesus. He does not take
this verse as part of a messianic ode; neither here nor elsewhere
does he use the term “Son of Man.” He points out, first of
all (v.8) that, as things are (viv 8€ oUmw: ov tw=ov wws might be
read, z.e. ‘‘in no wise,” and viv taken logically instead of temporally ;
but this is less natural and pointed), the last words are still unful-
filled; oUmw Spwpev att (Ze. man) Ta “‘mdvta” (Ze. 77 olkoupevyn
9 peAXovoa) SToteraypéva. Human nature is not “crowned with
glory and honour” at present. How can it be, when the terror
of death and the devil (v.15) enslaves it? What is to be said,
then? This, that although we do not see man triumphant, there
is something that we do see: BAémopey “Ingody dealing triumph-
antly with death on man’s behalf (v.°). The ’Imcodv comes in
with emphasis, as in 3! and 12%, at the end of a preliminary
definition tév . . . AAaTTwpEVor.

It is less natural to take the messianic interpretation which
involves the reference of air@ already to him. On this view, the
writer frankly allows that the closing part of the prophecy is still
unfulfilled. ‘‘ We do not yet see ta mavra under the sway of Jesus
Christ, for the world to come lias not yet come; it has only been
inaugurated by the sacrifice of Christ (1° kafapirpov tay dpaptiav
mono dapmevos exabioer év deEia THS peyadwovvys ev bYyAois). Though
the Son is crowned (1° °) and enthroned (11% xddov éx defuv pov),
his foes are still to be subdued (éws av 64 tots éyOpovs cov tromrdd.ov
Tv 7odav cov), and we must be content to wait for our full cwrnpia
(98) at his second coming; under the ovzw épepev xrX. of experi-
ence there is a deeper experience of faith.” The writer rather
turns back in v.® to the language of v.’; this at least has been
fulfilled. _/esws has been put lower than the angels and he has been
crowned. How and why? The writer answers the second ques-
tion first. Or rather, in answering the second he suggests the
answer to the first. At this point, and not till then, the messianic
interpretation becomes quite natural and indeed inevitable. It
is the earlier introduction of it which is unlikely. The application
to the messiah of words like those quoted in v.§ is forced, and
“Hebrews” has no room for the notion of Christ as the ideal or
representative Man, as is implied in the messianic interpretation
of air® in v.8. That interpretation yields a true idea—the
thought expressed, e.g., in T. E. Brown’s poem, ‘‘Sad! Sad !”—

“One thing appears to me—
The work is not complete ;
One world I know, and see
It is not at His feet—
Not, not! Is this the sum ?”

24 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS pee 8.

No, our author hastens to add, it is not the sum; our outlook is
not one of mere pathos; we do see Jesus enthroned, with the
jull prospect of ultimate triumph. But the idea of the issues of
Christ’s triumph being still incomplete is not true here. What
is relevant, and what is alone relevant, is the decisive character of
his sacrifice. The argument of v.®-%, therefore, is that, however
inapplicable to man the rhapsody of the psalm is, at present, the
words of the psalm are true, notwithstanding. For we see the
Jesus who was “put lower than the angels for a little while” to
suffer death (81a 73 wé@npa tod Oavdtou must refer to the death of
Jesus himself,! not to the general experience of death as the
occasion for his incarnation), now “crowned with glory and
honour.” When 84 7d 7d0npa Tod Pavdrou is connected with what
follows (86 kal Tipq eotepavwpevoy), it gives the reason for the
exaltation, not the object of the incarnation (=«is ro wacyxew).
But dud . . . Qavdrov is elucidated ina moment by ozus . . . Gavarov.
V.9 answers the question why Jesus was lowered and exalted—it
was for the sake of mankind. In v.!° the writer proceeds to ex-
plain how he was “lowered ”—it was by suffering that culminated
in death. Then he recurs naturally to the “‘why.” The mixture
of quotation and comment in v.° leaves the meaning open to some
dubiety, although the drift is plain. ‘‘ But one Being referred to in
the psalm (rav . . . jAatTwpévov) we do see—it is Jesus, and Jesus
as #Aarrwpevov for the purpose of suffering death, and 86éy KOl TULA
éotepovwpévov. Why did he die? Why was he thus humiliated
and honoured? For the sake of every man; his death was wep
zavrés, part of the divine purpose of redemption.” Thus dmws. . .
Qavdrou explains and expounds the idea of 4 76 7aé6ypua (which
consists in) tod Oavarov, gathering up the full object and purpose
of the experience which has just been predicated of Jesus. This
implies a pause after éorepavwpévov, or, as Bleek suggests, the
supplying of an idea like 6 éraGev before dws xrA., if yedontat is to
be taken, as it must be, as = “he might taste.” How a orus clause
follows and elucidates Sud xr. may be seen in Lf. Arist. 106 (da
Tous év Tals dyvetais OvTas, GTws pydevos Oryydvwow).

As for v.84, Paul makes a similar comment (1 Co 15”), but excludes God
from the 7a mdvra. The curiously explicit language here is intended to
reiterate what is possibly hinted at in v.5, viz., that the next world has no
room for the angelic control which characterizes the present. (The ra mdvra
includes even angels!) This belief was familiar to readers of the Greek
bible, where Dt 328 voices a conception of guardian-angels over the non-
Jewish nations which became current in some circles of the later Judaism.
Non-Jewish Christians, like the readers of our epistle, would be likely to
appreciate the point of an argument which dealt with this. Note that
dyuréraxroy occurs in a similar antithesis in Epictetus, ii. 10. I, Tavrp 7a

1 But not, as the Greek fathers, etc., supposed, as if it was the fact of hir
death (and stay in the underworld) that lowered him (4é=on account of).

II. 9.] THE DEATH OF JESUS 25

adda vrorerayueva, althy 8 ddovNeviov Kal dvumétaxtoy. Our author’s
language reads almost like a tacit repudiation of Philo’s remark on Gn 1° in
de opificio Mundi (28), that God put man over all things with the exception
of the heavenly beings—éca yap Ovynra év Tois Tpisl ororxelos yy VddTL dépe
wrdvra wmérarrev ait@, Ta Kat’ ovpavdy wmetedduevos dre devdrepas polpas
émihaxovTa.

The closing clause of v.® (Stws xdpitt Qed Smep mavtds yevon-
rat Qavdrou), therefore, resumes and completes the idea of d.a 70
méOnua tov Oavdrov. Each follows a phrase from the psalm ;
but édzws .. . Gavarov does not follow éorepavwpévov logically.
The only possible method of thus taking dws xrA. would be
by applying S09 kai tyuH eorepavwpevoy to Christ’s life prior to
death, either (a) to his pre-incarnate existence, when “in the
counsels of heaven” he was, as it were, “crowned for death”
(so Rendall, who makes ye’oac@a Gavarov cover the ‘inward
dying ” of daily self-denial and suffering which led up to Calvary),
or (4) to his incarnate life (so, e.g, Hofmann, Milligan, Bruce), as
if his readiness to sacrifice himself already threw a halo round
him, or (c) specifically to God’s recognition and approval of him
at the baptism and transfiguration (Dods). But the use of ddga
in v.!0 tells against such theories; it is from another angle
altogether that Jesus is said in 2 P 1!" to have received ryznv Kal
8é€av from God at the transfiguration. The most natural inter-
pretation, therefore, is to regard ddéy .. . éorepavwpévoy as
almost parenthetical, rounding off the quotation from the psalm.
It is unnecessary to fall back on such suggestions as (i) to assume
a break in the text after éorehavwpévov, some words lost which led
up to drws . . . Gavdérov (Windisch), or (ii) to translate ows by
“how,” as in Lk 2429 ze. “we see how Jesus tasted death” (so
Blass, boldly reading éyevoaro), or by “‘after that” or “when”
(Moses Stuart), as in Soph. Oed. Col. 1638 (where, however, it
takes the indicative as usual), etc.

In twrép través, wavrés was at an early stage taken as neuter, practi-
cally=the universe. This was a popular idea in Egyptian Christianity.
“© You know,” says the risen Christ to his disciples, in a Bohairic narrative
of the death of Joseph (Zexts and Studies, iv. 2. 130), ‘‘that many times
now I have told you that I must needs be crucified and taste death for the
universe.” The interpretation occurs first in Origen, who (27 Joan. i. 35)
writes: ‘‘He is a ‘great highpriest’ [referring to Heb 4], having offered
himself up in sacrifice once (drag) not for human beings alone, but for the
rest of rational creatures as well (ada kal brép TS AotTav. AoyiKGv). ‘ For
without God he tasted death for everyone’ (xwpls yap @e00 brép mavrds
éyevcaro Oavdrov). In some copies of the epistle to the Hebrews this passage
runs: ‘for by the grace of God’ (xdpite yap Oe0d). Well, if ‘without God
he tasted death for everyone,’ he did not die simply for human beings,
but for the rest of rational creatures as well; and if ‘ by the grace of God he
tasted the death for everyone,’? he died for all except for God (xwpis @e00)—
for ‘ by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone.’ It would indeed be

1 Reading rod before U7ép.

26 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 9

preposterous (drozov) to say that he tasted death for human sins and not alsc
for any other being besides man who has fallen into sin—e.g. for the stars.
Even the stars are by no means pure before God, as we read in the book of
Job: ‘The stars are not pure before him,’ unless this is said hyperbolically.
For this reason he is a ‘great highpriest,’ because he restores (dmoxa@ioryot)
all things to his Father’s kingdom, ordering it so that what is lacking in any
part of creation is completed for the fulness of the Father’s glory (pds 76
xwpnoat ddfav marpixyjv).” The Greek fathers adhered steadily to this inter-
pretation of mayrés as equivalent to the entire universe, including especially
angels. But the neuter is always expressed in ‘‘ Hebrews” by the plural, with
or without the article, and, as v.!® shows, the entire interest is in human
beings.

Tevonrat after brép mavrés has also been misinterpreted. Tevew in LXX,
as a rendering of oyn, takes either genitive (1 S 144, cp. 2 Mac 6”) or ac-
cusative (1 S 14%, Job 34%), but yever@ar Oavdrov never occurs; it is the
counterpart of the rabbinic phrase AnD py», and elsewhere in the NT
(Mk 9'=Mt 16°=Lk 9”, Jn 8%) is used not of Jesus but of men. It
means to experience (=ldeitv Odvarov, 115). Here it is a bitter exper-ence,
not a rapid sip, as if Jesus simply “tasted” death (Chrysostom, Theophyl.,
Oecumenius: ob yap évéuewev TS Oavdrw adda pwdvov avrdy Tpbrov Tid
ameyevoaro) quickly, or merely sipped it like a doctor sipping a drug to en-
courage a patient. The truer comment would be: ‘‘ When I think of our
Lord as tasting death it seems to me as if He alone ever truly tasted death”
(M‘Leod Campbell, Ze Mature of the Atonement, p. 259); yevontar does
nee echo Bpaxv 71, as though all that Jesus experienced of death was slight or
short.

The hardest knot of the hard passage lies in ydpute Oeod. In
the second century two forms of the text were current, xwpic
Oeoy and xapiti Oeoy. This is plain from Origen’s comment
(see above); he himself is unwilling to rule out the latter
reading, but prefers the former, which he apparently found to be
the ordinary text. Theodoret assumed it to be original, as
Ambrose did in the West. Jerome knew both (on Gal 31%),
and the eighth century Anastasius Abbas read xwpis (“‘absque
deo: sola enim divina natura non egebat”), ze, in the sense
already suggested by Fulgentius and Vigilius, that Christ’s divine
nature did not die. On the other hand, writers like Eusebius,
Athanasius, and Chrysostom never mention any other reading
than xépire. Of all the supporters of xwpés, the most emphatic
is Theodore of Mopsuestia, who protests that it is most absurd
(yeAowdrarov) to substitute yapite Geod for xwpis Geod, arguing from
passages like 1 Co 15! and Eph 2® ® that Paul’s custom is not
to use the former phrase awAds, GAAG ravtws amd Twos axorovias
Aoyov. The reading suited the Nestorian view of the person of
Christ, and probably the fact of its popularity among the
Nestorians tended to compromise xwpis in the eyes of the later
church ; it survives only in M 424**, though there is a trace of
it (a Nestorian gloss?) in three codices of the Peshitto. But
Oecumenius and Theophylact are wrong in holding that it
originated among the Nestorians. This is dogmatic prejudice ;

II. 9.] A DOUBTFUL READING 27

xwpis was read in good manuscripts, if not in the best, by
Origen’s time, and the problem is to determine whether it or
xdpite was original. The one may be a transcriptional error for
the other. In this case, the textual canon “potior lectio
difficillima” would favour xwpis. But the canon does not apply
rigidly to every such case, and the final decision depends upon
the internal probabilities. Long associations render it difficult
for a modern to do justice to xwpis Geov. Yet xwpis is elsewhere
used by our author in a remarkable way, eg. in 978 ywpis
dpaprias 6pOyjoeta, and the question is whether ywpis Geod here
cannot be understood in an apt, although daring, sense. It
may be (i) “forsaken by God,” an allusion to the ‘ dereliction”
of Mk 15*4 (B. Weiss, Zimmer), though this would rather be put
as atep Oeov. (ii) “Apart from his divinity” (see above), ze.
when Christ died, his divine nature survived. But this would
require a term like ts Oedryntos. (iii) Taken with zavtds, “die
for everyone (everything ?) except God” (Origen’s view, adopted
recently by moderns like Ewald and Ebrard). Of these (i) and
(iii) are alone tenable. Even if (iii) be rejected, it furnishes
a clue to the problem of the origin of the reading. Thus
Bengel and others modify it by taking irép zavros=to master
everything, xwpis Geod being added to explain that “everything ”
does not include God. It is possible, of course, that in the
Latin rendering (ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem)
gratia is an original nominative, not an ablative, and repre-
sents xdapis (Christ=the Grace of God),! which came to be
altered into xwpis and xdpitt. But, if xwpis Geod is regarded as
secondary, its origin probably lies in the dogmatic scruple of
some primitive scribe who wrote the words on the margin as
a gloss upon zravtds, or even on the margin of v.§ opposite oidev
apyKev aiT@ avuToraxtov, whence it slipped lower down into the
text. Upon the whole, it seems fairest to assume that at some
very early stage there must have been a corruption of the text,
which cannot be explained upon the available data. But at
any rate xdpire fits in well with ézpere, which immediately
follows, and this is one point in its favour. It was ydpute Geod
that Jesus died for everyone, and this was consonant with God’s
character (€mperes yap aird, te. Oe). The nearest Latin
equivalent for zpérov, as Cicero (de Officiis, i. 26) said, was
‘decorum ” (dulce et decorum est pro patria mori), and in this
high sense the divine xdpis (41°), shown in the wide range and
object of the death of Jesus, comes out in the process and
method.

1It was so taken by some Latin fathers like Primasius and by later

theologians of the Western church like Thomas of Aquinum and Sedulius
Scotus, who depended on the Vulgate version.

28 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _[II. 10-18.

The writer now explains (vv.!°18) why Jesus had to suffer
and to die. Only thus could he save his brother men who lay
(whether by nature or as a punishment, we are not told) under
the tyranny of death. To die for everyone meant that Jesus had
to enter human life and identify himself with men; suffering is
the badge and lot of the race, and a Saviour must be a sufferer,
if he is to carry out God’s saving purpose. The sufferings of
Jesus were neither an arbitrary nor a degrading experience, but
natural, in view of what he was to God and men alike. For the
first time, the conception of suffering occurs, and the situation
which gave rise to the author’s handling of the subject arose out
of what he felt to be his readers’ attitude. ‘‘ We are suffering
hardships on account of our religion.” But so did Jesus, the
writer replies. ‘ Well, but was it necessary for him any more
than for us? And if so, how does that consideration help us in
our plight?” To this there is a twofold answer. (a) Suffering
made Jesus a real Saviour; it enabled him to offer his perfect
sacrifice, on which fellowship with God depends. (6) He suffered
not only for you but like you, undergoing the same temptations
to faith and loyalty as you have to meet. The threefold
inference is: (i) do not give way, but realize all you have
in his sacrifice, and what a perfect help and sympathy you
can enjoy. (ii) Remember, this is a warning as well as an
encouragement; it will be a fearful thing to disparage a
religious tie of such privilege. (iii) Also, let his example
nerve you.

0 Jn bringing many sons to glory, tt was befitting that He for whom and
by whom the universe exists, should perfect the Pioneer of their salvation by
suffering (dia ma0nudrwv, echoing dia 7d mdOnua Tov Oavdrov). 1 For
sanctifier and sanctified have all one origin (€& évos, sc. yevods: neuter as Ac
17%), That is why he (6 ayidgwv) zs not ashamed to call them brothers,
12 saying,

“*7T will proclaim thy name to my brothers,
in the midst of the church I will sing of thee” ;
18 and again,
“7 will put my trust in him” ;

and again,

‘© Here am I and the children God has given me.”

14 Since the children then (otv, resuming the thought of v.1!*) share blood
and flesh, he himself participated in their nature, so that by dying he might
crush him who wields the power of death (that ts to say, the devil), » and
release from thraldom those who lay under a life-long fear of death. 8 (For
of course it ts mot angels that ‘‘ he succours,” tt ts ‘‘the offspring of Abra-
ham”). " He had to resemble his brothers in every respect, in order to prove
a merciful and faithful high priest in things divine, to expiate the sins of the

1 aiwaros kal capkos (Eph 61%) is altered into the more conventional capxés
kal aluaros by, e.g., K L f vg syr pesh eth boh Theodoret, Aug. Jerome.

2 aitr&v, z.e. alwaros kal capkds, not maOnudérwr, which is wrongly added
by D* d syr?#! Eus. Jerome, Theodoret.

II. 10.] THE PURPOSE OF GOD 29

People. It is as he suffered by his temptations that he ts able to help the
tempted.

It is remarkable (cp. Introd. p. xvi) that the writer does not
connect the sufferings of Jesus with OT prophecy, either gener-
ally (as, e.g., Lk 247° otxi tatra edei! rabety tov Xpiotov KrX.), OF
with a specific reference to Is 53. He explains them on the
ground of moral congruity. Here they are viewed from God’s
standpoint, as in 12? from that of Jesus himself. God’s purpose
of grace made it befitting and indeed inevitable that Jesus
should suffer and die in fulfilling his function as a Saviour
(v.10); then (vv.1!£) it is shown how he made common cause
with those whom he was to rescue.

“Empetev yap «tA. (v.19), Ilpérew or mpérov, in the sense of
“seemly,” is not applied to God in the LXX, but is not un-
common in later Greek, e.g. Lucian’s Prometheus, 8 (ovre Oeots
mperov ovte aAAws BaorrrKov), and the de Mundo, 3974, 398a (6 kai
mpérov é€ott Kat Oe@ padiota apyolov—of a theory about the
universe, however). The writer was familiar with it in Philo,
who has several things to say about what it behoved God to do,?
though never this thing; Philo has the phrase, not the idea.
According to Aristotle (Vic. Ethics, iv. 2. 2, To mpérov 8H zpos
airov, kat év ® kat vepi 6), what is “befitting” relates to the
person himself, to the particular occasion, and to the object.
Here, we might say, the idea is that it would not have done for
God to save men by a method which stopped short of suffering
and actual death. ‘‘ (Quand il est question des actes de Dieu,
ce qui est convenadle est toujours mécessaire au point de vue
métaphysique ” (Reuss). In the description of God (for aété
cannot be applied to Jesus in any natural sense) 8v 6y ta mdvta
kat 8 o§ Ta mdvta, the writer differs sharply from Philo, The
Alexandrian Jew objects to Eve (Gn 4!) and Joseph (Gn 408)
using the phrase 61a tod Geod (Cherulim, 35), on the ground that
it makes God merely instrumental ; whereas, 6 @eds atrtov, ovK
dpyavov. On the contrary, we call God the creative cause
(airvov) of the universe, dpyavoy dé Adyov Geod dv ob KatecKevdc On.
He then quotes Ex 14 to prove, by the use of zapa, that
ov 813 Tod Geod GAAG Tap adtod ws aitiov TO owlecGa. But our
author has no such scruples about éia, any more than Aeschylus
had (Agamemnon, 1486, duat Atos zravactiov mavepyéeta), Like
Paul (Ro 11%) he can say 6’ ob 7a mévra of God, adding, for
the sake of paronomasia, 6 ov to cover what Paul meant by
é€ airov Kail eis aitov. Or rather, starting with 6c Ov 7a wdvra he

1 The ddecdev of v.17 is not the same as this @deu.

2 Thus: mpéret Ty Oew puTevew Kal olkodouciy év ux Tas dperds (Leg.
alleg. i. 15)-

3 When he does use 6a (de ofzficio, 24) it is 6¢ avrod uévov, of creation.

30 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 10.

prefers another d:¢ with a genitive, for the sake of assonance,
to the more usual equivalent é€ od or tf’ ot. To preserve the
assonance, Zimmer proposes to render: ‘um dessentwillen das
All, und durch dessen Willen das All.”

The ultimate origin of the phrase probably lies in the mystery-cults ;
Aristides (Els ray Zdpamrw, 51: ed. Dindorf, i. p. 87), in an invocation of
Serapis, writes to this effect, dvra yap mavtaxod dia cot Te Kal did oe huiv
ylyverar. But Greek thought in Stoicism had long ago played upon the use
of éc¢ in this connexion. Possibly dca with the accusative was the primitive
and regular expression, as Norden contends.' We call Zeus ‘‘ Zijva cat Ala”
ws dv ef Néyoumev OU bv SGuev, says the author of de AZundo (401), like the
older Stoics (see Arnim’s Stozcorum velerum Fragmenta, ii. pp. 305, 312),
and did with the accusative might have the same causal sense here,? 2Z.e.
“‘through,” in which case the two phrases 6/ Sv and 6 of would practically
be a poetical reduplication of the same idea, or at least=‘‘ by whom and
through whom.” But the dominant, though not exclusive, idea of 6: dv here
is final, ‘‘ for whom” ; the end of the universe, of all history and creation,
lies with Him by whom it came into being and exists; He who redeems is
He who has all creation at His command and under His control.

The point in adding & oy . . . ta rdvra to aird is that the
sufferings and death of Jesus are not accidental; they form part
of the eternal world-purpose of God. Philo had explained that
Moses was called up to Mount Sinai on the seventh day, because
God wished to make the choice of Israel parallel to the creation
of the world (Quaest. in Exod. 24'® BovAdmevos érdetEar Ore adros
Kal Tov KOopov eOnLovpynoe Kal TO yévos etAero. “H dé dvdxAnots
Tov mpodrrov Sevtepa yéveis ote THS Mporepas duetvwv). But our
author goes deeper; redemption, he reiterates (for this had
been hinted at in 11-4), is not outside the order of creation. The
distinction between the redeeming grace of God and the created
universe was drawn afterwards by gnosticism. There is no
conscious repudiation of such a view here, only a definite asser-
tion that behind the redeeming purpose lay the full force of God
the creator, that God’s providence included the mysterious
sufferings of Jesus His Son, and that these were in line with
His will.

In modXovds utods the wodAo/ is in antithesis to the one and
only épxnyés, as in Ro 8, Mk 14%4. For the first time the
writer calls Christians God’s sons. His confidence towards the
Father is in sharp contrast to Philo’s touch of hesitation in De
Confus. Ling. 28 (xav pydérw pévror tyxdvy Tus a€tdxpews dv vids
Geod mpocayopeverOar . .. Kat yap et prrw ixavoi Oeod aides
vopilerOau yeyovapev). *Ayaydvta is devoid of any reference to

1 Agnostos Theos, 347 f. (‘* Das ist die applikation der logisch-gramma-
tischen Theorie iiber den Kasus, der in dltester Terminologie, 7 kar’ alrlay
mraots, heisst, auf die Physik: die Welt ist das Objekt der durch die héchste
airla ausgeiibten Tatigkeit ”).

2 As in Apoc. 4!! and Efist. Artsteas, 16: 60 bv fworoobyrat Ta wdvra
cal ylverat (quoting Zjva cal Ala).

II. 10.] THE SUFFERINGS OF JESUS 31

past time. The aorist participle is used adverbially, as often, to
denote ‘“‘an action evidently in a general way coincident in time
with the action of the verb, yet not identical with it. The
choice of the aorist participle rather than the present in such
cases is due to the fact that the action is thought of, not as in
progress, but as a simple event or fact” (Burton, Moods and
Tenses, 149). It is accusative instead of dative, agreeing with
an implied airov instead of air, by a common Greek assimila-
tioni(coes. Aci rr )ir5™)220%))2577))) ) The caccusative and
infinitive construction prompted ayaydovra instead of dyayovre.
Had dyayévra been intended to qualify dpynyov, woAXovs would
have been preceded by rév. The thought is: thus do men
attain the dda which had been their destiny (v.”), but only
through a Jesus who had won it for them by suffering.

The mistaken idea that dyayévra must refer to some action previous to
reder@oat, which gave rise to the Latin rendering ‘‘ qui adduxerat” (vg) or
‘‘multis filiis adductis” (vt), is responsible for the ingenious suggestion of
Zimmer that 66a denotes an intermediate state of bliss, where the dixacoe of
the older age await the full inheritance of the messianic bliss. It is possible
(see below on 11% 12”) to reconstruct such an idea in the mind of the writer,
but not to introduce it here.

The general idea in épynydv is that of originator or personal
source; Touréort, Tov aitiov THs owrypias (Chrysostom). It is
doubtful how far the writer was determined, in choosing the
term, by its varied associations, but the context, like that of 123,
suggests that the ‘‘ pioneer” meaning was present to his mind;
Jesus was épxnysds THs gwtypias adt&y in the sense that he led the
way, broke open the road for those who followed him. This
meaning, common in the LXX, recurs in Ac 5°! (dpxyyov kat
cwrhpa), and suits dyaydvra better than the alternative sense of
the head or progenitor—as of a Greek clan or colony. In this
sense dpxnyos is applied to heroes, and is even a divine title of
Apollo as the head of the Seleucidae (OGJS. 2121%, 219°), as
well as a term for the founder (=conditor) or head of a philo-
sophical school (Athenaeus, xili. 563 E, rov dpxnyov tuav tis
codpias Zyvwva). But the other rendering is more relevant.
Compare the confession (in the Acts of Maximilianus) of the
soldier who was put to death in 295 a.D. (Ruinart, Acta Martyrum,
pp. 340f.): “huic omnes Christiani servimus, hunc sequimur
vitae principem, salutis auctorem.” ‘The sufferings of Jesus as
apxnyos gwtyplas had, of course, a specific value in the eyes of
the writer. He did not die simply in order to show mortals how
to die; he experienced death izép mavtds, and by this unique
suffering made it possible for ‘many sons” of God to enter the
bliss which he had first won for them. Hence, to “ perfect”
(reAccaoa) the dpynyds owtnpias is to make him adequate,

32 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 10, 11

completely effective. What this involved for him we are not yet
told; later on (5° 775) the writer touches the relation between
the perfect ability of Christ and his ethical development through
suffering (see below, v.1*), but meantime he uses this general
term. God had to “perfect” Jesus by means of suffering, that
he might be equal to his task as &pynyds or dpxtepeds (v.17); the
addition of airév to cwrypias implies (see 77°) that he himself
had not to be saved from sin as they had. The underlying idea
of the whole sentence is that by thus “ perfecting” Jesus through
suffering, God carries out his purpose of bringing ‘‘ many sons”
to bliss.

The verb had already acquired a tragic significance in connexion with
martyrdom ; in 4 Mac 7® (év micrh Oavarov cppayis éredelwoev) it is used of
Eleazar’s heroic death, and this reappeared in the Christian vocabulary, as,
C.8 5 in the title of the Passzo S. Perpetuae (uaptuptov Tis aylas Ileprerovas cal
Tov oly ality Tedewlévrwv év ’Adpikyj). But, although Philo had popu-
larized the idea of reXevrév=Tedeto Aa, this is not present to our writer’s
mind ; he is thinking of God’s purpose to realize a complete experience of
forgiveness and fellowship (owrnpia) through the Son, and this includes and
involves (as we shall see) a process of moral development for the Son.

The writer now (v.!4) works out the idea suggested by moAAovs
utods. Since Jesus and Christians have the same spiritual origin,
since they too in their own way are ‘‘sons” of God, he is proud
to call them brothers and to share their lot (vv."8). The
leader and his company are a unit, members of the one family of
God. It is implied, though the writer does not explain the
matter further, that Christ’s common tie with mankind goes back
to the pre-incarnate period; there was a close bond between
them, even before he was born into the world; indeed the in-
carnation was the consequence of this solidarity or vital tie (éé
évos, cp. Pindar, (Vem. vi. 1, €v avdpav, ev Gedy yévos). ‘O d&yrdLov
and ot dyva{dpevor are participles used as substantives, devoid of
reference to time. Here, as at 13!%, Jesus is assigned the divine
prerogative of dyuaeu (cp. Ezk 201% eyd xvpios 6 dyialwv aitrods,
2 Mac 1%, etc.), ze. of making God’s People His very own, by
bringing them into vital relationship with Himself. It is another
sacerdotal metaphor; the thought of 1° (xafapicpov tov dpapridv
ro.nodmevos) is touched again, but the full meaning of ayaZew is
not developed till 91*f, where we see that to be “sanctified ” is
to be brought into the presence of God through the self-sacrifice
of Christ; in other words, dysdéleoOar = rpocépxerbar or eyyilewv
7 Oe, as in Nu 16° where the dyo are those whom God
TpoonyayeTo Tpos EaUTOV.

-A\ccording to (Akiba ?) Mechilta, 714 (on Ex 20!%), God said to the angels
at Sinai, ‘‘Go down and help your brothers” (O2°7N7¥N 3D) 37); yet it
was not merely the angels, but God himself, who helped them (the proof-text
being Ca 2° !).

II. 11-13. | JESUS AND MEN 33

Av Hv aitiav—a phrase only used elsewhere in the NT by the
author of the Pastoral epistles—odx ématoyuverat tA. "Ematoyu-
veoOat implies that he was of higher rank, being somehow vids Geod
as they were not. The verb only occurs three times in LXX, twice
of human shame (Ps 1198, Is 17°), and once perhaps of God
(=) in Job 341% In Zest. Jos. 25 it is used passively (od yap
ws dvOpwros éraoxvverat 6 Geds). In the gospels, besides Mk 3344:
and Mt 25%%, there are slight traditions of the risen Jesus calling
the disciples his &edpot (Mt 281°, Jn 2017); but the writer either
did not know of them or preferred, as usual, to lead biblical
proofs. He quotes three passages (vv.!?- 15), the first from the
22nd psalm (v.78) taken as a messianic cry, the only change
made in the LXX text being the alteration of dimyjoopuar into
amayyeA (a synonym, see Ps 5518). The Son associates himself
with his adeAdo¢ in the praise of God offered by their community
(a thought which is echoed in 12% 131°),

According to Justin Martyr (Dza/. 106), Ps 22%: 3 foretells how the risen
Jesus stood év péow Tav ddeXpGyv avrov, Ty admocrédwy . . . Kal per abrdv
dudywv tuvnoe Tov Oedv, ws Kal é€v Tols drouynuovedvmacw TeV dmocTé\wy
Sndodrat yeyevnuévor, and in the Acta Joannts (11) Jesus, before going out to
Gethsemane, says, Let us sing a hymn to the Father (év pwéow 5é a’tos yevd-
evos). The couplet is quoted here for the sake of the first line; the second
fills it out. Our author only uses éx«Anota (127°) of the heavenly host, never
in its ordinary sense of the ‘‘ church.”

The second quotation (v.!%) is from Is 817 écopat memorbds
(a periphrastic future) éw aér@, but the writer prefixes éyw# to
écowa: for emphasis. The insertion of épet by the LXX at the
beginning of Is 317 helped to suggest that the words were not
spoken by the prophet himself. The fact that Jesus required to
put faith in God proves that he was a human being like ourselves
(see 127).

In Philo trustful hope towards God is the essential mark of humanity ;
e.g. guod det. pot. 38 (on Gn 4"), rob 6é kara Mwvojv avOpwrov didbeots Puyijs
émi Tov byTws bvTa Gedy éXmifovons. j

The third quotation (v.!%) is from the words which immedi-
ately follow in Is 818, where the LXX breaks the Hebrew
sentence into two, the first of which is quoted for his own
purposes by the writer. The maSia are God’s children, the
fellow viod of Christ. It is too subtle to treat, with Zimmer, the
three quotations as (a2) a resolve to proclaim God, as a man to
men; (4) a resolve to trust God amid the sufferings incurred in
his mission, and (c) an anticipation of the reward of that mission.
On the other hand, to omit the second xai waAw as a scribal
gloss (Bentley) would certainly improve the sense and avoid the
necessity of splitting up an Isaianic quotation into two, the first
of which is not strictly apposite. But «ai waAw is similarly?

1 It is a literary device of Philo in making quotations (cp. guzs rer. div. 1).

3

34 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 13, 14.

used in 10° ; it is more easy to understand why such words should
be omitted than inserted ; and the deliberate addition of éys in
the first points to an intentional use of the sentence as indirectly
a confession of fellow-feeling with men on the part of the Son.

The same words of the 22nd psalm are played upon by the Od. Sol 314:
‘and he (z.e, messiah or Truth) lifted up his voice to the most High, and
offered to Him the sons that were with him (or, in his hands).”

In v.14 xexowvavyKev (here alone in the NT) takes the classical
genitive, as in the LXX. An apt classical parallel occurs in the
military writer Polyaenus (S¢va¢eg. iii. 11. 1), where Chabrias tells
his troops to think of their foes merely as avépwros aipa xal
odpkxa éxovol, Kal THS aitns Pioews uly Kexowwvynkdow. The
following phrase mwapamAnolws (= “similarly,” ze. almost ‘equally ”
or “also,” as, ¢.g., in Maxim. Tyr. vil. 2, kal éoriv kal 6 dpywv
TrOAEWS [EpOS, Kal of dpxduevor TaparAnciws) peTécxev . . . WaKTA.
answers to the thought of #Aarrwuévov . . . dua TO rabnua KTA.
above. The verb is simply a synonym for xowwveiy; in the
papyri and the inscriptions peréyeww is rather more common, but
there is no distinction of meaning between the two.

This idea (iva x7rA.) of crushing the devil as the wielder of
death is not worked out by the writer. He alludes to it in passing
as a belief current in his circle, and it must have had some
context in his mind; but what this scheme of thought was, we
can only guess. Evidently the devil was regarded as having a
hold upon men somehow, a claim and control which meant
death for them. One clue to the meaning is to be found in the
religious ideas popularized by the Wisdom of Solomon, in which
it is pretty clear that man was regarded as originally immortal
(113 14), that death did not form part of God’s scheme at the
beginning, and that the devil was responsible for the introduction
of death into the world (2? 24); those who side with the devil
encounter death (wepalovow Se avrov of THs exeivou pepidos dyTes),
which they bring upon themselves as a result of their sins.
Robertson Smith (Zxfosttor*, iii. pp. 76 f.) suggests another ex-
planation, viz., that Jesus removes the fear of death by acting as
our Highpriest, since (cp. Nu 18°) the OT priests were respon-
sible for averting death from the people, ‘‘the fear of death’
being ‘specially connected with the approach of an impure
worshipper before God.” This certainly paves the way for v.1’,
but it does not explain the allusion to the devil, for the illustra-
tion of Zech 3° is too remote.

Corroborations of this idea are to be found in more quartersthan one. (a)
There is the rabbinic notion that the angel of death has the power of inflicting
death, according to Pes. Kahana, 32. 1894; Mechilta, 72a on Ex 20” (where
Ps 82° is applied to Israel at Sinai, since obedience to the Torah would have

exempted them from the power of the angel of death), the angel of death
being identified with the devil. (6) There is also the apocalyptic hope thar

II. 14, 15.] THE FEAR OF DEATH 35

messiah at the end would crush the power of the devil, a hope expressed
in the second-century conclusion (Freer-Codex) to Mark, where the risen
Christ declares that ‘‘ the limit (or term, 6 Spos) of years for Satan’s power has
now expired.” (c) Possibly the author assumed and expanded Paul’s view of
death as the divine punishment for sin executed by the devil, and of Christ’s
death as a satisfaction which, by semoving this curse of the law, did away
with the devil’s hold on sinful mortals. Theodoret’s explanation (D7a/. iii.) is
that the sinlessness of Christ’s human nature freed human nature from sin,
which the devil had employed to enslave men: é7e:d) yap Tiuwpla Tay apap-
THkOTwY 6 Odvaros Hv, TO 5é gTHua TO Kupiaxdy ovdk Exov auaprlas kndida 6 mapa
Tov Oetov vduov 6 Odvaros ddlkws éEnpracev, dvéornoe wey Tp&Tov Td Tapavduws
karacxedév* erecta 6é Kal Tots évdikws Kaberpypmévors UréoxeTo THY aTadhayHv.

The force of the paradox in 814 toé @avdtou (to which the
Armenian version needlessly adds avrod) is explained by
Chrysostom: 8 ob éxpatyncev 6 didBodos, dia TovTov HrTHOn. AS
the essence of owrypia is life, its negative aspect naturally
involves emancipation from death. “Eyew 1d xpadros tot Oavarou
means to wield the power of death, z.e. to have control of death.
éxev TO Kparos with the genitive in Greek denoting lordship in
a certain sphere, e.g. Eurip. Helena, 68 (tis ravd’ épupvov dwpndtwv
éxet Kpdtos;). "Amahddén goes with dovAcias (as in Joseph. Ant.
13. 13 (363), THS bd Tols €xOpois adrovs Sovdcias . . . arad-
Aarrev, etc.), which is thrown to the end of the sentence for
emphasis, after doo. . . . jaav which qualifies tovrovs. "Evoyxor
is a passive adjective, equivalent to éveyopevor, ‘bound by” (as
in Demosthenes, 1229), and goes with ¢08w @avdrov, which is
not a causal dative. “Ooo in Hellenistic Greek is no more than
the ordinary relative of Awd tavtds tod Civ, not simply in old
age, as Musonius (ed. Hense, xvii.) thinks: kal té ye dAustarov
mowvv tov Biov Tois yépovow avd éotiv, 6 Tov Oavarov pofos.
Aristeas (130, 141, 168) uses dv’ oAov Tod Cv, but dua ravrds rod
fv is an unparalleled (in NT Greek) instance of an attribute in
the same case being added to the infinitive with a preposition.
There is a classical parallel in the Platonic 6:4 ravrtds tod civas
(Parmenides, 152); but 76 nv had already come to be
equivalent to 6 Bios.

The enslaving power of fear in general is described by
Xenophon in the Cyropaedia, iil. 1. 23f.: otee ody Te padXov
KataoovAovcbat avOpwrovs tod icxvpod PoBov; . . . ovTw TavTwr
Tov dewav 6 PoBos padtota katarAyTTEL Tas Woxds. Here it is the
fear of death, or rather of what comes after death, which is
described. The Greek protest against the fear of death (cp.
Epict. iii. 36. 28), as unworthy of the wise and good, is echoed
by Philo (guod omnis probus liber, 3, éwawveirar rapa ticw 6
Tpluetpov éxeivo Toinaas' “ris ext GoddAos, Tod Gavety appovtis dv ;”
as pdda ouvidwv TO akdAovfov. “YredaBe yap, dre oidey ottw
SovAotabar répuxe Sidvorav, Ws TO el Oavdtw déos, Evexa TOD Tpds
To Cv iuepov). But the fear persisted, as we see from writers

36 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 15, 16.

like Seneca (‘‘ optanda mors est sine metu mortis mori,” Zvoades,
869) and Cicero; the latter deals with the fear of death in De
Finibus, v. 11, as an almost universal emotion (“fere sic affici-
untur omnes”). Lucretius as a rationalist had denounced it
magnificently in the De Rerum Natura, which “is from end to
end a passionate argument against the fear of death and the
superstition of which it was the basis. The fear which he
combated was not the fear of annihilation, but one with which
the writer of this Epistle could sympathize, the fear of what
might come after death; ‘aeternas quoniam poenas in morte
timendum est’ (i. 111)” (Wickham). The fear of death as death
(cp. Harnack’s History of Dogma, iil. 180) has been felt even
by strong Christians like Dr. Johnson. But our author has
more in view. Seneca’s epistles, for example, are thickly strewn
with counsels against the fear of death; he remonstrates with
Lucilius on the absurdity of it, discusses the legitimacy of
suicide, if things come to the worst, points out that children and
lunatics have no such fear (Z/. xxxvi. 12), and anticipates most
of the modern arguments against this terror. Nevertheless, he
admits that it controls human life to a remarkable extent, even
though it is the thought of death, not death itself, that we dread
(Zp. xxx. 17); he confesses that if you take anyone, young,
middle-aged, or elderly, ‘‘you will find them equally afraid of
death” (xxii. 14). And his deepest consolation is that death
cannot be a very serious evil, because it is the last evil of all
(“quod extremum est,” Z%. iv. 3). Now the author of pds
‘EBpatovs sees more beyond death than Seneca. “After death,
the judgment.” The terror which he notes in men is inspired by
the fact that death is not the final crisis (977). “ Ultra (¢.e. post
mortem) neque curae neque gaudio locum esse,” said Sallust.
It was because a primitive Christian did see something “ultra
mortem,” that he was in fear, till his hope reassured him (9”8).

It is noteworthy that here (vv.!# 15) and elsewhere our author, not un-
like the other d:da¢a0xaXos who wrote the epistle of James, ignores entirely the

idea of the devil as the source of temptation ; he does not even imply the
conception of the devil, as 1 Peter does, as the instigator of persecution.

In one of his terse parentheses the writer now (v.16) adds,
ob yap Simou dyyéwy émAapBdvetar. Arzov is the classical term
for ‘it need hardly be said” or ‘fof course,” and émiAap Paver bar
means “to succour” (Sir 41! 9 codia viots éavty aviwwoev, Kai
ériAapBaverar tov Cyrovvrwy adryv). If it meant “seize” or
“crip,” Oavaros (ze. either death, or the angel of death, cp. v.!*)
might be taken as the nominative, the verse being still a
parenthesis. This idea, favoured by some moderns, seems to
lie behind the Syriac version (cp. A. Bonus, Lxposttory Times,
XXxxlil. pp. 234-236); but émAapPdveofar here corresponds to

II. 16, 17.] THE AID OF JESUS 37

Bonbyou in v.18, and is used in the same good sense as in the
other quotation in 8% The words d@\\a onéppatos “ABpadpu
émdapBdverat may be a reminiscence of Is 41° °% where God
reassures Israel: o7éppa "ABpaap ... od avteAaBounv. The
archaic phrase was perhaps chosen, instead of a term like
dvOpH7wy,! on account of Abraham’s position as the father of the
faithful (see 118), Paul had already claimed it as a title for
all Christians, irrespective of their birth: ot« évt “Iovdatos ovde
"EAAnv . . . ef 6€ dyets Xpiorod, dpa tov “ABpaap oréppa éore
(Gal 328 29), and our author likes these archaic, biblical peri-
phrases. He repeats émiAapPaverar after “ABpadp to make a
rhetorical antistrophe (see Introd. p. lvii).

It is a warning against the habit of taking the Greek fathers as absolute
authorities for the Greek of IIpds ‘EBpatous, that they never suspected the real
sense of ériAapBdverat here. To them it meant ‘‘ appropriates” (the nature
of). When Castellio (Chatillon), the sixteenth century scholar, first pointed
out the true meaning, Beza pleasantly called his opinion a piece of cursed
impudence (‘‘execranda Castellionis audacia qui émiAauBdverar convertit
‘opitulatur,’ non modo falsa sed etiam inepta interpretatione”). The mere
fact that the Greek fathers and the versions missed the point of the word is
a consideration which bears, ¢e.g., upon the interpretation of a word like
Uméoracts in 34 and 11},

The thought of vwv.!+ 1) is now resumed in v.!"; dev (a
particle never used by Paul) ddedev (answering to ézpezer)
Kata mdévta (emphatic by position) tots addeAdots sporwOAvar—
resembling them in reality, as one brother resembles another
(so Zest. Maphtali 18 opows pov jv Kata wavta “Iwond). In
what follows, é\ejpwv? is put first for emphasis (as the writer is
about to speak of this first), and goes like muotés with dpxtepeds.
“Quae verba sic interpretor: ut misericors esset, 1deoque
fidelis,” Calvin argues. But this sequence of thought is not
natural; loyalty to God’s purpose no doubt involved compassion
for men, but Christ was aioros as he endured stedfastly the
temptations incurred in his reAeiwous as dpxyyos. He suffered,
but he never swerved in his vocation. Nor can mords here
mean ‘‘reliable” (Seeberg, Der Zod Christi, 17), t.e. reliable be-
cause merciful; the idea of his sympathy as an encouragement
to faith is otherwise put (cp. 414% 1214). The idea of teNer@oar
in v.10 is being explicitly stated ; the sufferings of Christ on earth
had a reflex influence upon himself as Saviour, fitting him for
the proper discharge of his vocation. But the vecation is
described from a new angle of vision; instead of épxyyos or
6 dyvalwv, Jesus is suddenly (see Introd. p. xxv) called dpyiepeds,

1Cosmas Indicopleustes correctly interpreted the phrase: tovréors
owpatos kal Yux7s AoyeK7s (372 B).

2 The seer in Enoch 40!" has a vision of the four angels who intercede
for Israel before God ; the first is ‘‘ Michael, the merciful and longsuffering.”

38 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (II. 17.

evidently a term familiar to the readers (dpxiepéa tis dpoAoyias
npav, 32). The prestige of the highpriest in the later Judaism
is plain in rabbinic (e.g. Berachoth, Joma) tradition and also in
apocalyptic. The Maccabean highpriests assumed the title of
iepeds TOU Geov Tod bWicrov (Ass. Mosis, 61; Jubilees, 32), and the
ritual of the day of atonement, when he officiated on behalf of
the people, was invested with a special halo. This is the point
of the allusion here, to the dpyxvepevs expiating the sins of the
people. Philo had already used the metaphor to exalt the
functions of his Logos as a mediator: 6 8 airés txérys pév éore
tov Ovntod Kypaivovtos det mpos TO adOaprov, mperPevTHs S€ Tod
HyEHOvos mpos TO irHKoov (guis rerum div. heres, 42). But, while
the term ixérys does imply some idea of intercession, this is
not prominent in Philo’s cosmological and metaphysical scheme,
as it is in our epistle, which carefully avoids the Philonic
idea that men can propitiate God (BovXerat yap avTov 6 v6jL0s
peilovos pewoipac Gat puoews 9 Kat avOpwrov, eyyrTepw Tpoovovra
THs Ocias, peOoprov, ei Set tadrnBes Eye, audorv, iva dua pécou
Twos avOpwrot pev tAackavtat Gedy, Geos d€ Tas yapuTas avOpwrras
trodiakdvw Twi xpwdpevos dpeyy Kat xopnyy, De Spec. Leg. 1. 12).
Again, Philo explains (de sacerdot. 12) that the highpriest was
forbidden to mourn, when a relative died, va... Kkpettrwy
oixtov yevopevos, GAvros eis det duateAy. This freedom from the
ordinary affections of humanity was part of his nearer approxi-
mation to the life of God (éyyutépw mpocidvta ths Oetas
[@vcews]). But our author looks at the function of Christ as
apxepevs differently ; the first word to be used about him in this
connexion is éAejuwr, and, before passing on to develop the idea
of muaros, the writer adds (v.18) another word upon the practical
sympathy of Christ. In resembling his ddeAgot xara mavrd
Christ wérovOev retpaobeis. His death had achieved for them
an emancipation from the dread of death (v.!*); by entering
into glory he had expiated the sins of God’s People, thereby
securing for them a free and intimate access to God. But the
process by means of which he had thus triumphed was also of
value to men; it gave him the experience which enabled him by
sympathy to enter into the position of those who are tempted
as he was, and to furnish them with effective help. The con-
nexion between v.!§ (with its yap) and v.!7 does not rest upon
the idea of Christ as éAenpwv kal motos apxvepev’s, as though the
effective help received from Christ were a constant proof that he
expiates sins, 7.e¢. maintains us in the favour and fellowship of
God (Seeberg). It rests on the special idea suggested by
lige “His compassion is not mere pity for men racked

. by pain in itself, however arising; it is compassion for
men tempted by sufferings towards sin or unbelief” (A. B.

II. I7,18.] | THE TEMPTATIONS OF JESUS 39

Davidson). What the writer has specially in mind is the agony
in Gethsemane (cp. 57%) as the culminating experience of sorrow
caused by the temptation to avoid the fear of death or the cross.

The adverbial accusative 1a mpds tov Oedv here, as in 5}, is a
fairly common LXX phrase (e.g. Ex 416 (of Moses), od d€ aird
€on Ta pos Tov Gedy). ‘“IMdoxeoOat tas dpaptias is also a LXX
phrase, an expression for pardon or expiation, as in Ps 654 (ras
aoeBeias Nua@v ov iAdon), which never occurs again in the NT.
When the verb (middle voice) is used of God’s dealings with
men, it generally takes the person of the sinner as its object
in the dative (as Lk 181%, the only other NT instance of
iAdoxeoOar) or else sins in the dative (rats dwaprias is actually
read here by A 5. 33. 623. 913, Athan. Chrys. Bentley, etc.).
This removal of sins as an obstacle to fellowship with God
comes under the function of 6 dydfov. The thought reappears
in 72 and in 1 Jn 22 (kal adros iAacpods éotvy).

6 Nads (To Geo) is the writer’s favourite biblical expression for the church,
from the beginning to the end ; he never distinguishes Jews and Gentiles.

The introduction of the zepacpot of Jesus (v.18) is as
abrupt as the introduction of the dpxvepers idea, but is thrown
out by way of anticipation. *Ev @ ydp = év tovTw év @ (causal) or
OTL, explaining not the sphere, but the reason of his “ help,”
métrovOey adtds tetpac0eis—the participle defining the rdcyew (a
term never applied to Jesus by Paul): he suffered by his tempta-
tions, the temptations specially in view being temptations to
avoid the suffering that led to the cross. This is the situation
of the readers. They are in danger of slipping into apostasy, of
giving up their faith on account of the hardships which it in-
volved. Ot zetpafopnevor are people tempted to flinch and falter
under the pressure of suffering. Life is hard for them, and faith
as hard if not harder. Courage, the writer cries, Jesus under-
stands; he has been through it all, he knows how hard it is to
bear suffering without being deflected from the will of God.
Grammatically, the words might also read: “For he himself,
having been tempted by what he suffered, is able to help those
who are tempted.” The sense is really not very different, for
the particular temptations in view are those which arise out
of the painful experience of having God’s will cross the natural
inclination to avoid pain. But the zepacpol of Jesus were
not simply due to what he suffered. He was strongly tempted
by experiences which were not painful at all—e.g. by the re-
monstrance of Simon Peter at Caesarea Philippi. As Ritschl
puts it, “Christ was exposed to temptation simply because a
temptation is always bound up with an inclination which is at
the outset morally legitimate or permissible. It was the impulse,

40 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [xt. 18—ITI. 1.

in itself lawful, of self-preservation which led to Christ’s desire to
be spared the suffering of death. And this gave rise to a tempta-
tion to sin, because the wish collided with his duty in his
vocation. Christ, however, did not consent to this temptation.
He renounced his self-preservation, because he assented to the
Divine disposal of the end of his life as a consequence of his
vocation ” (Rechtfertigung u. Versdhnung, iil. 507; Eng. tr. p. 573)-
On the suffering that such temptation involved, see below on 58.
Bonbetv and iddoxeoOat tais d&paptiats occur side by side in
the prayer of Ps 799 (LXX). Are they synonymous here? Is
the meaning of 76 tAdoxeoOar Tas Guaptias tov Aaod that Christ
constantly enables us to overcome the temptations that would
keep us at a distance from God or hinder us from being at peace
with God? (so, ¢.g., Kurtz and M‘Leod Campbell, Ze Mature of
the Atonement, pp. 172-174). The meaning is deeper. The
help conveyed by the sympathy of Jesus reaches back to a
sacrificial relationship, upon which everything turns. Hence the
ideas of é\ejpwv and mortds are now developed, the latter in 3),
the former in 4!4f, 35413 being a practical application of what
is urged in 31. But the writer does not work out the thought
of Christ as mucrds in connexion with his function as dpytepevs,
even though he mentions the latter term at the outset of his
appeal, in which the stress falls on the expiatory work of Christ.
1 Holy brothers (dytor = ol ayiagduevor, 211), you who participate in a
heavenly calling, look at Jesus then (80ev in the light of what has just been
said), at the apostle and highpriest of our confession ; * he ts *‘ farthful”? to
Him who appointed him. For while ‘* Moses” also was “‘ faithful in every
department of God's house,” * Jesus (obros, as in 10'*) has been adjudged greater
glory (56&ns) than (mapa, as 14) Moses, tnasmuch as the founder of a house
enjoys greater honour (rywjv, a literary synonym for dd&nv) than the house
itself. 4(Every house zs founded by some one, but God is the founder of all.)
5 Besides, while ‘* Moses” was ‘‘ faithful in every department of God’s house”

as an attendant—by way of witness to the coming revelation—® Christ is
faithful as a son over God’s house.

In v.? 6A (om. p'® B sah boh Cyr. Amb.) may be a gloss from v.°, In
v.° the emphasis on m)elovos is better maintained by obros ddfns (8 ABCD P
vt Chrys.) than by 6d&ys otros (p'3 K LM 6. 33. 104. 326. 1175. 1288 vg) or
by the omission of odvos altogether (467 arm Basil). In v.* ravra has been
harmonized artificially with 1° 2! by the addition of rad (C° L P © 104. 326.
1175. 1128 Athan.).

For the first time the writer addresses his readers, and as
&8edpol Gyo. (only here in NT, for aydous in 1 Th 577 is a later
insertion), kAjjoews emroupaviou péToxot (64 etc., cp. Ps 119% pweéroxos
eyo elu mavtwv tov poBovpévwv oe, Ep. Arist. 207; de Mundo,
4010). In Ph 3!4 the avw «Anjou is the prize conferred at the
end upon Christian faith and faithfulness. Here there may be a
side allusion to 21! (adeAdovs aitots xadev). In Katavonoate (a
verb used in this general sense by £f. Aristeas, 3, mpos 16

£11¢ 2] JESUS THE APOSTLE 41

mepépyws Ta Oela Karavoeiy) xTX., the writer summons his readers
to consider Jesus as muords; but, instead of explaining why or
how Jesus was loyal to God, he uses this quality to bring out
two respects (the first in vv.2*4, the second in vv.>) in which
Jesus outshone Moses, the divinely-commissioned leader and
lawgiver of the People in far-off days, although there is no tone
of disparagement in the comparison with Moses, as in the com-
parison with the angels.

In the description of Jesus as tév &mdéotoov kai dpxrepéa Tis
dpodoylas par, duoAoyéa is almost an equivalent for “our re-
ligion,” as in 4!4 (cp. 108).!. Through the sense of a vow (LXX)
or of a legal agreement (papyri and inscriptions), it had naturally
passed into the Christian vocabulary as a term for the common
and solemn confession or creed of faith. “Hyv is emphatic.
In “our religion” it is Jesus who is azdoToXos kai apxiepevs, not
Moses. This suits the context better than to make the antithesis
one between the law and the gospel (Theophyl. od yap tis xara
vopov Natpetas Gpyxrepers eotiv, GAAG THs TweTEpas TloTEWs). Possibly
the writer had in mind the Jewish veneration for Moses which
found expression during the second century in a remark of rabbi
Jose ben Chalafta upon this very phrase from Numbers (Sifre,
§ 110): “God calls Moses ‘faithful in all His house,’ and thereby
he ranked higher than the ministering angels themselves.” The
use of dméotodos as an epithet for Jesus shows “the fresh cre-
ative genius of the writer and the unconventional nature of his
style” (Bruce). Over half a century later, Justin (in Afol. 11°)
called Jesus Christ tod ratpos rdvtwv Kat dearotov Geod vids Kai
droarodos av, and in Afol. 1° described him as dyyeXos kat
drdctoAos’ aitos yap amayyéAXa ooa det yrwoOqva, Kal dzroc-
téAXNcral, pnviowv ooa ayyéAXerat (the connexion of thought here
possibly explains the alteration of diynyijoouae into dérayyeA@ in
He 2!2). Naturally Jesus was rarely called dyyeAos; but it was
all the easier for our author to call Jesus déaroXos, as he avoids
the term in its ecclesiastical sense (cp. 2%). For him it carries
the usual associations of authority ; drooroXos is Ionic for zpec-
Bevryns, not a mere envoy, but an ambassador or representative
sent with powers, authorized to speak in the name of the person
who has dispatched him. Here the allusion is to 2°, where the
parallel is with the Sinaitic legislation, just as the allusion to
Jesus as dpxtepeds recalls the 6 dyvafwv of 21-17, On the other
hand, it is not so clear that any explicit antithesis to Moses is
implied in dpxepéa, for, although Philo had invested Moses with

1 Had it not been for these other references it might have been possible to
take 7. 6. 7. here as=‘‘ whom we confess.” The contents of the duodoyla
are suggested in the beliefs of 6', which form the fixed principles and stand.

ards of the community, the Truth (106) to which assent was given at baptisra,

42 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [III. 2-4.

highpriestly honour (praem. et poen. 9, tvyxaver . . . dpyrepwovvys,
de vita Mosts, ii. 1, éyévero yap tpovoia Geot . . . apyxrepeds), this
is never prominent, and it is never worked out in ‘ Hebrews.”

The reason why they are to look at Jesus is (v.?) his faithful-
Ness TO Tojoavte adtév, where wovety Means “to appoint” to an
office (as 1S 12° Kvpios 6 moujoas Tov Mwvojv Kai Tov ’Aapiy,
Mk 314 kal érotyoe dwdexa). This faithfulness puts him above
Moses for two reasons. First (vv.?-4), because he is the founder
of the House or Household of God, whereas Moses is part of the
House. The text the writer has in mind is Nu 12? (ody otrws
0 Geparwv pov Mavojs’ év dXw Th oixw pov mioTds €or), and the
argument of v.%, where oikos, like our ‘‘ house,” includes the sense
of household or family,! turns on the assumption that Moses be-
longed to the ofxos in which he served so faithfully. How Jesus
“founded” God’s household, we are not told. But there was an
oixos Geod before Moses, as is noted later in 112%, a line of
mpeoBurepor who lived by faith; and their existence is naturally
referred to the eternal Son. The founding of the Household is
part and parcel of the creation of the ra wavta (123), Kara-
oxevalew includes, of course (see 9 *), the arrangement of the ofkos
(cp. Epict. i. 6. 7-10, where xaracxevdlw is similarly used in the
argument from design). The author then adds an edifying aside,
in v.4, to explain how the ofkos was God’s (v.? avrod), though
Jesus had specially founded it. It would ease the connexion of
thought if 6eds; meant (as in 18?) “divine” as applied to Christ
(so, é.g., Cramer, M. Stuart), or if otros could be read for Geds,
as Blass actually proposes. But this is to rewrite the passage.
Nor can we take airod in y.® as “Christ’s”; there are not two
Households, and zas (v.4) does not mean “each” (so, 4g,
Reuss). Adrod in vv.2.5 and ® must mean “God’s.” He as
creator is ultimately responsible for the House which, under him,
Jesus founded and supervises.

This was a commonplace of ancient thought. Justin, ¢.g., observes:
Mevavipy TQ kwuiky Kal rols radra phoace Tara Ppdtouev* pelfova yap Tov
Snuscoupyov Tov oKevafouevou amepivato(Afol. 1%). It had been remarked by
Philo (Ve Plant. 16): bow yap 6 krnodpevos TO KTHua TOO KTHwaTos duelvwr
kal 7d memoinkods Tod yeyordros, Toco'Tw Baciikdrepn dxeivor, and in Legum
Allegor. iii. 32 he argues that just as no one would ever suppose that a furnished
mansion had been completed dvev réxvys kai Snucovpyod, so anyone entering
and studying the universe ozep els weylorny olxlay # réAw would naturally
conclude that jv Kal éorw 6 rodde Tod mavrds Snucoupyds 6 Beds.

The usual way of combining the thought of v.4 with the context is indicated
by Lactantius in proving the unity of the Father and the Son (dzuzn. imstit. iv.
29): ‘* When anyone has a son of whom he is specially fond (quem unice
diligat), a son who is still in the house and under his father’s authority (in
manu patris)—he may grant him the name and power of lord (nomen

1 Our author avoids (see on 2) éxxAnola, unlike the author of 1 Ti 3!5 who
writes €v olkw Oeod, iris dorly éxxdAnola Tod Beod.

II1. 5-6. | A PLEA FOR LOYALTY 43

domini potestatemque), yet by civil law (civili iure) the house is one, and one
is called lord. So this world is one house of God, and the Son and the
Father, who in harmony (unanimos) dwell in the world, are one God.”

The second (>) proof of the superiority of Jesus to Moses
is now introduced by xaé. It rests on the term Oepdmwy used of
Moses in the context (as well as in Nu 111! 127-8 etc. ; of Moses
and Aaron in Wis 10!® 187); @epazwy is not the same as dodAos,
but for our author it is less than vids, and he contrasts Moses as
the Geparwv év 7 oikw with Jesus as the Son ézi roy olkov, éxi
used as in 107! (iepéa péyav eri Tov oikov Tod Geod) and Mt 2521-23
(emi dAtya js muxtds). Moses is “ egregius domesticus fidei tuae”
(Aug. Conf. xil. 23). The difficult phrase eis 1d paptipioy tov
AadnOycouevwy means, like 9°, that the position of Moses was one
which pointed beyond itself to a future and higher revelation ;
the tabernacle was a oxyvy Tov paptupiov (Nu 12°) in a deep
sense. This is much more likely than the idea that the faith-
fulness of Moses guaranteed the trustworthiness of anything he
said, or even that Moses merely served to bear testimony of what
God revealed from time to time (as if the writer was thinking of
the words ordpa Kata oropa Aadyow aitd which follow the above-
quoted text in Numbers).

The writer now passes into a long appeal for loyalty, which
has three movements (3°°-!9 41-10 411-13), The first two are con-
nected with a homily on Ps g5"!! as a divine warning against
the peril of apostasy, the story of Israel after the exodus from
Egypt being chosen as a solemn instance of how easy and fatal it
is to forfeit privilege by practical unbelief. It is a variant upon
the theme of 2%, suggested by the comparison between Moses
and Jesus, but there is no comparison between Jesus and Joshua ;
for although the former opens up the Rest for the People of
to-day, the stress of the exhortation falls upon the unbelief and
disobedience of the People in the past.

5 Now we are this house of God (ob, from the preceding ai’rot), if we well
only keep confident and proud of our hope. ™ Therefore, as the holy Spirit says :
‘* Today, when (édv, as in I Jn 2°5) you hear his voice,
® harden not (un oxdnptvyre, aor. subj. of negative entreaty) your hearts as
at the Provocation,
on the day of the Temptation in the desert,
® where (ob=drov as Dt 81°) your fathers put me to the proof,
10 and for forty years felt what I could do.”
Therefore **I grew exasperated with that generation,
L said, ‘ They are always astray in their heart’ ;
they would not learn my ways ;
11 s0 (ws consecutive) 7 swore 2m my anger
‘ they shall never (ei=the emphatic negative OX in oaths) enter my Rest.’”
2 Brothers, take care in case there ts a wicked, unbelieving heart in any of
you, moving you to apostatize from the living God. ™ Rather admonish one
another (€avrovs=adAndous) daly, so long as this word *‘ Today” is uttered,
that none of you may be deceived by sin and ‘‘ hardened.” 4 For we only

44 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [III. 6-8.

participate in Christ provided that we keep firm to the very end the confidence
with which we started, » thts word ever sounding in our ears:

“* Today, when you hear his voice,

harden not your hearts as at the Provocation.”
16 Who heard and yet “‘ provoked” him? Was it not all who left Egypt
under the leadership of Moses? %" And with whom was he exasperated for
forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses) fell in the
desert’??? %8 And to whom ‘did he swear that they (sc. abrovs) would never
enter his Rest”? To whom but those who disobeyed (arevOjoaoww, cp. Ac 19°)?
19 Thus (kal consecutive) we see it was owing to unbelief that they could not
enter.

In v.§ (a) of is altered into 6s by D* M 6. 424 Lat Lucifer, Ambr. Pris-
cillian, probably owing to the erroneous idea that the definite article (supplied
by 440. 2005) would have been necessary between od and olkos. (6) éav is
assimilated to the text of v./4 by a change to édvymep in n° AC D®° KL W
syrbkl Lucifer, Chrys. etc. (von Soden). (c) After éAmidos the words péxpr
rédous BeBalay are inserted from v.!4 by a number of MSS; the shorter,
correct text is preserved in p® B 1739 sah eth Lucifer, Ambrose.

V.% introduces the appeal, by a transition from ®. When
Philo claims that wappyota is the mark of intelligent religion
(quis rer. div. haeres, 4, Tots pev ovv dpabeor ovpdipov yovxia,
rois b¢ émiotipys eprepévois Kal Gua Piodeordrors avayKaoraTov 7
rappyola xrjua), he means by wappyota the confidence which is
not afraid to pray aloud: cp. i. 5 (rappyola bé gidias ovyyeves,
émel mpos tiva ay Ts 7) mpos Tov EavTod piov rappyodcairo ;), Where
the prayers and remonstrances of Moses are explained as a proof
that he was God’s friend. But here as elsewhere in the NT
mappyota has the broader meaning of “‘ confidence” which already
appears in the LXX (eg. in Job 27! pa éxer twa mappyoiar
évavtiov avrod). This confidence is the outcome of the Christian
édris (for THs éAmidos goes with tH rappyotay as well as with 76
xavxnjia); here as in 4!6 and 101% it denotes the believing
man’s attitude to a God whom he knows to be trustworthy.
The idea of 1d Katynpa ths éAmiSos is exactly that of Ro 5?
(kavxipela ex’ eAride ris doéys tod Oot), and of a saying like
Ps 512 (kal edppavOyjtwoav eri col rdvres of éArifovtes él Ge).

Até in v.7 goes most naturally with ph oxdnpuvnte (v.’), the
thought of which recurs in v.!8 as the central thread. The
alternative, to take it with BXéwere in v.12, which turns the whole
quotation into a parenthesis, seems to blunt the direct force of
the admonition; it makes the parenthesis far too long, and
empties the second 8 of its meaning. Bdémete is nO more
abrupt in v.!2 than in 12%; it introduces a sharp, sudden
warning, without any particle like otv or 6¢, and requires no _pre-
vious term like 8d. The quotation is introduced as in 10! by
“the holy Spirit” as the Speaker, a rabbinic idea of inspiration.
The quotation itself is from Ps 957" which in A runs as follows:

1 «Ga in this sense is from Nu 142% *, a passage which the writer has
in mind.

III. 9.] A WARNING 45

onpEpov €av THS Pwvys avTov aKovoyTe,
py okAnpivyte Tas Kapdlas buadv ws ev TO TapaTikpacpo
KaTa THV TpEpav TOU TELpagpod év TH epyuw'
ob éreipacav! of ratéepes bar,
eOokipacay pe Kai lov Ta Epya pov.
TETTEPAKOVTA ETN TpOTHxOica TH yeved exelvy,?
kat elrov'® aci* rAav@vtat TH Kapoia,
avtot 8& otk éyvwoav Tas ddovs pov.
@s @uooa év TH OpyH pov,
et eiceAevoortar eis THY KaTaravoly pov.

In vv.* 1°, though he knew (v.!”) the correct connexion of the
LXX (cp. v.!"4), he alters it here for his own purpose, taking
Tegoapdkovta éTy with what precedes instead of with what follows,
inserting 66 (which crept into the text of R in the psalm) before
tmpoowx@ioa for emphasis, and altering éeSoxipacay pe into év doxe-
pacia.2 The LXX always renders the place-names ‘ Meriba”
and “‘ Massa” by generalizing moral terms, here by rapamtxpacpds
and zretpacyds, the former only here in the LXX (Aquila, 1 Sam
15°; Theodotion, Prov 17). The displacement of teavepdxovta
érm was all the more feasible as eidov ra Epya pov meant for him
the experience of God’s punishing indignation. (Teooapdkovta is
better attested than teocepdxovta (Moulton, ii. 66) for the first
century.) There is no hint that the writer was conscious of the
rabbinic tradition, deduced from this psalm, that the period of
messiah would last for forty years, still less that he had any idea
of comparing this term with the period between the crucifixion
and 70 A.D. What he really does is to manipulate the LXX text
in order to bring out his idea that the entire forty years in the
desert were a “‘day of temptation,”® during which the People
exasperated God. Hence (in v.%) he transfers the “ forty years”
to eiSov Ta Epya pov, in order to emphasize the truth that the
stay of the People in the desert was one long provocation of
God ; for eidov ra épya pov is not an aggravation of their offence

1 x adds we (so T), which has crept (needlessly, for wecpdteww may be
used absolutely as in 1 Co 10%) into the text of Hebrews through x* D° M vg
pesh harkl boh arm Apollin.

2In some texts of Hebrews (p*% x A B D* M 33. 424** vg Clem.
Apollin.) this becomes (under the influence of the literal view of forty years ?)
taut (éxeivy in C D*° K L P syr sah boh arm eth Eus. Cyril, Chrys.).

3 The Ionic form efza (B) has slipped into some texts of Hebrews (A D
33- 206. 489. 1288. 1518. 1836).

4 The LXX is stronger than the Hebrew ; it appears to translate not the
oy of the MT, but n>y (cp. Flashar in Zects far alt, Wiss., 1912, 84-85).

5 édoxiwacay (ue) is read in the text of Hebrews, by assimilation, in x° D°
K L vg syr arm eth Apollin. Lucifer, Ambr. Chrys. etc. ze. EAOKI-
MACIA was altered into EAOKIMACA.

6 The xard in xara ri 7uépay (v.§) is temporal as in 1! 777, not ‘after the
manner of” (‘‘ secundum,” vg).

46 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _[III. 9-12,

(‘though they felt what I could do for them”), but a reminder
that all along God let them feel how he could punish them for
their disobedience. Finally, their long-continued obstinacy led
him to exclude them from the land of Rest. This “finally”
does not mean that the divine oath of exclusion was pronounced
at the end of the forty years in the desert, but that as the result
of God’s experience he gradually killed off (v.!") all those who
had left Egypt. This retribution was forced upon him by the
conviction airoi d@ otk éyvwoav Tas 6dovs ov (Z.e. would not learn
my laws for life, cared not to take my road).

The rabbinic interpretation of Ps 95 as messianic appears in the legend
(T.B. Sanhedrim, 98a) of R. Joshua ben Levi and Elijah. When the rabbi
was sent by Elijah to messiah at the gates of Rome, he asked, ‘‘ Lord, when
comest thou?” He answered, ‘‘ To-day.” Joshua returned to Elijah, who
inquired of him: ‘‘What said He to thee?” Joshua: ‘‘ Peace be with thee,
son of Levi.” Elijah: ‘‘ Thereby He has assured to thee and thy father a
prospect of attaining the world to come.” Joshua: ‘* But He has deceived me,
by telling me He would come to-day.” Elijah: *‘ Not so, what He meant
was, To-day, if you will hear His voice.” The severe view of the fate of the
wilderness-generation also appears in Sah. 1106, where it is proved that the
generation of the wilderness have no part in the world to come, from Nu
14% and also from Ps 95 (as / swore tn my anger that they should not enter
into my Rest). This was rabbi Akiba’s stern reading of the text. But
rabbinic opinion, as reflected in the Mishna (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der
Tannaiten*, i. 135f.), varied on the question of the fate assigned to the
generation of Israelites during the forty years of wandering in the desert.
While some authorities took Ps 951! strictly, as if the ‘‘ rest’? meant the rest
after death, and these Israelites were by the divine oath excluded from the
world to come, others endeavoured to minimize the text; God’s oath only
referred to the incredulous spies, they argued, or it was uttered in the haste
of anger and recalled. In defence of the latter milder view Ps 50° was
quoted, and Isa 35" Our author takes the sterner view, reproduced later
by Dante (Purgatorio, xviii. 133-135), for example, who makes the Israelites
an example of sloth; ‘“‘the folk for whom the sea opened were dead ere
Jordan saw the heirs of promise.” He never speaks of men ‘‘ tempting God,”
apart from this quotation, and indeed, except in 11)”, God’s metpacués or
probation of men is confined to the human life of Jesus.

Kor &6 in y.t¢ Clem. Alex, \(Prorrepts 9) reads® Gu 3:
NpoowyxGifew is a LXX term for the indignant loathing excited
by some defiance of God’s will, here by a discontented, critical
attitude towards him. In v.!! katdmauois is used of Canaan as
the promised land of settled peace, as only in Dt 12° (ov yap
nKaTe... €is THY KaTadravow) and 1 K 8° (etAoyntds Kuptos
onpepov, os edwKev katdravow TS Aa@ adtod). The mystical sense
is developed in 4°,

The application (vv.!2) opens with BAémere (for the classical
épare) py. . . Eotat (as in Col 28 (Brérere pH. . . Eorar), the
reason for the future being probably “ because the verb eiui has
no aorist, which is the tense required,” Field, Votes on Transla-
tion of NV.T., p. 38) év tue 64Gv—the same concern for individuals

III. 12-14. ] A WARNING 47

as in 4! 10% 12!5—xapdia dmortias (genitive of quality—a
Semitism here). ’Amior(a must mean more than “incredulity ” ;
the assonance with droorjvac was all the more apt as dmuwria
denoted the unbelief which issues in action, év t@ &moorjvat—the
idea as in Ezk 208 kai dréornoav am éuod, Kal ox 0edAnoav
elcaxodoat pov, though the preposition azo was not needed, as may
be seen, ¢g., in Wis 3!° (ot . . . tod Kuplov droordyres). Our
author is fond of this construction, the infinitive with a preposition.
“The living God” suggests what they lose by their apostasy,
and what they bring upon themselves by way of retribution
(1081), especially the latter (cp. 412). There is no real distinction
between Ocov évros and Tov beot Cavros, for the article could be
dropped, as in the case of Geds raryp and Kvpros ‘Incovs, once the
expression became stamped and current.

In v.18 wapaxadetre . . . Kad” éxdotyy tpépay (cp. Zest. Levi 98
jv wal? éxdoryy Hyepav ovvetilwy pe) emphasizes the keen, constant
care of the community for its members, which is one feature of
the epistle. In dxpts of (elsewhere in NT with aorist or future),
which is not a common phrase among Attic historians and
orators, dxpts is a Hellenistic form of axpz (p'? M) used sometimes
when a vowel followed. Xypepov is ‘ God’s instant men call
years” (Browning), and the paronomasia in kaAetrat! . . . mrapa-
xadeite led the writer to prefer kaAcirax to a term like «ypvocera,
The period (see 47) is that during which God’s call and oppor-
tunity still hold out, and the same idea is expressed in éy 16
héyeoOar Expepov xrA. (v.15). €§ Suadv is sufficiently emphatic as it
stands, without being shifted forward before ts (B D K Ldeete.
harkl Theodt. Dam.) in order to contrast Spets with ot matépes
Spay (v.°). As for 4 dpapria, it is the sin of apostasy (12*), which
like all sin deceives men (Ro 7!2), in this case by persuading them
that they will be better off if they allow themselves to abandon the
exacting demands of God. The responsibility of their position is
expressed in tva ph oxAnpuv04, a passive with a middle meaning ;
men can harden themselves or let lower considerations harden
them against the call of God. As Clement of Alexandria
(Protrept. ix.) explains: épare tHv dreAnv’ opare THY zpotpomyy’
Spare tiv Tyunv. Ti di) odv Ere THY Xdpwy cis Gpy?v peTahAGo OLE . . . ;
peyadyn yap THs érayyeAlas adrod 7) xapis, “ éav onpepov THs povijs
airov dxovoapev ”* 70 O€ onpepov THS Pwv7s airod avferat THVv ymepay,
cor av % onpepov dvoualyra.

In v.14 péroxot tod Xptotod (which is not an equivalent for the
Pauline év Xpiord, but rather means to have a personal interest
in him) answers to pétoxoe KAjoews éroupaviou in v.! and to
peToxous Tvevpatos dytou in 64; yeydvapev betrays the predilection
of the writer for yéyova rather than its equivalent ecivar. “Edvrep

1 The common confusion between at and e led to the variant xaetre (A C).

48 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [III. 14-19.

an intensive particle (for éav, v.%) thy dpxv tis Srootdcews
(genitive of apposition)—z.e. “ our initial confidence” (the idea
of 10°2)—katdoxwyev (echoing v.). The misinterpretation of
btootdcews as (Christ’s) “substance”! led to the addition of
avrod (A 588. 623. 1827. 1912 vg). But trdoracis here as in
111 denotes a firm, confident conviction or resolute hope (in
LXX, eg. Ru 1! €otw po irdotacis tod yevyOnvar pe avdpi,
rendering mpn, which is translated by éA7/s in Pr 117), with the
associations of steadfast patience under trying OSSD Pesos
This psychological meaning was already current (ep:}:2):Co).94
py... KatacxwOGpev nucis ev TH brootdce tavry), alongside
of the physical or metaphysical. What a man bases himself on,
as he confronts the future, is his tzréo0raots, which here in sound
and even (by contrast) in thought answers to aroorhvat

It is possible to regard v.!* as a parenthesis, and connect
ev TO _Neyeo Bau (v.15) closely with mapakaheite or wa ph.
dpaptias (v.!%), but this is less natural ; év 7G A€yeoOau (“ while it
is said,” asin Ps 42* ev r@ A€yeoOar) connects easily and aptly
with ee tat and vy.!+ 15 thus carry on positively the thought
of v.18, viz. that the writer and his readers are still within the
sound of God’s call to his ofkos to be mars.

The pointed questions which now follow (vv.1618) are a
favourite device of the diatribe style. Mapamxpatvew (Hesych
mapopyifew)? in v.16 seems to have been coined by the LXX
to express “rebellious” with a further sense of provoking or
angering God; e.g. Dt 3127 rapamixpatvovres Are Ta mpds TOV Oedv
(translating 7719), and Dt 3216 év BoeAvypacw adbtdv traperixpavdy
pe (translating DY3). The sense of “ disobey” recurs occasionally
in the LXX psalter (e.g. 10478, 106!) ; indeed the term involves
a disobedience which stirs up the divine anger against rebels,
the flagrant disobedience (cp. wapaBaivew for 799 in Dt 1%,
Nu 2714) which rouses exasperation in God. *AAX’, one rhetorical
question being answered by another (as Lk 178), logically
presupposes tuvés, but tives must be read in the previous question.
By writing mdvtes the writer does not stop to allow for the faith-
ful minority, as Paul does(1 Co 107f tives airdv). In the grave
conclusion (v.!%) 8° dmotiav (from v.}*) is thrown to the end for
the sake of emphasis.

But, the author continues (41), the promised rest is still
available; it is open to faith, though only to faith (1). No
matter how certainly all has been done upon God’s part (°°),
and no matter how sure some human beings are to share his

1 Another early error was to regard it as ‘‘ our substance,” so that 7 dpx7
Tis brocrdoews meant faith as ‘‘the beginning of our true nature” (a view
already current in Chrysostom).

2 In Dt 32% it is parallel to mapoétvew ; cp. Flashar’s discussion in Zez#t-
schrift frir alt, Wiss., 1912, 185 f. It does not always require an object (God).

Ey .22] THE REST OF GOD 49

Rest (v.®), it does not follow that we shall, unless we take warning
by this failure of our fathers in the past and have faith in God.
Such is the urgent general idea of this paragraph. But the
argument is compressed; the writer complicates it by defining
the divine Rest as the sabbath-rest of eternity, and also by
introducing an allusion to Joshua. That is, he (a) explains
God’s xataravots in Ps 95 by the oaBBariopds of Gn 2%, and
then (4) draws an inference from the fact that the psalm-promise
is long subsequent to the announcement of the cafBatipos.
He assumes that there is only one Rest mentioned, the xatdazravots
into which God entered when he finished the work of creation,
to which of zarépes tyav were called under Moses, and to which
Christians are now called. They must never lose faith in it,
whatever be appearances to the contrary.

1 Well then, as the promise of entrance into his Rest ts stzll left to us, let
us be afraid of anyone being judged to have missed it. * For (xai yap=etenim)
we have had the good news as well as they (éxetvo=3°'*) ; only, the message
they heard was of no use to them, because it did not meet with faith in the
hearers. *® For we do ‘‘enter the Rest” by our faith: according to his word,

‘© As I swore tn my anger,
they shall never enter my Rest” —
although ‘‘his works” were all over by the foundation of the world. 4 For he
says somewhere about the seventh (sc. nuépas) day: ‘‘And God rested from all
his works on the seventh day.” °And again in thts (€v Totty, sc. TéTw)
passage, ‘‘they shall never enter my Rest.” ©Since then it is reserved
(dmroXelmrerat, a variant for ckatadeur. v.1) for some ‘‘to enter it,” and since
those who formerly got the good news failed to ‘‘ enter” owing to their dtsobedt-
ence, the again fixes a day ; ‘‘today”-—as he saysin “‘ David” after so long
an interval, and as has been already quoted:
‘© Today, when you hear hts voice,
harden not your hearts.”
8 Thus if Joshua had given them Rest, God would not speak later about another
day. There is a sabbath-Kest, then, reserved (amoXeimerat, as in ®) stz/l for
the People of God (for once ‘‘a man enters his (abrot, z.e. God’s) rest,” he
‘* vests from work” just as God did).

’EmayyeXla (v.!) is not common in the LXX, though it mis-

translates M76D in Ps 56%, and is occasionally the term for a

human promise. In the Prayer of Manasseh (°) it is the divine
promise (70 éAcos THs érayyeAl(as gov), and recurs in the plural,
of the divine promises, in Zest. Jos. 20! (6 6eds romoe tiv
exdiknow tov kal erage tpyas eis Tas émayyeAlas Tév Tatépwv
ipav) and Ps. Sol 128 (dooce kvptov KAnpovopynoaey érayyedias
xuptov—the first occurrence of this phrase «A. éz., cp. below on
612). Kataherropevns éemayyedias (+775 D* 255, from 61 17 119)
isa genitive absolute. “EmayyeMtas eiceOety (like dpuy . . . bBpioae
in Ac 14°) xrA.: the basis of the appeal is (a) that the divine
promise of Rest has been neither fulfilled nor withdrawn (still 76
“ gypepov” Kadeirac) ; and (4) that the punishment which befalls

1’ Arei@ecav, altered into dmiorlay by x* vg sah boh arm Cyr.

4

50 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _[IV. 1, 2.

others is a warning to ourselves (cp. Philo, ad Gaium, 1: ai yap
Erépwv Tyswpiar BeAtLovcL Tos ToAXOUs, POBw Tod px) TapaTAjovo.
maGeiv). By a well-known literary device py mote, like py in
1215, takes a present (d5ox7), instead of the more usual aorist,
subjunctive. Aoxj means ‘‘judged” or “adjudged,” as in
Josephus, Azz. viii. 32, Kav aGAdtpiov Sox7. This is common in
the LXX, e.g. in Pr 1728 évedv d€ tis EavTov woujoas dodger ppdvipos
elvac (where Ode is paralleled by AoyerOynoerar), 2714 (katapwpévov
ovdev diadépery Sd€er) ; indeed it is an ordinary Attic use which
goes back to Plato (e.g. Phaedo, 113 D, of the souls in the under-
world, of pev av ddgwor péecws BeBiwxevar) and Demosthenes
(629. 17, of dedoypévor avdpopdvor=the convicted murderers).
The searching scrutiny which passes this verdict upon lack of
faith is the work of the divine Logos (in v.}2),

In v.? ednyyeAvopévor is remarkable. Our author, who never
uses evayyé\uoy (preferring ézayyeAia here as an equivalent),
employs the passive of edayyeAiCew ! (as in v.®) in the broad sense
of ‘having good news brought to one.” The passive occurs in
LXX of 2S 183! (evayyedicOytw 6 Kvpids pov 6 Baoided’s) and in
Mt 115 (rrwxoi evayyeAtGovrar). The kai after ka®dmep emphasizes
as usual the idea of correspondence. The reason for the failure
of the past generation was that they merely heard what God
said, and did not believe him; 6 Adyos tis dkofs (axo7s, passive
= “sermo auditus,” vg), which is another (see 3!) instance of the
Semitic genitive of quality, is defined as py (causal particle as
in 1127 pn PoByGels) cuyxek(e)pa(c)pévos TH WioTet Tots dkovcacwy,
since it did not get blended with faith in (the case of) those who
heard it. Or r7 wire: may be an instrumental dative: “since it
did not enter vitally into the hearers by means of the faith which
it normally awakens in men.” The fault lies, as in the parable
of the Sower, not with the message but with the hearers. The
phrase Adyos . . . cuyKexpacpevos may be illustrated from Men-
ander (Stob. Serm. 42, _P. 302), THV tov Adyou pev Svvapwy ovdK
eripbovov nba dé XpneTe ovykexpanevny éxe, and Plutarch, zon
posse suauiter vivt secundum Epicurum, 1101, BéAtvv yap évuTap-
xew TeKal ovyKexpacbar TH Tepi Gedy ddEy Gaon aidovs Kal doBov
mabos xtA. The use of Adyos with such verbs is illustrated by
Plutarch, Vit. Cleom. 2 (6 8& Zrwikds Adyos.. . Baber dé Kat
mpdw Kepavvipevos Fe pariota eis TO oiketov dyabov érdidwow).
Kpdaovs occurs in Philo’s definition of prria (Quaest. in Gen. 21)
as consisting [ovx] ev Td xperwder paddov 7 Kpacet Kat cuudwvia
BeBalw tov 79ov, and ‘ovyKexpacbat in his description of the
union of spirit and blood in the human body (Quaest. in
Gen. 91 mvedpua . . . euhéperOat kai ovyKxexpaoOat aipare).

1 An almost contemporary instance (evayyeAlfovre Ta THs velkns avrod Kal
wpoxomrjs) of the active verb is cited by Mitteis-Wilcken, i. 2. 29.

Iv. 3, 4.] THE REST OF GOD SI

The original reading cvyxex(e)pa(c)uévos (& 114 vt pesh Lucif.) was soon
assimilated (after éxelvous) into the accusative -ous (p!? ABC DK LM P vg
boh syrbk! etc. Chrys. Theod.-Mops. Aug.), and this led to the alteration of
rois dxovcacw into Tov dxovodyrwy (D* 104. 1611. 2005 d syr®k!™ms Lucif.),
or Tois axovobeicw (1912 vg Theod.-Mops.), or Tots dkovovow (1891). The
absence of any allusion elsewhere to the faithful minority (Caleb, Joshua)
tells decisively against ovyxexpacuévous (‘‘since they did not mix with the
believing hearers”); for the writer (see above) never takes them into account,
and, to make any sense, this reading implies them. How could the majority
be blamed for not associating with believing hearers when ex hyfothesz there
were none such ?

The writer now (vv.?!0) lays emphasis upon the reality of
the Rest. ‘‘ We have had this good news too as well as they,”
for (yap) we believers do enter into God’s Rest; it is prepared
and open, it has been ready ever since the world began—dpa
Gmohetmetat caBRBaticpos TH Aa@ Tod Oeod. Eicepydpyeba is the
emphatic word in v.°: ‘‘ we do (we are sure to) enter,” the futuristic
present (“‘ingrediemur,” vg). When God excluded that unbe-
lieving generation from his Rest, he was already himself in his
Rest. The xatdmavoig was already in existence; the reason
why these men did not gain entrance was their own unbelief, not
any failure on God’s part to have the Rest ready. Long ago it
had been brought into being (this is the force of katro. in v.8),
for what prevents it from being realized is not that any épya of
God require still to be done. Karazavots is the sequel to €pya.
The creative ¢pya leading up to this catdzavors have been com-
pleted centuries ago; God enjoys his xardzavows, and if his
People do not, the fault lies with themselves, with man’s disbelief.

Here, as in Ro 3°, there is a choice of reading between ody (k ACM
1908 boh) and ydp (p'* B D K LP W 6. 33 lat syr*! eth Chrys. Lucif.
etc.) ; the colourless dé (syrPesh arm) may be neglected. The context is de-
cisive in favour of ydp. Probably the misinterpretation which produced ofy
led to the change of elcepyduefa into elcepywuebal (A C 33. 69*: future in
vg sah boh Lucif.). The insertion of r7v (the first) may be due to the same
interpretation, but not necessarily ; p* B D* om., but B omits the article
sometimes without cause (¢.g. 71°). The omission of el (p’® D* 2. 330. 440.
§23. 642. 1288. 1319. 1912) was due to the following e/ in eiveNevoovrat.

Katro. (with gen. absol., as OP. 898°) is equivalent here to
xatrovye for which it is av./. in Ac 177’ (A E, with ptc.). “‘ Kaéro,
ut antiquiores kairep, passim cum participio iungunt scriptores
aetatis hellenisticae” (Herwerden, Appendix Lexict Graeci, 240).
KataBody is not a LXX term, but appears in ZZ. Aristeas, i29
and 2 Mac 229 (rs oAns xatafoAns=the entire edifice); in the
Nt always, except He 11, in the phrase do or rpo xataBoAjs
KOO }LOU.

The writer then (v.*) quotes Gn 2%, inserting 6 Oeds év (exactly
as Philo had done, de foster. Cainit, 18), as a proof that the katd-

1 A similar error of A C in 67.

52 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IV. 5-8.

mauots had originated immediately after the six days of creation.
In eipnxe wou the mou is another literary mannerism (as in Philo);
instead of quoting definitely he makes a vague allusion (cp. 2°).
The psalm-threat is then (v.°) combined with it, and (v.®) the
deduction drawn, that the threat (v.”) implies a promise (though
not as if v.! meant, ‘“‘lest anyone imagine he has come too late
for it”—an interpretation as old as Schottgen, and still advo-
cated, e.g., by Dods).

The title of the 92nd psalm, ‘“‘for the sabbath-day,” was discussed
about the middle of the 2nd century by R. Jehuda and R. Nehemia; the
former interpreted it to mean the great Day of the world to come, which
was to be one perfect sabbath, but R. Nehemia’s rabbinical tradition pre-
ferred to make it the seventh day of creation on which God rested (see W.
Bacher’s Agada der Tannaiten”, i. pp. 328-329). The author of the Epistle
of Barnabas (15) sees the fulfilment of Gn 2? in the millennium: ‘‘he rested
on the seventh day” means that ‘‘ when his Son arrives he will destroy the
time of the lawless one, and condemn the impious, and alter sun and moon
and stars ; then he will really rest on the seventh day,” and Christians cannot
enjoy their rest till then. Our author’s line is different—different even from
the Jewish interpretation in the Vzta Adae et Evae (li. 1), which makes the
seventh day symbolize ‘‘ the resurrection and the rest of the age to come; on
the seventh day the Lord rested from all his works.”

In vy." peta tocoitov xpédvoy, like peta tadta (v.°), denotes the
interval of centuries between the desert and the psalm of David,
for év Aave(S means “‘in the psalter” (like év “HAéa, Ro 112); the
g5th psalm is headed atvos “37s 76 Aaveid in the Greek bible,
but the writer throughout (3) treats it as a direct, divine word.
Mpoeipyrat (the author alluding to his previous quotation) is the
original text (p!’ A C D* P 6. 33. 1611. 1908. 2004. 2005 lat
syr Chrys. Cyr. Lucif.); mpoeipyxev (B 256. 263. 436. 442. 999.
1739. 1837 arm sah boh Orig.) suggests that God or David
spoke these words before the oath (v.’ comes before v.!!!), while
etpntac (D° K L eth etc. Theophyl.) is simply a formula of
quotation. From the combination of Ps 95% with Ps 951! and
Gn 2? (vv.*7) the practical inference is now drawn (v.®). Like
Sirach (461? xpara.ds év roA€uors “Incots Navy. . . os éyévero
Kata TO Gvoma av’Tov péyas ert Gwrnpia exAexTav adtod), Philo (de
mutatione nominum, 21, “Inoots 8é [éppnveverar] owrypia Kvupiov,
eLews dvona THS dpiorys) had commented on the religious signifi-
cance of the name Joshua; but our author ignores this, and
even uses the name ‘Incods freely, since Incots is never applied
by him to Christ before the incarnation (Aquila naturally avoids
"Ingots and prefers ‘Iwvova). The author of Ep. Barnabas plays
on the fact that “Joshua” and “Jesus” are the same names:
eAmioate ert Tov ev capki péd\ovta havepodtoba tiv “Inoody (6°),
z.e. not on the “‘ Jesus” who led Israel into the land of rest, but
on the true, divine ‘‘ Joshua.” Such, he declares, is the inner

IV. 8-10. | THE REST OF GOD 53

meaning of Is 2816 (ds éAmioe em abrov Cyoera eis Tov aidva).
But the author of IIpds ‘EGpaiovs takes his own line, starting from
the transitive use of katamavew (Jos 1}° Kvpios 6 Geos tyov Kare-
ravoe bas Kal edwkey tuiv tiv yyv tavrynv, etc.); not that he
reads subtle meanings into the transitive and intransitive usages
of xatazavewv, like Philo. Nor does he philosophize upon the
relevance of xatdravots to God. Philo, in De Cherubim (26),
explains why Moses calls the sabbath (épynveverar 8 dvazavois)
the “sabbath of God” in Ex 20! etc.; the only thing which
really rests is God—“ rest (dvdravAav) meaning not inactivity
in good (dzpaéiav xaddv)—for the cause of all things which is
active by nature never ceases doing what is best, but—an energy
devoid of laboriousness, devoid of suffering, and moving with
absolute ease.” The movement and changes of creation point
to labour, but “what is free from weakness, even though it
moves all things, will never cease to rest: WoTe oixetorétatov
povw Od 76 avaravecba.” So in De Sacrif. Abelis et Caint, 8,
Tov TogOUTOY Kécpov avev TOvwv madaL pev eipydlero, vuvi dé Kal
eicael ovvéxwv ovderore Anye [cp. He 1° dépwv re 7a mavta|, bead
yap TO axdparov Gppodustarov. All such speculations are remote
from our author. He simply assumes (a) that God’s promise of
katda@avols is spiritual; it was not fulfilled, it was never meant
to be fulfilled, in the peaceful settlement of the Hebrew clans
in Canaan; (4) as a corollary of this, he assumes that it is
eschatological.

In v.9 dpa, as in 128, Lk 1148, Ac 1118, Ro 101”, is thrown to
the beginning by an unclassical turn (“musste dem gebildeten
Hellenen hochgradig anstossig erscheinen,” Radermacher, 20).
EaBBatiopds, apparently! a word coined by the writer, is a Sem-
itic-Greek compound. The use of caBBaticpos for katdmavats is
then (v.!°) justified in language to which the closest parallel is
Apoc 14%, “Rest” throughout all this passage—and the writer
never refers to it again—is the blissful existence of God’s faithful
in the next world. As a contemporary apocalyptist put it, in
4 Es 852; “for you paradise is opened, the tree of life planted,
the future age prepared, abundance made ready, a City built, a
Rest appointed” (karécra#y?). In dmd tév i8twv, as in 8d tod
iStou aipatos (13}2), tdcos is slightly emphatic owing to the context;
it is not quite equivalent to the possessive pronoun.

When Maximus of Tyre speaks of life as a long, arduous path to the goal
of bliss and perfection, he describes in semi-mystical language how tired
souls, longing for the land to which this straight and narrow and little-
frequented way leads, at length reach it and ‘“‘rest from their labour”?
(Dissert. xxiii. ).

1 The only classical instance is uncertain; Bernadakis suspects it in the
text of Plutarch, de seperstzt. 106 A.

54 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Iv. Dt ee

The lesson thus drawn from the reading of the OT passages
is pressed home (vv.1!!8) with a skilful blend of encouragement
and warning.

1 Let us be eager then to ‘‘enter that Rest,” in case anyone falls into the
same sort of disobedience. 3 For the Logos of God ts a living thing, active
and more cutting than any sword with double edge, penetrating to the very
division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow—scrutinizing the very thoughts
and conceptions of the heart. ™ And no created thing ts hidden from him ;
all things lie open and exposed before the eyes of him with whom we have to
reckon (6 Ndyos).

In y.!! the position of tus, as, e.g., in Lk 1818, is due to “the
tendency which is to be noted early in Greek as well as in cognate
languages, to bring unemphasized (enclitic) pronouns as near to
the beginning of the sentence as possible” (Blass, § 473. 1).
For wimrew év, cp. Epict. iii. 22. 48, wore tudv eldev pé tis...
év éxxXloet wepixirtovta. This Hellenistic equivalent for rimrew
eis goes back to earlier usage, e.g. Eurip. Herve. 1091, 1092,
ev KkAvowve Kal dpevav Tapaypate wértwoxa dewo. In Hellenistic
Greek tdderypa came to have the sense of rapadevryua, and is
used here loosely for “kind” or “sort”; take care of falling into
disobedience like that of which these zarépes tuav yield such a
tragic example. The writer, with his fondness for periphrases of
this kind, writes év 76 adt@ Srodelypate THs dmevBeias, where év 77
aivty ameieia would have served. In passing away from the text
about Rest, he drops this last warning reference to the classical
example of azre/Oeaa in the far past of the People.

The connexion of thought in vv.1£ is suggested by what has
been already hinted in v.!, where the writer pled for anxiety, 4.7
mote OoKy Tis e& tuav torepyxevat. He repeats iva pi... Ts

. méon, and enlarges upon what lies behind the term dox7.
Then, after the passage on the relentless scrutiny of the divine
Logos, he effects a transition to the direct thought of God (v.}*),
with which the paragraph closes. movSdowpev—we have to put
heart and soul into our religion, for we are in touch with a God
whom nothing escapes ; tav ydp xrX. (v.12). The term av echoes
Geos Cév in 3}2 (men do not disobey God with impunity), just as
kapoias echoes kapdia rovnpa amuotias. God is swift to mark any
departure from his will in human thought—the thought that
issues in action.

The personifying of the divine Adyos, in a passage which
described God in action, had already been attempted. In Wis
1815, for example, the plagues of Egypt are described as the effect
of God’s Adyos coming into play: 6 wavrodvvayds cov Adyos az’
oipavav .. . éipos 6€v THY dvuToKpitev eritayynv cov dépwv. In
Wis 1°, again, the dAdvOpwrov mvevpa copia, which cannot
tolerate blasphemy, reacts against it: 67e tv veppdv airod (the
blasphemer) pdprus 6 Oeds, kat tHs Kapdias aitod éricxoros ay Ors,

IV. 12.] THE SCRUTINY OF GOD 55

so that no muttering of rebellion is unmarked. Here the writer
poetically personifies the revelation of God for a moment. ‘O
Adyos tov Peod is God speaking, and speaking in words which
are charged with doom and promise (37"). The revelation, how-
ever, is broader than the scripture ; it includes the revelation of
God’s purpose in Jesus (11%), The free application of 6 Adyos
(rod Oeod) in primitive Christianity is seen in 1 P 1%, Ja 118F,
quite apart from the specific application of the term to the
person of Christ (Jn 11-18), Here it denotes the Christian gospel
declared authoritatively by men like the writer, an inspired
message which carries on the OT revelation of God’s promises
and threats, and which is vitally effective. No dead letter, this
Adyos! The rhetorical outburst in vv.!#" is a preacher’s equiva-
lent for the common idea that the sense of God’s all-seeing
scrutiny should deter men from evil-doing, as, e.g., in Plautus
(Captivi, ii. 2. 63, “est profecto deu’, qui quae nos gerimus
auditque et uidet”). This had been deepened by ethical writers
like Seneca (Z/. Ixxxiii. 1, “nihil deo clusum est, interest animis
nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit”), Epictetus (ii. 14. 11,
ovx éott Aabeiv aiTov ov povoy ToLotvTa GAX’ ovde Siavoovpevov 7
évOupovpevor), and the author of the Zfzst/e of Aristeas (132- ieee
Moses. teaches 6 ort pdvos é Geos €ote . . . Kal ovGev adrov AavOaver
TOV el Y7S ywopeveov ir dvOpdrev Kpudius .. . Kav evvonOyA tis
kakiav émureAetv, ovK av AdBou, py OTe Kat mpatas, and 210: the
characteristic note of piety is 7d diaAapBavew ore ravta diaravros 6
Oeds évepyet Kal ywooxel, Kal ovbev av Adbor adiKoy Toupoas 7} KAKO
épyacdpevos avOpwros), as well as by apocalyptists like the author
of Baruch (83°: He will assuredly examine the secret thoughts
and that which is laid up in the secret chambers of all the
members of man). But our author has one particular affinity.
Take Philo’s interpretation of dvetAev attra péoa in Gn 15)
Scripture means, he explains (gus rer. div. haeres, 26) that it
was God who divided them, 76 romret TH Gupravtwy éavTod Ady,
Os els THY ogurdaray axovnbels axunv Svatpay ovdérore Ayye. Ta yap
aigOyta mwavta émedav PEXpL TOV aTO“wY Kal Aeyopevov dpepov
dueECAOn, wadw aro Tov'Twv Ta Oyo Seopa is GpvOynrovs Kat
dzepuypapous potpas apxerat Starpetv ovTos 6 TOpevS. He returns
(in 48) to this analytic function of the Logos in God and man,
and in De mutatione nominum (18) speaks of qKovnpévov kal dgdv
Aoyov, pactevew kal avalyreiv Exacta ixavov, Still, the Logos is
ropevs as the principle of differentiation in the universe, rather
than as an ethical force ; and when Philo connects the latter with
6 Adyos, as he does in quod deter. pot. 29, Cherub. g, etc., 6 Aoyos
is the human faculty of reason. Obviously, our author is using
Philonic language rather than Philonic ideas.

"Evepyns (for which B, by another blunder, has évapyys =

56 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Iv. 12.

evidens) is not a LXX term, but denotes in Greek vital activity
(cp. Schol. on Soph. Oed. Tyr. 45, Cwoas avti évepyeorépas).
Neither is rouwrepos a LXX term; the comparison of 6 Adyos to
a sword arose through the resemblance between the tongue and
a “dagger,” though pdyaipa had by this time come to meana
sword of any size, whether long (joudaca) or short.1 The com-
parative is followed (cp. Lk 168) by trép, as elsewhere by zapa,
and the “cutting” power of 6 Aoyos extends or penetrates to the
innermost recesses of human nature—aypt pepiopod Wuxfs Kal
Tvevpatos,” dppav te kal puehay (the conj. weAGy=limbs is neat
but superfluous, for pveAovy was in the text known to Clem.
Alex. guts dives, 41). D K here (as in 11°?) insert re before the
first kat, but there is no idea of distinguishing the psychical and
the physical spheres ; dpywv . . . pveAwv is merely a metaphorical
equivalent for Yuxjs Kat rvevpatos. Mepiopds (only in LXX in
Jb 14”, 2 Es 6!8) means here “division,” not ‘‘ distribution” (24) ;
the subtlest relations of human personality, the very border-line
between the yuyx7 and the zvedya, all this is open to 6 Adyos. The
metaphorical use of zveAdv in this sense is as old as Euripides,
who speaks of p17 zpos dxpov pvedov Woyns (Hippolytus, 255).

According to Philo (De Cherubim, 8. 9), the flaming sword of Gn 3% isa
symbol either of the sun, as the swiftest of existences (circling the whole
world in a single day), or of reason, dfuxwyrérarov yap Kal Oépuov Nébyos xal
uddtoTa 6 Tov airtov. Learn from the fiery sword, o my soul, he adds,
to note the presence and power of this divine Reason, 5s ovdézore Arpyet
KivoUmevos ood Tacy mpos alpecw ev TOY Kahav, dvyny 6é Tay évavtiwv.
But there is a still better parallel to the thought in Lucian’s account of the
impression made by the address (6 Adyos) of a philosopher: ov yap é€& émurodjs
od’ ws éruxev Nudy 6 Adyos KaGixeTo, Badeia 5é kai xalpios 7 wAnyh eyéveTo,
kal udda evoroxws évexGeis 6 Novos avrjy, el oldy Te elreiv, Siéxove Thy Wuxi
(Nigr. 35). Only, Lucian proceeds to compare the soul of a cultured person
to a target at which the words of the wise are aimed. Similarly, in pseudo-
Phocylides, 124: 67Xov Tot Adyos avdpi Toudrepov écre odjpov, and Od. Sol.
12°: for the swiftness of the Word is inexpressible, and like its expression is
its swiftness and force, and its course knows no limit.

The pepiopod . . . puehk@v passage is “a mere rhetorical
accumulation of terms to describe the whole mental nature of
man” (A. B. Davidson); the climax is xapdia, for what underlies
human failure is xapdéa mwovynpa amiotias (3}*), and the writer’s
warning all along has been against hardening the heart, ze.
obdurate disobedience. Hence the point of kat kpitixds KrTA.
Kpurixos is another of his terms which are classical, not religious ;
it is used by Aristotle (Zth. Mth. vi. 10) of 7 otveors, the in-
telligence of man being xprrixy in the sense that it discerns. If

> The description was familiar to readers of the LXX, eé.g. Pr 5* jxovnpuévov
parrov payxaipas diuorduov.

2 The subtlety of thought led afterwards to the change of mvevuaros into
owparos (2. 38. 257. 547. 1245).

IV. 12, 13.] THE SCRUTINY OF GOD 57

there is any distinction between évOupjcewy (evOupyoews C* D* W
vt Lucifer) and évvot@v, it is between impulses and reflections,
but contemporary usage hardly distinguished them; indeed
evvoca could mean “ purpose” as well as “conception.” The two
words are another alliterative phrase for “thought and con-
ception,” évvoia, unlike év6vpnos, being a LXX term.

In v.}8 Kat odk éotw Ktiois dpavys KTA., kTiois Means anything
created (as in Ro 8°9), and atrod is ‘‘ God’s.” The negative side
is followed by the positive, mévta = yupra kat Tetpaxnduopeva.
The nearest verbal parallel is in En 9° ravra évwidv cov pavepa. kal
dxaAumra, where the context points as here to secret sins. The
general idea was familiar ; e.g. (above, p. 55) ‘“‘nihil deo clusum
est, interest animis nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit.”
Movw yap éLeote Ged, Wuyiyv idetv (Philo, de Abvahamo, 21). But
what the writer had in mind was a passage like that in de Cherub.
5, Where Philo explains Dt 2979 (ra kpurra kupiw TO Ged, Ta Se
pavepa yevere yvwpipma) by arguing, yevytos b€ ovdets ikavos yvwpns
adavovs xatioev éevOvpnpa, povos dé 6 Geos. Hence, he adds, the
injunction (Nu 5}§) riv woxiv “ ‘évavtiov Tov Geov ornoar” with
head uncovered ; which means, the soul 76 Kepadarov ees ypVo-
Getoay kai THY yvwOpny a Kéxpytat arappiacGeioay, iv’ overt Tats aKpt-
Beorarais emuxpibeiora Tov adexaarov Geod xrX., the closing description
of God being 76 pov yupvay oxy sau Swvapevy. For yupva
see also M. Aurel. 122 6 beds rdvta Ta HYEMOVUKGA Yyupva TOV DALKOV
ayyelwv . . . Opa. Tetpaxndcopéva Must mean something similar,
“exposed” or ‘‘ bared” (“‘aperta,” vg; wedavepwyéva, Hesych.).

Though Tpaxmrlfw does not occur in the LXX, the writer was familiar with
itin Philo, where it suggests a wrestler ‘‘downing ” his opponent by seizing
his throat. How this metaphorical use of throttling or tormenting could yield
the metaphorical passive sense of ‘‘ exposed,” is not easy tosee. ‘Ihe Philonic
sense of ‘‘ ' depressed ” or “bent down” would yield here the meaning
‘‘abashed,” z.e. hanging down the head i in shame (‘‘ conscientia male factorum
in ruborem aguntur caputque mittunt,” Wettstein). But this is hardly on a
level with yuuvd. The most probable clue is to be found in the practice of
exposing an offender’s face by pushing his head back, as if the word were an
equivalent for the Latin ‘‘resupinata” in the sense of ‘‘ manifesta,” The
bending back of the neck produced this exposure. Thus when Vitellius was
dragged along the Via Sacra to be murdered, it was ‘‘reducto coma capite,

ceu noxli solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ut visendam
praeberet faciem” (Suet. Vzt. Vztell. 17).

In the last five words, mpés dv Hutv 6 Adyos, which are impressive
by their bare simplicity, there is a slight play on the term Adyos
here and in v.'’, although in view of the flexible use of the term,
e.g. in 514 and 131, it might be even doubtful if the writer intended
more than a verbal assonance. The general sense of the phrase
is best conveyed by “with whom we have to reckon.” (a) This
rendering, ‘“‘to whom we have to account (or, to render our ac-
count),” was adopted without question by the Greek fathers from

58 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IV. 18, 14.

Chrysostom (air@ pédAAopev Sodvar edOivas Tav wempaypévwr) on-
wards, and the papyri support the origin of the phrase as a com-
mercial metaphor; e.g. OP. 11885 (A.D. 13) ws mpos oe TOV Tepi
TOV Sena fy[rHparos | eco vou (s¢. Adyov), and Hibeh
Papyri, 53' (246 B.C.) rep ody doporas ws pos Ge TOD Adyou
ex opevou. (4) The alternative rendering, “ with whom we have to
do,” has equal support in Gk. usage ; e.g. in the LXX phrase Adyos
prot mpos oe(I K 214, 2 K 95) and in Je 17" (wakpay eiow Sidwvior,
kal Adyov ovK éxovaww mpos avOpwrov). The former idea is pre-
dominant, however, as the context suggests (cp. Ignat. ad Magn. 3,
70 5€ ToLovToY od pds TapKa 6 Adyos, GAAG Tpos Gedv TOV TA KpYdta
eiddra), and includes the latter. It is plainly the view of the
early anti-Marcionite treatise, which has been preserved among
the works of Ephraem Syrus (cp. Preuschen, Zettschrift fiir die
neutest. Wissenschaft, 1911, pp. 243-269), where the passage is
quoted from a text like this: ws kal 6 IlatAos A€yer, Gav 6 Adyos
Tov Geod kal Touwrepos imép tacdy paxatpay diotomov, duixvovpevov
PEXPL PEpLOpLOD TvEvaTOS Kal DapKOs, MEXPL ApHOV TE Kai pvEAaY,
Kal KpitiKos éoTw evOuunoewv Kal evvoldv Kapdias’ Kal ovK éoTW
Ktiows adavns evwmuov avtod, GAAG wavTa eupavy evwTiov avTov, Ott
yupvoi kal Tetpaxnicpévor éexpev ev tots dpOadrpots adtod Exactos
npov Adyov adt@ arod.iddvat. The rendering, ‘‘ who is our subject,
of whom we are speaking” (zpos=with reference to, and jpiv 6
Aoyos as in 5!4), is impossibly flat.

At this point the writer effects a transition to the main theme,
which is to occupy him till 1o}8, z.e. Christ as dpxvepev’s. He begins,
however, by a practical appeal (vv.!41¢) which catches up the
ideas of 247-18 41

445 we have a great highpriest, then, who has passed through the heavens,
Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession ; 18 for ours ts no high
priest who ts incapable (wh Suv. as in 9°) of sympathizing with our weaknesses,
but one who has been tempted in every respect like ourselves (sc. mpos nuds), yet
wethout sinning. 16 So let us approach the throne of grace with confidence
(wera mappyolas, 3°), that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in
the hour of need.

Méyas is a favourite adjective for dpyvepe’s in Philo,! but when
the writer adds, €xovres ovv dpxvepea peyav dueAnAvOora Tors
ovpavous, he is developing a thought of hisown. The greatness
of Jesus as dpxvepevs consists in his access to God not through
any material veil, but through the upper heavens; he has pene-
trated to the very throne of God, in virtue of his perfect self-
sacrifice. This idea is not elaborated till later (cp. 61% 94), in
the sacerdotal sense. But it has been already mentioned in 2% 19,
where Jesus the Son of God saves men by his entrance into the
full divine glory. Kpatépev here as in 6!§ with the genitive

16 pév dH wéyas apxuepeds (de Somn. i. 38), even of the Logos.

IV. 14-16. } THE SYMPATHY OF JESUS 59

(S6uoroyids, see 31); in Paul it takes the accusative. The writer
now (v.15) reiterates the truth of 2; the exalted Jesus is well
able to sympathize with weak men on earth, since he has shared
their experience of temptation. It is put negatively, then posi-
tively. Zuprabyoat is used of Jesus! as in Acta Pauli et Theclae,
17 (ds povos cuverabynoey tAavWpevw Koopw); see below, on 10%,
Origen (¢” Matt. xiii. 2) quotes a saying of Jesus: dua tots dobev-
odvtas HoOevouv Kal dua Tovs wewavras éreivwy Kal Ova Tors SupavTas
ediwr, the first part of which may go back to Mt 817 (atros ras
aoGeveias é\aBev); cp. also Mt 25°%%. Philo uses the term even
of the Mosaic law (de spec. leg. li. 13, TG S€ drdpws ExovTe ovve-
wda@noe), but here it is more than “to be considerate.” The aid
afforded by Jesus as dpyvepevs is far more than official; it is
inspired by fellow-feeling tats doGeveiars Hudv. ‘‘ Verius sentiunt
qui simul cum externis aerumnis comprehendunt animi affectus,
quales sunt metus, tristitia, horror mortis, et similes” (Calvin).
These doGéveras are the sources of temptation. “H odpé daoGevis,
as Jesus had said to his disciples, warning them against tempta-
tion. Jesus was tempted xara wdvra (21718) Kad’ duoudtyTa (a
psychological Stoic term; the phrase occurs in OF. ix. 120274
and BG UV. 1028", in second-century inscriptions) xwpis dpaprtias,
without yielding to sin. Which is areal ground for encourage-
ment, for the best help is that afforded by those who have stood
where we slip and faced the onset of temptation without yielding
to it. The special reference is to temptations leading to apostasy
or disobedience to the will of God. It is true that ywpis auaprias
does exclude some temptations. Strictly speaking, xara wdyra is
modified by this restriction, since a number of our worst tempta-
tions arise out of sin previously committed. But this is not in
the writer’s mind at all. He is too eager, to enter into any
psychological analysis.

Philo deduces from Ly 4° (udvov ovk dvtixpus dvadiddoxwy, TL 6 mpds
adjOeav apxeped’s kal wh Wevdwvupmos auéroxos auapTnudtwy éoriv) that the
ideal highpriest is practically sinless (de Victzmzs, 10) ; but this is a thought with
which he wistfully toys, and the idea of the Logos as unstained by contact with
the material universe is very different from this conception of Jesus as actually
tempted and scatheless. Nor would the transference of the idea of messiah as
sinless account for our writer’s view. To him and his readers Jesus is sinless,
not in virtue of a divine prerogative, but as the result of a real human experience
which proved successful in the field of temptation.

Hence (v.1%) mpocepydpeba obv peta mappyaias. Philo (guts ver.
div. haeres, 2) makes wappyoia the reward of a good conscience,
which enables a loyal servant of God to approach him frankly.

1 Of God in 4 Mac 5” xara giow jyiv cupmabel vopobery 6 Tod kriorns,
but in the weaker sense of consideration. It is curious that 4 Mac., like
Hebrews, uses the word twice, once of God and once of men (cp. 4 Mac 13%
otrws dy Tolvuy kabecrykulas THs PriadeAdlas cuutrahovons).

60 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS {Iv. 16

But here (cp. ERE. ii. 786) tappyoia is not freedom of utterance
so much as resolute confidence (cp. on 3°). Our writer certainly
includes prayer in this conception of approaching God, but it is
prayer as the outcome of faith and hope. Seneca bids Lucilius
pray boldly to God, if his prayers are for soundness of soul and
body, not for any selfish and material end: ‘“audacter deum
roga; nihil illum de alieno rogaturus es” (Z/. x. 4). But even
this is not the meaning of zappyoia here. The Roman argues
that a man can only pray aloud and confidently if his desires are
such as he is not ashamed to have others hear, whereas the
majority of people “whisper basest of prayers to God.” Our
author does not mean “ palam” by zappyota.

Our approach (mpocepxépeba: the verb in Le sense of
applying to a court or authority, 08 in OP. T119® mpoonrAGomev
TH Kpatiaty Bovdy, BG U. 1022) is tO bpovd tis Xdpttos, for grace
is now enthroned (see 2%), For the phrase see Is 165 d:0p6w6y-
oerar pet éAeovs Opdvos. Our author (cp. Introd. p. xlvii), like
those who shared the faith of apocalyptic as well as of rabbinic
piety, regarded heaven as God’s royal presence and also as the
oxnvy where he was worshipped, an idea which dated from Is
61! and Ps 29 (cp. Mechilta on Ex 151"), though he only alludes
incidentally (1272) to the worship of God by the host of angels
in the upper sanctuary. He is far from the pathetic cry of
Azariah (Dn 3°): @k éoti év TO Kaipd ToUTH . . . Ode TO7TOS TOU
KapT@oca. évwmriov wou Kal evpeity €Xeos. He rather shares Philo’s
feeling (de Exsecrat. 9) that ot dvacwfouévor can rely upon the
compassionate character of God (évi ev érvecxeia Kal ypnotdryte
Tov Tapaxadovpevov cvyyvapnv mpd Tiuwplas adel TLevTos), though
he regards this mercy as conditioned by the sacrifice of Jesus.
The twofold object of the approach is (2) AapBadveww edeos, which
is used for the passive of éAe® (which is rare), and (0) xdpw
edptoxew xrA., an echo of the LXX phrase (e.g. Gn 68) etpicxev
xdpw évavtiov Kuptov (rod Oeod). In the writer’s text (A) of the
LXX, Prov 8!" ran ot d€ éué Lyrovvres etpyoovor xaptv.! Eis
eUkatpov BonPeray recalls rots meipafopevors BonOnoae in 238; it
signifies ‘‘for assistance in the hour of need.” Evxaupos means
literally “‘seasonable,” as in Ps 10427 (dotvac rHv Tpodyy adrois
evcatpov), ‘‘fitting” or “opportune” (Zp. Arvisteas, 203, 236).
The ‘‘sympathy” of Jesus is shown by practical aid to the
tempted, which is suitable to their situation, suitable above all
because it is timely (evkarpov being almost equivalent to év xaipa

1 Aristotle argues that xdpis or benevolence must be spontaneous and
disinterested ; also, that its value is enhanced by necessitous circumstances
(Ear on xapes, cad’ iy 0 eXov éyerar xdpiv vroupyely deouévyy uh avril TLWOS,
pnd va te ait@ Tw VrovpyodvTe GN Wy’ éexelvw Te peyahn o av 7 opodpa

deouévm, 7) meydduv Kal xaXerGv, } év Katpots TotouTois, 7) wdvos } mparos 7
paruota, Rhes. ii. 7. 2).

Iv. 16-V. 1.] JESUS AS PRIEST 61

xpetas, Sir 8°). Philo (de sacrificantibus, 10) shows how God, for all
his greatness, cherishes compassion (éAeov kai oixrov Aap Baver Tov ev
évdeiats Atopwratwv) for needy folk, especially for poor proselytes,
who, in their devotion to him, are rewarded by his help (xapzov
cipapevot THS ert Tov Gedv KaTadvyis THY ax avtod BoyPeav). But
the best illustration of the phrase is in Aristides, Eis rov Sdpamw
50: ot yap 57 was Tis €v TavTi Kaip@ BonOov Kade, Sapam.

How widely even good cursives may be found supporting a wrong reading
is shown by the evidence for mpocepxéueda: 6. 38. 88. 104. 177. 206%. 241.
255. 263. 337- 378. 383. 440. 462. 467. 487. 489. 623. 635. 639. 642. O15.
O19. 920. 927. 1149. 1245. 1288. 1518. 1836. 1852. 1872. 1891. 2004. For
eos (the Hellenistic neuter, cp. Cronert’s Memoria Graeca Herculanensis,
176!), the Attic é\eov (€Aeos, masc.) is substituted by L and a few minuscules
(Chrys. Theodoret). Bom. eiipwuev.

He now (5!) for the first time begins to explain the qualifi-
cations of the true dpxcepevs.

(a) First, he must be humane as well as human :

1 Every highpriest who ts selected from men and appointed to act on behalf
of men in things divine, offering gifts and sacrifices for sin, * can deal gently
with those who err through ignorance, since he himself ts beset with weakness —
3 which obliges him to present offerings for his own sins as well as for those of
the People.

(4) Second, he must not be self-appointed.

4 Also, tt ts an office which no one elects to take for himself ; he ts called to
tt by God, just as Aaron was.

The writer now proceeds to apply these two conditions to Jesus, but he
takes them in reverse order, beginning with (4).

5 Similarly Christ was not ratsed to the glory of the priesthood by himself,
but by Him who declared to him,

“* Thou art my son,
to-day have I become thy father.”

6 Just as elsewhere (év érépw, sc. Tomy) he says,

‘* Thou art a priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek.”’

He then goes back to (a):

7 In the days of hts flesh, with bitter cries and tears, he offered prayers
and supplications to Him who was able to save him from death ; and he was
heard, because of his godly fear. *® Thus, Son though he was, he learned by
(ag Gv=amd TrovTwv &) all he suffered how to obey, * and by being thus perfected
he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, ™ being desig-
nated by God highpriest ‘‘ with the rank of Melchizedek.”

Mas yap dpxtepeds (dealing only with Hebrew highpriests,
and only with what is said of them in the LXX) é& dv@pd7wv
hapBavdpevos (Nu 8& AdBe rots Aecveiras ék pécov vidy "Iopayd)
xaQioratat—passive, in the light of 778 (6 vopos yap avOpazrovs
kabiotnow apxiepets Exovtas dobéverav) and of the Philonic usage
(e.g. de vit. Mosis, il. 11, TO peAXOvTe Gpyrepet Kabictacba). The
middle may indeed be used transitively, as, e.g., in Eurip. Supplic.
522 (rdAepuor b€ TodTOV ovK éyH KaGiorapat), and is so taken here
by some (eg. Calvin, Kypke). But ra apos tov Oedv is an
adverbial accusative as in 21’, not the object of xa@iorarac in an
active sense. In 8wpd te kat Oucias, here as in 8° and 9%, the

62 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 1, 2.

writer goes back to the LXX (A) rendering of 1 K 8° (cat rd
Swpov Kat Tas Ovaias). The phrase recurs in Zp. Aristeas, 234 (od
ddpors odd€ Gvatas), and is a generic term for sacrifices or offer-
ings, without any distinction. The early omission of re (B D>
K Lat boh pesh) was due to the idea that 6vafas should be
closely connected with épapriay (“ ut offerat dona, et sacrificia pro
peccatis,” vg). Instead of writing «is 76 mpoo pepe, our author
departs from his favourite construction of eis with the infinitive
and writes tva mpoopépyn, in order to introduce pertpiomabety
Suvduevos. This, although a participial clause, contains the lead-
ing idea of the sentence. The dpyepeds is able to deal gently
with the erring People whom he represents, since he shares
their doOévera, their common infirmity or liability to temptation.
MetptomaQety in v.2 is a term coined by ethical philosophy.
It is used by Philo to describe the mean between extravagant
grief and stoic apathy, in the case of Abraham’ s sorrow for the
death of his wife (76 d€ pécov mpd Tv dkpwv EXopevov perpiorabecy,
De Abrah. 44); so Plutarch (Consol. ad Apoll. 22) speaks of tis
Kata vow év Tovovtots petpioTabeias. But here it denotes
gentleness and forbearance, the moderation of anger in a person
who is provoked and indignant—as in Plut. de Cohibd. tra, 10,
dvar ri} au 8& Kal cdoa, Kat detoacbat Kal Kaprepjoat, TpadryTos
€or Kal cvyyvopmns Kal perpioTadetas. Josephus (Azz. xii. 3. 2)
praises this quality in Vespasian and Titus (perpiorabycavtwv),
who acted magnanimously and generously towards the unruly
Jews ; Dionysius Halicarnassus accuses Marcius (Ant. 8. 529)
of lacking ro edd:aAXaxtov Kal petporabes, ordre du épyns TO
yevoro. Andsoon. The term is allied to zpadrys. The sins
of others are apt to irritate us, either because they are repeated
or because they are flagrant; they excite emotions of disgust,
impatience, and exasperation, and tempt us to be hard and harsh
(Gal 61). The thought of excess here is excessive severity rather
than excessive leniency. The objects of this petptomafety are
Tois dyvoodcw Kat TAavwpEvoLs, 2.¢., people who sin through yield-
ing to the weaknesses of human nature. For such offenders
alone the pzacu/a of atonement-day (which the writer has in mind)
availed. Those who sinned ékxousiws (107), not dxovoiws, were
without the pale; for such presumptuous sins, which our writer
regards specially under the category of deliberate apostasy (31?
1076), there is no pardon possible. The phrase here is practi-
cally a hendiadys, for rots é€ dyvoias tAavwpévors: the People err
through their dyvo. Thus dyvoety becomes an equivalent for
dpaptavew (Sir 23? etc.), just as the noun ayvénua comes to
imply sin (cp. 97 and Jth 57° ei peév éorw adyvonua ev 76 Aad TovTw
Kal dpaptavovar eis Tov Gedy aitav, with Tebt. Pap. 1244 (118 B.c.)
and 5°—a proclamation by king Euergetes and queen Cleopatra

V. 2-5. ] JESUS AS PRIEST 63

declaring ‘‘an amnesty to all their subjects for all errors, crimes,”
etc., except wilful murder and sacrilege). In the A/artyr. Pauli,
4, the apostle addresses his pagan audience as avdpes oi ovtes év
TH ayvwola Kai TH TAGVy TavTy.

(a) Strictly speaking, only such sins could be pardoned (Lv 4? 57): *,
Nu 152281, Dt 171*) as were unintentional. Wilful sins were not covered by
the ordinary ritual of sacrifice (1078, cp. Nu 121).

(4) The term wep{ketpar only occurs in the LXX in Ep. Jer. 23. 57 and
in 4 Mac 12° (ra deoud mepcxeluevov), and in both places in its literal sense
(Symm. Is 617°), as in Ac 28%. But Seneca says of the body, ‘‘ hoc quoque
natura ut quemdam vestem animo circumdedit ” (Zzs¢, 92), and the meta-
phorical sense is as old as Theocritus (23' "4 peiye 5 awd xpws UBpw ras
épyas mepixelwevos).

The dpxtepeds, therefore (v.%), requires to offer sacrifice for
his own sins as well as for those of the People, ka®ws mept tod
Aaod obtw kal mept éautod. This twofold sacrifice is recognized
by Philo (de wit. Mosis, ii. 1), who notes that the holder of the
fepwovvn must éml teAeiots iepots beseech God for blessing
aiT@ Te Kal THS apxowevors. The regulations for atonement-day
(Lv 16°17) provided that the dpxvepev’s sacrificed for himself and
his household as well as for the People (kat rpoode ’Aapoyv tov
poaxov Tov Tepl THS apaptias avtod Kat ée€iAdcerar epi aiTov Kal
TOU Oikov avToU . . . Kal Tepl Tacs Cvvaywy7s vidv Iopayd). But
our author now turns from the idea of the solidarity between
priest and People to the idea of the priest’s commission from
God. Thv tym (in v.4) means position or office, as often, e.g.
éritpomos Aap Bave tavrynv TH TYysnv (Ze. Of supervising the house-
hold slaves), Arist. Pol. i. 7, Tyas yap A€youev ctvar Tas dpyas, 7.
ili. 10, wept TOV apyxLepewy THs T NpEavTo Kal Tiow éLeoTL THS TYAS
ravrns petarau Pave, Joseph. Ant. xx. 10. I. “ANG (sc. Aap-
Baver) kadovpevos, but takes it when (or, as) he is called. The
terseness of the phrase led to the alteration (C° L) of adda into
&dN’ 6 (as in v.°). Ka@dorep kat “Aapdv. In Josephus (Azz. iii.
8. 1), Moses tells the Israelites, viv 6° airds 6 Geds ’"Aapdva rips
TYAS TavTNS GéLov expwe Kal ToUTOV ypyTar iepéa.

aept (before 4uaptiov in v.°) has been changed to dep in C° D° K L ete.
(conforming to 51). There is no difference in meaning (cp. 7epl, Mt 26%=
Umep, Mk. and Lk.), for epi (see 10% 8: 18 96 7311) has taken over the sense

of trep.
For xa@dworep (x* A B D* 33) in v.4, x D° KL P ¥ 6. 1288. 1739 read
the more obvious xa@dmep (C ? syr>*! Chrys. Cyr. Alex. Procopius: caus).

In v.® odx éautév éSdfacev, while the term dda was specially
applicable to the highpriestly office (cf. 2 Mac 147 d6ev adedo-
pevos THY TpoyoviKyy ddgav, A€yw 47 TV apxLepwovvyv), the phrase
is quite general, as in the parallel Jn 8°. The following yevy-
Ojvar is an epexegetic infinitive, which recurs in the Lucan
writings (Lk 15472, Ac 15!°) and in the earlier Psalter of Solo-

64 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [v. 5-7.

mon (228: 49 etc.). After ddd’ we must supply some words like
aurov eddgacer.

The argument runs thus: We have a great dpyepeds, Jesus
the Son of God (44), and it is as he is Son that he carries out
the vocation of dpyxepevs. There is something vital, for the
writer’s mind, in the connexion of dpxepevs and Yids. Hence he
quotes (v.5) his favourite text from Ps 27 before the more apposite
one (in v.°) from Ps 1104, implying that the position of divine
Son carried with it, in some sense, the rdle of dpxiepevs. This
had been already suggested in 17% where the activities of the
Son include the purification of men from their sins. Here the
second quotation only mentions tepevs, it is true; but the writer
drew no sharp distinction between tepeds and dpyiepe’s. In
kata THs Tag MeAxuoedéx, tadis for the writer, as 7/5 proves
(kata THY dpovdryTa MeAxuoedéx), has a general meaning ;! Jesus
has the rank of a Melchizedek, he is a priest of the Melchizedek
sort or order, though in the strict sense of the term there was no
taéts or succession of Melchizedek priests.

Tdéis in the papyri is often a list or register; in OP. 126674 (A.D. 98)
év rage means ‘‘in the class” (of people). It had acquired a sacerdotal
nuance, ¢.g. Michel 735*°* (the regulations of Antiochus I.), doris Te av

vorépw xpivex Tdéw AaBy Tavrny, and occasionally denoted a post or office
(e.g. Tebt. P 2978, A.D. 123).

“Os xtA. Some editors (eg. A. B. Davidson, Liinemann,
Peake, Hollmann) take vv.719 as a further proof of (4). But
the writer is here casting back to (a), not hinting that the
trying experiences of Jesus on earth proved that his vocation was
not self-sought, but using these to illustrate the thoroughness
with which he had identified himself with men. He does this,
although the parallel naturally broke down at one point. Indeed
his conception of Christ was too large for the categories he had
been employing, and this accounts for the tone and language of
the passage. (a) Jesus being ywpis ayaprias did not require to
offer any sacrifices on his own behalf; and (4) the case of
Melchizedek offered no suggestion of suffering as a vital element
in the vocation of an a@pyepev’s. As for the former point, while
the writer uses mpocevéeyxas in speaking of the prayers of Jesus,
this is at most a subconscious echo of rpoodépey in vv. ; there
is no equivalent in Jesus to the sacrifice offered by the OT
dpx.epevs, Tepi €avtov . . . mept duapti@v. The writer starts with
his parallel, for év tats yépars THs TapKos av’rov corresponds to
mepixeirat aoGeverav (v.2); but instead of developing the idea of
sympathy in an official (uetproraGety duvdpevos KtA.), he passes to
the deeper idea that Jesus qualified himself by a moral discipline

1As in 2 Mac 9! émicrodny éxovoav ixernplas tai, Hp. Arist. 69,
Kpnmidos éxovoa Taku.

Vez THE SUFFERINGS OF JESUS 65

to be dpxvepev’s in a pre-eminent sense. He mentions the prayers
and tears of Jesus here, as the faith of Jesus in 2!6, for the
express purpose of showing how truly he shared the lot of man
on earth, using Sejoets te kal tketyplas, a phrase which the writer
may have found in his text (A) of Jb 40” @) dejoes Kai ixerypias,
but which was classical (eg. Isokrates, de Pace, 46, oAAas
ixeryptas Kal denoers Tovovpevor). “Ixerypia had become an equiva-
lent for ixeoda, which is actually the reading here in 1 (dejoes Te
kat txecotas). The phrase recurs in a Ptolemaic papyrus (Brunet
de Presle et E. Egger’s Papyrus Grecs du Musée du Louvre, 27°),
xatpew oe aid pera Seyoews Kai txereias, though in a weakened
sense. The addition of peta xpavyfs (here a cry of anguish)
ioxupas kat Saxpdwy may be a touch of pathos, due to his own
imagination,! or suggested by the phraseology of the 22nd psalm,
which was a messianic prediction for him (cp. above, 2!) as for
the early church; the words of v.? in that psalm would hardly
suit (kexpagopar Huepas mpos oe Kal ovd« eicaxovoy), but phrases
like that of v.6 (xpos oé éxéxpagay Kal éodOnoav) and v.” (ev to
KeKpayevar je TpOS aiTov éryKoveév pov) might have been in his
mind. Tears were added before long to the Lucan account of
the passion, at 2244 (Epiph. Amcor. 31, dAAa “Kai exAavoev” KeEtTaOL
év TO kata Aovkay etayyeAiw év tots ddvopfwrois dvtvypadors). It
is one of the passages which prove how deeply the writer was
impressed by the historical Jesus ; the intense faith and courage
and pitifulness of Jesus must have deeply moved his mind. He
seeks to bring out the full significance of this for the saving
work of Jesus as Son. His methods of proof may be remote and
artificial, to our taste, but the religious interest which prompted
them is fundamental. No theoretical reflection on the qualifica-
tion of priests or upon the dogma of messiah’s sinlessness could
have produced such passages as this.

Later Rabbinic piety laid stress on tears, e.g. in Sohar Exod. fol. 5. 19,
“Rabbi Jehuda said, all things of this world depend on penitence and
prayers, which men offer to God (Blessed be He!), especially if one sheds
tears along with his prayers”; and in Synopsis Sohar, p. 33, n. 2, ‘‘ There
are three kinds of prayers, entreaty, crying, and tears. Entreaty is offered
in a quiet voice, crying with a raised voice, but tears are higher than all.”

In dm tis edXaBelas, the sense of etAaBeia in 12%8 and of
evAaetoGa in 117 shows that adwo here means “on account of”
(as is common in Hellenistic Greek), and that azo rijs edAaBeias
must be taken, as the Greek fathers took it, ‘on account of his
reverent fear of God,” pro sua reverentia (vg), “because he had

1 Like that of Hos 124, where tears are added to the primitive story (Gn
32°5) of Jacob’s prayer (évicxucev pera ayyédov Kal HSvvdcbn* ékNavoay Kal
édenOnody ov). In 2 Mac 11® the Maccabean army mera ddupudy cal daxpiwv
ixérevov Tov KUptov.

5

66 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Ae hts

God in reverence” (Tyndale; “in honoure,” Coverdale). The
writer is thinking of the moving tradition about Jesus in Geth-
semane, which is now preserved in the synoptic gospels, where
Jesus entreats God to be spared death: “ABGG 6 raryp, ravta
dvvatd wou TapéveyKe TO ToTHpiov am euod Trovtro (Mk 14°°). This
repeated supplication corresponds to the “ bitter tears and cries.”
Then Jesus adds, dAX’ od ri éym Oédw, dAAG ti ov. This is his
evAaBea, the godly fear which leaves everything to the will of
God. Such is the discipline which issues in taxon. Compare
Ps. Sol 68 kai kiptos eionkovee mpocevxyy ravros év PbBw Geor.

(a) The alternative sense of ‘‘ fear” appears as early as the Old Latin
version (d=exauditus a metu). This meaning of evAaBela (Beza: ‘‘liberatus
ex metu”’) occurs in Joseph. Azz. xi. 6. 9, evAaBelas abryv (Esther) drodtwr.

Indeed evAaBela (cp. Anz, 359) and its verb evAaBeto@ac are common in this
sense; cp. ¢.g. 2 Mac 816 uh karamdayfjva Tots deculors unde evrAaBetoPa

Thy... wodruTAnGelav: Sir 41? wh evAaBod kpiwa Savdrov: Wis 178 obra
karayéNacrov evAdBeray évécouv. But here the deeper, religious sense is more
relevant to the context. ‘‘ In any case the answer consisted . . . in courage

given to face death. . . . The point to be emphasized is, not so much that
the prayer of Jesus was heard, as that it ~eeded to be heard” (A. B. Bruce,
. 186).

E (6) Some (e.g. Linden in Studien und Kritiken, 1860, 753{., and Blass,
§ 211) take d7é ris evAaBelas with what follows ; this was the interpretation of
the Peshitto (‘‘and, although he was a son, he learned obedience from fear
and the sufferings which he bore’’). But the separation of ad rijs evAaBelas
from ag dy and the necessity of introducing a xat before the latter phrase
point to the artificiality of this construction.

In v.8 katmep Gv uids (kairep being used with a participle as
in 75-1217) means, “Son though he was,” not “‘son though he
was.” The writer knows that painful discipline is to be expected
by all who are sons of God the Father; he points out, in 125,
that every son, because he is a son, has to suffer. Here the
remarkable thing is that Jesus had to suffer, not because but
although he was vids, which shows that Jesus is Son in a unique
sense ; as applied to Jesus vids means something special. As
divine vids in the sense of 11%, it might have been expected that
he would be exempt from such a discipline. “Os... eua0ev
. . . Swakoyy is the main thread of the sentence, but kaimep av
vids attaches itself to €uafev «7A. rather than to the preceding
participles tmpogevéyxas and eicaxouvobeis (Chrys. Theophyl.).
With a daring stroke the author adds, €pabev ag’ dv enable thy
imakoyy. The paronomasia goes back to a common Greek
phrase which is as old as Aeschylus (Agam. 177f.), who de-

scribes Zeus as tov wafer pddos Oévta kupiws éxew, and tells how
(W. Headlam)—

“The heart in time of sleep renews
Aching remembrance of her bruise,
And chastening wisdom enters wills that most refuse ”—

V. 8, 9.] THE OBEDIENCE OF JESUS 67

which, the poet adds, is a sort of xapis Biawos from the gods.
This moral doctrine, that wdfos brings pabos, is echoed by
Pindar (Jsthm. 1. 40, 6 rovycats 8 vow Kat tpopaberay Peper) and
other writers, notably by Philo (de wit. Mos. iii. 38, tovrovs od
Adyos GAN’ Epya maidever’ wabdvres eloovtar Td ewov awevo€es, ézel
pavovres otk eyvwoav: de spec. leg. iii. 6, W ex Tod zabeiv paby
KTA.: de somn. 11. 15, 6 waav axpiBds ewabev, dt. Tod Geod (Gn
501%) éorv). But in the Greek authors and in Philo it is almost
invariably applied to ‘the thoughtless or stupid, and to open and
deliberate offenders” (Abbott, Dza¢. 3208a), to people who can
only be taught by suffering. Our writer ventures, therefore, to
apply to the sinless Jesus an idea which mainly referred to young
or wilful or undisciplined natures. The term émaxon only occurs
once in the LXX, at 2 S 2296 (kat tmaxon cov éxArnOuvév pe, A),
where it translates M)3y. The general idea corresponds to that

of 10° below, where Jesus enters the world submissively to do
the will of God, a vocation which involved suffering and self-
sacrifice. But the closest parallel is the argument of Paul in Ph
28, that Jesus, born in human form, éravetvwoev Eavtov yevopevos
imyjKoos (Sc. TO Ged) expt Gavdrov, and the conception of the
trakoy of Jesus (Ro 5}: !*) in contrast to the tapaxoy of Adam.
What our writer means to bring out here, as in 2!f, is the
practical initiation of Jesus into his vocation for God and men.
‘“Wherever there is a vocation, growth and process are inevi-
table. . . . Personal relations are of necessity relations into which
one grows ; the relation can be fully and practically constituted
only in the practical exercise of the calling in which it is involved.
So it was with Christ. He had, so to speak, to work Himself
into His place in the plan of salvation, to go down among the
brethren whom He was to lead to glory and fully to identify
Himself with them, not of course by sharing their individual
vocation, but in the practice of obedience in the far harder
vocation given to Him. ‘That obedience had to be learned, not
because His will was not at every moment perfect ... but
simply because it was a concrete, many-sided obedience” (W.
Robertson Smith, Zxfosztor*, ii. pp. 425, 426). TedewwGeis in v.?
recalls and expands the remark of 21°, that God “ perfected ”
Jesus by suffering as tov adpxnydv ts cwrnpias airav, and the
argument of 21718, The writer avoids the technical Stoic terms
mpoxorrew and mpoxo7y. He prefers teAeody and reAciwors, not
on account of their associations with the sacerdotal consecration
of the OT ritual, but in order to suggest the moral ripening
which enabled Jesus to offer a perfect self-sacrifice, and also
perhaps with a side-allusion here to the death-association of
these terms.

68 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Vv. 9-11.

Philo (de Aérah. 11) observes that nature, instruction, and practice are the
three things essential mpds TeAevdTyTAa Tod Bod, otire yap didacKkaNlay dvev
¢icews 7) acxnoews TehetwOjva duvardov ore Pivots Eri wépas éotiv eNOety ixavy
dlxa Tov uabeiv.

Aittos cwtnpias was a common Greek phrase. Thus Philo
speaks of the brazen serpent as attios owrnplas yevomevos tavTeAovs
tois Jeacapévors (de Agric. 22), Aeschines (zz Ctesifh. 57) has
THs pev GwTyplav TH TOA Tors Geos aitiovs yeyevypevous, and in
the de Mundo, 3980, the writer declares that it is fitting for God
aitiov te yiverOa Tois eri THs yns Twrypias. Lwrtypia aiwvios is
a LXX phrase (Is 451"), but not in the sense intended here
(cp. 2°). The collocation of Jesus learning how to obey God
and of thus proving a saviour tots bmakovouow att is remarkable.
At first sight there is a clue to the sense in Philo, who declares
that “the man who is morally earnest,” receiving God’s kingdom,
“does not prove a source of evil to anyone (airvos yiverar), but
proves a source of the acquisition and use of good things for all
who obey him” (ra@ou rots trnkdos, de Abrah. 45). This refers
to Abraham, but to the incident of Gn 23°, not to that of
Melchizedek ; Philo is spiritualizing the idea of the good man as
king, and the tryxdo. are the members of his household under
his authority. The parallel is merely verbal. Here by raow
tois Umakovoucw altro the writer means of muctevoavtes (4°), but
with a special reference to their loyalty to Christ. Disobedience
to Christ or to God (3!8 4% 1!) is the practical expression of
disbelief. It is a refusal to take Christ for what he is, as God’s
appointed dpyepeds. The writer then adds (v.!°) mpooayopeudeis
ind Tod Oeod dpxiepeds Kata Thy Tdé&w MeAxioedéx, in order to
explain how, thus commissioned, he brought the owrypia aiwvios.
The paragraph is thus rounded off, like that of vv.> 6, with a
reference to the Melchizedek priesthood, which the writer regards
as of profound importance, and to which he now proposes to
advance. Though zpocayopevw is not used in this sense (“ hail,”
designate”) in the LXX, the usage is common in Hellenistic
writings like 2 Maccabees (1%° 47 10%) and Josephus (eg. «.
Apion. i. 311). But the Melchizedek type of priesthood is not
discussed till 62° 71. The interlude between 51° and 6” is
devoted to a stirring exhortation ; for this interpretation of the
Son as priest is a piece of yv@ou.s which can only be imparted
to those who have mastered the elementary truths of the Chris-
tian religion, and the writer feels and fears that his readers are
still so immature that they may be unable or unwilling to grasp
the higher and fuller teaching about Christ. The admonition
has three movements of thought, 511-14, 61-8, and 6919,

1 On this point I (jutv, plural of authorship, as 25) have a great deal to say,
which tt ts hard to make intelligible to you. For (kal ydp=etenim) you have

V. 11, 12.] BACK WARDNESS 69

grown dull of hearing. '* Though by this time you should be teaching other
people, you still need someone to teach you once more the rudimentary prin-
ciples of the divine revelation. You are in need of milk, not of solid food.
13 ( For anyone who ts fed on milk is unskilled in moral truth ; he is! a mere
babe. 14 Whereas solid food is for the mature, for those who have their
faculties trained by exercise to distinguish good and evil.) 61 Let us pass on
then to what 7s mature, leaving elementary Christian doctrine behind, znstead
of laying the foundation over again with repentance from dead works, with
faith in God, * with instruction about ablutions and the laying on of hands,
about the resurrection of the dead and eternal punishment. * With God’s
permission we will take this step.

Mepi 06 (7.c. on dpxtepeds kata tHv Taéw M.) wodds xrA. (v.!").
The entire paragraph (vv.!1-!4) is full of ideas and terms current
in the ethical and especially the Stoic philosophy of the day.
Thus, to begin with, zoAvs (sc. €or) 6 Myos is a common literary
phrase for ‘‘there is much to say”; e.g. Dion. Hal. ad Amm.
1. 3, TOADS yap 6 mepi adrav Adyos, and Lysias 7m Pancleonem, 11,
doa pev ovv aditob. eppyOy, wodds av ein jor Adyos Senyeto Gar.
IloAvs and dvaepynvevros are separated, as elsewhere adjectives
are (e.g. 217). For the general sense of d5uceppyveutos Aéyew, see
Philo, de migrat. Abrah. 18, js ta pev GAXa paxpotépwv 7) Kara
Tov Tapdvta katpov deirat Adywy Kai brepOeréov, and Dion. Halic.
de Comp. viii. wept Gv Kal modts 6 Adyos Kal Babeta 7 Oewpia.
Avoeppyvevtos occurs in an obscure and interpolated passage of
Philo’s de Somnttis (i. 32, GAéxtw tue kat Svoepunvedtw Géa), and
Artemidorus (Oxezrocr. iii. 67, ot dverpor . . . motxthou Kal zroAXots
Svceppyjvevror) uses it of dreams. “Emel «rd. (explaining ducepy7-
vevrot) for the fault lies with you, not with the subject. Nw§pds
only occurs once in the LXX, and not in this sense (Pr 22%
dvdpdor vwOpois, tr. JWM); even in Sir 4”? 111? it means no more
than slack or backward (as below in 6!%). It is a common
Greek ethical term for sluggishness, used with the accusative or
the (locative) dative. With dxoy it denotes dulness. The literal
sense occurs in Heliodorus (v. 10: éy® pév otv yoOounv...
Taxa pév mov Kat d¢ HAukiav vwOpdtepos v tiv akon" voros yap
G\Awv Te Kat &tOv To yhpas), and the metaphorical sense of dxoat
is illustrated by Philo’s remark in gus rer. div. haer. 3: év avxous
dvopiaow, ols Gra pev eri, axoal 8 ovK everowy.

Why (kai ydp, v.12), the writer continues, instead of being
teachers you still need a teacher. For xpeta with the article and
infinitive (tod SiB8doKewv 2 xrA.), cp. the similar use of xpéwy in OP.
14882, In what follows, twd, the masculine singular, gives a
better sense than riva, the neuter plural. ‘‘ Ye again have need
of (one) to teach you what are the elements” (sah boh); but it

1 —D* inserts dxujv (Mt 15!*) between ydp and éorw: ‘‘he is s¢z// a mere
babe.” Blass adopts this, for reasons of rhythm.
2 1912 and Origen read (with 462) d:ddoxecOa, and omit tas.

70 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [v. 12.

is the elementary truths themselves, not what they are, that need
to be taught. Td orotxeta here means the ABC or elementary
principles (see Burton’s Gadatians, pp. 510f.), such as he men-
tions in 61:7.. He defines them further as tis apxfs tov Aoylwy
Oeod, where ta Aoyia Geod means not the OT but the divine
revelation in general, so that ra o. t. dpyns corresponds to the
Latin phrase “prima elementa.” The words édetdovtes eivar
S8dexador simply charge the readers with backwardness. ‘The
expression, ‘to be teachers,’ affirms no more than that the
readers ought to be ripe in Christian knowledge. Once a man
is ripe or mature, the qualification for teaching is present”
(Wrede, p. 32). The use of the phrase in Greek proves that it
is a general expression for stirring people up to acquaint them-
selves with what should be familiar. See Epict. Euchir. 51,
Totov ovv étt SuddoKadov mpocdokas; . . . OVK ETL EL pretpaxtov, GAAG
avnp dn TéAcos. It was quite a favourite ethical maxim in
antiquity. Thus Cyrus tells the Persian chiefs that he would be
ashamed to give them advice on the eve of battle: otda yap tas
TavTa émloTapevouvs Kal pepeXeTnKOTas Kal adoKoUVTas dia TEAOUS
old@ep eyo, wate Kav GAAovs elkdtws av diddoKorte (Cyrop. ill. 3.
35). Similarly we have the remark of Aristophanes in Plato,
Sympos. 1894, éyo obv repacopa tiv eionynoacba tHv Svvapuv
avTov, tuets O€ TOV GAAwY SidacKadror éoeobe, and the reply given
by Apollonius of Tyana to a person who asked why he never put
questions to anybody: ort peipaxiov dv elytnoa, viv dé od xpy
(nteiv GAA didacKev & evpnxa (Philostratus, Vita Apoll. i. 17).
Seneca tells Lucilius the same truth: “‘ quousque disces P iam et
praecipe (Zf. 33°). Thus the phrase here offers no support
whatever to any theories about the readers of IIpos “EGpatovs
being a group of teachers, or a small, specially cultured com-
munity. The author, himself a d:ddoxaXos, as he is in possession
of this mature yvéots, is trying to shame his friends out of their
imperfect grasp of their religion. That is all. Teyévate xpetav
éxovtes is a rhetorical variant for xpetav éxere, due to the writer’s
fondness for yeyéva. If there is any special meaning in the
larger phrase, it is that detected by Chrysostom, who argues that
the writer chose it deliberately: rouvréorw, tpuets 7OeAjoarTe, ipets
éavrovs eis ToUTO KaTeaTHGaTE, cis Ta’THV THY xpeiav. They are
responsible for this second childhood of theirs. ‘The comparison 4
of milk and solid food is one of the most common in Greek

1 Origen (Phz/ocalia, xviii. 23) uses this passage neatly to answer Celsus,
who had declared that Christians were afraid to appeal to an educated and
intelligent audience. He quotes 5! as well as 1 Co 3%, arguing that in
the light of them it must be admitted jwuets, don Sivas, wdvra mpdrromer
bmép Tov Ppoviuwy avipav yevécOar Tov aiAroyor judy’ Kal TA €v Tuly uddoTa
Kava kal Beta Tore TOAUGpEV ev Tois mpds TO Kooy diaddyas Pépew els Méoor,
br ebrropotmev cvveray akpoaTar,

V. 12-14. | IMMATURITY 71

ethical philosophy, as in Epictetus, eg. ii. 16. 39, ob OéAes Hdy
&s Ta radia aroyadaxticOjvar Kal arrecOar tpopys otepewrepas,
and iii. 24. 9, ovx droyaAaxticopev 5 of éavrovs, and parti-
cularly in Philo. A characteristic passage from the latter writer
is the sentence in de agric. 2: émei d€ vnrrios pev eore yada Tpopy,
reretors 58 Ta ex TupOV Téeupata, Kal Wox7s yaAakTwdes pev Gv
elev tpodal kara tiv maLduKyy yAtkiay TA THS éyKuKALov pPovatKTs
mporrawevpara, TéAciar dé kal avdpdow eumpereis at dia ppovycews
kat cwppoovvys Kal ardons apetns bpynynoes. Our writer adopts
the metaphor, as Paul had done (1 Co 3!:?), and adds a general
aside (vv.1%: 14) in order to enforce his remonstrance. He does
not use the term yvéous, and the plight of his friends is not due
to the same causes as operated in the Corinthian church, but
he evidently regards his interpretation of the priesthood of Christ
as mature instruction, oteped tpopy. “O petéxwv yddaktos is one
whose only food (eréxew as in 1 Co 10!” etc.) is milk ; depos
is “inexperienced,” and therefore “ unskilled,” in Aéyou Stkato-
otvns—an ethical phrase for what moderns would call “ moral
truth,” almost as in Xen. Cyrop. i. 6. 31, avyp diddcKados tov
maidwyv, ds edidackev dpa Tors Tatdas THY SiKaLoovvynv KTA., Or in M.
Aurelius xi. 10, xii. 1. Thus, while 8cxatoodvyn here is not a
religious term, the phrase means more than (a) “ incapable of
talking correctly ” (Delitzsch, B. Weiss, von Soden), which is, no
doubt, the mark of a vymos, but irrelevant in this connexion ;
or (4) “incapable of understanding normal speech,” such as
grown-up people use (Riggenbach). Tedetwv 8€ xrA. (v.14). The
clearest statement of what contemporary ethical teachers meant by
téXeos as mature, is (cp. p. 70) in Epict. Lxchirid. 51, “how long
(ets rotov ért xpévov) will you defer thinking of yourself as worthy
of the very best ...? You have received the precepts you
ought to accept, and have accepted them. Why then do you
still wait for a teacher (duddcKaAov mpoodoxas), that you may put
off amending yourself till he comes? You are a lad no longer,
you are a full-grown man now (ovK éri «f petpdxiov, adda avijp
non TéAevos). . . . Make up your mind, ere it is too late, to live
s TéXevov Kal mpoxortovta.” Then he adds, in words that recall
He 12": “and when you meet anything stiff or sweet, glorious
or inglorious, remember that viv 6 dydv Kai 4dn mdpeote Ta
"OAvpria.” As Pythagoras divided his pupils into wy. and
7éXetor, SO Our author distinguishes between the immature and
the mature (cp. 1 Co 2° év rots reAetous, 3! vyriows). In 8d thy
eéw (vg. “‘ pro consuetudine ”) he uses €gcs much as does the writer
of the prologue to Sirach (ixavyy e€w wepurornodpevos), for facility
or practice! It is not an equivalent for mental faculties here,

1 «« Firma quaedam facilitas quae apud Graecos @s nominatur” (Quint.
Instit. Orat. 10. 1).

72 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 14-VI. 1.

but for the exercise of our powers. These powers or faculties
are called ta aic@ytypia. AicOyrypiov was a Stoic term for an
organ of the senses, and, like its English equivalent “sense,”
easily acquired an ethical significance, as in Jer 4! ra aicOyrnpia
THs Kapotas pov. The phrase yeyupvacpéva aic@ytipia may be
illustrated from Galen (de dign. puls. ili. 2, 0s pev yap av ebaoOyrT0-
ratov piow TE Kal TO aiabyTnpiov exn yeyvpvacpevov ixavas .. .
obtos dv dploros ein yvepwv Tv évTOs droKepéevey, and de complexu,
ii. : Aedoywtpéevov pev eat avdpos Tois Aoyirpovs ovs ElpyKa Kal
yeyupvacpéva tiv alcOnow ev ToANG TH KaTa repos eprrerpia KTA.),
yeyvpvacpéeva being a perfect participle used predicatively, like
repurevievny in Lk 13%, and yeyvpvacpévov above. Compare
what Marcus Aurelius (iii. 1) says about old age; it may come
upon us, bringing not physical failure, but a premature decay of
the mental and moral faculties, e.g., of self-control, of the sense
of duty, kai dca towatra Aoyspod ovyyeyupvacpévov wavy xpyCet.
Elsewhere (ii. 13) he declares that ignorance of moral distinctions
(dyvova é&yabév Kat xaxév) is a blindness as serious as any inability
to distinguish black and white. ‘The power of moral discrimina-
tion (pds Sidkprow Kaho’ Te kat kakod) is the mark of maturity,
in contrast to childhood (cp. e.g. Dt 1°° wav raidiov véov dots
obk oldev onpepov ayabdv 7 Kaxdv). Compare the definition of
7 Oukov in Sextus Empiricus (Hyp. Pyrr. iii. 168): dep doxet
rept tiv Sidkpicw Tov Te KaAdY Kal KaKdv Kai adiaddpwv KaTa-
yiyver Oa.

In spite of Resch’s arguments (7exte u. Untersuchungen, xxx. 3. 112f.),
there is no reason to hear any echo of the well-known saying attributed to

Jesus: yiverOe dé Séximor Tpamefirar, Ta pev atrodokimafovtes, TO 5€ KaNov
KaTEXOVTES.

Avs—well then (as in 121% °8)—ént tév tederdtyTa hepdpeba
(61). It is a moral duty to grow up, and the duty involves an
effort. The reAedrys in question is the mature mental grasp of
the truth about Christ as dpxvepe’s, a truth which the writer is
disappointed that his friends still find it difficult to understand.
However, 5:4 tov xpovov they ought to understand it. He has every
reason to expect an effort from them, and therefore he follows
up his remonstrance with a word of encouragement. Instead of
the sharp, severe tone of vv.Uf, he now speaks more hopefully.
The connexion is not easy. We expect “however” instead of
“well then.” But the connexion is not made more easy by
regarding 6! as a resolve of the writer: “since you are so im-
mature, I am going on myself to develop the higher teaching.”
It would be senseless for a teacher to take this line, and it is not
facilitated by reading epopeba. The plural is not the literary
plural as in 51. The writer wishes to carry his readers along
with him. ‘If you want anyone to instruct you over again in

Vick] A CALL TO THOUGHT 73

rudimentary Christianity, | am not the man; I propose to carry
you forward into a higher course of lessons. Come, let us
advance, you and I together.” The underlying thought, which
explains the transition, is revealed in the next paragraph (vv.**),
where the writer practically tells his readers that they must either
advance or lose their present position of faith,! in which latter
case there is no second chance for them. In spite of his un-
qualified censure in 51%, he shows, in 6%, that they are really
capable of doing what he summons them to try in 61*, ze. to
think out the full significance of Jesus in relation to faith and
forgiveness, Only thus, he argues, can quicken the faint pulse of
your religious life. ‘‘ Religion is something different from mere
strenuous thinking on the great religious questions. Yet it still
remains true that faith and knowledge are inseparable, and that
both grow stronger as they react on one another. More often
than we know, the failure of religion, as a moral power, is due to
no other cause than intellectual sloth” (E. F. Scott, p. 44).
After the parenthesis of 5!*-14, the writer resumes the thought
with which he started in 5 ‘‘you must make an effort to enter
into this larger appreciation of what Christ means.” “Adevtes . . .
depdpeba is a phrase illustrated by Eurip. Androm. 392-393,
mv apxiv adels | mpos THY TeAevTHV torépav ovoav éepy: by
adévres the writer means “leaving behind,” and by depwpueba
“Jet us advance.” “Adinuc might even mean “to omit” (“not
mentioning ”); it is so used with Adyov (=to pass over without
mentioning), e.g. in Plutarch’s an sent respublica gerenda sit, 18,
GAN adévtes, ei Bove, TOV aroorGvtTa THS Toditelas Adyov éxetvo
oKorapev Hoy KTA., and even independently (cp. Epict. iv. 1. 15, rov
piv Kaioapa zpos 76 rapov apomev, and Theophrastus, pvovem. adeis
TO rpoorpraleoOat Kai TOAAG epi TOU mpdypatos Aéyew). In what
follows, tov THs apxis TOD Xptotod Aéyoy is a variant for Ta orovxeta
THs apis Tov Aoyiwv Tod Geod (51%). Tod Xpiorod is an objective
genitive; the writer is not thinking of injunctions issued by
Christ (so Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church, p. 344).
Blass follows L in reading Aourdv after Adyov—needlessly.

The use of the @epéAtov metaphor after tis dpxfs was natural ;
it occurs in Epictetus (ii. 15. 8, ob OéXers THY apxiv oTHoaL Kai TOY
Geuédvov) and in Philo (de spec. leg. ii. 13, apynv tavtyv Baddo-
pevos dorep Oewedrov twa). Indeed the Gepedvov metaphor is
particularly common in Philo, as, e.g., in the de vita contempl.
476 (éykpareay d& dorep TWH Gewedrov mpokataBarXdmevoe Wrxi7s).
This basis (@epédvov) of Christian instruction is now described ;
the contents are arranged in three pairs, but, as the middle pair
are not distinctively Christian ideas (v.”), the writer puts in

1 Compare the motto which Cromwell is said to have written on his
pocket-bible, ‘‘ qui cessat esse melior cessat esse bonus.”

74 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Vr 2.

S8axynv or Sdaxqs. The Oeuedcov of instruction consists of
petavolas . . . Kat miorews (genitives of quality), while dudaynv,
which is in apposition to it (‘‘I mean, instruction about”),
controls the other four genitives. Metdvova and mloris, Batiopot
and éméois xetpOv, dvdotacis and xpipa aidvov, are the funda-
mental truths. Merdvoia} azo is like petavoety amo (Ac 8"), and
mots ért Gedv like ruorevew eri (e.g. Wis 12? iva aaddayertes THS
Kakias TurTevowpmev eri o€, KUpte). These two requirements were
foremost in the programme of the Christian mission. The other
side of repentance is described in 914 réaw padAdov 76 aia Tot
Xpwrod . . . Kabapret tiv cvveldnow juav aro vexpov Epywv eis TO
Aatpevey Gem COv71, where the last word indicates that vexpa epya
mean the conduct of those who are outside the real life and
service of God. Practically, therefore, vexpa epya are sins, as the
Greek fathers assumed; the man who wrote 11% (feod...
dpaptias) would hardly have hesitated to call them such. He
has coined this phrase to suggest that such épya have no principle
of life in them,? or that they lead to death. The origin of the
phrase has not been explained, though Chrysostom and Oecu-
menius were right in suggesting that the metaphor of g!* was
derived from the contamination incurred by touching a corpse
(see Nu 19! 3119). Its exact meaning is less clear. The one
thing that is clear about it is that these €pya vexpd were not
habitual sins of Christians ; they were moral offences from which
a man had to break away, in order to become a Christian at all.
They denote not the lifeless, formal ceremonies of Judaism, but
occupations, interests, and pleasures, which lay within the sphere
of moral death, where, as a contemporary Christian writer put it
(Eph 2!), pagans lay vexpot tots tapartwmpacw Kal Tals dpapriais.
The phrase might cover Jewish Christians, if there were any
such in the community to which this homily is addressed, but it is
a general phrase. Whatever is evil is vexpov, for our author, and
épya vexpa render any Christian wioris or Aatpevev impossible
(cp. Expositor, Jan. 1918, pp. 1-18), because they belong to the
profane, contaminating sphere of the world.

In v.? 88axyv is read, instead of 8:8ax%s, by B syr™™ and
the Old Latin, a very small group—yet the reading is probably

1 According to Philo (de Adbrah. 2, 3), next to hope, which is the &pxyn
perovolas aya0Sv, comes 7 éml duapravomévors werdvoaa Kal BeATlwots. Only,
he adds (zdzd. 4), repentance is second to Tederdrns, Worep Kal avdcov TwWmaTos
n mpos vyelav €E dobevelas weraBory . . . 1 O' amd Twos xpdvou BeATlwois Udrov
dyaboy evprods Wuxfs éore pi Tots mardixots émunevovons aXN adporépos Kal
avdpods bvTws ppovhuacu éemuenrovons evd.oy kardoracw [Wuxjs] kal TH pavTacia
TOV Kah@v éeritpexovons.

2 Cp. the use of vexpés in Epict. iii. 23. 28, cal why dv wh radra éurorp 6
Tod pioa dou Aédyos, vexpds éote kal adtds Kal 6 Aéywv. This passage indicates
how vexpés could pass from the vivid application to persons (Mt 8”, Lk 15%,
cp. Col 2}8), into a secondary application to their sphere and conduct.

VI. 2.] ELEMENTARY CHRISTIANITY 75

original; the surrounding genitives led to its alteration into
5:day7ys. However, it makes no difference to the sense, which
reading is chosen. Even éidayyjs depends on Geuédvov as a
qualifying genitive. But the change of didaxyv into didaxns is
much more likely than the reverse process. Avdaynv follows
Barricpav like xédcopos in 1 P 3% (evdvcews ipwatiwy Kdcpos).
Banticpot by itself does not mean specifically Christian baptism
either in this epistle (9!) or elsewhere (Mk 74), but ablutions or
immersions such as the mystery religions and the Jewish cultus
required for initiates, proselytes, and worshippers in general.
The singular might mean Christian baptism (as in Col 2!2), but
why does the writer employ the plural here? Not because
in some primitive Christian circles the catechumen was thrice
sprinkled or immersed in the name of the Trinity (Didache 71%),
but because ancient religions, such as those familiar to the
readers, had all manner of purification rites connected with
water (see on 1072). The distinctively Christian uses of water
had to be grasped by new adherents. That is, at baptism, e.g.,
the catechumen would be specially instructed about the differ-
ence between this Christian rite, with its symbolic purification
from sins of which one repented, and (a) the similar rites in
connexion with Jewish proselytes on their reception into the
synagogue or with adherents who were initiated into various
cults, and (4) the ablutions which were required from Christians
in subsequent worship. The latter practice may be alluded to
in 1072 (AeAovopevor TO GGpa Voate Kafaps). Justin (Afo/. i. 62)
regards these lustrations of the cults as devilish caricatures of
real baptism: kai 70 Aovtpov 67) TovTo axovoavTes of Satpoves . .
evypynoav Kal pavtiley éavtovs Tors eis Ta iepa attav émiBaivovtas
kal mpoovevat avtots péAAovtTas, AouBas Kal Kvicas azoreXodvTas
téheov O€ Kat AoverOar emidvtas mpiv eAGeiv ei Ta tepd, evOa
idpuvtar, evepyovo.. The ém@éois xerpdv which often followed
baptism in primitive days (e.g. Ac 8'* 198), though it is ignored
by the Didache and Justin, was supposed to confer the holy
Spirit (see v.*). Tertullian witnesses to the custom (de baptismo,
18, de carnis resurrectione, 8), and Cyprian corroborates it (EZ.
Ixxiv. 5, ‘‘manus baptizato imponitur ad accipiendum spiritum
sanctum”). The rite was employed in blessing, in exorcising,
and at “ordination,” afterwards at the reception of penitents
and heretics; here it is mentioned in connexion with baptism
particularly (ZRZ. vi. 4940).

The subject is discussed in monographs like A. J. Mason’s The Relation
of Confirmation to Baptism (1891), and J. Behm’s Die Handauflegung im
Orchristenthum (1911).

The final pair of doctrines is dvactdcews vexpav Kal Kpiwatos
(214-15 927) giwviov (as in Ac 24! *>), Te is added after dvac-

76 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ |VI. 2-4.

taoews mechanically (to conform with the preceding re) by 8 AC
K L Lat arm syr™ Pe, just as it is added after Barricpav by
harkl. In the rather elliptical style and loose construction of the
whole sentence, ‘‘ notwithstanding its graceful rhythmical struc-
ture,” it is possible to see, with Bruce (p. 203), “an oratorical
device to express a feeling of impatience” with people who need
to have such frincipia mentioned. At any rate the writer hastens
forward. VV. is not a parenthesis (‘I will do this,” ze. go over
such elementary truths with you, ‘‘if God permits,” when I
reach you, 137); the todro refers to the advance proposed in v.},
and after worjoopev the author adds reverently, “if God permits,”
edvmep €mitpémn 6 Oeds, almost as a contemporary rhetorician
might say in a pious aside: éav 8 own 76 Sapoviov yas (Dion.
Halicarn. De Admir. Vi dicendi in Dem. 58), or Ocdv jpas
prratrovrwv dowels Te Kai avdcovs (De Composit. Verborum, 1).
The papyri show that similar phrases were current in the
correspondence of the day (cp. Deissmann’s Bible Studies, p. 80),
and Josephus (Azz. xx. 11. 2) uses kav 70 Oetov émutpery.

moiujoonev (8 BK LN 1. 2. 5. 6. 33. 69. 88. 216. 218. 221. 226. 242.
255- 337+ 429. 489. 919. 920. 1149. 1518. 1739. 1758. 1827. 1867. 2127. 2143.
Lat sah boh Chrys.) has been changed into roujowuev by A C D P arn, etc.,
though the latter may have been originally, like @epdueAa in v.!, an ortho-
graphical variant, o and w being frequently confused,

4 For in the case of people who have been once enlightened, who tasted the
heavenly Gift, who participated in the holy Spirit, ° who tasted the goodness of
God’s word and the powers of the world to come, ® and then fell away—it is
zmposstble to make them repent afresh, since they crucify the Son of God in
their own persons and hold him up to obloguy. * For “land” which absorbs
the rain that often falls on tt, and bears *‘ plants” that are useful to those for
whom tt zs tilled, rececves a blessing from God ; ® whereas, tf tt (sc. h yh) ‘‘pro-
duces thorns and thistles,” tt ts reprobate and on the verge of being cursed—its
fate ts to be burned.

Vv.*® put the reason for todto toujoopey (v.°), and vv.” 8 give
the reason for aduvatov . . . dvaxawwifew eis petdvoray (vv.*),
*ASvvatov ydp «TA. (v.4); there are four impossible things in the
epistle: this and the three noted in wv.!8 rot and 118 Tods. ..
aiavos (4 5*) is a long description of people who have been
initiated into Christianity; then comes the tragic kat wapareo-
dvtas. What makes the latter so fatal is explained in (v.®)
Gvaotaupotrvtas . . . TapaderypatiLovtas. Logically mdédw dva-
kawilew eis petdvoray Ought to come immediately after a8vvatov
yap, but the writer delayed the phrase in order to break up the
sequence of participles. The passage is charged with an austerity
which shows how seriously the writer took life. Seneca quotes
(Zp. xxill. g-11) to Lucilius the saying of Epicurus, that “it is
irksome always to be starting life over again,” and that “they live
badly who are always beginning to live.” The reason is: “quia

VI. 4.] A WARNING 77

semper illis imperfecta vita est.” But our writer takes a much
more sombre view of the position of his friends. He urges
them to develop their ideas of Christianity. ‘“‘You need some
one to teach you the rudimentary lessons of the faith all over
again,” he had said. ‘ Yes,” he now adds, “and in some cases
that is impossible. Relaying a foundation of repentance, ete. !
That cannot be done for deliberate apostates.” The implication
is that his readers are in danger of this sin, as indeed he has
hinted already (in 37-4!4), and that one of the things that is
weakening them is their religious inability to realize the supreme
significance of Jesus. To remain as they are is fatal; it means
the possibility of a relapse altogether. ‘‘Come on,” the writer
bids them, “for if you do not you will fall back, and to fall back
is to be ruined.” The connexion between this passage and the
foregoing, therefore, is that to rest content with their present
elementary hold upon Christian truth is to have an inadequate
grasp of it; the force of temptation is so strong that this rudi-
mentary acquaintance with it will not prevent them from falling
away altogether, and the one thing to ensure their religious
position is to see the full meaning of what Jesus is and does.
This meaning he is anxious to impart, not as an extra but as an
essential. The situation is so serious, he implies, that only
those who fully realize what Jesus means for forgiveness and
fellowship will be able to hold out. And once you relapse, he
argues, once you let go your faith, it is fatal; people who de-
liberately abandon their Christian confession of faith are beyond
recovery. Such a view of apostasy as a heinous offence, which
destroyed all hope of recovery, is characteristic of IIpds “E8patovs.
It was not confined to this writer. That certain persons could
not repent of their sins was, ¢.g., an idea admitted in rabbinic
Judaism. “Over and over again we have the saying: ‘ For him
who sins and causes others to sin no repentance is allowed or
possible’ (Aboth v. 26; Sanhedrin, 1074). ‘He who is wholly
given up to sin is unable to repent, and there is no forgiveness
to him for ever’ (Midrash Tehillim on Ps 1 ad jfin.).”1 There
is a partial parallel to this passage in the idea thrown out by
Philo in de agricultura, 28, as he comments upon Gn 9”;
“Noah began to till the earth.” Evidently, says Philo, this
means that he was merely working at the dpxau of the Subject.
’Apx) 8, 6 Tav TaAaav Adyos, 7 HpLov TOU TAVTOS, as av Huioe mpos
TO oles adeotykvia, o0 py) Tpooyevouevov Kal 7d dpfacbar
moAXAadkis peydAa woAAods EBXrawWerv. His point is that it
is dangerous to stop short in any moral endeavour. But our
author is more rigorous in his outlook. His warning is modified,
however. (a) It is put in the form of a general statement.
1C. G. Montefiore, in Jew7sh Quarterly Review (1904), p. 225.

78 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 4.

(4) It contains a note of encouragement in v.’; and (¢) it is at
once followed up by an eager hope that the readers will dis-
appoint their friend and teacher’s fear (v.°). In the later church
this feature of IIpds ‘ESpatovs entered into the ecclesiastical
question of penance (cp. HAZ. ix. 716, and Journal of Theo-
logical Studies, iv. 321 f.), and seriously affected the vogue of the
epistle (cp. Introd. p. xx).

The fourfold description of believers (* 5*) begins with dmag
dwticbévras, where dwticfevras corresponds to AaPety trHv éxly-
vwow THs aAnfelas (1075), in the general sense of LXX (e.g.
Ps 118189 % dnAwows Tv Adywv Gov gutiel, Kai TuvETEL VyTLoUS),
i.e. “enlightened” in the sense of having their eyes opened
(Eph 138) to the Christian God. Subsequently, earlier even than
Justin Martyr, the verb, with its noun ¢wripos, came to be used
of baptism specifically (cp. ARE. viii. 54, 55). “Ama€ is pre-
fixed, in contrast to mdAw (v.®); once for all men enter Christi-
anity, it is an experience which, like their own death (9*”) and
the death of Jesus (975), can never be repeated. In xadév yevoa-
pévous Oeod pHa (“experienced how good the gospel is”) the con-
struction resembles that of Herod. vii. 46, where the active voice
is used with the accusative (6 8& Oeds yAukiv yevoas Tov aidva,
hOovepos év ait@ etpioxerar éwv), and the adj. is put first: “the
deity, who let us taste the sweetness of life (or, that life is
sweet), is found to be spiteful in so doing.” ‘The similar use of
the middle here as in Pr 29% and Jn 2° probably points to the
same meaning (cp., however, Diat, 2016-2018), 7.e., practically
as if it were ore «tA. (cp. Ps 348 yevoaobe Kai idere OTe xpyoTos
6 xvptos, 1 P 2%), in contrast to the more common construction
with the genitive (v.4 2°). The writer uses genitive and accusa-
tive indifferently, for the sake of literary variety ; and xaAov here
is the same as xaAod in 514. Tevoapevous «tA. recalls the parti-
ality of Philo for this metaphor (e.g. de Abrah. 19; de Somunits,
i. 26), but indeed it is common (cp. e.g. Jos. Av. iv. 6. 9, dra
TO véov yevoapevoy fevixdv Oicpav arAjotws abtGv evedopetro)
throughout contemporary Hellenistic Greek as a metaphor for
experiencing. Probably yevoapévous . . . émoupaviou, petdxous
... Gylou, and Kkahédv yevoapévous aidvos are three rhetorical
expressions for the initial experience described in ama dwricév-
tas. ‘The heavenly Gift” (rHs Swpeds THs erovpaviov) may be
the Christian salvation in general, which is then viewed as the
impartation of the holy Spirit, and finally as the revelation of the
higher world which even already is partly realized in the experi-
ence of faith. Note that dwricbévras is followed by yevoapévous
xtA., as the light-metaphor is followed by the food-metaphor
in Philo’s (de fuga et invent. 25) remarks upon the manna
(Ex 1615: 16); 9 Gela ovvragis airy Thy Spatixny Yoxnv purtile re

VI. 5, 6.] NO SECOND REPENTANCE 79

kal duod Kal yAukaiver . . . Tovs Supovtas Kat mewvavtas Kaho-
kayabias epydivovoa. Also, that Suvdpers te péAAOvTOS aidvos ! in-
cludes the thrilling experiences mentioned in 24. The dramatic
turn comes in (v.®°) kat mapameodvtas. Iaparirrew is here used
in its most sinister sense ; it corresponds to doarnvat (3}), and
indeed both verbs are used in the LXX to translate the same
term 5yp. The usage in Wis 6° (yi waparéonre) 122 (rods
maparimroovtas) paves the way for this sense of a deliberate
renunciation of the Christian God, which is equivalent to éxovatws
Guaptdavew in 10°, ‘The sin against the holy Spirit, which Jesus
regarded as unpardonable, the mysterious épaprtia pos Odvarov
of r Jn 516, and this sin of apostasy, are on the same level. The
writer never hints at what his friends might relapse into.
Anything that ignored Christ was to him hopeless.

*ASdvatov (sc. éote) is now (v.®) taken up in dvaxawifew (for
which Paul prefers the form dvaxawvodv), a LXX term (e.g. Ps
5112) which is actually used for the Christian start in life by
Barnabas (61! dvaxawioas jas év TH apéoe TOV ayapriov), and
naturally of the divine action. Mddw is prefixed for emphasis,
as in Isokr. Aveopag. 3, THs ExOpas THs mpos Tov Baoiréa Tau
dvaKeKauvic Levys.

There have been various, vain efforts to explain the apparent harshness of
the statement. Erasmus took dévvaroy (like d=difficile) as ‘‘ difficult” ;
Grotius said it was impossible ‘‘ per legem Mosis’’; others take dvaxawl{ew
to mean ‘‘ keep on renewing,” while some, like Schoettgen, Bengel, and
Wickham, fall back on the old view that while men could not, God might
effect it. But even the last-named idea is out of the question. If the writer
thought of any subject to dvaxawlfew, it was probably a Christian d:ddoKxados
like himself; but the efforts of such a Christian are assumed to be the channel
of the divine power, and no renewal could take place without God. There
is not the faintest suggestion that a second repentance might be produced b
God when human effort failed. The tenor of passages like 10° and 12!
tells finally against this modification of the language. A similarly ominous
tone is heard in Philo’s comment on Nu 301° in guod deter. pot. insid. 40:
ghoouev Sidvouay . . . éxBeBAHoAa Kal xHpay Oeod, Hrs 7 yyovas Oelas ov
mapedézaro 7) mapadeeauevn Exovolws abBis éEjuBrwoe.. . ) SF dmak diafgevy-
Geioa kal Stoixicbetoa ws domovdos uéxpt TOU mavros al@vos éxrerdgeuTat, els TOV
dpxatov olkov éraveNGetv ddvvarovoa.

The reason why a second repentance is impossible is given
in évactaupodvtas . . . TapaderypatiLoyvtas, where avactavpotvras
is used instead of oravpotrvtas, for the sake of assonance (after
dvaxawiCew), but with the same meaning. *Avacravpoty simply
means “‘to crucify,” as, é.g., in Plato’s Gorgias, 28 (rovs atrod émidwv

1 Tertullian’s translation, ‘‘ occidente iam aevo” (de Pudicitia, 20) shows
that his Greek text had omitted a line by accident :

NOYS0YPHMAAYN
AMEIZTEMEAA
ONTOSAIWNOCKAI,

t.e. Surv[duers Te uéAA]ovTos al@vos,

80 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 6.

Tatoas TE Kal yuvaika TO exxXaTov avactavpwHh 7) KaTamiTTWwOy) ;
Thucyd. i. 110 (Ivdpos . . . mpodoaia AnpOeis aveotavpwOn) ;
Josephus (Azz. xi. 6. 10, dvaoravpdoat tov Mapdoxator), etc. The
dva.=sursum, not rursum, though the Greek fathers (e.g. Chrys.
Tl O€ éorw advactavpovvTas ; avwlev tad oTavpodtvras), and several
of the versions (e.g. vg ‘“‘rursum crucifigentes”), took it in the sense
of re-crucify. “Eautots: it is ‘heir crucifixion of Jesus. ‘The
thought is that of wilfulness rather than of detriment ” (Vaughan).

In the story of Jesus and Peter at Rome, which Origen mentions as part
of the Acts of Paul (zz /oh. xx. 12), the phrase, ‘‘to be crucified over again”
occurs in a different sense (Z7exte u. Unters. xxx. 3, pp. 271-272). Kaio
Kbp.os avr@ elrev* eloépxouae els Thy ‘Pwunv ctavpwOjva. Kat 6 Iérpos etirev
air’ Kipie, wddw oravpotcar; elev atta val, Uérpe, madd oravpoduat.
Origen, quoting this as “Avw0ev wéAAw oTavpodcGat, holds that such is the
meaning of dvacravpoiv in He 6°,

The meaning of the vivid phrase is that they put Jesus out
of their life, they break off all connexion with him ; he is dead to
them. ‘This is the decisive force of cravpotoba in Gal 614. The
writer adds an equally vivid touch in kat mapadserypatiLovras
(= ov vidv Oot Katamatyoas KTA., 107°)—as if he is not worth
their loyalty! Their repudiation of him proclaims to the world
that they consider him useless, and that the best thing they can
do for themselves is to put him out of their life. Napadery-
pattLew is used in its Hellenistic sense, which is represented by
TiWévat eis wapaderypa in the LXX (Nah 3°). Possibly the term
was already associated with impaling (cp. Nu 254 zapaderypariurov
avtovs Kvpiw),! but our author does not use it in the LXX sense
of “make an example of” (by punishing) ; the idea is of exposing
to contemptuous ignominy, in public (as in Mt 11°).

The Bithynians who had renounced Christianity proved to Pliny their
desertion by maligning Christ—one of the things which, as he observed, no
real Christian would do (‘‘ quorum nihil posse cogi dicuntur qui sunt re vera
Christiani”). ‘‘Omnes .. . Christi male dixerunt.” When the proconsul
urges Polykarp to abandon Christianity, he tells the bishop, Aocdédpyoov Tov
Xpiordy (Mart. Polyk. ix. 3). The language of Mpés ‘EBpatovus is echoed in
the saying of Jesus quoted in Afost. Const, vi. 18: obrol elou mepl dy kal 6
Kptos TiKpOs kal amoréuws arepivaro Néywv ri ela Wevddx para Kal Wevdodu-
darkador, of BLacpnunoarvtes TO Tvevua THs XdptTos Kai aronTicayTEs THY Tap
avrod Swpeay pera Tv XapLr, ols ovK ApeOjoerat oe Ev TH alGvi ToUTH o'TeE ev
T@ wéd\NovTt. In Sir 31° (Bamrifduevos did vexpod Kal mdduy amrouevos avTov,
Tl Spedkynoev TW NovTpw avrod ;) the allusion is to the taboo-law of Nu 19-2;
the parallel is verbal rather than real. But there is a true parallel in
Mongolian Buddhism, which ranks five sins as certain ‘‘to be followed by a
hell of intense sufferings, and that without cessation . . . patricide, matricide,
killing a Doctor of Divinity (z.e. a lama), bleeding Buddha, sowing hatred
among priests. . . . Drawing blood from the body of Buddha is a figurative
expression, after the manner of He 6°” (J. Gilmour, Among the Mongols,
Pp: 233, 234).

1Tn alluding to the gibbeting law of Dt 21%, Josephus (Bed/. Jud. iv.
5. 2) speaks of dvacravpoty.

VI. 6-8. | A PARABLE FROM NATURE 81

In the little illustration (vv.”8), which corresponds to what Jesus
might have put in the form of a parable, there are reminiscences
of the language about God’s curse upon the ground (Gn 317-18):
érixatdpatos yyy. . . axavOas Kat tprBddovs avaredet, and also of
the words in Gn 122 xat éEnveyxev 7 yn Botavyny xoptov, though the
writer uses éxépew for dvaréAXev, and prefers tixrew to éxpéperv
(in v.7), The image of a plot or field is mentioned by Quintilian
(dnstit. Orat. v. 11. 24) as a common instance of the zapaBodA7y:
‘““ut, si animum dicas excolendum, similitudine utaris terrae quae
neglecta spinas ac dumos, culta fructus creat.” The best Greek
instance is in Euripides (Hecuba, 592 f.: ovKovv dewor, ei yn pev
kaki) | Tvxotca Kaipod Hedbev ed oTdxvv pépet, | XPNTTH 0 dj.apTodo"
dv xpedv adryy tvyxeiv | Kaxdv didwor kaprov K7A.). Modaa of land,
as, éeg., in Dt 111! yy. . . éx Tod berod Tod odpavod wlerar Vdup:
Is 551 etc. As edOetos generally takes eis with the accusative, it
is possible that tixtouca was meant to go with éxewots. Tewpyetrat,
of land being worked or cultivated, is a common term in the papyri
(e.g. Syl. 4299 Ta Te xwpia ei yewpyetrac) as well as in the LXX.

(a) Origen’s homiletical comment (P£zlocalia, xxi. 9) is, Ta yuwomeva Vrd TOU
Oeot Tepdoria oiovel berbs éoTw* al 5é mpoaipécers ai Sudgopor olovel h yeyewpyy-
mévn yn €orl Kai 7) jmednuern, mig TH Pie ws yj TYYXdvovca—an idea similar
to that of Jerome (¢ractatus de psalmo xcvi., Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. 90:
‘¢ apostolorum epistolae nostrae pluviae sunt spiritales. Quid enim dicit Paulus
in epistola ad Hebraeos? Terra enim saepe venientem super se bibens imbrem,
et reliqua”). (4) The Mishna directs that at the repetition of the second of the
Eighteen Blessings the worshipper should think of the heavy rain and pray for
it at the ninth Blessing (Berachoth, 51), evidently because the second declares,
“* Blessed art thou, O Lord, who restorest the dead” (rain quickening the earth),
and the ninth runs, ‘‘Bless to us, O Lord our God, this year and grant usa
rich harvest and bring a blessing on our land.” Also, ‘‘ on the occasion of the
rains and good news, one says, Blessed be He who is good and does good”
(Berachoth, 92). Cp. Marcus Aurelius, v. 7, evxi)’A@nvaiwy* bcov, toov, & pire
Zed, kata THs apovpas THS AOnvalwy kal Tov Tediwy.

MetahapBaver (= participate in) is not a LXX term, but occurs
in this sense in Wis 189 etc. ; edAoylas occurs again in 12!” (of Esau
the apostate missing his edAoya), and there is a subtle suggestion
here, that those aione who make use of their divine privileges are
rewarded. What the writer has in mind is brought out in v.!°;
that he was thinking of the Esau-story here is shown by the
reminiscence of dypod dv niAcyynoev Kvptos (Gn 277").

The reverse side of the picture is now shown (v.8).

Commenting on Gn 338 Philo fancifully plays on the derivation of the word
tptBondos (like ‘‘ trefoil”) : Exacrov dé Tay Tabay TpiBor.a ElpnKer, Erecdh TpirTd.
éorw, a’té Te Kal Td TounTiKdv Kal TO Ex ToUTwY amoréNecua (leg. alleg. 3°).
He also compares the eradication of evil desires in the soul to a gardener or
farmer burning down weeds (de Agric. 4, mav7’ éexxdyw, éxreu® . . . Kal ém-
Kavow kal Tas pifas aitav équeio’ Axpt Tay boTaTwy Tis yas Proyos pu7y) ; but
in our epistle, as in Jn 15°, the burning is a final doom, not a process of severe
discipline.

6

82 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ VI. 8, 9.

*AddKipos is used as in 1 Co 92’; the moral sense breaks
through, as in the next clause, where the meaning of eis kaidow
may be illustrated by Dt 2922 and by Philo’s more elaborate
description of the thunderstorm which destroyed Sodom (de Adrah.
27); God, he says, showered a blast ody vdaros dAAa wupds upon
the city and its fields, by way of punishment, and everything was
consumed, eet O€ Ta ev pavepe Kat brép ys dravra Katavadwcev
H Pdr€, 780 kal THY yiv abriv exave -.. brép tod pnd addis
ToTe Kapmov éveykelv 7) xAonphopyoar 7o maparav Sovnbjva. The
metaphor otherwise is inexact, for the reference cannot be to the
burning of a field in order to eradicate weeds; our author is
thinking of final punishment (=«piparos aiwviov, 62), which he
associates as usual with fire (107° 27 1229), The moral applica-
tion thus impinges on the figurative sketch. The words xatépas
éyyds actually occur in Aristides (Orat. in Kom. 370: 70 pev
mpoxwpeiv adtots & €BovAovTo, dunxavov Kal katdpas éyyvs).! There
is no thought of mildness in the term éyyvs, it being used, as in
818, of imminent doom, which is only a matter of time. Mean-
while there is the éxdox7 (107").

Later on, this conception of unpardonable sins led to the whole
system of penance, which really starts from the discussion by
Hermas in the second century. But for our author the unpardon-
able sin is apostasy, and his view is that of a missionary. Modern
analogies are not awanting. ‘Thus, in Dr. G. Warneck’s book,
The Living Forces of the Gospel (p. 248), we read that “the Battak
Christians would have even serious transgressions forgiven; but
if a Christian should again sacrifice to ancestors or have anything
to do with magic, no earnest Christian will speak in his favour ;
he is regarded as one who has fallen back into heathenism, and
therefore as lost.”

9 Though I say this, beloved, I feel sure you will take the better? course
that means salvation. © God ts not unfair ; he will not forget what you have
done, or the love you have shown for his sake in ministering, as you still do, to
the saints. It ts my heart's desire that each of you would prove equally keen
upon realizing your full (rdnpopoplay, 107) hope to the very end, * so that
instead of being slack you may imitate those who inherit the promises by their
steadfast faith.

The ground for his confident hope about his “dear friends”
(Tyndale, v.%) lies in the fact that they are really fruitful (v.”) in
what is the saving quality of a Christian community, viz. brotherly
love (v.!°). The God who blesses a faithful life (v.7) will be sure
to reward them for that; stern though he may be, in punishing
the disloyal, he never overlooks good service. Only (vy.1!-}%),

1Cp. Eurip. Wzppolytus, 1070: alat, rpds Frap* daxpiwy éyyvs rbde.

2 For some reason the softer linguistic form xpelocova is used here, as at
to*, in preference to xpelrrova.

VI. 9, 10.] ENCOURAGEMENT 83

the writer adds, put as much heart and soul into your realization
of what Christianity means as you are putting into your brotherly
love; by thus taking the better course, you are sure of God’s
blessing. As é&yamntot indicates (the only time he uses it), the
writer’s affection leads him to hope for the best; he is deeply
concerned about the condition of his friends, but he does not
believe their case is desperate (v.*). He has good hopes of them,
and he wishes to encourage them by assuring them that he still
believes in them. We may compare the remarks of Seneca to
Lucilius, Zf. xxix. 3, about a mutual friend, Marcellinus, about
whom both of them were anxious. Seneca says he has not yet
lost hope of Marcellinus. For wisdom or philosophy “‘is an art ;
let it aim at some definite object, choosing those who will make
progress (profecturos) and withdrawing from those of whom it
despairs—yet not abandoning them quickly, rather trying drastic
remedies when everything seems hopeless.” Elsewhere, he
encourages Lucilius himself by assuring him of his friend’s
confidence and hope (£Z/. xxxii. 2: ‘“‘habeo quidem fiduciam non
posse te detorqueri mansurumque in proposito”), and, in con-
nexion with another case, observes that he will not be deterred
from attempting to reform certain people (Z/. xxv. 2): ‘I would
rather lack success than lack faith.”

In kat (epexegetic) éxdpeva (sc. tpdypata) owrnplas, éyopeva,
thus employed, is a common Greek phrase (cp. eg. Marc.
Aurel. i. 6, 60a tovatra ris “EAAnvixys aywyns éxoueva: Musonius
(ed. Hense), xi., Cyrety madelas éxdpeva (v./. éxopevov): Philo, de
Agric. 22, 7a 8€ Kaptepias Kat owppootvyns . . . éxdpueva) for what
has a bearing upon, or is connected with ; here, for what pertains
to and therefore promotes owrypia (the opposite of katdpa
and xaéows). The reason for this confidence, with which he
seeks to hearten his readers, lies in their good record of practical
service (tod épyouv tpov «tA.) which God is far too just to ignore.
After all, they had some fruits as well as roots of Christianity
(v.21). *EmAaGéoOar is an infinitive of conceived result (Burton’s
Moods and Tenses, 371¢; Blass, § 391. 4), instead of iva c. subj.,
as, ¢.g., in 1 Jn 1°, or wore c. infinitive; cp. Xen. Cy7of. iv. 1. 20,
dikatos ef dvtixapilerGar.1 The text of tod épyou spay Kai tis
éydamys was soon harmonized with that of 1 Th 1° by the in-
sertion of tod korov after kat (so D° K L 69*. 256. 263. 1611*.
2005. 2127 boh Theodoret, etc.). The relative qv after dydmys
has been attracted into the genitive fs (as in 92°). One practi-
cal form of this 8caxovety is mentioned in 10°* 34, Here eis
TO dvopa attod goes closely with 8:axovnoavtes xTA., as well as
with évedei~acGe, in the sense of “for his sake.” In Pirke Aboth,

1 See Dolon’s remark in the Rhesus of Euripides (161, 162): ovKodv roveiy
Mev xXpH, WovodvTa 6 dévov picOdy épecOau.

84 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ VI. LO;

216, R. Jose’s saying is quoted, “Let all thy works be done for
the sake of heaven” (literally nv, z.e. ets évoua, as here and in
Ign. Rom. 93 4 aydrn tOv exxAnotov Tov Sekapevwv pe cis dvoma
"Ija0d Xprotod). Tots dytows, the only place (except 134) where
the writer uses this common term for “ fellow-Christians” ; God
will never be so unjust as to overlook kindness shown to “his
own.”

The personal affection of the writer comes out not only in
the dyamytot of v.°, but again (v.!!) in the deep émOupodper, a
term charged with intense yearning (as Chrysostom says, ratpexys
diAooTopyias), and in the individualizing éxaotov (cp. 3!2!8). He
is urgent that they should display tiv attiy omoudhv with regard
to their Christian é\mis as they display in the sphere of their
Christian éydmn. This does not mean that he wishes them to be
more concerned about saving their own souls or about heaven
than about their duties of brotherly love; his point is that the
higher knowledge which he presses upon their minds is the one
security for a Christian life at all. Just as Paul cannot assume
that the warm mutual affection of the Thessalonian Christians
implied a strict social morality (see below on 134), or that the
same quality in the Philippian Christians implied moral dis-
crimination (Ph 1%), so our author pleads with his friends to
complete their brotherly love by a mature grasp of what their
faith implied. He reiterates later on the need of diAadeAdia
(13), and he is careful to show how it is inspired by the very
devotion to Christ for which he pleads (10!%*). MAnpodopia (not
a LXX term) here is less subjective than in 10”, where it denotes
the complete assurance which comes from a realization of all
that is involved in some object. Here it is the latter sense of
fulness, scope and depth in their—éAzis.1 This is part and
parcel of the reAedryns to which he is summoning them to
advance (61). The result of this grasp of what is involved in
their faith will be (v.!%) a vigorous constancy, without which even
a kindly, unselfish spirit is inadequate. For év8etkvuc8at oroudiy
compare Herodian’s remark that the soldiers of Severus in A.D.
193 Tacav évedeckvuvto mpobvpiav Kal orovdyy (il. 10. 19), Magn.
53° (iii. B.C.), dwddeéw mrovovpevos THS Tepl Ta péytoTa o7ovd|s,
and Sy//. 3424! (i. B.c.) tiv peylotny evdeixvutae orovdyy eis THV
trép THs watpioos cwrypiav. The Greeks used the verb as we use
“display,” in speaking of some inward quality. This ardour
has to be kept up dxpt téAous (cp. pseudo-Musonius, Z/f. 1, in
Hercher’s Epistolog. Graect, 401 f.: typodvras b& nv Exovar viv
mpd0eaw axpt TéAovs Pirocopycat); it is the sustained interest
in essential Christian truth which issues practically in paxpoOupta
(v.12), or in the confident attitude of hope (3° }).

1 For é\mldos, wiorews is read in W 1867.

WE 11; 127] EXAMPLES OF FAITh 85

Aristotle, in Ret. ii. 19. 5, argues that ob 7 dpxn divara yevéoOa, Kal
7d Tédos* ovdev yap ylyverat otd dpxerat ylyvecOar Tv ddvvdrwy, a paradox
which really means that ‘‘if you want to know whether the end of any course
of action, plan, scheme, or indeed of anything—is possible, you must look to
the beginning: beginning implies end: if it can be begun, it can also be
brought to an end” (Cope).

In v.!2 the appeal is rounded off with tva ph vwOpot yévynode,
that you may not prove remiss (repeating vw6pot from 5", but
in a slightly different sense: they are to be alert not simply to
understand, but to act upon the solid truths of their faith),
pipntat 8é xrA. Hitherto he has only mentioned people who
were a warning; now he encourages them by pointing out that
they had predecessors in the line of loyalty. This incentive is
left over for the time being; the writer returns to it in his
panegyric upon faith in chapter 11. Meanwhile he is content
to emphasize the steadfast faith (ricrews kat paxpoOvpias, a
hendiadys) that characterizes this loyalty. Maxpo$upia means
here (as in Ja 57) the tenacity with which faith holds out.
Compare Menander’s couplet (Kock’s Com. Attic. Fragm. 549),
avOpwros dv pydérote tiv GAvriay | aitrod mapa Oedv, addAa THY
paxpobupiay, and Zest. Jos. 27 péya pdppaxdv éotw 7} paxpobupia |
kal ToAAG é&yaba didwow 4 bromovy. But this aspect of wor is
not brought forward till 10%", after the discussion of the priest-
hood and sacrifice of Christ. In kAnpovopodvtwy tas émayyedias
the writer implies that hope is invariably sustained by a promise
or promises. He has already mentioned 4 émayyeAia (4}).
KAnpovopety tas érayyeAias can hardly mean “get a promise of
something”; as the appended 814 mictews kat paxpobuplas sug-
gests, it denotes “coming into possession of what is promised.”
This is proved by the equivalent éwétuxe tis éwayyeNias in v.).

Taking Abraham as the first or as a typical instance of steadfast
faith in God’s promises, the writer now (vyv.1%"1°) lays stress not upon
the human quality, but upon the divine basis for this undaunted
reliance. Constancy means an effort. But it is evoked by a
divine revelation ; what stirs and sustains it is a word of God.
From the first the supreme Promise of God has been guaranteed
by him to men so securely that there need be no uncertainty or
hesitation in committing oneself to this Hope. The paragraph
carries on the thought of vv.1!-12; at the end, by a dexterous turn,
the writer regains the line of argument which he had dropped
when he turned aside to incite and reprove his readers (51).

18 For in making a promise to Abraham God ‘* swore by himself” (since he
could swear by none greater), 4 ‘* I will indeed bless you and multiply you.”
18 Thus zt was (z.e. thanks to the divine Oath) that Abraham by his steadfast-
ness obtained (so 11°") what he had been promised. \ For as! men swear by

1 To make the connexion clear, some inferior texts (C D° K L 6, 33. 104.
1610, etc.) add pév.

86 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 18, 14.

a greater than themselves, and as an oath means to them a guarantee that ends
any dispute, *" God, in his destre to afford the heirs of the Promise a special
proof of the solid character of his purpose, interposed with an oath ; 8 so that
by these two solid facts (the Promise and the Oath), where zt zs impossible for
God to be false, we refugees might have strong encouragement (mapaxdyow, see
on 12°) Zo sedze the hope set before us, anchoring the soul to zt safe and sure,
as it ‘‘ enters the inner” Presence ‘‘ behind the veil.”

As usual, he likes to give a biblical proof or illustration
(vv.18: 14), God’s famous promise to Abraham, but the main point
in it is that God ratified the promise with an oath.

Our author takes the OT references to God’s oath quite naively. Others
had felt a difficulty, as is shown by Philo’s treatise de Adrahamo (46): ‘‘ God,
enamoured of this man [z.e. Abraham], for his faith (riorw) in him, gives him
in return a pledge (riorw), guaranteeing by an oath (rhv 60 bpxouv BeBalworr)
the gifts he had promised . . . for he says, ‘I swear by myself’ (Gn 2216)—
and with him a word is an oath—for the sake of confirming his mind more
steadfastly and immovably than ever before.” But the references to God’s
oaths were a perplexity to Philo; his mystical mind was embarrassed by their
realism. In de sacrif. Abelis et Caini (28, 29) he returns to the subject.
Hosts of people, he admits, regard the literal sense of these OT words as
inconsistent with God’s character, since an oath implies (uaprupla Geot epi
mpayuaros adupisBnrovmévov) God giving evidence in a disputed matter ;
whereas Oeq@ ovdév ddnAov odd adudisBnrovmevov, God’s mere word ought to
be enough: 6 dé deds kal Aéywv mords éorw, woTe Kai Tods Nbyous avTod
BeBadrynTos évexa pndev Spxwv diapépev. He inclines to regard the OT
references to God’s oaths as a condescension of the sacred writer to dull
minds rather than as a condescension upon God’s part. In Leg. A/legor. ili. 72
he quotes this very passage (Gn 221% 17), adding: 3 kal 70 dpxw BeBardoar
Tiv birbcxecw Kal Spxw Oeompemet’ dpds yap Ste od Kad’ érépou durver Beds,
obdév yap avrov Kpeirrov, adda Kad’ éavTod, bs éore mdvTwy dpioros. But he
feels bound to explain it. Some of his contemporaries had begun to take
exception to such representations of God, on the ground that God’s word
required no formal confirmation—it confirmed itself by being fulfilled—and
that it was absurd (dro7ov) to speak of God swearing by himself, in order to
bear testimony to himself.! Philo (42d. 73) attempts to meet this objection
by urging that only God can bear testimony to himself, since no one else
knows the divine nature truly ; consequently it is appropriate for him to add
confirmation to his word, although the latter by itself is amply deserving of
belief. In Berachoth, 32. 1 (on Ex 321%), it is asked, ‘‘ What means ja? R.
Eleazar answered: ‘Thus saith Moses to God (Blessed be He!), ‘ Lord of
all the world, hadst thou sworn by heaven and earth, I would say, even as
heaven and earth shall perish, so too thine oath shall perish. But now thou
hast sworn by thy Great Name, which lives and lasts for ever and ever; so
shall thine oath also last for ever and ever.’”

Etxe (v.}3) with infin. =édvvaro as usual. “Quogev... . él
piv... eddoyjow. Both the LXX (Thackeray, pp. 83, 84) and the
papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 205 f.) show that «? pyv after
éuvvew in oaths is common as an asseveration ; in some Cases,
as here, the classical form 4 pyv, from which ¢ pv arose by
itacism, is textually possible. The quotation (v.!*) is from the
promise made to Abraham after the sacrifice of Isaac (Gn 221° 1):
kat euavTod dora... et piv edroyav eiAoyyjow oe, Kat wAy-

1 This is the point raised in Jn 81°

VI. 15-17. | THE OATH OF GOD 87

Oivwv zANOvvG 76 o7éppa gov. The practical religious value of
God’s promise being thus (v.15) confirmed is now brought out for
the present generation (vv.!®—another long sentence). Kata
tod petLovos, ze. by God. Which, Philo argues, is irreverent:
aoeBets av vopiobeiey of packovtes 6uvivat Kata Oeov (Leg. Allegor.
iii. 73), since only swearing by the Name of God is permissible (cp.
Dt 6!8), But our author has no such scruples (see above). And
he is quite unconscious of any objection to oaths, such as
some early Christian teachers felt (e.g. Ja 51"); he speaks of the
practice of taking oaths without any scruples. ‘Hic locus...
docet aliquem inter Christianos jurisjurandi usum esse legiti-
mum... porro non dicit olim fulsse in usu, sed adhuc vigere
pronuntiat” (Calvin). *AvtiAoytas, dispute or quarrel (the derived
sense in 77 xwpis maons avriAoyas, there is no disputing). Ets
BeBaicwow only occurs once in the LXX (Lv 2573), but is a
current phrase in the papyri (cp. Deissmann’s Szd/e Studies,
163 f.) for ‘“‘ by way of guarantee”; it is opposed to eis adérnovw,
and used here as in Wis 619 zpogoyy 8€ vopwv BeBaiwors apOap-
aias. In Philo (see on v.}8) it is the oath which is guaranteed ;
here the oath guarantees. The general idea of v.!7 is that of
OGITS. (ii. B.C.), 67ws Gy eis TOv Gravta xpovov dkivnta Kal dpera-
Gera pévye Ta Te mpos Tov Gedv Tima Kal Ta pos TOV “AOnvaLov
piriavOpwra. “Ev & (=66, Theophylact), such being the case.
Nepicodtepov, which goes with émBetgar, is illustrated by what Philo
says in de Abrahamo, 46 (see above): ‘‘abundantius quam sine
juramento factum videretur” (Bengel). It is an equivalent
for weptocootepds, which, indeed, B reads here. “Emdetéar (cp.
Elephantine-Papyri [1907] 17 (iv. B.c.) émideédrw dé “HpaxAeidns
Sri av eyxadAn. Anpntpia évavtiov avop&v tprov): the verb, which
is only once used of God in the LXX (Is 37% viv d¢ éréderéa
eEepnudoat €Ovn xtA.), means here ‘‘to afford proof of.” The
writer uses the general plural, tots kAnpovopos THs éeTayyeAtas,!
instead of the singular “‘ Abraham,” since the Promise in its
mystical sense applied to the entire People, who had faith
like that of Abraham. The reference is not specifically to
Isaac and Jacob, although these are called his cuyk\npovdépor in
11% In 16 d&petdGetov tHs BouAfs Our author evidently chooses
Bovdjs for the sake of the assonance with Boudépevos. “Aperd-
Qetos is a synonym for dxivytos (cp. above on v.17 and
Schol. on Soph. Anfig. 1027), and, as the papyri show,
had a frequent connexion with wills in the sense of ‘‘irrevoc-
able.” Here, in connexion with ovAjs, it implies final
determination (cp. 3 Mac 51: 1"); the purpose had a fixed

1 Eusebius once (Dem. iv. 15. 40) omits ris émayyedlas, and once (zb2d.

v. 3. 21) reads rs Baowdelas, either accidentally or with a recollection of
Ja 2°,

88 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 17-19.

character or solidity about it. The verb épeoitevcey (‘ inter-
vened”) does not occur in the LXX, and is here used intransi-
tively, instead of, as usual (cp. e.g. Dion. Halic. Avz. ix. 59. 5;
OGTS. 437% etc.), with some accusative like cuv@yjxas. In Jos.
Ant. vii. 8. 5 it is used intransitively, but in the sense of “‘inter-
ceding” (reobeis 8 6 “IdaBos Kat thy dvdyKyny adtrod KarouKtelpas
éuecitevoe pos Tov Bacivéa). The oath is almost certainly that
just mentioned. Less probable is the interpretation (Delitzsch,
Hofmann, M. Stuart, von Soden, Peake, Seeberg, Wickham)
which regards the oath referred to in vv. et. as the oath in the
writer’s favourite psalm, 110!:

»” , \ > ,
dpocev Kiuptos kal ov petapeAnOynoerar

\ ane \ > \ 2A \ ‘ / /
Xv el iepeds eis Tov aldva Kara THY Tagw MeAyuoddex.

This oath does refer to the priesthood of Jesus, which the writer
is about to re-introduce (in v.2°); but it is not a thought which
is brought forward till 72% 2!- °8; and the second line of the
couplet has been already quoted (5°) without any allusion to the
first.

In v.!8 katapedyew and édmis are connected, but not as in
Wis 14° (Noah=% Aris tod Kdcpou eri oxedias, katadvyotea).
Here, as €\mis means what is hoped for, z.e. the object of expecta-
tion, “the only thought is that we are moored to an immoveable
object” (A. B. Davidson). The details of the anchor-metaphor
are not to be pressed (v.!9); the writer simply argues that
we are meant to fix ourselves to what has been fixed for us by
God and in God. To change the metaphor, our hope roots
itself in the eternal order. What we hope for is unseen, being
out of sight, but it is secure and real, and we can grasp it by
faith.

(a) Philo (Quaest. in Exod. 22”) ascribes the survival and success of the
Israelites in Egypt dca Thy éml Tov owrhpa Oedv Karapuyny, bs €& arépwv Kal
aunx dv ww émiméuwas Thy eDepyerey Siva épptcato rods ixéras. (6) tév is
inserted in v.}!8 before Oedv (by x* AC P 33. 1245. 1739. 1827. 2005 Ath.
Chrys. ), probably to harmonize with 6 @eés in v.!” (where 1912 omits 6). But
Gedy (‘Sone who is God”) is quite apposite.

NapdkAnow goes with kpatjoat (aor. =“ seize,” rather than
“hold fast to,” like xparety in 414), and ot kataguyédvtes stands by
itself, though there is no need to conjecture ot xara duyjnv dvtes =
in our flight (so J. J. Reiske, etc.). Is not eternal life, Philo
asks, ) mpos TO bv Katadvyyn (de fuga, 15)? In THS Tpoxepevys
é\ridos, mpoxeywevns must have the same sense as In 127; the
colloquial sense of “ aforesaid,” which is common in the papyri
(eg. OP. 12757 eis tHv mpoximevny Kxopunv), would be flat.
*Achady Te Kat BeBatay reflects one of the ordinary phrases in
Greek ethics which the writer is so fond of employing. Cp.

VI. 19.] THE ANCHOR OF HOPE 89

Plutarch, de comm. not. 1061¢, kairo. maca KatadynWis ev To
cod kal pynpy TO aopadés éyovoa kai BEBarov ktrA. : Sextus Empir.
adv. log. ii. 374, és TO troriWepevov 7) troriMerar BéBaov eore
kat dogades: and Philo, guis rer. div. 62, katdAndis aogpadrs Kat
BeBaia. The &yxupa of hope is safe and sure, as it is fixed in
eternity. All hope for the Christian rests in what Jesus has
done in the eternal order by his sacrifice.

Chrysostom’s comment on the ‘‘anchor” metaphor is all that is needed:
womep yap dyxupa éekaprnbeioa Tov mXolov, ovK adlnoev aiTd wepipéper Oat,
Kav puplor mapacahevwou dveuor, GAN éeLaprynGeica edpatov moet: otrw Kal 7
é\mis. The anchor of hope was a fairly common metaphor in the later Greek
ethic (é.g. Heliod. vii. 25, maca éArldos dyxupa tavrolws avéormacra, and Epict.
Fragm. (30) 89, ore vaiv é& évds ayxuplovu ore Blov Ex mids EArridos oputoréor),
but our author may have taken the religious application from Philo, who
writes (de Somnits, i. 39),1 od xph Karerrnxévar Tov édmlde Belas cvupaxlas
épopuovvra (lies moored to). He does not use it as a metaphor for stability,
however, like most of the Greeks from Euripides (e.g. Helena, 277, dyKupa
5 4 wou Tas Téxas Ser udvyn) and Aristophanes (e.g. Anzghts, 1244, NewT}
ris édtris oT é€d Fs 6xoUueba) onwards, as, ¢.g., in the most famous use of the
anchor-metaphor,? that by Pythagoras (Stob. Zclog. 3: mdotros dodevis
dyxupa, Odfa ére dobeveotépa .. . Tlves ody tyKupat duvaral; Ppdvnors,
peyadouxia, avpla’ ravras ovGels Xetumv caNever).

Suddenly he breaks the metaphor,? in order to regain the
idea of the priesthood of Jesus in the invisible world. Hope
enters the unseen world ; the Christian hope, as he conceives it,
is bound up with the sacrifice and intercession of Jesus in the
Presence of God, and so he uses language from the ritual of
Lv 167 about Aaron “ passing inside the veil,” or curtain that
screened the innermost shrine. To this conception he returns
in 9** after he has described the vital functions of Jesus as
iepevs (62%), For at last he has reached what he regards as the
cardinal theme of his homily. The first paragraph (71°), which
is one long sentence in Greek, applies and expands eis tév aidva,
the first note of Melchizedek’s priesthood being that it is per-
petual, thus typifying the priesthood of Jesus. The next is (741°),
that it is prior and superior to the levitical priesthood ; this is

1The comparison between hope and a voyage in de Abrahamo, 9, is
different: 6 6é éAwifwy, ws atTd Snot Tovlvoua, éAdum7s, epiéwmevos uev del TOU
Kadod, uimrw & édixéoOar tovrov deduvnuévos, GAN €Eorxkws Tots mAéovow, of
omevdovres eis Ayuévas Katalpev Oadatrevovoww évopulcacbar uy duvdpevor.
This is nearer to the thought of Ro 8**”,

2 For the anchor as a symbol on tombs, pagan and Christian, see Le
Blant’s Zzscr. Chrét. de Gaule, ii. 158, 312. Contrast with He 6'8 19 the
bitter melancholy of the epitaph in the Greek Anthology (ix. 49): éAmls kal
ot, Tixn, méya xalpere’ Tov Amv’ ebpov | ovdév Euol x byiv' walfere Tods
per éué.

3 A similar mixture of metaphor in #/. Aristeas, 230 (c¢ wév ob Suvardv
éort WTalcal, Taor yap xapiras EomapKas al Bacrdvovow edyoav, } TA méeyLoTO,
Tov btAwY KaTicxvovTa TEepthauBaver THY meyloTnv adopddevav), and Philo, de
praemiis, 2 (ravrns 8 6 mowtas amdpos éotiv edris, ) myyn TOY Blur).

gO THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ VI. 20-VII. 1.

implied in the former claim, but the writer works it out fancifully
from the allusion to tithes.

20 There (drov for the classical bo) Jesus entered for us in advance, when
he became highpriest ‘‘for ever with the rank of Melchizedek.” For
“* Melchizedek, the king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God,” who ‘‘ met
Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him”-—
"who had ‘a tenth part (Sexdrnv, sc. wotpav) of everything” assigned him by
Abraham—this Melchizedek is (sc. Gv) primarily a ‘‘ king of righteousnes.”’
(that ts the meaning of his name); then, besides that, ‘‘king of Salem”
(which means, king of peace). * He has neither father nor mother nor gene-
alogy, nether a beginning to his days nor an end to hes life, but, resembling
the Son of God, continues to be ‘‘ priest” permanently.

This paragraph and that which follows (vv.4!) are another
little sermon, this time on the story of Gn 1418-29, In 620-73
the writer starts from the idea that Jesus is dpyxiepeis eis Tov
aiava Kata THv Taétv MeAyioedéx, and shows how the Melchizedek
priesthood was eis tov aid@va, z.e. explaining Ps 110* from Gn
1418-20. Eioq\Oev in 620 is explained later, in g!2. MpdSpopos
recalls dpxnyds (21°), with its suggestion of pioneering. The
term is only used in the LXX of the days éapos, mpddpopor
orapvA7s (Nu 137%), or of early fruit (ws rpodpopos cvKov, Is 28%) ;
the present sense occurs, however, in Wis 128, where wasps or
hornets are called the mpdé8popor of God’s avenging host. The
thought here is of Christ entering heaven as we are destined to
do, after him, once like him (5%) we are “ perfected.” Vv.!8
in ch. 7 are another of the writer’s long sentences: oftos 6 Med-
xucedex . . . péver lepeds eis Td Sinvexés is the central thought,
but the subject is overloaded with quotations and comments,
including a long pév . . . 8€ clause. The length of the sentence
and the difficulty of applying péver iepets eis TO dunvexés to
Melchizedek have led some editors to make Jesus the subject of
the sentence: otros (Jesus) yap (6 MeAyicedéx . . . TO vid Oeod)
pever tepeis eis Tov aidva. But the ovros, as v.* shows, is
Melchizedek, and the theory is wrecked upon v.8, for it is quite
impossible to take éxe? xr. as “in the upper sanctuary (s¢. éorev)
there is One of whom the record is that He lives.” There is a
slight but characteristic freedom at the very outset in the use of
the story, e.g. in 6 ouvavtyoas xtA. The story implies this, but
does not say it. It was the king of Sodom who ééjAOev éis
cuvdvTnow avTa peta TO trootpéa adtov ard THs Kom7s, but as
Melchizedek is immediately said to have brought the conquering
hero bread and wine, our writer assumed that he also met
Abraham.

An interesting example of the original reading being preserved in an
inferior group of MSS is afforded by 6 cvvavtyaas (C* LP). The variant
ds cuvaytjoas (8 ABC? D K W 33. 436. 794. 1831. 1837. 1912), which
makes a pointless anacolouthon, was due to the accidental reduplication of C

VII. 1, 2.] MELCHIZEDEK gl

(OCCYN for OCYN), though attempts have been made to justify this
reading by assuming an anacolouthon in the sentence, or a parenthesis in
és . . . ’ASpadu, or carelessness on the part of the writer who began with a
relative and forgot to carry on the proper construction. Some curious
homiletic expansions have crept into the text of vv. *. After Bacikéwy two
late minuscules (456. 460) read 871 édlwtev rods dddopvdous Kal éfeihatro Awr
pera dons alxuadwolas, and after airéy, D* vt 330. 440. 823 put cai (’ ASpadp)
evoynobels bx a’tod. The latter is another (cp. 11%) of the glosses which
were thrown up by the Latin versions.

In v.? éuépicev is substituted for the e8wxev of the LXX (which
reappears in y.*), in order to make it clear that Abraham’s gift
was a sort of tithe. Tithes were not paid by the Hebrews
from spoils of war; this was a pagan custom. But such is the
interpretation of the story in Philo, e.g. in his fragment on Gn
1418 (Fragments of Phila, ed. J. Rendel Harris, p. 72): ta yap
Tov wod€uov dpioreia Sidwor TO iepet Kal Tas THS vikns drapxas.
ieporpereotarn O€ Kal dywrdtn Tacav drapyav % Sexdty dua TO
mavréAeov elvar Tov apiOpov, ad ov Kal Tots iepetor Kai vewKopors
at Sexdrae mpoordger vouov Kaprav Kal Opeupatwv darodidovrat,
dpéavros ths amapyns “ABpaap, os Kal Tod yévous apxnyérys early.
Or again in de congressu, 17, where he describes the same incident
as Abraham offering God ras dexdtas xapiorypia THs VviKys.

The fantastic interpretation of the Melchizedek episode is ail the writer’s
own. What use, if any, was made of Melchizedek in pre-Christian Judaism,
is no longer to be ascertained. Apparently the book of Jubilees contained a
reference to this episode in Abraham’s career, but it has been excised for
some reason (see R. H. Charles’ note on Jub 13”). Josephus makes little of
the story (Azz. i. 10. 2). He simply recounts how, when Abraham returned
from the rout of the Assyrians, dmnvtnce 5 atr@ 6 rav Lodouirav Bacideds els
rémov Tia dy Kadodct Ilediov Baciikdv* évOa 6 THs Loduwa wodews brodéxeTat
Bacireds airovy Medxisedéxns. onuaiver d¢ rodro Bacideds dixatos* Kal jv dé
ToOLOUTOS OmoAoyoupevws, ws Oud TatTyv abrdov Thy airiay Kai iepéa yivéoOar TOD
Beod. Thy wévroe DoAvua torepov éxddecav ‘lepoodduuwa. ExXopiyynoe dé obTos 6
Medxioedéxns TH ’ABpduov orpary Evia Kal woddiv apOoviay trav émirydelwy
mapéoxe, kal Tapa Thy edwxlay airdv 7 émawweiv Hptaro Kal Tov Oedv evdoyeiv
iroxerplous abt@ mojoavra Tovs ExOpovs. ’ABpdwou dé diddvTos kal Ti dexdrHr
Ths Neias adr@, mpocdéxerat Thy ddcw xTr. In the later Judaism, however,
more interest was taken in Melchizedek (cp. M. Friedlander in Revue des
Etudes Juives, v. pp. 1f.). Thus some applied the 110th psalm to Abraham
(Mechilta on Ex 157, r. Gen. 55. 6), who was ranked as the priest after the order
of Melchizedek, while Melchizedek was supposed to have been degraded
because he (Gn 14!%) mentioned the name of Abraham before that of God!
This, as Bacher conjectures, represented a protest against the Christian view
of Melchizedek (Avgada der Tannaiten*, i. p. 259). It denotes the influence
of IIpés ‘Efpatous. Philo, as we might expect, had already made more of the
episode than Josephus, and it is Philo’s method of interpretation which gives
the clue to our writer’s use of the story. Thus in Leg. Ad/eg. ili. 25, 26
he points out (a) that MeAxicedex Bacidéa re THs elpjyns—Zadrnu Toto yap
épunveverat—xal lepéa éavrod remolnkev! 6 eds (in Gn 1418), and allegorizes the
reference into a panegyric upon the peaceful, persuasive influence of the really
royal mind. He then (4) does the same with the sacerdotal reference. ’AAN’

1 The same sort of perfect as recurs in II pds ‘Efpatous (e.g. 76 and 11%).

92 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ [VII. 2, 3.

6 wer Medxuoedéx avi Udaros olvov mpoodepérw kal moriférw Kal axparivérus
uxds, va katdoxeTor yévwvTat Beig méOn vnpadewrépa views aris. lepeds
yap éort Novos KAnpov Exwy Tov bvTa Kal UWyAGs Trepl avTod Kal UrepbyKws Kal
peyadrorper as Noyifduevos* Tod yap bWiorou early lepe’s, quoting Gn 14!8 and
hastening to add, odx dru éarl Tis dAdos ovx UYroTos. Philo points out thus
the symbolism of wine (not water) as the divine intoxication which raises the
soul to lofty thought of God; but our author does not even mention the food
and drink, though later on there was a tendency to regard them as symbolizing
the elements in the eucharist. His interest in Melchizedek lies in the parallel
to Christ. This leads him along a line of his own, though, like Philo, he sees
immense significance not only in what scripture says, but in what it does not
say, about this mysterious figure in the early dawn of history.

In vy.!:2 the only points in the original tale which are
specially noted are (a) that his name means Baoueds Sixarocuyys ;
(4) that Ladyp, his capital, means eipyvy ; and (c) inferentially that
this primitive ideal priest was also a king. Yet none of these
is developed. Thus, the writer has no interest in identifying
Sadyp. All that matters is its meaning. He quotes tepeds Tod
Geod Tod tWicrov, but it is tepevs alone that interests him. The
fact about the tithes (6 kat Sexdtyy amd wdvtwv epepicev “ABpadp)
is certainly significant, but it is held over until v.4.. What strikes
him as far more vital is the silence of the record about the birth
and death of Melchizedek (v.%). Atkatoodvn as a royal character-
istic (see Introd. pp. xxxiif.) had been already noted in con-
nexion with Christ (18); but he does not connect it with eipyvy,
as Philo does, though the traditional association of dicatoovvy Kai
eipjvn with the messianic reign may have been in his mind. In
the alliteration (v.°) of dmdérwp, duytwp, dyeveaddyntos, the third
term is apparently coined by himself; it does not mean “‘of no
pedigree,” nor ‘‘ without successors,” but simply (cp. v.®) ‘‘de-
void of any genealogy.” Having no beginning (since none is
mentioned), M. has no end. “Andtwp and dytwp are boldly
lifted from their pagan associations. In the brief episode of Gn
1418-20, this mysterious Melchizedek appears only as a priest of
God; his birth is never mentioned, neither is his death ; unlike
the Aaronic priests, with whom a pure family descent was vital,
this priest has no progenitors. Reading the record in the light
of Ps rro‘4, and on the Alexandrian principle that the very
silence of scripture is charged with meaning, the writer divines
in Melchizedek a priest who is permanent. This method of
interpretation had been popularized by Philo. In guod det. pot.
48, e.g., he calls attention to the fact that Moses does not explain
in Gn 4) what was the mark put by God upon Cain. Why?
Because the mark was to prevent him from being killed. Now
Moses never mentions the death of Cain 8a raons tis vopobecias,
suggesting that do7ep 7 pepwvdevpevy SxvdAAa, Kaxov d0dvatov éotw
adpootvyn. Again (de Lbriet. 14) etre yap Tov tus “Kai yap ddnBas
adeApi) pov eotw €x matpds, “aXN’ otk é« pytpos” (Gn 201%)—

VII. 3.] MELCHIZEDEK AS PRIEST 93

Abraham’s evasive description of Sarah—is most significant ; she
had no mother, z.e. she had no connexion with the material
world of the senses.

’Amatwp and duijrwp were applied to (a) waifs, whose parents were un-
known ; or (4) to illegitimate children ; or (c) to people of low origin ; or (a)
to deities who were supposed to have been born, like Athené and Hephaestus,
from only one sex. Lactantius (azz. zmstzt. i. 7) quotes the Delphic oracle,
which described Apollo as au7j7wp, and insists that such terms refer only to
God (zézd. iv. 13). ‘*As God the Father, the origin and source of things,
is without parentage, he is most accurately called drdrwp and duzjrwp by
Trismegistus, since he was not begotten by anyone. Hence it was fitting
that the Son also should be twice born, that he too should become drdrwp
and dujrwp.” His argument apparently? is that the pre-existent Son was
dujrwp and that He became amdtwp by the Virgin-birth (so Theodore of
Mopsuestia). Lactantius proves the priesthood of Christ from Ps 1104 among
other passages, but he ignores the deduction from the Melchizedek of Gn 14 ;
indeed he gives a rival derivation of Jerusalem as if from lepdy Dodoudr.
Theodoret, who (Dead. ii.) explains that the incarnate Son was dyjrwp, with
respect to his divine nature, and dyeveaddynros in fulfilment of Is 53%, faces
the difficulty of Melchizedek with characteristic frankness. Melchizedek, he
explains, is described as dwdrwp, du7jrwp, simply because scripture does not
record his parentage or lineage. Hi ad\n0@s ardrwp jv Kal duijrwp, odk dv hy
eixwv, GAN GAjGea. "Hedy 5é od picer Tair exer, dMAd Kara Ti Tijs Oelas
[papas oixovoulav, delxyvor THs adynGelas Tov TUTov. In his commentary he
explains that péver lepeds eis Td Oenvexés means Thy lepwovyny od mapérener eis
matdas, kabdrep’ Aapwy kal Ededfap kal Puveés.

*"Apwporwpevos in v.? means “resembling,” as, eg., in Ep.
Jerem.” vexpd éppysévy &v oxoret dbwpotwrtat oi Geol avtav, though
it might even be taken as a strict passive, ‘made to resemble”
(ze. in scripture), the Son of God being understood to be eternal,
Eis 7d Stnvexés is a classical equivalent for eis tov aiéva, a phrase
which is always to be understood in the light of its context.
Here it could not be simply ‘‘ad vitam”; the foregoing phrases
and the fact that even the levitical priests were appointed for
life, rule out such an interpretation.

The writer now (vv.*!0) moralizes upon the statement that
Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek: and received his blessing,
which proves the supreme dignity of the Melchizedek priesthood,
and, inferentially, its superiority to the levitical.

4 Now mark the dignity of this man. The patriarch “‘ Abraham paid”
him ‘‘a tenth” of the spoils. ° Those sons of Levi, who receive the priestly
office, are indeed ordered by law to tithe the people (that ts, their brothers),
although the latter are descended from Abraham; ®° but he who had no
levitecal (€& airav=eéx Trav vidy Aevel) genealogy actually tithed Abraham and
“* blessed” the possessor of the promises! ™(And there ts no question that it is
the inferior who zs blessed by the superior.) ® Again, tt is mortal men in the
one case who receive tithes, while in the other tt ts one of whom the witness is
that ‘‘he lives.” * In fact, we might almost say that even Levi the receiver
of tithes paid tithes through Abraham ; ' for he was still in the loins of his
father when Melchizedek met him.

1 Tn iv. 25 he says that ‘‘as God was the Father of his spirit without a
mother, so a virgin was the mother of his body without a father.”

94 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ [VII. 4-8,

Ocwpeite (v.4) is an oratorical imperative as in 4 Mac 14
(Oewpeite 5 ms roAvmAoKos EoTWW H THS pidorexvias oTopyy)) ;
mmAtkos is a rare word, often used for #Atkos after vowels, though
not in Zec 2° (rod ideiv wnAlKov TO TAGTos aitijs éotw), where alone
it occurs in the LXX. The otros (om. D* 67**. 1739 Blass)
repeats the otros of v... We have now a triple proof of the
inferiority of the levitical priesthood to Melchizedek. (a) Mel-
chizedek, though not in levitical orders, took tithes from and
gave a blessing to Abraham himself (vv.*’); (4) he is never
recorded to have lost his priesthood by death (v.®); and (c) in-
deed, in his ancestor Abraham, Levi yet unborn did homage to
Melchizedek (% 1°). Té& dkpo@ivia (v.*), which this alone of NT
writers has occasion to use, explains the wavra of v.?; it is one
of the classical terms for which he went outside the LXX.
‘O watpidpxys is thrown to the end of the sentence for emphasis.
In v.> tepatetay is chosen instead of iepwovvyy for the sake of
assonance with Aevet. The LXX does not distinguish them
sharply. The general statement about tithing, card rév vépov
(the évrody of Nu 18° 21), is intended to throw the spontaneous
action of Abraham into relief; dmodexatoéy of “tithing” persons
occurs in 1 § 84, but usually means ‘‘to pay tithes,” like the
more common 8exatovy (v.®), the classical form being dexareveu.
In v.° the perfect edNoyyxe is like the Philonic perfect (see above).
In describing the incident (de Abrahamo, 40), Philo lays stress
upon the fact that 6 péyas iepels tod peyiorou Geot offered éemuwixca
and feasted the conquerors ; he omits both the blessing and the
offering of tithes, though he soon allegorizes the latter (41).

Moulton calls attention to ‘‘the beautiful parallel in Plato’s Apol. 28c,
for the characteristic perfect in Hebrews, describing what stands written in
Scripture,” holding that ‘‘écou év Tpolg rereAevr#Kaoe (as is written in the
Athenians’ Bible) is exactly like He 7§ 11!” 8.” But these perfects are
simply aoristic (see above, p. 91, note).

V.7 is a parenthetical comment on what blessing and being
blessed imply; the neuter (€\atrov) is used, as usual in Greek
(cp. Blass, § 138. 1), in a general statement, especially in
a collective sense, about persons. Then the writer rapidly
summarizes, from vv.!4, the contrast between the levitical
priests who die off and Melchizedek whose record (waptupovpevos
in scripture, cp. 115) is “he lives” (yynre Cwijs réAos . . . péver
els TO Supvecés). Finally (vv.% 10), he ventures (ds €zos eizetv, a
literary phrase, much affected by Philo) on what he seems to
feel may be regarded as a forced and fanciful remark, that Levi
was committed 8¢ *ABpadp (genitive) to a position of respectful
deference towards the prince-priest of Salem. In v.° katrep
€nrubdtas ex Tis dapdos “ABpady (the Semitic expression for
descendants, chosen here in view of what he was going to say in

VII. 9-11.] THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD 95

v.10 éy tH doi tod matpds) is another imaginative touch added
in order to signalize the pre-eminent honour of the levitical
priests over their fellow-countrymen. Such is their high authority.
And yet Melchizedek’s is higher still!

(a) In v.® “forte legendum, 6 6é¢ uy yeveadoyovuevos abrov dedexdtwxe TOY
"ABpadu, ipsum Abrahamam” (Bentley). But é€& atréy explains itself, and
the stress which a’réyv would convey is already brought out by the emphatic
position of "ABpadu, and by the comment kal rdv Exovra xrA. (4) In v.4 Kai
is inserted after #, in conformity with v.2, by 8 AC De K L P syrh! arm,
etc. For a&modexatovy in v.> the termination (cp. Thackeray, 244) daodexa-
row is read by B D (as xaracknvoiy in Mt 13°). In v.® the more common
(117°) aorist, etAdynoe, is read by AC P 6. 104. 242. 263. 326. 383. 1288.
1739. 2004. 2143, Chrys. for evAdynKe.

He now (vv.4) turns to prove his point further, by glancing
at the text from the rroth psalm. ‘It is no use to plead that
Melchizedek was succeeded by the imposing Aaronic priest-
hood; this priesthood belonged to an order of religion which
had to be superseded by the Melchizedek-order of priesthood.”
He argues here, as already, from the fact that the psalter is later
than the pentateuch ; the point of 7! is exactly that of 47.

" Further, of the levitical priesthood had been the means of reaching per-
fection (for zt was on the basts of that priesthood that the Law was enacted for
the Lesple), why was it still necessary for another sort of priest to emerge
‘“qweth the rank of Melchizedek,” instead of simply with the rank of Aaron
(1° for when the priesthood ts changed, a change of law necessarily follows) ?
13 He who ws thus (z.e. ‘with the rank of M.”) descrébed belongs to another
tribe, no member of which ever devoted himself to the altar ; 4 for tt is evident
that our Lord sprang from Judah, and Moses never mentioned priesthood in
connexion with that tribe. © This becomes all the more plain when (ci=érel)
another priest emerges ‘‘resembling Melchizedek,” 1 one who has become a
priest by the power of an tndissoluble (axatadvrov, z.e. by death) Life and
not by the Law of an external command ; " for the witness to him ts,

‘* Thou art priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek.”
18 4 previous command 7s set astde on account of its weakness and uselessness
19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and there is introduced a better Hope,
by means of which we can draw near to God.

Et pév odv (without any dé to follow, as in 84) teNetwous
(“perfection ” in the sense of a perfectly adequate relation to
God ; see v.19) 81a Tis AevertiKis tepwodvns KTA. Acveitixys is a
rare word, found in Philo (de fuga, 7 Aevitixy wovy), but never in
the LXX except in the title of Leviticus ; teowovvn does occur in
the LXX, and is not distinguishable from iepareéa (v.5). In the
parenthetical remark 6 ads yap éw adtis vevonoberntat, adtis
was changed into airy (6. 242. 330. 378. 383. 440. 462. 467.
489. 491. 999. 1610. 1836 Theophyl.), or airy (K L 326. 1288,
etc. Chrys.) after 8° (where again we have this curious passive),
and vevopo@erytat altered into the pluperfect évevowobérnto
(K L, etc.). The less obvious genitive (cp. Ex. 3427 éri yap

tov Adywv TovTwV TéHepwar Gol SiabyKnV Kai TO Iopayr) ew abtis

96 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VII. 11-18.

is not “in the time of,” for the levitical priesthood was not in
existence prior to the Law; it might mean “in connexion with,”
since éwi and zepi have a similar force with this genitive, but the
incorrect dative correctly explains the genitive. The Mosaic
vouos could not be worked for the Aads without a priesthood, to
deal with the offences incurred. The idea of the writer always
is that a vouos or d:a0yxn depends for its validity and effective-
ness upon the iepeds or tepets by whom it is administered. Their
personal character and position are the essential thing. Every con-
sideration is subordinated to that of the priesthood. Asa change
in that involves a change in the vopos (v.}2), the meaning of the
parenthesis in v.!! must be that the priesthood was the basis for the
voxos, though, no doubt, the writer has put his points in vv.1!: 2
somewhat intricately ; this parenthetical remark would have been
better placed after the other in v.!*, as indeed van d. Sande
Bakhuyzen proposes. Three times over (cp. v.19) he puts in
depreciatory remarks about the Law, the reason being that the
Law and the priesthood went together. It is as if he meant
here: “the levitical priesthood (which, of course, implies the
Law, for the Law rested on the priesthood).” The inference
that the vouos is antiquated for Christians reaches the same end
as Paul does by his dialectic, but by a very different route.
*AviotacQar (= appear onthe scene, as v.15) and héyeo8ar refer to
Ps 1104, which is regarded as marking a new departure, with
far-reaching effects, involving (v.!*) an alteration of the véuos as
wellas of the tepwodvyn. In kaiod .. . éyerPar the od negatives
the infinitive as py usually does; *Aapwy, like Kava (Jn 217), has
become indeclinable, though Josephus still employs the ordinary
genitive “Aapa@vos. In v.!” petaQeots, which is not a LXX term,
though it occurs in 2 Mac r1*4, is practically equivalent here
(cp. 1227) to &@érnots in v.¥8% A close parallel occurs in de
Mundo, 6, vopos pev yap pty icoxAuijs 6 Geds, ovdeniay eridexd-=
prevos SudpOwow 7 petrabeowv, and a similar phrase is employed by
Josephus to describe the arbitrary transference of the highpriest-
hood (Anz. xii. g. 7, td Avolov reels, perabetvar THY TYLA ard
TauTns THs oikias eis ETEpor).

We now (vv.5f) get an account of what was meant by od
KaTa TH rdw “Aapdv or €Tepos (“another,” in the sense of ‘‘a
different”) tepeds in v.!! ; Jesus, this tepeds xara tiv Taéw HE Sie
dé€x, came from the non- -sacerdotal tribe of Judah, not from that
of Levi. ’Ed’ ov is another instance of the extension of this
metaphorical use of éi from the Attic dative to the accusative.
The perfect jetéoxnkey may be used in an aoristic sense, like
éoxnxa, or simply for the sake of assonance with TPOTETXIKEV;
and it means no more than peréoxev in 214; indeed pereoxer is
read here by P 489. 623*. 1g12 arm, as mpooécxyey is (by A C

VII. 14-17.]} | THE SUPERIOR PRIESTHOOD 97

33. 1288) for tpoogcxynxev. The conjecture of Erasmus, zpoceo-
TyKxev, is ingenious, but mpooéxew in the sense of “attend” is
quite classical. The rule referred to in eis jv pudyy (2 Js PvdAjs,
arm ?), 2.¢. €x pdfs eis nv (as Lk 10!) xrA. is noted in Josephus,
Ant. xx. 10. 1, Tatpiv éote pydéva Tod Geod tiv dpxLepwovvyv
apBavew H Tov €€ aipatos Tod “Aapovos. No tribe except Levi
supplied priests. (Mpé8yAov in v.'* is not a LXX term, but
occurs in this sense in 2 Mac 31? (& dv mpddnAov éyivero) and
1439, as well as in Judith 8°.) In Zest. Levi 8'* it is predicted
(cp. Introd. p. xlvili) that Bacwveds &« Tod “Iovda dvactycerat Kai
momoe. teparetay veav: but this is a purely verbal parallel, the
Bact\e’s is Hyrcanus and the reference is to the Maccabean
priest-kings who succeed the Aaronic priesthood. “*AvatéA\ew is
a synonym for dvictacOa (v.15), as in Nu 241", though it is just
possible that dvaréraAxev is a subtle allusion to the messianic
title of "AvaroAy in Zec 6!2; in commenting on that verse Philo
observes (de confus. ling. 14): Todrov pév yap mpecButarov vidv 6
tov dAwv dvéretAe warynp. (For tiepéwv the abstract equivalent
iepwovvyns, from v.!%, is substituted by D*° K L.) The title
6 kUptos jpav is one of the links between the vocabulary of this
epistle and that of the pastorals (1 Ti 1, 2 Ti 18). As the
result of all this, what is it that becomes (v.!5) mepisoétepov
(for wepicadtepws) katé8yhov?? The provisional character of the
levitical priesthood, or the perdfeors vouov? Probably the
jatter, though the writer would not have distinguished the one
from the other. Inv. kata thy dpoidTnTa linguistically has the
same sense as ddwpouwpevos (v.%). In v.16 capxivns (for which
capxixys is substituted by C‘ D K W 104. 326. 1175, etc.) hints at
the contrast which is to be worked out later (in g!!*) between
the external and the inward or spiritual, the sacerdotal évtoky
being dismissed as merely capxivy, since it laid down physical
descent as a requisite for office. Hereditary succession is
opposed to the inherent personality of the Son(=9!*). The dis-
tinction between oapxtxds (= fleshly, with the nature and qualities
of cdpé) and cdpxwos (fleshy, composed of cdp&) is blurred in
Hellenistic Greek of the period, where adjectives in -wos tend to
take over the sense of those in -txos, and wice versa. In v.17
paptupetrat (Cp. paptupovpevos, v.®) is altered to the active (101%)
paprupet by C D K L 256. 326. 436. 1175. 1837. 2127 syr™ vg
arm Chrys.

The petdQeors of v.12 is now explained negatively (&0érnats)
and positively (émetoaywyn) in vv.!® 1%. °A@érnats (one of his juristic
metaphors, cp. 92°) yiverat (z.e. by the promulgation of Ps r1o4)
mpoayovons (cp. LAVA. ill. 247, Ta rpodyovra Wayiopata : mpodyey is

1 Kardén\ov is the classical intensive form of d7\ov, used here for the sake
of assonance with the following kara.

7

98 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ [VII. 17-19

not used by the LXX in this sense of “ fore-going ”) évrodfs (v.!®)
Sia 76 adtHs (unemphatic) doevés Kat dvwpehés (alliteration).
"Avwhedés is a word common in such connexions, e.g. Zp. Arist.
253, Orep avwdedss kal ddyewdv éotiv: Polyb. xii. 25° alnAov Kat
avwdperés. The uselessness of the Law lay in its failure to secure
an adequate forgiveness of sins, without which a real access or
fellowship (éyy(Lew 7 6c) was impossible ; od8€v éreelwoer, it led
to no absolute order of communion between men and God, no
teNelwots. The positive contrast (v.!%) is introduced by the strik-
ing compound éretoaywyy (with yiverar), a term used by Josephus
for the replacing of Vashti by Esther (Azz. xi. 6. 2, sBevvuc Oa yap
TO Tpos THY TpoTnpay diicaTopyov ErEépas eTELTAyWYT, Kal TO TpOs éxel-
vnv evvoUY drooTmpeEvoV KATA piKpoV ylyverOa THS TvVOves) ; there
is no force here in the éze, as if it meant “fresh” or ‘‘ further.”
The new éAmis is kpetttwyv by its effectiveness (618) ; it accomplishes
what the vépos and its iepwovvy had failed to realize for men, viz.
a direct and lasting access to God. In what follows the writer
ceases to use the term éAzis, and concentrates upon the éyyifew
T® 06, since the essence of the éAzis lies in the priesthood and
sacrifice of Jesus the Son. With this allusion to the xpeirrwv éAzis,
he really resumes the thought of 61819; but he has another
word to say upon the superiority of the Melchizedek priest, and
in this connexion he recalls another oath of God, viz. at the
inauguration or consecration mentioned in Ps r1o‘, a solemn
divine oath, which was absent from the ritual of the levitical
priesthood, and which ratifies the new priesthood of Jesus as
permanent (vv.20-22), enabling him to do for men what the levitical
priests one after another failed to accomplish (vv.?**),

20 4 better Hope, because it was not promised apart from anoath. Previous

priests (oi wév=levitical priests) became priests apart from any oath, *' but
he has an oath from Him who said to him,

‘¢ The Lord has sworn, and he will not change his mind,

thou art a priest for ever.”
22 And this makes Jesus surety for a superior covenant. * Also, while they (ot
ev) became priests in large numbers, since death prevents them from continuing
to serve, *4 he holds his priesthood without any successor, stnce he continues for
ever. ™ Hence for all time he ts able to save those who approach God through
him, as he zs always living to intercede on thetr behalf.

The long sentence (vv.?0-22) closes with *Ingods in an emphatic
position. After kat a0” Scov od xwpls Spkwpocias, which connect
(sc. rodro yiverat) with érecaywy} Kpeirrovos éAmidos, there is a long
explanatory parenthesis ot wey yap . . . eis Tov aidva, exactly in
the literary style of Philo (e.g. guzs rer. div. 17, ef dcov yap otpat
kT\.—vovs pev yap... aic@now—énl tooodrov «th.). In v.20
dpxwpoota (oath-taking) is a neuter plural (cp. Sy/. 593”, OGJS.
2298”) which, like avrwuoota, has become a feminine singular of
the first declension, and etotv yeyovétes is simply an analytic form

VII. 20-22.] THE SUPERIOR PRIESTHOOD 99

of the perfect tense, adopted as more sonorous than yeyovact. As
we have already seen (on 61%), Philo (de sacrific. 28-29) discusses
such references to God swearing. Thousands of people, he ob-
serves, regard an oath as inconsistent with the character of God,who
requires no witness to his character. ‘ Men who are disbelieved
have recourse to an oath in order to win credence, but God’s mere
word must be believed (6 dé eds kal A€ywv murtds éotwv) ; hence,
his words are in no sense different from oaths, as far as assurance
goes.” He concludes that the idea of God swearing an oath is
simply an anthropomorphism which is necessary on account of
human weakness. Our author takes the OT language in Ps rrot
more naively, detecting a profound significance in the line épocer
kUptos Kat od peTapeAnOyoerar (in the Hellenistic sense of “ regret”
=change his mind). The allusion is, of course, to the levitical
priests. But Roman readers could understand from their former
religion how oaths were needful in such a matter. Claudius,
says Suetonius (Vit. Claud. 22), ‘‘in co-optandis per collegia
sacerdotibus neminem nisi juratus (7.e. that they were suitable)
nominavit.”

The superfluous addition of kata tTHv Takwv MeAxuledéx was soon made,
after els Tov aiava, by x’ AD K LP vt Syrreshhkl boh eth Eus (Dem. iv.
15. 40), ete.

Napapévew means to remain in office or serve (a common
euphemism in the papyri). The priestly office could last in a
family (cp. Jos. Amz. xi. 8. 2, Tips leparikns Tynhs peyloTys ovons Kal
év TO yéver Tapapevovons), but mortal men (éroOvycKovtes, v.°) could
not wapapmévew as priests, whereas (v.*4) Jesus remains a perpetual
iepeds, Sud Td every ( = wdvtore Lav, v.”°) adzév (superfluous as in Lk 24
dia 76 avdrov elvar). "AtapdéBatov, a legal adjective for “ inviolable,”
is here used in the uncommon sense of non-transferable (boh
Chrys. ov« éxeu duddoxov, Oecumenius, etc. dd.ddoxov), as an equiva-
lent for 1 wapaPaivoveay eis dAAov, and contrasts Jesus with the
long succession of the levitical priests (wAc~ovés). ‘The passive
sense of ‘‘not to be infringed” (cp. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 43,
ciuappévny papev arapdBarov tavrnv eivar, where the adjective
=ineluctabile) or “unbroken” does not suit the context, for
Jesus had no rivals and the word can hardly refer to the invasion
of death. Like yeyupvacpéva in 514, also after €xeww, it has a pre-
dicative force, marked by the absence of the article. Philo (guts
rer. div. heres, 6) finds a similar significance in the etymology of
kvptos as a divine title: Kvpios pev yap rapa 7d Kipos, 6 dx BeBaidv
oT, eipytat, Kat évavTiTyTa aBePatov kai dxvpov. But our author
does not discover any basis for the perpetuity of 6 xvpuos Gv in
the etymology of xvpios, and is content (in vv.??-2+) to stress the
line of the psalm, in order to prove that Jesus guaranteed a superior
dcabyxn (7.e. order of religious fellowship). ”Eyyvos is one of the

100 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _[VII. 22-25.

juristic terms (vg, sponsor) which he uses in a general sense ; here
it is “‘surety” or “pledge.” Acafyxn is discussed by him later
on ; it isa term put in here as often to excite interest and anticipa-
tion. How readily €yyuos could be associated with a term like
odflew (v.%) may be understood from Sir 29 :

Xdpiras éyyvou py émiddOy,
cdwkey yap THV Wuxi adTod brép cov.
dyafa éyyvou avarpéper duaptwAds,

kal dxyapiotos év dtavola éyxataAcier purdpevov.

Our author might have written peoirys here as well as in 8°; he
prefers éyyvos probably for the sake of assonance with yéyovey or
even éyyifowev. As peocrevew means to vouch for the truth of a
promise or statement (cp. 617), so éyyvos means one who vouches
for the fulfilment of a promise, and therefore is a synonym for
pecitns here. The conclusion (v.%) is put in simple and
effective language. Ets Td mavtehés is to be taken in the temporal
sense of the phrase, as in BM. iii. 1611! (A.D. 212) awd Tov
viv eis TO mavteXés, being simply a literary variant for wavrore.
The alternative rendering “utterly ” suits Lk 13! better than this
passage. This full and final tepwovvy of Jesus is the kpeittwv édmis
(v.19), the reAcéwous which the levitical priesthood failed to supply,
a perfect access to God’s Presence. His intercession (évrvyxdveu,
sc. Oe as in Ro 8*4 os kat évrvyxaver trép nuav) has red blood in
it, unlike Philo’s conception, e.g. in Vit. Mos. iii. 14, dvayKatov yap
jv tov tepwuevov (the highpriest) r@ tod Kocpov ratpi rapaxdyTw
xpjoOat TeAcoTdTw Ti dperiy vid (2.e. the Logos) wpos re duvnotiav
dpapnuatwv Kat xopnylavy apfovwrdtwy ayafav, and in guts rer. div.
42, where the Logos is ixérys tod Ovntod Knpaivovtos det mpos TO
dpOaprov rapa d€ TH Huvte pos eveAmioriav TOU pore TOV thew Oedv
mepuoetv TO idtov épyov. The function of intercession in heaven for
the People, which originally (see p. 37) was the prerogative of
Michael the angelic guardian of Israel, or generally of angels (see
on 114), is thus transferred to Jesus, to One who is no mere angel
but who has sacrificed himself for the People. The author
deliberately excludes any other mediator or semi-mediator in the
heavenly sphere (see p. xxxix).

A triumphant little summary (vv.76?8) now rounds off the
argument of 619f—7%5 ;

26 Such was the highpriest for us, saintly, innocent, unstained, far from
all contact with the sinful, lifted high above the heavens, ™ one who has no
need, like yonder highpriests, day by day to offer sacrifices first for their own
sins and then for (the preposition is omitted as in Ac 2618) those of the People—
he did that once for all in offering up himself. * For the Law appoints

human beings in their weakness to the priesthood ; but the word of the Oath
{which came after the Law) appoints a Son who is made perfect for ever.

VII. 26. | JESUS AS PRIEST IOI

The text of this paragraph has only a few variants, none of any import-
ance. After piv in v.25 cal is added by A B D 1739 syrPesh Bkl Eusebius
(** was exactly the one for us”). In v.?7 it makes no difference to the sense
whether mpocevéyxas (8 A W 33. 256. 436. 442. 1837. 2004. 2127 arm Cyr.)
or avevéyxas (B CD KL Pete. Chrys.) is read; the latter may have been
suggested by avadépetv, or pocevéyxas may have appealed to later scribes as
the more usual and technical term in the epistle. The technical distinction
between avadépew (action of people) and mpoopépew (action of the priest)
had long been blurred ; both verbs mean what we mean by “‘offer up” or
“sacrifice.” In v.28 the original lepe?s (D* 1 r vg) was soon changed (to con-
form with &pxvepets in v.*”) into dpxcepets. The reason why tepeds and
iepets have been used in 7% is that Melchizedek was called lepevs, not
dpxcepevs. Once the category is levitical, the interchange of dpxvepeds and
iepevs becomes natural.

The words tovodtos yap tpiv émperev (another daring use of
éxperev, cp. 21°) d&pxvepeds (v.2°) might be bracketed as one of
the author’s parentheses, in which case datos xrA. would carry on
mdavtote Lav . . . attav. But 6s in Greek often follows tovodtos,
and the usual construction is quite satisfactory. [dp is intensive,
as often. It is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody, but there
is a certain sequence of thought in dovos xrA., where the positive
adjective davos is followed by two negative terms in alliteration
(&kaKos, Guiavtos), and kexwpiopévos dd Toy dGpaptwAay is further
defined by éWydédtepos Tay odpavay yevdpevos (the same idea as in
414 SueAnAvOora tos ovpavov’s). He is dovos, pious or saintly
(cp. ERE. vi. 743), in virtue of qualities like his reverence,
obedience, faith, loyalty, and humility, already noted. “Akakos
is innocent (as in Job 8”, Jer 11°), one of the LXX equivalents
for OM or D'DF, not simply = devoid of evil feeling towards men ;
like d&ptavtos, it denotes a character Xwpis dpaptias. “Aptavtos is
used of the untainted Isis in OP. 1380 (& Ilovtw dyiavros).
The language may be intended to suggest a contrast between
the deep ethical purity of Jesus and the ritual purity of the
levitical highpriest, who had to take extreme precautions against
outward defilement (cp. Lv 21115 for the regulations, and the
details in Josephus, Avs. iii. 12. 2, 2 movov de epi Tas tepoupyias
kaapors elvar, orovdalew S& Kal repi tiv airy diatay, ws airyy
dpeprtov elva kal Ova Tavtny THY airlay, ol THY LepaTiKyY oTOATYV
oporvres dpwpor Te cit Kal rept wdvTa KaHapol Kai vnpadsor), and
had to avoid human contact for seven days before the ceremony
of atonement-day. The next two phrases go together. Kexwpuo-
pévos ard tay dpaprwddy is intelligible in the light of 9%; Jesus
has dzaé sacrificed himself for the sins of men, and in that sense
his connexion with duaptwAo/ is done. He is no levitical high-
priest who is in daily contact with them, and therefore obliged
to sacrifice repeatedly. Hence the writer at once adds (v.?") a
word to explain and expand this pregnant thought; the sphere
in which Jesus now lives (énddtepos xrA.) is not one in which,

102 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VII. 27-28.

as on earth, he had to suffer the contagion or the hostility of
dpaptwdot (12) and to die for human sins.

‘‘He has outsoared the shadow of our night ;
Envy and calumny and hate and pain...
Can touch him not and torture not again;
From the contagion of the world’s slow stain
He is secure.”

This is vital! to the sympathy and intercession of Jesus; it is
in virtue of this position before God that he aids his people,
as tetedewwpévos, and therefore able to do all for them. His
priesthood is, in modern phrase, absolute. As eternal dpxvepeds
in the supreme sense, and as no longer in daily contact with
sinners, Jesus is far above the routine ministry of the levitical
dpxtepets, The writer blends loosely in his description (v.?”) the
annual sacrifice of the highpriest on atonement-day (to which
he has already referred in 5°) and the daily sacrifices offered by
priests. Strictly speaking the dpyvepets did not require to offer
sacrifices xa’ yuépay, and the accurate phrase would have been xar’
éviavtov. According to Lv 698 the highpriest had indeed to offer
a cereal offering morning and evening ; but the text is uncertain,
for it is to be offered both on the day of his consecration and
also 6a zavros. Besides, this section was not in the LXX text
of A, so that the writer of Hebrews did not know of it. Neither
had he any knowledge of the later Jewish ritual, according to
which the highpriest did offer this offering twice a day.
Possibly, however, his expression here was suggested by Philo’s
statement about this offering, viz. that the highpriest did offer a
daily sacrifice (guzs rer. div. 36: tas evderexets Ovoias . . . HW Te
trrép éEavtGy ot tepeis tpoapepovar THs Tepmidarews Kal THY Lrep TOD
COvovs tav Sdvetv duvadv, de spec. leg. ili. 23, 6 dpyiepet’s . . . edyas
8€ Kai Ovoias teAGv KaP Exaoryny Hpepay). It is true that this
offering bwép éautév was not a sin-offering, only an offering of
cereals ; still it was reckoned a 6vo‘a, and in Sir 4514 it is counted
as such. Todto ydp émotnoev refers then to his sacrifice for sins
(978), not, of course, including any sins of his own (see on 53) ;
it means brép Tév d&papti@v Tod Aaod, and the writer could afford
to be technically inexact in his parallelism without fear of being
misunderstood. ‘Jesus offered his sacrifice,” ‘‘ Jesus did all
that a highpriest has to do,”—this was what he intended. The
Greek fathers rightly referred toGto to émetta t&v tod aod, as if
the writer meant ‘‘¢/7s, not that mpdtepov.” It is doubtful if he
had such a sharp distinction in his mind, but when he wrote todto

1 Thus Philo quotes (de Hug. 12) with enthusiasm what Plato says in the
Theatetus : ott amodécba Ta kaxd Sivardv—brevavtioy yap Tt TH ayad@ del
elvac dvayxn—obre év Oelors avTa idpicba,

VII. 28.| THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS 103

he was thinking of tay tod aod, and of that alone. An effort
is sometimes made to evade this interpretation by confining
kad” *pépav to ds ox éxer and understanding “yearly” after
ot dpxtepets, as if the idea were that Christ’s daily intercession
required no daily sacrifice like the annual sacrifice on atonement-
day. But, as the text stands, dvdyxny is knit to xa’ jp<pay, and
these words must all be taken along with domep ot dpxtepets
(€xover).

Compare the common assurance of the votaries of Serapis, e.g. BGU.

ii. 385 (ii/iii aA.D.), 7d mpooktynud cov Tod Kat’ éxdorTny Huepay Tapa TH Kuply
Lapdm.de kal Tots cvvvéors Geots.

A deep impression is made by the words éautév dvevéykas,
“pro nobis tibi uictor et uictima, et ideo uictor, quia uictima,
pro nobis tibi sacerdos et sacrificium, et ideo sacerdos, quia
sacrificium” (Aug. Conf. x. 43). What is meant by this the
writer holds over till he reaches the question of the sacrifice of
Jesus as dpxtepeds (9!"). As usual, he prepares the way for a
further idea by dropping an enigmatic allusion to it. Meantime
(v.28) a general statement sums up the argument. Ka@tornow is
used as in 1 Mac 107 (xafeotaxapev oe orpepov apytepea Tov
vous cov), and doGéveay recalls 5? (repixertar doGeveay), in the
special sense that such weakness involved a sacrifice for one’s
personal sins (ivép tév idiwv dyapridv). Whereas Jesus the Son
of God (as opposed to dvOpwrovs doOevets) was appointed by a
divine order which superseded the Law (era tov vopov = vy.11-19),
and appointed as one who was tetehevwpévos (in the sense of 21°)
eis Tov aiava. It is implied that he was appointed dpxtepeds,
between which and fepevs there is no difference.

The writer now picks up the thought (77%) of the superior
Siayjkn which Jesus as dpxtepeds in the eternal oxyvy or
sanctuary mediates for the People. This forms the transition
between the discussion of the priesthood (5-8) and the sacrifice
of Jesus (g!—1o!”). The absolute ‘sacrifice offered by Jesus as
the absolute priest (vv.!®) ratifies the new 8ca67«y which has
superseded the old (vv.71!8) with its imperfect sacrifices.

1 The point of all this ts, we do have such a highpriest, one who ts *‘ seated
at the right hand” of the throne of Majesty (see 1*) im the heavens,
2 and who officiates in the sanctuary or ‘‘true tabernacle set up by the Lord”
and not by man. * Now, as every highpriest ts appointed to offer gifts and
sacrifices, he too must have something to offer. 4 Were he on earth, he
would not be a priest at all, for there are priests already to offer the gifts
prescribed by Law (© men who serve a mere outline and shadow of the
heavenly—as Moses was tnstructed when he was about to execute the building
of the tabernacle: ‘‘ see,” God said, ‘‘that (sc. dmws) you make everything
on the pattern shown you upon the mountain”). °® As it is, however, the

divine service he has obtained ts superior, owing to the fact that he mediates
a supertor covenant, enacted with superior promises.

The terseness of the clause hv ewyngev 6 KuUptos, ovK avOpwos (v.!) is

104 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ VIII. 1, 2.

spoiled by the insertion of kat before ovx (AK LP vg boh syr arm eth
Cosm.). In v.4 otv becomes ydp in D¢ K L syr**! arm Chrys. Theod., and
a similar group of authorities add iepéwy after dvtwy. Tév is prefixed
needlessly to véuov by 8° D K LP Chrys. Dam. to conform to the usage in
7° 9"; but the sense is really unaffected, for the only legal regulation con-
ceivable is that of the Law. In v.® viv and vuvt (976) are both attested ;
the former is more common in the papyri. The Hellenistic (from Aristotle
onwards) form rérevxev (8° B D° 5. 226. 467. 623. 920. 927. 1311. 1827. 1836.
1873. 2004. 2143, etc.: or téruxev, 8° A D* K L) has been corrected in P ¥
6. 33- 1908 Orig. to the Attic rerixnxev. Before kpeitrovés, cal is omitted
by D* 69. 436. 462 arm Thdt.

Kepddoroy (“the pith,” Coverdale), which is nominative
absolute, is used as in Cic. ad Attic. v. 18: “et multa, immo
omnia, quorum xepdAaor,” etc., Dem. xili. 36: €or 8, & dvdpes
"A@nvator, Kepararov dravtwv Tov eipnuévwv (at the close of a
speech) ; Musonius (ed. Hense, 67 f.) Biov kat yevécews raidwv
Kowwviav KepdAaov eivar yapov, etc. The word in this sense is
common throughout literature and the more colloquial papyri,
here with émit tots Neyouévors (concerning what has been said).
In passing from the intricate argument about the Melchizedek
priesthood, which is now dropped, the writer disentangles the
salient and central truth of the discussion, in order to continue
his exposition of Jesus as highpriest. ‘Such, I have said, was the
épxvepeds for us, and such is the dpyvepeds we have—One who is
enthroned, év tots odpavots, next to God himself.” While Philo
spiritualizes the highpriesthood, not unlike Paul (Ro 121"), by
arguing that devotion to God is the real highpriesthood (76 yap
eparrevtixov yévos avabnpd ort Oeod, icpdpevov tiv jpeyddAnv
apxlepwovvynv avTa povw, de Fug. 7), our author sees its essential
functions transcended by Jesus in the spiritual order.

The phrase in v.? tév dyiwv detoupyés, offers two points of
interest. First, the linguistic form Aecrovpyés. The « form
stands between the older » or m, which waned apparently from
the third cent. B.c., and the later « form ; ‘ Aevroupyds sim. socios
habet omnium temporum papyros praeter perpaucas recentiores
quae sacris fere cum libris conspirantes Artovpyds Atroupyia
scribunt” (Cronert, Memoria Graeca Hercul. 39). Then, the
meaning of rv ayiwv. Philo has the phrase, in Leg. Al/eg. iii. 46,
Tovovros dé 6 Geparrevtys Kat Aetroupyos Tov dyiwv, where Tov dyiwv
means “sacred things,” as in de Aug. 17, where the Levites are
described as priests ois ) rév dylwy dvaxetrar Nerovpyia. This
might be the meaning here. But the writer uses ta ayia else-
where (g§* ro!® 13") of “the sanctuary,” a rendering favoured
by the context. By ra aya he means, as often in the LXX, the
sanctuary in general, without any reference to the distinction
(cp. 9%") between the outer and the inner shrine. The LXX
avoids the pagan term iepdy in this connexion, though 76 dy:ov
itself was already in use among ethnic writers (e.g. the edict of

VIII. 2-5. | THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS 105

Ptolemy 1., cal xa@idSptcar ev tOv ayiww= “in sacrario templi,”
Dittenberger, OG/S. 56°). It is here defined (xaé epexegetic) as
the true or real oxnvy, qv! emngev 6 KUptos (a reminiscence of Nu
24° oxnvat as érnfev Kvpros, and of Ex 337 Kai AaBov Mwvojs TH
oKnvijv avtov éxngev). The reality and authenticity of the writer’s
faith come out in a term like d\néivds. What he means by it
he will explain in a moment (v.®). Meanwhile he turns to the
etroupyia of Jesus in this ideal sanctuary. This dpxvepeds of
ours, in his vocation (v.’, cp. 51), must have (dvaykatoy, sc. éotiv)
some sacrifice to present ’ before God, though what this offering is,
the writer does not definitely say, even later in 9%. The analogy
of a highpriest carrying the blood of an animal inside the sacred
shrine had its obvious limitations, for Jesus was both dpyxuepevs
and offering, by his self-sacrifice. Mpocevéyxy is the Hellenistic
aorist subjunctive, where classical Greek would have employed
a future indicative (Radermacher, 138). The writer proceeds
to argue that this Nevroupyia is far superior to the levitical cultus
(vv.4f). Even in the heavenly sanctuary there must be sacrifice
of some kind—for sacrifice is essential to communion, in his
view. It is not a sacrifice according to the levitical ritual;
indeed Jesus on this level would not be in levitical orders at all.
But so far from that being any drawback or disqualification to
our dpxtepeds, it is a proof of his superiority, for the bible itself
indicates that the levitical cultus is only an inferior copy of the
heavenly order to which Jesus belongs.

Instead of contrasting at this point (v.4) 7a 8apa (sacrifices,
as in 114) of the levitical priests with the spiritual sacrifice of
Jesus, he hints that the mere fact of these sacrifices being made
émt ys is a proof of their inferiority. This is put into a paren-
thesis (v.5); but, though a grammatical aside, it contains one of
the writer’s fundamental ideas about religion (Eusebius, in Praef.
Evang. xii. 19, after quoting He 8°, refers to the similar Platonic
view in the sixth book of the Republic). Such priests (otrwes,
the simple relative as in g? 108 1! 125) Natpedouor (with dative as
in 131°) Swodetypate kal oKid TOY émoupaviww (cp. 97). “Yzdderyya
here as in 9? is a mere outline or copy (the only analogous
instance in the LXX being Ezk 42) 76 irdderypa Tod oixov) ; the
phrase is practically a hendiadys for ‘a shadowy outline,” a
second-hand, inferior reproduction. The proof of this is given
in a reference to Ex 2519: Ka@as kexpynpdticta. Mwuofs—
xenwarife,” as often in the LXX and the papyri, of divine

ly is not assimilated, though ws might have been written ; the practice
varied (cp. e.g. Dt 5% &y ™ yn ty eyo Sldwm, and 12) &y ry yy 7 Kuptos
dldwow),

2 Passively in the NT in Ac 10”, but the exact parallel is in Josephus,

Ant. iii. 8. 8, Mwiiofs . . . els Thy oxnvhy elowwy éexpnuartlfero mepi wy édeira
mapa TOU Geov~

106 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ VIII. 5.

revelations as well as of royal instructions—péddwv émtedety thy
oxynyyv. The subject of the you is God, understood from
kexpynpatiorar, and the ydép! introduces the quotation, in which
the writer, following Philo (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), as probably codex
Ambrosianus (F) of the LXX followed him, adds mdvta. He
also substitutes 8ex@évta for dederypévov, which Philo keeps
(kata TO Tapdderyya TO Sedevrypevov wor ev TH Oper TavTa ToLjoes), aNd
retains the LXX tumov (like Stephen in Ac 744). The idea was
current in Alexandrian Judaism, under the influence of Platonism,
that this oxjvy on earth had been but a reproduction of the
pre-existent heavenly sanctuary. Thus the author of Wisdom
makes Solomon remind God that he had been told to build the
temple (vdov . . . Kat @vovacrypiov) as pipnua oKnvns dyias Hv
mpoytoimacas am apxns (98), where oxnvi) ayia is plainly the
heavenly sanctuary as the eternal archetype. This idealism
determines the thought of our writer (see Introd. pp. xxxif.).
Above the shows and shadows of material things he sees the
real order of being, and it is most real to him on account of
Jesus being there, for the entire relationship between God and
man depends upon this function and vocation of Jesus in the
eternal sanctuary.

Such ideas were not unknown in other circles. Seneca (Z¢. lviii. 18 -19)
had just explained to Lucilius that the Platonic ideas were ‘‘ what all visible
things were created from, and what formed the pattern for all things,”
quoting the Parmenides, 132 D, to prove that the Platonic idea was the ever-
lasting pattern of all things in nature. The metaphor is more than once used
by Cicero, e.g. Zusc. ill. 2. 3, and in de Officizs, iii. 17, where he writes: ‘‘ We
have no real and life-like (solidam et expressam effigiem) likeness of real law
and genuine justice ; all we enjoy is shadow and sketch (umbra et imaginibus).
Would that we were true even to these! For they are taken from the
excellent patterns provided by nature and truth.” But our author’s thought
is deeper. In the contemporary Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch the idea of
Ex 25% is developed into the thought that the heavenly Jerusalem was also
revealed to Moses along with the patterns of the oxnv7 and its utensils (44) ;
God also showed Moses ‘‘the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern
of which the sanctuary of the present time was to be made” (Charles’ tr.).
The origin of this notion is very ancient; it goes back to Sumerian sources,
for Gudea the prince-priest of Lagash (¢c. 3000 B.C.) receives in a vision the
plan of the temple which he is commanded to build (cp. A. Jeremias,
Babylonisches tm NT, pp. 62f.). It is to this fundamental conception that
the author of IIpds ‘EBpalous recurs, only to elaborate it in an altogether new
form, which went far beyond Philo. Philo’s argument (Leg. Ad/eg. ili. 33),
on this very verse of Exodus, is that Bezaleel only constructed an imitation
(uiunwara) of ra apxéruma given to Moses; the latter was called up to the
mountain to receive the direct idea of God, whereas the former worked
simply dd oKias Tov yevoudvwy. In de Plant. 6 he observes that the very
name of Bezaleel ($x 5y3) means ‘‘one who works in shadows” (év okais
mov); in De Somnits, i. 35, he defines it as ‘fin the shadow of God,” and
again contrasts Bezaleel with Moses: 6 wév ola cxids dreypadero, 6 5 od cxids,

1 Put before pyc, because the point is not that the oracle was given, but
what the oracle contained.

VII. 6.) THE SUPERIOR COVENANT 107

atras 5¢ ras dpxervmous ednusovpye pices. In Vit. Mos. iii. 3 he argues that
in building the oxyv7 Moses designed to produce xa@daep dm’ dpxerimou
ypagis Kal vonrdy mapaderyudrwy aloOn7ra mipjmaTa.. . 6 wev oty Tvtros
rod mapadelypuaros éverpparyitero Ty diavolg rod mpogpijrov . . . Td 5 dmoré-
Aecua mpods Tov TUToy ednuLoupyetro.

He then continues (v.® viv 8€, logical as in 28 9%, answering
to et pév in v.4) the thought of Christ’s superior Aevtoupyia by
describing him again (cp. 722) in connexion with the superior
S.a04kn, and using now not éyyvos but pecitys. Meoirys (see on
Gal 31%) commonly means an arbitrator (e.g. Job 9%8, Rein. P. 44°
[a.D. 104] 6 xatactabeis xpirys peoitys) or intermediary in some
civil transaction (OP. 12981%); but this writer’s use of it, always in
connexion with 8:a@jxn (9! 1274)! and always as a description
of Jesus (as in 1 Ti 25), implies that it is practically (see on 7?)
a synonym for éyyvos. Indeed, linguistically, it is a Hellenistic
equivalent for the Attic peréyyvos, and in Diod. Siculus, iv. 54
(rotrov yap pecitny yeyovora tov Suoroytav ev Kod xors ernyyeAGau
BonOjoev ait} tapaczovdovpevy), its meaning corresponds to that
of éyyvos. The sense is plain, even before the writer develops
his ideas about the new dvaOyxn, for, whenever the idea of re-
conciliation emerges, terms like peoirns and peocrevew are natural.
Meoirys «at d:adAaxtys is Philo’s phrase? for Moses (Vit. Mos.
iii, 19). And as a d:a6yxy was a gracious order of religious
tellowship, inaugurated upon some historical occasion by sacrifice,
it was natural to speak of Jesus as the One who mediated this
new S.abyjxyn of Christianity. He gave it (Theophyl. peotrys cat
Sérys) ; he it was who realized it for men and who maintains it
for men. All that the writer has to say meantime about the
Siabjxn is that it has been enacted (v.®) émi kpettroow émayyeAtats.
This passive use of vopoferety is not unexampled ; cf. e.g. OGZS.
493° (ii A.D.) Kal tatta pev tuety 6phGs Kat Kahds . . . vevomo-
Gerjc$w. It is implied, of course, that God is 6 vopoferay (as in
LXX Ps 837). What the “ better promises ” are, he now proceeds
to explain, by a contrast between their d.a@y«7n and its predecessor.
The superiority of the new d.a6«y is shown by the fact that God
thereby superseded the 6:a0y«xn with which the levitical cultus
was bound up; the writer quotes an oracle from Jeremiah,
again laying stress on the fact that it came after the older diabjxy
(vv.7-18), and enumerating its promises ascontained in a new diahijxy.

1In these two latter passages, at least, there may be an allusion to the
contemporary description of Moses as ‘‘ mediator of the covenant ” (‘‘arbiter
testamenti,” Ass. AZoszs, i. 14). The writer does not contrast Jesus with
Michael, who was the great angelic mediator in some circles of Jewish piety
(cp. Jub 1”, Test. Dan 6).

2 Josephus (Azz. xvi. 2. 2) says that Herod réy map’ ’Ayplrma rioly
érignroupévuw peoitns jv, and that his influence moved mpds ras evepyeotas
od Bpadvvovra rov’Aypirmav. "IceDor pev yap airdv Supddakev dpyifdjevor.

108 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VIII. 7, 8.

" For tf that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no
occasion for a second. *® Whereas God does find fault with the people of that
covenant, when he says:

“* The day ts coming, saith the Lord,
when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and with
the house of Judah.

9 Jt will not be on the lines of the covenant 1 made with their fathers,

on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt's
Land ;
Jor they would not hold to my covenant,
so L left them alone, satth the Lord.
10 This zs the covenant I will make with the house of Israel when that
(‘the day” of v.8) day comes, saith the Lord ;
T will set my laws wethin theer mind,
inscribing them upon their hearts ;
I will be a God (eis Oebv, z.e, all that men can expect a God to be) ¢o
them,
and they shall be a People to me ;
11 one citizen will no longer teach hts fellow,
one man will no longer teach his brother (rov adedpov avrod, z.e. one
another, Ex 10”),
saying, ‘* Know the Lord.”
for all shall know me, low and high together.
12 7 will be merciful to their iniqutties,
and remember thetr sins no more.

18 By saying ‘‘a new covenant,” he antiquates the first. And whatever ts

antiquated and aged 7s on the verge of vanishing.

The contents of the prediction of a kawh S.a0jxn by God,
and the very fact that such was necessary, prove the defectiveness
of the first dva?jxn. The writer is struck by the mention of a
new d.abyxn even in the OT itself, and he now explains the
significance of this. As for 4 mpaéty (sc. duabyxn) éxeivy, et...
dpepmros (if no fault could have been found with it), obk dv
Seutépas eLyteito témos. Acutépas is replaced by érépas in B* (so
B. Weiss, Blass) ; but, while érepos could follow zp@ros (Mt 21°),
devrepos is the term chosen in 10%, and B* is far too slender
evidence by itself. Znretvy térov is one of those idiomatic phrases,
like etpeiv torov and Aafeiv rorov, of which the writer was fond.
The force of the yap after pewpdpuevos is: ‘and there was occasion
fora second d:a6yxn, the first was not dpepmros, since,” etc. It
need make little or no difference to the sense whether we read
avtots (N° B D° L 6. 38. 88. 104. 256. 436. 467. 999. 131T. 1319.
1739. 1837.1845. 1912. 2004. 2127 Origen) or avrovs (X* A D* K P
W 33 vg arm), for peuddmevos can take a dative as well as
an accusative (cf. Arist. Aez. 1. 6. 24, KopwOious & ob pepderar Td
"Tawov: Aesch. Prom. 63, ovdeis évdixws éuwacro por) in the sense of
“‘censuring ” or “ finding fault with,” and peupoevos naturally goes
with atrots or atrovs. ‘The objection to taking adtots with héyer!

1 weugpbuevos is then ‘‘ by way of censure,” and some think the writer
purposely avoided adding a’r#y. Which, in view of what he says in v.”, is
doubtful ; besides, he has just said that the former 6:a07)«n was not dueutros.

VIII. 8.] THE ORACLE OF JEREMIAH 109

is that the quotation is not addressed directly to the people,
but spoken at large. Thus the parallel from 2 Mac 27 (wepipa-
pevos abrois tev) 1s not decisive, and the vg is probably correct
in rendering “vituperans enim eos dicit.” The context ex-
plains here as in 48 and 118 who are meant by airovs. The
real interest of the writer in this Jeremianic oracle is shown when
he returns to it in 10/618; what arrests him is the promise of a
free, full pardon at the close. But he quotes it at length, partly
because it did imply the supersession of the older dva6jxn and
partly because it contained high promises (vv.1°™), higher than
had yet been given to the People. No doubt it also contains a
warning (v.°), like the text from the 95th psalm (37%), but this is
not why he recites it (see p. xl).

The text of Jer 38°84 (3131-34) as he read it in his bible (ze.
in A) ran thus:

> \ ¢€ , m” / 4,
idod Auéepar Epxovtat, A€yer Kupuos,
‘ 8 6 , fal »” “iI X\ Xr ‘ a > 7T 55 8 6 ,
kai diabijoopar TO oikw ‘IopayA Kat TH oly Tovoa oralyxyy
KQLV)V,
> . \ , a , a , Ce
ov Kara Tiy Siabyknv nv Suebeunv Tots TaTpacw avTov
/ ~ ‘ lal cal
év fpépa émAaBopevov pov THs xElpds adtdv eEayayciv avrovs ex
ys Aiyvrrov,
¢ > \ > Caer} 2 a 8 6 ,
Sri avTot ovK évepervav ev TH diabyKy pov,
> ‘ > 7, > lal A ’
Kayo ApeAnoa aitav, dyov Kupvos.
9 Y c , a , A ” > ,
dre attn 7 SiabyKyn Hv Siabjoopat Td oixw “loparr
‘ , ig
peta Tas huepas exeivas, pyow Kupws,
/ cal
S.d0ts vopovs pov eis THY Sidvoray avtav
kal értypdiw aitods éml tas Kapdias aitav,
Kal dopa avrovs
Kal €gouar avtois eis Gedv.
‘\ > ‘\ 4 , > /,
Kal avtol €covTai pou eis Aaov.
MN 9 A
kat ov pi! didaéwow exactos Tov adeApoy adrod
Vee, \ A / lal
Kal ékaotos Tov tAnolov aitod A€ywv: yvOOu Tov Kupuoy,
7
OTe mavtes iOnoovew pe
dard pukpod €ws peyddou aitar,
9 a
tu tAews Eoopat tats adikiais adTov
‘ a Lal A
Kal TOV dpaptidvy ai’Tav ov py pvyTOG er.

Our author follows as usual the text of A upon the whole (é.2. Aéyee tor
gnoly in v.*!, kay in v.52, the omission of pou after duadjxn and of dwcw
after Sudovs in v.28, ob wh diddEwow for od diddEovow in v.*4 and the omission
of ad’rév after puxpod), but substitutes cuvredéow éml rdv olkov (bis) for d:a67-
couat T@ olkw in v.31, reads Aéyer for dyoly in v.*” and v.*, alters duePéuny
into érolnoa (Q*), and follows B in reading kal éml x. atrdv before the verb
(v.33), and moNirny . . adeApéy in v.*4, as well as in omitting kal dy. adrovs
(A x) in the former verse; in v.™ he reads eidjoovow (x Q) instead of

1 od wh only occurs in Hebrews in quotations (here, 10!7 13°); out of
about ninety-six occurrences in the NT, only eight are with the future.

IIo THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS |VIII. 8-10.

idjoovow, the forms of ofda and eldov being repeatedly confused (cp. Thackeray,
278). These minor changes may be partly due to the fact that he is quoting
from memory. In some cases his own text has been conformed to other
versions of the LXX; e.g. A D © boh restore mov in v.!°, x* K vg Clem.
Chrys. read xapdlay (with 8 in LXX), though the singular! is plainly a con:
formation to dlavoay (‘* Fiir den Plural sprechen ausser A D L noch B,
wo nur das C in € verschrieben und daraus emt xapé.a eavrwy geworden ist,
und P, wo der Dat. in den Acc. verwandelt,” B. Weiss in Zexte wu. Unter-
suchungen, xiv. 3. 16,55); B ¥ arm revive the LXX (B) variant ypdyw ; the
LXX (Q) variant mAngiov is substituted for woAdtrny by P vg syr*! eth 38.
206. 218. 226. 257. 547. 642. 1288, 1311. 1912, etc. Cyril, and the LXX
(B Q 8) avy restored after ucxpod by D° L syr boh eth, etc. On the other
hand, a trait like the reading ézoinoa in the LXX text of Q* may be due to the
influence of Hebrews itself. The addition of cal rév dvoutdv a’rdv after or
before kai ray auapriGv ai’tGy in v. is a homiletic gloss from 10!7, though
strongly entrenched in x&° AC DK LP ¥ 6. 104. 326, etc. vg pesh arm Clem

Luvtehéow SraOyxnyy, a literary LXX variant for royow diabyKnv,
recalls the phrase cuvreAéoar diaOyxynv (Jer 418 (348)), and, as 1224
(véas 8:a04xKyns) shows, the writer draws no distinction between
kawvds and véos (v.8). In v.® the genitive absolute (émAaBopevou
pou) after jpépa, instead of ev 7 éeAaBounv (as Justin correctly
puts it, Dza/. x1.), is a Hellenistic innovation, due here to trans-
lation, but paralleled in Bar 278 év qépa évretAapevov cov ate) ;
in 67 (causal only here and in v.19) . . . evéueway, the latter is our
“abide by,” in the sense of obey or practise, exactly as in
Isokrates, Kata tOv odiot@v, 20: ols ei tis eal tov mpdéewv
eupetvecey. Bengel has a crisp comment on adrot . . . xadyé here
and on écopot. . . kat adrot (“ correlata . . . sed ratione inversa ;
populus fecerat initium tollendi foederis prius, in novo omnia et
incipit et perficit Deus ”); and, as it happens, there is a dramatic
contrast between jpéAnoa here and the only other use of the
verb in this epistle (2%). In v.!@ &8ous, by the omission of daca,
is left hanging in the air; but (cp. Moulton, 222) such participles
could be taken as finite verbs in popular Greek of the period
(cp. @.g. xetporovnbeis in 2 Co 8%), The xawh S:a6jxn is to be
on entirely fresh lines, not a mere revival of the past; it is to
realize a knowledge of God which is inward and intuitive
(vv.10-11), There is significance in the promise, kat €oouat adtots

. eis Aadv. A dvabyxn was always between God and his
people, and this had been the object even of the former dvabyKxn
(Ex. 67); now it is to be realized at last. Philo’s sentence
(“even if we are sluggish, however, He is not sluggish about
taking to Himself those who are fit for His service ; for He says,
‘T will take you to be a people for myself, and I will be your
God,’” De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, 26) is an apt comment; but
our author, who sees the new dé:a6y«7y fulfilled in Christianity, has

1 That él takes the accusative here is shown by 101%; xapdlas cannot be
the genitive singular alongside of an accusative.

VIII. 10-13. | OLD AND NEW 111

his own views about how such a promise and purpose was
attainable, for while the oracle ignores the sacrificial ritual
altogether, he cannot conceive any pardon apart from sacrifice,
nor any dva$yxy apart from a basal sacrifice. These ideas he is
to develop in his next paragraphs, for it is the closing promise
of pardon! which is to him the supreme boon. Meanwhile,
before passing on to explain how this had been mediated by
Jesus, he (v.!°) drives home the truth of the contrast between old
and new (see Introd., p. xxxix). "Ev t@ Aéyew (same construc-
tion as in 28)—when the word kathy (sc. duaGyxynv) was pro-
nounced, it sealed the doom of the old dwabyKy. Nadadw
(etadaiwxe) in this transitive sense (“he hath abrogat,” Tyndale)
is known to the LXX (Job 95, La 34, both times of God in
action); ynpdoxew is practically equivalent to papatveo@a, and
implies decay (see Wilamowitz on Eur. Herakles, 1223). The
two words éyyds (as in 6°) dganopod, at the end of the paragraph,
sound like the notes of a knell, though they have no contem-
porary reference ; the writer simply means that the end of the old
dcabnKn was at hand (p. xxii). The new would soon follow, as it
had done év vid (11). The verb ddari€ew (-eoGar) is applied to legis-
lation (e.g., Lysias, 868, tiv tpyérepay vopobeciay adaviloyras) in
the sense of abolition, lapsing or falling into desuetude, Dion.
Hal. Anz. iii. 178, as (ze. Numa’s laws) dpanoOjvar cwéeByn Ta
xpovw, the opposite of ddavilew being ypadew (cid. ix. 608,
KaT& TOUS VOMOUS, OUS OD VewoTl Senoer ypadew TaArAaL yap eypadpycay,
Kat ovdels avTovs Adavice xpovos), and the sense of disappearance in
ddaviopos appears already in the LXX (e.g. Jer 2897 nai éorac
BaBvAov eis &bavio por).

But the new 6:a6yx7 is also superior to the old by its sacrifice
(g'f-), sacrifice being essential to any forgiveness such as has been
promised. The older dca67y«xy had its sanctuary and ritual (vv.1),
but even these (vv.®.) indicated a defect.

1 The first covenant had indeed its regulations for worship and a material
sanctuary. * A tent was set up (karacKevdf{w as in 3°), the outer tent, con-
taining the lampstand, the table, and the loaves of the Presence; this is
called the Holy place. * But behind (werd only here in NT of place) the
second veil was the tent called the Holy of Holtes, 4 containing the golden
altar of incense, and also the ark of the covenant covered all over with gold,
which held the golden pot of manna, the rod of Aaron that once blossomed,
and the tablets of the covenant ; ® above this were the cherubim of the Glory
overshadowing the mercy-seat—matters which (2.e. ail in?) zt zs impossible
Jor me to discuss at present tn detatl.

1 With rv auapriwy ait&v od wh wyno@G ére compare the parable of R.
Jochanan and R. Eliezer on God’s readiness to forget the sinful nature of his
servants: ‘‘ There is a parable concerning a king of flesh and blood, who said
to his servants, Build me a great palace on the dunghill. They went and
built it for him. It was not thenceforward the king’s pleasure to remember
the dunghill which had been there” (Chagiga, 16 a. i. 27).

E12 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Ix. 1.

The kaw} S:a9jxy of 8713 had been realized by the arrival of
Christ (9!!); hence the older d:a6yxn was superseded, and the
writer speaks of it in the past tense, etye. As for } mpdtn (se.
d.abyxn) of which he has been just speaking (81%), the antithesis
of the entire passage is between 4 mpdty S:a0qKy (vv.2!°) and
H kawwh StaOyKy (vv.!1?2), as is explicitly stated inv. The kat
(om. B 38. 206*. 216*. 489. 547. 1739. 1827 boh pesh Origen)
before 4 mpaéty emphasizes the fact that the old had this in
common with the new, viz. worship and a sanctuary. This is, of
course, out of keeping with the Jeremianic oracle of the new
d:a8yxn, which does not contemplate any such provision, but
the writer takes a special view of day«n which involves a
celestial counterpart to the ritual provisions of the old order.

The former d:a6yxy, then, embraced Stkatdparta, ze. regula-
tions, as in Lk 1® and 1 Mac 221: 22 (iAews quty Karadeirey vomov
Kal Oukalipata Tov vopov TOV Baciews odK axovotdmeba, mapedOeiv
tiv atpiav ypov), rather than rights or privileges (as, eg.,
OP. 1119) rév eSapérwv THs Herépas tatpidos dixarwpyatwv),
arrangements for the cultus. Aatpelas grammatically might be
accusative plural (as in y.®), but is probably the genitive, after
dixauipara, which it defines. Aarpeia or (as spelt in W) Aarpia
(cp. Thackeray, 87) is the cultus (Ro 94), or any specific part of
it (Ex 12” 27), The close connexion between worship and a
sanctuary (already in 8? %) leads to the addition of 10 te (as in
1° 6°) &ytov koopixdy. By 1d dyov the author means the entire
sanctuary (so, e.g., Ex 36°, Nu 3°8), not the innermost sacred
shrine or dyta dywy. This is clear. What is not so clear is the
meaning Of xooptixdv, and the meaning of its position after the
noun without an article. Primarily xoopixds here as in Ti 21
(ras KoopuKas émiPvuias) is an equivalent for émi ys (8%), ze.
mundane or material, as opposed to émoupdmov or od tavtys TIS
ktigews (v.!). A fair parallel to this occurs in Zest. Jos. 178,
dua THY KoopiKyy pov ddgav. But did our author use it with a
further suggestion? It would have been quite irrelevant to his
purpose to suggest the “public” aspect of the sanctuary, al-
though Jews like Philo and Josephus might speak of the temple
as Koopixds in this sense, ze. in contrast to synagogues and
mpocevxai, which were of local importance (Philo, ad Cazum.
Io1g), or simply as a place of public worship (e.g. Jos. Bed/.
iv. 5. 2, THS KoopiKns OpyoKeias KaTdpxovTas, mpooKvVOUpEevousS TE
Tois €k THS olkovpevns TapafsdAXovow eis THY wodw). Neither
would our author have called the sanctuary xoopixds as symbolic
of the xéapos, though Philo (Vit. AZosts, iii. 3-10) and Josephus
(Anz. iii. 6. 4, ill. 7. 7, Exacta yap TovTwy eis aropipnow Kal
diatvmwow tov dAwv) also play with this fancy. He views the
sanctuary as a dim representation of the divine sanctuary, not

IX. 1-4.| THE FIRST SANCTUARY 113

of the universe. . Yet he might have employed xoopixdv in a
similar sense, if we interpret the obscure phrase pvorypioy Koop-
Kov éxkAnoias in Did. 11! (see the notes of Dr. C. Taylor and
Dr. Rendel Harris in their editions) as a spiritual or heavenly
idea, “depicted in the world of sense by emblematic actions or
material objects,” ‘‘a symbol or action wrought upon the stage
of this world to illustrate what was doing or to be done on a
higher plane.” Thus, in the context of the Didache, marriage
would be a pvornpiov Kocpixov (cp. Eph 5%?) of the spiritual rela-
tion between Christ and his church. This early Christian usage
may have determined the choice of xoopexdv here, the sanctuary
being kxoopixdy because it is the material representation or
parabolic outward expression of the true, heavenly sanctuary.
But at best it is a secondary suggestion; unless koopuxdy could
be taken as “ornamented,” the controlling idea is that the
sanctuary and its ritual were external and material (dxcawpara
TapKos, XElpoojrov, xetporoinra). The very position of coopixdv
denotes, as often in Greek, a stress such as might be conveyed
in English by ‘‘a sanctuary, material indeed.”

The Gyvov is now described (v.*"), after Ex 25-26. It con-
sisted of two parts, each called a oxyvj. The large outer tent,
the first (4 mpdtn) to be entered, was called “Aya (neut. plur.,
not fem. sing.). The phrase, qs éyetar “Ayea? would have
been in a better position immediately after 4 mpéry, where,
indeed, Chrysostom (followed by Blass) reads it, instead of after
the list of the furniture. The lampstand stood in front (to the
south) of the sacred table on which twelve loaves or cakes of
wheaten flour were piled (4 mpo0eors tv dptwy=ol apro. Tis
mpolécews), the Hebrew counterpart of the well-known _lectis-
ternia: ) tpdwela ... dptwy is a hendiadys for “the table with
its loaves of the Presence.” Such was the furniture of the outer
oxnvn. Then (vv.%>) follows a larger catalogue (cp. Joma 24) of
what lay inside the inner shrine (@yta é&ytwv) behind the curtain
(Ex 2716) which screened this from the outer tent, and which is
called SeUtepov katatréracpa, Sevtepov, because the first was a curtain
hung at the entrance to the larger tent, and kataméracpa, either
because that is the term used in Ex 26°1* (the particular passage
the writer has in mind here), the term elsewhere being usually
KdAvupa Or éricmactpov (Ex 26°° etc.), or because Philo had
expressly distinguished the outer curtain as xdAvya, the inner
as xatarétracpa (de vita Mosis, iii. 9). This inner shrine con-
tained (v.*) xpucodv Oupratyproy, z.e. a wooden box, overlaid with
gold, on which incense (@vpzéana) was offered twice daily by the.
priests. The LXX calls this @vovacrypiov tod Ovpidpatos (Ex
301-10), but our writer follows the usage of Philo, which is also,

17a "Ayia (B arm) is an attempt to reproduce exactly the LXX phrase.

8

114 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Ix. 4.

on the whole, that of Josephus, in calling it @vpsarypiov (so
Symm. Theodotion, Ex 30! 318); @vyuaryprov, in the non-biblical
papyri, denotes articles like censers in a sanctuary, but is never
used in the LXX of levitical censers, though Josephus occasion-
ally describes them thus, like the author of 4 Mac 714. The
ordinary view was that this @upcatyprov stood beside the Auxvia
and the sacred tpdwefa in the outer sanctuary. Both Philo (e.g.
quis rer. div. 46, Tpiav ovtwv év Tots dylos oKevedv, AvxVias,
tparélns, Ovpcaryptov: de vita Mos. iii. g f., in the outer tent, 7a
Nowra tpla oKevp... pécov pev TO Ovjuarypiov .. . THY b& AvXViaV
... 4 5& tpamefa) and Josephus (Azz. iii. 6. 4f.; cp. viii. 4. 1 for
the reproduction in Solomon’s temple) are quite explicit on this.
Indeed no other position was possible for an altar which required
daily service from the priests; inside the dya rév dyiwy it would
have been useless. But another tradition, which appears in the
contemporary (Syriac) apocalypse of Baruch (67), placed the
altar of incense! inside the &yta dyiwy, a view reflected as early
as the Samaritan text of the pentateuch, which put Ex 3o0!!?
(the description of the altar of incense) after 26%, where logically
it ought to stand, inserting a 711‘ 25 in Ex 4027 (where the
altar of incense is placed “before the veil”). The earliest hint
of this tradition seems to be given in the Hebrew text of 1 K 6”,
where Solomon is said to have overlaid with gold “the altar that
is by the oracle” (z.e. the ayia dyiwv). But our author could not
have been influenced by this, for it is absent from the LXX text.
His inaccuracy was rendered possible by the vague language of
the pentateuch about the position of the altar of incense, dmévaytt
Tov KaTameTdopatos TOD OVTOS emt THS KLBwTOD TaY papTupLOY
(Ex 30°), where dmévavr. may mean “opposite” or ‘close in
front of” the curtain—but on which side of it? In Ex 37 the
tpdmeCa, the Avxvia, and the altar of incense are described
successively after the items in the dy:a dyiwv ; but then the LXX
did not contain the section on the altar of incense, so that this
passage offered no clue to our writer. In Ex 40° it is merely put
évavtiov THs KiBwrov. This vagueness is due to the fact that in
the original source the sketch of the oxyvy had no altar of
incense at all; the latter is a later accretion, hence the curious
position of Ex 301! in a sort of appendix, and the ambiguity
about its site.

After all it is only an antiquarian detail for our author. It has been
suggested that he regarded the ayia T&v dylwy, irrespective of the veil, as
symbolizing the heavenly sanctuary, and that he therefore thought it must
include the altar of incense as symbolizing the prayers of the saints. But
there is no trace of such a symbolism elsewhere in the epistle ; it is confined to
the author of the Apocalypse (8%). The suggestion that he meant €xouvga

! Whether the language means this or a censer is disputed.

IX. 4, 5.] THE SACRED ARK 115

to express only a close or ideal connexion between the inner shrine and the
altar of incense, is popular (e.g. Delitzsch, Zahn, Peake, Seeberg) but quite
unacceptable ; €xouga as applied to the other items could not mean this,! and
what applies to them applies to the @uu.arjpiov. Besides, the point of the
whole passage is to distinguish between the contents of the two compartments.
Still less tenable is the idea that @uvutarjpiov really means ‘‘censer” or
‘*incense pan.” This way out of the difficulty was started very early (in the
peshitta, the vulgate), but a censer is far too minor a utensil to be included in
this inventory; even the censer afterwards used on atonement-day did not
belong to the dy.a r&v aylwy, neither was it golden. What the oxnv7 had
was merely a brazier (mvpetov, Lv 16%), Since it is not possible that so
important an object as the altar of incense could have been left out, we may
assume without much hesitation that the writer did mean to describe it by
Ouuarjpiov,? and that the irregularity of placing it on the wrong side of the
curtain is simply another of his inaccuracies in describing what he only
knew from the text of the LXX. In B the slip is boldly corrected by the
transference of (kal) xpucodv Oupsarjpiov to v.*, immediately after dprwy (so
Blass).

The second item is thy xtBwrdv Tis 8:a6yKns covered with gold
all over (wdvto8ev: Philo’s phrase is évdoGev Kai éEwbev, de Ebriet.
21), a chest or box about 4 feet long and 24 feet broad and high
(Ex 25!f), which held three sacred treasures, (a) the golden pot
(otdépvos, Attic feminine) of manna (Ex 1673) ; (4) Aaron’s rod
BX\actyoaca (in the story of Nu17!11, which attested the sacerdotal
monopoly of the clan of Levi); and (¢) at mhdkes tis S1aOqKns
(Ex 2515 3118), ¢.e. the two stone tablets on which the decalogue
was written (zAdkas diabyxyns, Dt 9°; évéBadov tas mAdkas eis Tv
xiBwrov, 10°), the decalogue summarizing the terms of the d:a6yjxn
for the People. In adding xpva7 to orduvos the writer follows the
later tradition of the LXX and of Philo (de congressu, 18); the pot
is not golden in the Hebrew original. He also infers, as later
Jewish tradition did, that the ark contained this pot, although,
like Aaron’s rod, it simply lay in front of the ark (Ex 16° 54, Nu
171°). He would gather from 1 K 8° that the ark contained the
tablets of the covenant. He then (v.°) mentions the yxepouPety
(Aramaic form) or yxepouBeip (Hebrew form) 8éys, two small
winged figures (Ex 25180), whose pinions extended over a
rectangular gold slab, called té ttagryproy, laid on the top of the
ark, which it fitted exactly. They are called cherubim Adéys,
which is like MeyaAwovvys (1° 8!) a divine title, applied to Jesus
in Ja 21, but here used as in Ro g*. The cherubim on the
tAaotyprov represented the divine Presence as accessible in mercy ;
the mystery of this is suggested by the couplet in Sir 498 @9 ;

"Telexundr, Os cidev spac Adێys
nv trédekev atte eri dpuaros xepovfeip.
'The change from év 7 to éxovea is purely stylistic, and éyovca in both

instances means ‘‘ containing.”
2 xpucodv Ouuiarnpcov lacks the article, like orduvos ypvaF.

116 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 5.

Philo’s account of té thactHptoy is given in de vita Mosis, iii.
8, 7 Ot KiBwros . . . Kexpvowpevyn ToAUTEAGS Evdobev TE Kai eEwhev,
Hs évibepa doavel Toya 7d eyOmevov ev tepais BuBrAous iAacryprov

. Omep €orxey Elva oUpPorov voikwTepov pev TIS iAew Tod Heod
duvdews. Lower down, in the same paragraph, he speaks of
TO érideua TO Tpocayopevduevov ikaarypiov, and 16 ihactHptor is
similarly used in De Cherub. 8 (on the basis of Ex 251%). The
émieua or covering of the ark was splashed with blood on
atonement-day; perhaps, even apart from that, its Hebrew
original meant “means of propitiation,” and was not incorrectly
named tdaornprov (cp. Deissmann in £42. 3027-3035), but our
author simply uses it in its LXX sense of ‘‘ mercy-seat.” He does
not enter into any details about its significance ; in his scheme
of sacrificial thought such a conception had no place. Philo
also allegorizes the overshadowing wings of the cherubim as a
symbol of God’s creative and royal powers protecting the cosmos,
and explains Ex 252? as follows (Quaest. in Exod. 257%): ta peév
ovv Tept THY KiBwrov KaTa pépos eipytat’ det d€ cvAANBdnV avwbev
dvahaPdvta Tod yvwpioa xdpw Tivwy Tatra éote oUuPora dreSedOeiv:
nv b€ TavTa cup PoALKka’ KLBwros Kal Ta ev aiTH Onoarpilopeva vopipa
Kal éml TavTys TO iAaorijpiov Kal Ta €ml TOD iAaarnpiov Xaddaiwv
yAwrryn Aeyopeva XepouPip, & trép O€ ToUTwY KaTa TO pécov wv) Kai
Aoyos Kal urepavw 6 éywv «tA. But our author does not enter
into any such details. He has no time for further discussion of
the furniture, he observes; whether he would have allegorized
these items of antiquarian ritual, if or when he had leisure, we
cannot tell. The only one he does employ mystically is the kata-
méetacpa (107°), and his use of it is not particularly happy. He
now breaks off, almost as Philo does (guis rer. div. 45, rodiv 8 ovra
TOV Tepl ExaoTov Adyov brepHereov eicvadGis) on the same subject.
Kata pépos is the ordinary literary phrase in this connexion (e.g.
2 Mac 2°° ; Polybius, i. 67. 11, epi dv odx oldy Te dua THS ypadhys Tov
Kara “épos arododvat Adyov, and Poimandres [ed. Reitzenstein, p. 84]
Tept dv 6 Kata pépos Noyos éoti wodvs). OdK €or as in 1 Co 11”,

Worship in a sanctuary like this shows that access to God
was defective (vv.%8), as was inevitable when the sacrifices were
external (vv.8!), Having first shown this, the writer gets back to
the main line of his argument (8%), viz. the sacrifice of Jesus
as pre-eminent and final (v.11),

8 Such were the arrangements for worship. The priests constantly enter
the first tent (v.*) in the discharge of thetr ritual duties,™ but the second tent
zs entered only once a year by the highpriest alone—and it must not be with-
out blood, which he presents on behalf of (cp. 5%) himself and the errors of
the People. *® By this the holy Spirit means that the way into the Holiest
Presence was not yet disclosed so long as the first tent ® (which foreshadowed
the present age) was still standing, with its offerings of gifts and sacrifices
which cannot (uh as in 4*) possibly make the conscience of the worshipper

IX. 6-8. ] THE CULTUS gy

perfect, ' since they relate (sc. otcat) merely to food and drink and a variety
of ablutions—outward regulations for the body, that only hold till the perioa
of the New Order.

In v.® $a maytés=continually, as in BAZ. i. 42° (ii B.C.) of év
oiky mdvTes gov SiarravTos pvelay Tovovpevor. Etotagw (which
might even be the present with a futuristic sense, the writer
placing himself and his readers back at the inauguration of the
sanctuary : ‘‘ Now, this being all ready, the priests will enter,” etc.)
émtedodvtes (a regular sacerdotal or ritual term in Philo) Aatpetas
(morning and evening, to trim the lamps and offer incense on the
golden altar, Ex 272! 307 etc. ; weekly, to change the bread of
the Presence, Lv 248, Jos. Avt. iii. 6. 6). The ritual of the
inner shrine (v.3) is now described (v.’, cp. Joma 5%) ; the place is
entered by the highpriest émag tod év.autod, on the annual day of
atonement (Lv 16” 84, Ex 30!): only once, and he must be
alone (udvos, Lv 161"), this one individual out of all the priests.
Even he dare not enter xwpis aipatos (Lv 1614), ze. without
carrying in blood from the sacrifice offered for his own and the
nation’s dyvonpdtev. In Gn 431% éyvonpa is “an oversight,” but
in Jg 5% Tob 3%, 1 Mac 13%, Sir 23? dyvonwara and “sins”
are bracketed together (see above on 5”), and the word occurs
alone in Polyb. xxxviii. 1. 5 as an equivalent for “ offences” or
“errors” in the moral sense. ‘There is no hint that people were
not responsible for them, or that they were not serious; on the
contrary, they had to be atoned for. ‘Yrép xrA.; fora similarly
loose construction cp. 1 Jn 22 (od wept nerépwv [dpaptidy] dé
povov, GAG kal Tepl GAov TOD KOopOV).

Rabbi Ismael b. Elischa, the distinguished exegete of i-ii A.D., classified
sins as follows (Zos. Joma 5°): Transgressions of positive enactments were
atoned for by repentance, involving a purpose of new obedience, according
to Jer 22°3 (‘‘ Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your back-
slidings”). The day of atonement, however, was necessary for the full
pardon of offences against divine prohibitions: according to Lv 16% (‘‘On
that day shall the priest make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye
may be clean from all your sins”). An offender whose wrongdoing deserved
severe or capital punishment could only be restored by means of sufferings :
according to Ps 89% (‘* Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and

their iniquity with stripes”). But desecration of the divine Name could not
be atoned for by any of these three methods; death alone wiped out this sin

(Jer 24°).

The author now (v.8) proceeds to find a spiritual significance
in this ceremonial. An dodvtos is used of a divine meaning as in
1227, here conveyed by outward facts. In 1 P 11! the verb is
again used of the Spirit, and this is the idea here; Josephus
(Ant. iii. 7.7, dAot 8é Kal tov HALov Kal THY GEATVHY TOY Gapdovtxwv
éxdtepos) uses the same verb for the mystic significance of the
jewels worn by the highpriest, but our author’s interpretation of
the significance of the oxyvy is naturally very different from that

118 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ [IX. 8-10.

of Josephus, who regards the unapproachable character of the
édvurov or inner shrine as symbolizing heaven itself (Azz. iil. 6. 4
and 7. 7, 6 Tots tepetow Hv GBarov, ws otpavds avetto TO OED. . .
8a TO Kal TOV ovpavév averiBatov evar avOpwros). For 686v with
gen. in sense of ‘“‘way to,” cp. Gn 37 (rv dddv tod EvAou Tis
Los), Jg 514 (cis 600v Tod Sud). Tév dyiwv here (like 7a dyfa in
vy.12 25, cp, 131!) as in 10! means the very Presence of God, an
archaic liturgical phrase suggested by the context. The word
avepodobar was not found by the writer in his text of the LXX ;
it only occurs in the LXX in Jer 40 (33)®, and the Latin phrase
“iter patefieri” (e.g. Caesar, de Bello Gall. ili. 1) is merely a
verbal parallel. In ts mpétys oxynviis exovons otdow (v.°), the
writer has chosen oraow for the sake of assonance with éveoryxdra,
but éxew ordow is a good Greek phrase for “to be in existence.”
The parenthesis 411s ! wapaBodh (here = rvzros, as Chrysostom saw)
eis Tov Katpov Tov éveoTnKdTa means that the first oxyv7 was merely
provisional, as it did no more than adumbrate the heavenly
reality, and provisional eis (as in Ac 4° eis tiv avpiov) tov
Ka.pov Tov éveoTnkoTa, 7.é. the period in which the writer and his
readers lived, the period inaugurated by the advent of Jesus with
his new 8a84xy. This had meant the supersession of the older
diabyxn with its sanctuary and 8tkowdpata, which only lasted
péxpt Katpod SropAdcews. But, so long as they lasted, they were
intended by God to foreshadow the permanent order of religion ;
they were, as the writer says later (v.?), bodetypata t&v év Tots
ovpavots, mere copies but still copies. This is why he calls the
fore-tent a tapaBodn. For now, as he adds triumphantly, in a
daring, imaginative expression, our dépxtepeds has passed through
his heavenly fore-tent (v.1!), and his heavenly sanctuary corre-
sponds to a heavenly (ze. a full and final) sacrifice. In the
levitical ritual the highpriest on atonement-day took the blood
of the victim through the fore-tent into the inner shrine. Little
that accomplished! It was but a dim emblem of what our high-
priest was to do and has done, in the New Order of things.

When readers failed to see that #Tts ... éveornKdta was a parenthesis, it
was natural that xa’ #v should be changed into xa@’ 8v (De K L P, so Blass).

The failure of animal sacrifices (®"-!°) lies kara cuveiSqouw. As
the inner consciousness here is a consciousness of sin, “ con-
science” fairly represents the Greek term ovveidyo.s. Now, the
levitical sacrifices were ineffective as regards the conscience of
worshippers; they were merely ém Bpwpacww kal mépaov Kal S.add-
pots Bamticpots, a striking phrase (cp. 13°) of scorn for the mass of

1 Sc. #v. The construction was explained by the addition of xa@éornxey
after éveornxéra (so 69. 104. 330. 436. 440. 462. 491. $23. 1319. 1836. 1837.
1898. 2005. 2127, etc.).

Ix. 10.] THE CULTUS 119

minute regulations about what might or might not be eaten or
drunk, and about baths, etc. Food and ablutions are intelligible ;
a book like Leviticus is full of regulations about them. But
nopacw? Well, the writer adds this as naturally as the author of
Ep. Aristeas does, in describing the levitical code. ‘I suppose
most people feel some curiosity about the enactments of our law
mepi te Tov Bpwrdy Kal rotdv” (128); it was to safeguard us from
pagan defilement that ravrofev ijyds mepréppagev dyveiais Kal ova
Bpwrdv Kai wotév (142), ert tov Bpwrdv Kai wotGv dzap~apévous
edOéws Tore cvyxpyobar KeAever (158). It is curious that this de-
fence of the levitical code contains an allusion which is a verbal
parallel to our writer’s disparaging remark here ; the author asserts
that intelligent Egyptian priests call the Jews ‘‘men of God,” a
title only applicable to one who oéBerat tov kata ddjfevav Geov,
since all others are avOpwro. Bpwtav Kat rotév Kai oKérns, 7) yap
race didbeots adtav éri rata Katadevyer. Tos O€ Tap’ Huav ev ovdevi
ratra AeAdyiotar (140. 141). Libations of wine accompanied
certain levitical sacrifices (e.g. Nu 5! 61517 287£), but no ritual
regulations were laid down for them, and they were never offered
independently (cp. ZB. 4193, 4209). It is because the whole
question of sacrifice is now to be restated that he throws in these
disparaging comments upon the 8dpd te kat Ouciat and their ac-
companiments in the older oxynv4. Such sacrifices were part and
parcel of a system connected with (v.1°) external ritual, and in con-
cluding the discussion he catches up the term with which he had
opened it: all such rites are 8tka1dpata capkds, connected with the
sensuous side of life and therefore provisional, wéxpt katpod S:op6-
gews émxeipeva. Here émixe(weva is “prescribed,” as in the descrip-
tion of workmen on strike, in Zed¢. P. 2617 (114 B.C.) éyxatadeirov-
ras Ti érixepevyv doxoAtav. Ardpfwors means a “reconstruction ”
of religion, such as the new dca67«7 (81%) involved ; the use of the
term in Polybius, iii. 118. 12 (xpos ras TOv roAtTevpdrwv diophdcets),
indicates how our author could seize on it for his own purposes.

The comma might be omitted after Bawticpois, and Stxatépata taken
closely with pdévov:; ‘‘ gifts and sacrifices, which (uévov xrX, in apposition) are
merely (the subject of) outward regulations for the body,” émt being taken as
cumulative (Lk 32°)—‘‘ besides,” etc. This gets over the difficulty that the
levitical offerings had a wider scope than food, drink, and ablutions; but éi
is not natural in this sense here, and émi . . . Bamricpots is not a parenthetical
clause. The insertion of cai before d:caudpara (by 8° B D¢ etc. vg hkl Chrys.),
=*‘even” or “‘in particular” (which is the only natural sense), is pointless.
Atxaidpacw (De K L vg hkl) was an easy conformation to the previous datives,
which would logically involve émixesmévors (as the vg implies: ‘‘et justitiis
carnis usque 2d tempus correctionis impositis’’), otherwise émtxelueva would be
extremely awkward, after duyduevac, in apposition to dwWpa Te Kai uola,

Now for the better sanctuary and especially the better sacri:
fice of Christ as our dpxtepevs (vv. 1-8) !

120 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ IX. 11.

1] But when Christ arrived as the highpriest of the bliss that was to be, he
passed through the greater and more perfect tent which no hands had made (no
part, that is to say, of the present order), }* not (ov6é=nor yet) taking any blooa
of goats and calves but his own blood, and entered once for all into the Holy
place. He secured an eternal redemption. ™ For if the blood of goats and bulls
and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on defiled persons, give them a holiness that
bears on bodily purity, 4 how much more shall (xa@apre?, logical future) the blood
of Christ, who in the spirit of the eternal offered himself as an unblemished
sacrifice to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve a living God.”

This paragraph consists of two long sentences (vv.11- 12, 13. 14),
The second is an explanation of aiwviay Autpwow edpdpevos at the
close of the first. In the first, the sphere, the action, and the
object of the sacrifice are noted, as a parallel to vv.®7; but in
vv.13. 14 the sphere is no longer mentioned, the stress falling upon
the other two elements. The writer does not return to the
question of the sphere till vv.

Xptotés Sé€ mapayevdpevos (v.!), But Christ came on the
scene,! and all was changed. He arrived as dpxtepeds, and the
author carries on the thought by an imaginative description of
him passing through the upper heavens (no hand-made, mun-
dane fore-court this!) into the innermost Presence. It is a more
detailed account of what he had meant by €xovtes dpxtepéa péyay
SreAnAuOdra Tobs odpavos (414). Xetpotrorjtou, like xerporrotnta (v."4),
means “ manufactured,” not “fictitious” (as applied to idols or
idol-temples by the LXX and Philo). Tour €otw ob tadtTys Tis
xticews reads like the gloss of a scribe, but the writer is fond of
this phrase tour €or, and, though it adds nothing to od xetpo-
moujtou, it may stand. Kriots, in this sense of creation or created
order, was familiar to him (e.g. Wis 517 19°). MeAAdvtwy, before
dya8Gv, was soon altered into yevopévwv (by B D* 1611. 1739.
2005 vt syr Orig. Chrys.), either owing to a scribe being misled
by zapayevopevos or owing to a pious feeling that weAAcvrwy here
(though not in 1o!) was too eschatological. The ayaa were
péAXovta in a sense even for Christians, but already they had
begun to be realized; e.g. in the AUtpwos. This full range was
still to be disclosed (2° 1314), but they were realities of which
Christians had here and now some vital experience (see on 6°).

Some editors (e.g. Rendall, Nairne) take rv yevouévwy ayabGy with what
follows, as if the writer meant to say that ‘‘ Christ appeared as highpriest of
the good things which came by the greater and more perfect tabernacle (not
made with hands—that is, not of this creation).” This involves, (a) the
interpretation of ovdé as=‘‘ not by the blood of goats and calves either,” the
term carrying on wapavyevduevos ; and (4) dtd in a double sense. There is no
objection to (4), but (a) is weak; the bliss and benefit are mediated not
through the sphere but through what Jesus does in the sphere of the eternal
oxnvyyj. Others (e.g. Westcott, von Soden, Dods, Seeberg) take dia Tis

1 Ilapayevduevos (as Lk 12°, Mt 3} suggest) is more active than the rega-
vépwrac of v.,

IX. 11-13.] THE NEW AND TRUE SACRIFICE 121

oxnvis with Xpiorés, ‘‘ Christ by means of the . . . sanctuary.” This sense
of did is better than that of (a) above, and it keeps dia the same for vv."
and }2, But the context (zaparyevéuevos . . . elomGev) points to the local use
of did in 6:a THS . . . oknvijs, rather than to the instrumental; and it is no
objection that the writer immediately uses 6d in another sense (d¢ aiuaros),
for this is one of his literary methods (cp. di¢ with gen. and accus. in 2)?
2). 10 7p 19. 23. 24. 25):

Continuing the description of Christ’s sacrifice, he adds (v.!*)
o8€ & aipatos tpdywv (for the People) kat pdécxwv (for himself),
which according to the programme in Lv 16 the priest smeared
on the east side of the iAaorypiov. The later Jewish procedure
is described in the Mishna tractate Joma, but our author simply
draws upon the LXX text, though (like Aquila and Symmachus)
he uses pocywv instead of xipapwv. Ara is graphically used in
Sia tod iSiou aipatos, as in 8 alpatos tpdywv kal pdoxwv, but the
idea is the self-sacrifice, the surrender of his own life, in virtue
of which! he redeemed his People, the aiwa or sacrifice being
redemptive as it was his. The single sacrifice had eternal value,
owing to his personality. The term épdmag, a stronger form of
dma, which is unknown to the LXX, is reserved by our author
for the sacrifice of Jesus, which he now describes as issuing in
a Avtpwors—an archaic religious term which he never uses else-
where; it is practically the same as dmodUtpwors (v.!), but he
puts into it a much deeper meaning than the LXX or than Luke
(18 238), the only other NT writer who employs the term.
Though he avoids the verb, his meaning is really*that of 1 P 118
(€AdvtpwHOynTe Tiiw aipate ws dpvod dumpov Kai dorthov Xpiorov)
or of Ti 214 (ds Ebwxey Eavtov irép judy, va AvTpwoHTar Huds ard
mraons avopias kal kabapion €avTd adv Tepiovcrov).

In this compressed phrase, aiwviav Avtpwow evpdpevos, (a) alwvlav
offers the only instance of alwvios being modified in this epistle. (6) Hvpd-
wevos, in the sense of Dion. Hal. Ant. v. 293 (ore diaddayas etparo Tots
avdpacv kal kd@odov), and Jos. Ant. i. 19. 1 (wdmmov ddtav aperis meyadns
evpduevou), is a participle (for its form,? cp. Moulton, i. p. 51), which, though
middle, is not meant to suggest any personal effort like ‘‘ by himself,” much
less ‘‘ for himself”; the middle in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean what
the active meant. What he secured, he secured for us (cp. Aelian, Var. Hist.
ili. 17, kal avrots owrnplav etipavro). The aorist has not a past sense; it
either means ‘‘to secure” (like edpduevor in 4 Mac 3! and émicxeWdperor in

2 Mac 11°), after a verb of motion (cp. Ac 25}%), or ‘‘securing” (by what
grammarians call ‘‘ coincident action”).

The last three words of v.!? are now (vv.1* 1) explained by
an a fortiori argument. Why was Christ’s redemption eternal ?
What gave it this absolute character and final force? In y.?3

1 The did here as in 6:4 mvedparos alwvlov suggest the state in which a
certain thing is done, and inferentially the use becomes instrumental, as we
say, ‘‘he came 2% power.”

2 The Attic form evpduevos is preferred by D* 226. 436. 920.

[22 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS fr. 13.

tp&ywv Kal tavpwy reverses the order in ro‘, and ravpwv is now
substituted for pocywv. The former led to tavpwv Kal tpdywv
being read (by the K LP group, Athanasius, Cyril, etc.), but
“the blood of goats and bulls” was a biblical generalization
(Ps 5018, Is 114), chosen here as a literary variation, perhaps for
the sake of the alliteration, though some editors see in tavpwv a
subtle, deliberate antithesis to the feminine 8dpadts. According
to the directions of Nu 19% a red cow was slaughtered and then
burned ; the ashes (% omd8os Tis Sapddews) were mixed with fresh
water and sprinkled upon any worshipper who had touched a
dead body and thus incurred ceremonial impurity, contact with
the dead being regarded as a disqualification for intercourse with
men or God (see above on 61). This mixture was called védwp
pavricpod. The rite supplies the metaphors of the argument in
vv.1415; it was one of the ablutions (v.!°) which restored the
contaminated person (tods keKxotvwpevous) to the worshipping
community of the Lord. The cow is described as Gpwpoy, the
purified person as ka@apés ; but our author goes ouside the LXX
for kexowwpevous, and even pavrifew is rare in the LXX. “The
red colour of the cow and the scarlet cloth burnt on the pyre
with the aromatic woods, suggest the colour of blood; the aro-
matic woods are also probably connected with primitive ideas of
the cathartic value of odours such as they produce” (R. A. S.
Macalister in ERE. xi. 36a). The lustration had no connexion
whatever with atonement-day, and it was only in later rabbinic
tradition that it was associated with the functions of the high-
priest. According to Pestkfa 40a, a pagan inquirer once pointed
out to Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai the superstitious character of
such rites. His disciples considered his reply unsatisfactory,
and afterwards pressed him to explain to them the meaning of
the ashes and the sprinkling, but all he could say was that it had
been appointed by the Holy One, and that men must not
inquire into His reasons (cp. Bacher’s Agada d. Pal. Amorder,
i. 556; Agada der Tannaiten?, i. 37, 38). Our author does not go
into details, like the author of Zp. Barnabas (8), who allegorizes
the ritual freely in the light of the Jewish tradition; he merely
points out that, according to the bible, the rite, like the similar
rite of blood on atonement-day, restored the worshipper to out-
ward communion with God. “Ay.éfer means this and no more.

The removal of the religious tabu upon persons contaminated by contact
with the dead was familiar to non-Jews. The writer goes back to the OT
for his illustration, but it would be quite intelligible to his Gentile Christian
readers (cp. Marett’s Zhe Evolution of Religion, pp. 115 f.; ERE. iv. 434,
x. 456, 483, 485, 501), in a world where physical contact with the dead was
a placua. Philo’s exposition (de spec. legebus, i. wept OvdvrTwy, 1 f.) of the rite
is that the primary concern is for the purity of the soul; the attention
needed for securing that the victim is duwmov, or, as he says, mavtehds

IX. 13, 14. } THE BLOOD OF CHRIST 123

povpwv duéroxor, is a figurative expression for moral sensitiveness on the part
of the worshipper ; it is a regulation really intended for rational beings. Ov
Tay Ovouévwv ppovtls éorw... adda Tv OvdvTwy, Wa Tepi pydév WAOos
knpaivwot. The bodily cleansing is only secondary, and even this he ingeni-
ously allegorizes into a demand for self-knowledge, since the water and ashes
should remind us how worthless our natures are, and knowledge of this kind
is a wholesome purge for conceit! Thus, according to Philo, the rite did
purge soul as well as body: dvayxaiov rods wédNovtas Porav els 70 lepoy emi
perovola Ovolas 7d Te TOua patdpiverbar kai Thy WuxHY mpd TOV owpatos. Our
author does not share this favourable view (cp. Seeberg’s Der Tod Christt,
pp- 53f.; O. Schmitz’s Die Opferanschauung des spateren Judentums, pp.
281f.). He would not have denied that the levitical cultus aimed at spiritual
good; what he did deny was that it attained its end. Till a perfect sacrifice
was offered, such an end was unattainable. The levitical cultus ‘* provided
a ritual cleansing for the community, a cleansing which, for devout minds that
could penetrate beneath the letter to the spirit, must have often meant a sense
of restoration to God’s community. But at best the machinery was cumbrous :
at best the pathway into God’s presence was dimly lighted” (H. A. A.
Kennedy, Zhe Theology of the Epistles, p. 213).

Our author does not explain how the blood of goats and
bulls could free the worshiper from ceremonial impurity; the
cathartic efficacy of blood is assumed. From the comparative
study of religion we know now that this belief was due to the
notion that “‘the animal that has been consecrated by contact
with the altar becomes charged with a divine potency, and its
sacred blood, poured over the impure man, absorbs and disperses
his impurity” (Marett, Ze Evolution of Religion, p. 121). But
in IIpés “EBpatous, (a) though the blood of goats and bulls is
applied to the people as well as to the altar, and is regarded as
atoning (see below), the writer offers no rationale of sacrifice.
Xwpis aiparexxvaias ov yiverau adeots. He does not argue, he takes
for granted, that access to God involves sacrifice, z.e. blood shed.
(2) He uses the rite of Nu 19 to suggest the cathartic process,
the point of this lustration being the use of ‘“‘ water made holy
by being mingled with the ashes of the heifer that had been
burnt.” “The final point is reached,” no doubt (Marett, of. cz?.
123), “when it is realized that the blood of bulls and goats
cannot wash away sin, that nothing external can defile the heart
or soul, but only evil thoughts and evil will.” Yet our writer
insists that even this inward defilement requires a sacrifice, the
sacrifice of Christ’s blood. This is now (v.!*) urged in the phrase
€autdv mpoojveykev, Where we at last see what was intended by
mpoodépe tt in 8°. Weare not to think of the risen or ascended
Christ presenting himself to God, but of his giving himself up
to die as a sacrifice. The blood of Christ means his life given
up for the sake of men. He did die, but it was a voluntary
death—not the slaughter of an unconscious, reluctant victim ;
and he who died lives. More than that, he lives with the power
of that death or sacrifice. This profound thought is further

124 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Ix. 14,

developed by (a) the term dpwpov, which is in apposition to
éavrév ; and (4) by 81a mvedpatos aiwviov, which goes with mpooy-
veykev. (a) Paul calls Christians, or calls them to be, duwpor ;
but our writer, like the author of 1 P (119), calls Christ dwwpos
asavictim. It is a poetic synonym for dympyros, taken over as
the technical term (LXX) for the unblemished (O39) animals
which alone could be employed in sacrifice ; here it denotes the
stainless personality, the sinless nature which rendered the self-
sacrifice of Jesus eternally valid. Then (4) the pregnant phrase
Sua mvevparos aiwviov, which qualifies éavtov mpoojveyxev, means
that this sacrifice was offered in the realm or order of the inward
spirit, not of the outward and material; it was no diKcatwpa
gapxés, but carried out da avevparos, ze. in, or in virtue of, his
spiritual nature. What the author had called fwi dxaradvtos
(716) he now calls mvedpa aidvov. The sacrificial blood had a
mystical efficacy; it resulted in an eternal \étpwo.s because it
operated in an eternal order of spirit, the sacrifice of Jesus
purifying the inner personality (r7jv cvveidnow) because it was the
action of a personality, and of a sinless personality which
belonged by nature to the order of spirit or eternity. Christ
was both priest and victim ; as Son of God he was eternal and
spiritual, unlike mortal highpriests (71°), and, on the other side,
unlike a mortal victim. The implication (which underlies all
the epistle) is that even in his earthly life Jesus possessed eternal
life. Hence what took place in time upon the cross, the writer
means, took place really in the eternal, absolute order. Christ
sacrificed himself épdmag, and the single sacrifice needed no
repetition, since it possessed absolute, eternal value as the action
of One who belonged to the eternal order. He died—he had
to die—but only once (91018), for his sacrifice, by its eternal
significance, accomplished at a stroke what no amount of animal
sacrifices could have secured, viz. the forgiveness of sins. It is
as trivial to exhaust the meaning of tvedpa aidvov in a contrast
with the animal sacrifices of the levitical cultus as it is irrele-
vant to drag in the dogma of the trinity. Atwvriou closely
describes mvedpatos (hence it has no article). What is in the
writer’s mind is the truth that what Jesus did by dying can never
be exhausted or transcended. His sacrifice, like his 81a6xxn,
like the Avrpwots or gwrypia which he secures, is atdévvos or
lasting, because it is at the heart of things. It was because Jesus
was what he was by nature that his sacrifice had such final value ;
its atoning significance lay in his vital connexion with the realm
of absolute realities ; it embodied all that his divine personality
meant for men in relation to God. In short, his self-sacrifice
“was something beyond which nothing could be, or could be
conceived to be, as a response to God’s mind and requirement

Ix. 14. | THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 125

in relation to sin... an intelligent and loving response to the
holy and gracious will of God, and to the terrible situation of
man” (Denney, Zhe Death of Christ, p. 228).

A later parallel from rabbinic religion occurs in the Midrash Tehillim on
Ps 31: ‘‘ formerly you were redeemed with flesh and blood, which to-day is
and to-morrow is buried ; wherefore your redemption was temporal (ayy n>1x3).
But now I will redeem you by myself, who live and remain for ever ; where-
fore your redemption will be eternal redemption (oy n>1wa, cp. Is 4527).”

One or two minor textual items may be noted in v.™.

amvevpatos] J. J. Reiske’s conjecture dyvetuaros (purity) is singularly
prosaic. Atwviov (x* A B D* K L syr’é *! arm Ath) is altered into the con-
ventional dylou by x° D* P 35. 88. 206. 326. 547, etc. lat boh Chrys. Cyril.
Liturgical usage altered tpev into yudv (A D* P 5. 38. 218. 241. 256. 263.
378. 506. 1319. 1831. 1836*. 1912. 2004. 2127 vt syr’® boh Cyr.), and, to
fwrrt, kal dd\nOw@ (a gloss from I Th 1%) is added in A P 104 boh Chrys. etc.

In the closing words of v.!4 ka®aptet is a form which is rare
(Mt 3!2, Ja 48?) in the NT, so rare that xafapice is read here
by 206. 221. 1831 Did. Ath. It is a Hellenistic verb, used in
the inscriptions (with do) exactly in the ceremonial sense under-
lying the metaphor of this passage (Deissmann, ble Studies,
216f.). The cleansing of the conscience (cp. v.®) is dmé vexpov
€pywv, from far more serious flaws and stains than ceremonial
pollution by contact with a corpse (see above, and in 61). As
Dods puts it, ‘‘a pause might be made before ¢pywv, from dead—
(not bodies but) works.” The object is eis Td Natpevew ed Lavtr.
The writer uses the sacerdotal term (8°) here as in 10? and 12°8,
probably like Paul in a general sense; if he thought of Chris-
tians as priests, 7.e. as possessing the right of access to God, he
never says so. Religion for him is access to God, and ritual
metaphors are freely used to express the thought. When others
would say “fellowship,” he says ‘‘ worship.” It is fundamental
for him that forgiveness is essential to such fellowship, and for-
giveness is what is meant by “ purifying the conscience.” As
absolute forgiveness was the boon of the new d:adyxy (81%),
our author now proceeds (vv.!f) to show how Christ’s sacrifice
was necessary and efficacious under that 8:a@jxy. <A sacrifice,
involving death, is essential to any da6yxy: this principle,
which applies to the new 8a@yxy (v-!5), is illustrated first
generally (vv.!% 17) and then specifically, with reference to the
former 81a6yKy (v.18).

10 He mediates a new covenant for this reason, that those who have been
called may obtain the eternal inheritances they have been promised, now that a
death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions involved in
the first covenant. © Thus in the case of a will, the death of the testator must
be announced. \ A will only holds in cases of death, it ts never valid so long
as the testator ts alive. 38 Hence even the first (h mpwrn, sc. 5a6jKn as in 9')
covenant of Goa’s will was not inaugurated apart from blood; for after
Moses had announced every command in the Law to all the people, he took the

126 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Ix. 15

blood of calves and goats, together with water, scarlet wool and hyssop, sprinkl-
ing the book and all the people, and saying, ® ‘‘ This is the blood of that
covenant which ts God's command for you.” ™ He even (cat... 6é, only
here in Heb.) sprinkled with blood the tent and all the utensils of worship in
the same way. ™ In fact, one might almost say that by Law everything is
cleansed with blood. No blood shed no remission of sins !

The writer thus weaves together the idea of the new 8:a0jKy
(g!® echoes 8°) and the idea of sacrifice which he has just been
developing. In v.15 814 todto carries a forward reference (“ now
this is why Christ mediates a new 81a6yKn, Strws KrA.”), as, e.g.,
in Xen. Cyrop. ii. 1. 21, of c¥upaxor odd ¢° ev aAXO tpéhovtae 7
Orws MaXxovvTal Urép Tov Tpepovtrwv. As the climax of the pro-
mises in the new da9j«y is pardon (8!), so here its purpose is
described as dmodttpwois, which obviously is equivalent to full
forgiveness (Eph 1° ry drodvtpwow 81a Tod alwaros aitod, chy
apecw Tov TaparTwudtwv). "“AToUTpwow Tav . . . TapaBdcewr is
like kaOapurmov tov duaptiov in 1%. But pardon is only the
means to fellowship, and the full scope of what has been pro-
mised is still to be realized. Yet it is now certain; the “ bliss to
be” is an eternal xAnpovoyia, assured by Christ. Note that the
émi in emt Th mpwéTn ScaOHKy is not exactly temporal = “ under,”
?.e. during the period of (cp. émt ouvteela tév aiwvay in v.2), but
causal. The transgressions, which had arisen ‘in connexion
with” the first dca@jxn, like unbelief and disobedience, are
conceived as having taken their place among men ; they are the
standing temptations of life towards God. The writer does not
say, with Paul, that sin became guilt in view of the law, but
this is near to his meaning; with the first dca@yx7n sins started,
the sins that haunt the People. They are removed, for the
penitent, by the atoning death of Jesus, so that the People are
now unencumbered. There is a similar thought in Ac 13%8: 89,
where Paul tells some Jews that through Jesus Christ tyuiv adeors
dpapti@v katayyéAAerat, Kal aro ravTov Gv obk HOvVAOnTE ev vouw
Mwiicéws dtkatwOnvar, ev ToUTw was 6 micTevwy SikavodTar. For the
sake of emphasis, thy éwayyeNiavy is thrown forward, away frora
kAnpovopw.tas, like @dvaroy in the next verse.

*ArrohUtpwos, which in 11 is used in its non-technical sense of ‘‘ release”
from death (at the cost of some unworthy compliance), is used here in its LXX
religious sense of a redemption which costs much, which can only be had at
the cost of sacrifice. The primitive idea of ‘‘ ransom ” had already begun to
fade out of it (cp. Dn 4**; Philo, god omnis probus, 17), leaving ‘‘ liberation”
at some cost as the predominant idea (so in Clem. Alex. Strom vii. 56).
Here it is a synonym for Avtpwots (v.!*), or as Theophylact put it, for
deliverance. But its reference is not eschatological ; the retrospective refer-
ence is uppermost.

For the first and only time he employs ot kekAnpévor to
describe those whom he had already hailed as KAyjoews éroupaviou

1s. 15; 16:) WILL AND COVENANT 127

peroxot (31). To be “called” was indispensable to receiving
God’s boon (118), so that kexAnpevor here is an appropriate term
for those who are no longer hampered by any obstacles of an
inadequate pardon. The xexAnpevor are the faithful People ;
“the objects of redemption are united in one category, for the
One and Only Sacrifice is not of the sphere of time ” (Wickham).
It is not an aoristic perfect (=xAyjGevres), as if the KexAnpévor
were simply those under the old da6y«y, though these are in-
cluded, for the sacrificial death of Jesus has a retrospective value ;
it clears off the accumulated offences of the past. The writer
does not work out this, any more than Paul does in Ro 3”! ; but
it may be implied in 114° 12% (see below), where the “ perfecting ”
of the older believers is connected with the atonement. How-
ever, the special point here of @avdtou . . . mapaBdcewy is that the
death which inaugurates the new é:a0)«y deals effectively with the
hindrances left by the former d:a6yxn. Not that this is its ex-
clusive function. That the death inaugurates an order of grace
in which forgiveness is still required and bestowed, is taken for
granted (e.g. 416); but the kAnpovopia, which from the beginning
has been held out to the People of God, has only become attain-
able since the sacrifice of Jesus, and therefore (a) his death
avails even for those who in the past hoped for it, yet could not
obtain it, and also (4) deals with the wapaBaces set up by the
older dvafyxn among men.

But how was a death necessary to a diaOyxn? The answer
is given in v.16! through a characteristic play on the term. In
trou yap (sc. éorr) SiaOjxy KTA. he uses duaOyjKy as equivalent to
“will” or testamentary disposition, playing effectively upon the
double sense of the term, as Paul had already done in Gal 315,
The point of his illustration (vv.!® 17) depends upon this; BeBata
and iocxve. are purposely used in a juristic sense, applicable to
wills as well as to laws, and 6 81a8€uevos is the technical term for
‘“‘testator.” The illustration has its defects, but only when it is
pressed beyond what the writer means to imply. A will does
not come into force during the lifetime of the testator, and yet
Jesus was living! ‘True, but he had died, and died inaugurating
a 8a8qKy in words which the writer has in mind (v.?°); indeed,
according to one tradition he had spoken of himself figuratively
as assigning rights to his disciples (x@y@ duatiBepar tuty, Lk 2279),
The slight incongruity in this illustration is not more than that
involved in making Jesus both priest and victim. It is a curious
equivoque, this double use of da@y«y, the common idea of
both meanings being that benefits are ‘‘disponed,” and that the
d:aOyjxn only takes effect after a death. The continuity of argu-
ment is less obvious in English, where no single word conveys
the different nuances which éa6y«n bore for Greek readers.

128 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Ix. 1G, 1%.

Hence in v.18 some periphrasis like “ the first covenant of God’s
will” is desirable.

That S:a0y«y in vv.!& 17 is equivalent to ‘‘testamentary disposition,” is
essential to the argument. No natural interpretation of vv.’ is possible,
when 6.a6%}x7 is understood rigidly either as ‘‘ covenant” or as ‘‘ will.” The
classical juristic sense is richly illustrated in the papyri and contemporary
Hellenistic Greek, while the ‘‘covenant” meaning prevails throughout the
LXX ; but Philo had already used it in both senses, and here the juristic sense
of kAnpovoula (v.!°) paved the way for the juristic sense which v.!7 demands.
The linguistic materials are collected, with a variety of interpretations, by
Norton in A Lexicographical and Hrstorical Study of Avaéyxn (Chicago,
1908), Behm (Der Begriff Acad jn im Neuen Testament, Naumburg, 1912),
Lohmeyer (Acadqxky: ein Beitrag stir Erklarung des Neutestamentlichen
Begriffs, Leipzig, 1913), and G. Vos in Princeton Theological Review
(1915, pp. 587f.; 1916, pp. I-61).

In v.16 gépecOar is “announced,” almost in the sense of
“proved ” (as often in Greek) ; in v.17 pH morte (cp. on ovzw in 2°)
is not equivalent to pyww (nondum, vg) but simply means
“never ” (non unquam), as, ¢.g., in Eurip. Hipp. 823, dore prore
exrvedoat madwv, wy here following the causal particle é7e/, like
dre in Jn 3)8; it had begun to displace ov in later Greek.
Moulton quotes BGU. 530 (i A.D.), mewperat oe ex(e)t py avr
ypayas airy, and Radermacher (171) suggests that the change
was sometimes due to a desire of avoiding the hiatus. “loxvet
has the same force as in Gal 5°, cp. Zed¢. P. 2867 (ii A.D.) vouy
ddixos [od |dev etorxvet. Some needless difficulties have been felt
with regard to the construction of the whole sentence. Thus
(a) éret . . . S1a0épevos might be a question, it is urged: “ For
is it ever valid so long as the testator is alive?” In Jn 776
pojrore is so used interrogatively, but there it opens the sen-
tence. This construction goes back to the Greek fathers
Oecumenius and Theophylact; possibly it was due to the
feeling that pirore could not be used in a statement like this.
(6) Isidore of Pelusium (Zf. iv. 113) declares that more is a
corruption of rére (M from T, a stroke being added by accident),
and that he found tore “évy madawois avtiypados.” Two old
MSS (x* D*) do happen to preserve this reading, which is in
reality a corruption of zrdre.

Why, it may be asked, finally, does not the writer refer
outright to the new d:a@7«y as inaugurated at the last supper?
The reason is plain. Here as throughout the epistle he ignores
the passover or eucharist. As a non-sacerdotal feast, the pass-
over would not have suited his argument. Every Israelite was his
own priest then, as Philo remarks (De Decalogo, 30, tavxa . . .
ev 7 Qvovar Tavdypel abT&v ExaaTos Tovs Lepets aTOY OUK AVAsLEVOVTES,
iepwovvyy Tod vopov Xapioapevov THO Over mwavtTl KaTa pilav 7mépay
xtd.). Hence the absence of a passover ritual from the entire

IX. 17-19.] THE SINAI COVENANT 129

argument of the epistle, and also perhaps his failure to employ
it here, where it would have been extremely apt.

Reverting now to the other and biblical sense of S:a04xy, the
writer (vv.!8") recalls how the diadyxy at Sinai was inaugurated
with blood. “O@ev—since d:a6yxn and Odvaros are correlative—
obdé mpdty (sc. duabyKyn) xwpls aipatos évkekalviorar (the verb
here and in 10”? being used in its ordinary LXX sense, ¢.g., 1 K
11/4 éykawiowpev éxet tiv Baocrelav, 1 Mac 4° dvaBdpev Kabapioa
Ta ayia Kat évkawioat). This fresh illustration of death or blood
being required in order to inaugurate a d:a6yxy, is taken from the
story in Ex 24°", but he treats it with characteristic freedom.
Five points may be noted. (i) He inserts! 75 atya ... tov
tpdywv, a slip which was conscientiously corrected by a number
of MSS which omitted kat tay tpdywov (R° K LW 5. 181. 203.
242. 487. 489. 506. 623. 794. O17. 1311. 1319. 1739. 1827. 1836.
1845. 1898, 2143) as well as by syr Origen and Chrysostom.
Moses merely had pooydépia slaughtered ; our author adds goats,
perhaps because the full phrase had become common for OT
sacrifices (see on v.!%). (ii) He inserts peta datos kai épiou
kokkivou kal boowmou, as these were associated in his mind with
the general ritual of sprinkling; water, hyssop, and scarlet
thread (kdéxkwov), for example, he remembered from the de-
scription of another part of the ritualin Nu 19. The water was
used to dilute the blood ; and stems of a small wall plant called
““hyssop” were tied with scarlet wool (kexdwopévov Kéxkivov) to
form a sprinkler in the rite of cleansing a leper (Lv 14%), or for
sprinkling blood (Ex 1272). But of this wisp or bunch there is
not a word in Ex 24°. (iii) Nor is it said in the OT that
Moses sprinkled? atté +6 BiBAtov. He simply splashed half of
the blood zpos 16 @vovacrtypioy, Kai AaBov 76 BiBdAtLov (ze. the scroll
containing the primitive code) tis 8:a0jKns, read it aloud to the
people, who promised obedience ; whereupon AaBov d¢ Mwvojs
TO aia Katerkedacev TOD Aaod Kal eirev xtA. An ingenious but
impracticable attempt to correct this error is to take aété te 1d
BuBXtov with AaBdy, but the te goes with the next kat mdvta tov
adv. The BiBdAvov may have been included, since as a human
product, for all its divine contents, it was considered to require
cleansing ; in which case the mention of it would lead up to v.21,
and atré te 7d BiBAtoy might be rendered “the book itself.”
This intensive use of atrés occurs just below in aéré ta éroupdna,
But airés may be, according to the usage of Hellenistic Greek,

1In mdons évro\fs kata Tov (om. X* K P) vduoy (‘‘lecto omni mandato
legis,” vg) the xara means ‘‘ throughout ” rather than ‘‘ by.”

2 For xarecxédacev he substitutes éppavricev, from payrifw, which is com-
paratively rare in the LXX (Lv 67’, 2 K 9%, Ps 517, Aquila and Symm. in
Is 63°, Aquila and Theodotion in Is 52°).

9

130 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Ix. 19-22

unemphatic, as, ¢g., in 11 Kati ait Zappa, Jn 274 avros de 6
*Incods. (iv) In quoting the LXX idod 70 aiya rHs duabyKys Hs
du€Gero Kupios mpos tuas (=tpiv), he changes idod into rotro
(possibly a reminiscence of the synoptic tradition in Mk 142%),
du€fero into éveretharo (after évtodjs in v.29; but the phrase
occurs elsewhere, though with the dative, eg. Jos 2316), and
KUpLos pos Yuas into mpds pas 6 Beds. This is a minor altera-
tion. It is more significant that, (v) following a later Jewish
tradition, which reappears in Josephus (Azz. ili. 8. 6 [Moses
cleansed Aaron and his sons] tyv te oxnviv Kal Ta wept adtnv
okevyn eAalw Te TPOOvpLWpEevy KOs Elrov, Kal TO aipatt TOV Ta¥pwv
Kal kpiov opayevtwv KTA.), he makes Moses use blood to sprinkle
the oxynvy and all Ta oxen Tis NetToupyias (a phrase from 1 Ch 9%).
The account of Ex 40% 1° mentions oil only; Josephus adds
blood, because the tradition he followed fused the oil-dedication
of the oxnvy in Ex 40% 1° with the (oil) sprinkling at the con-
secration of the priests (Lv 81), which was followed by a blood-
sprinkling of the altar alone. Philo had previously combined
the oil-dedication of the oxyvy with the consecration of the
priests (vz¢. AZos. iii. 17); but he, too, is careful to confine any
blood-sprinkling to the altar. Our author, with his predilection
for blood as a cathartic, omits the oil altogether, and extends
the blood to everything.

This second illustration (vv.!8) is not quite parallel to the
first ; the death in the one case is of a human being in the course
of nature, in the other case of animals slaughtered. But atya
and @dvaros were correlative terms for the writer. The vital
necessity of aiua in this connexion is reiterated in the summary
of v.22. ZxeSdv, he begins—for there were exceptions to the rule
that atonement for sins needed an animal sacrifice (e.g. Lv 511-48,
where a poverty-stricken offender could get remission by present-
ing a handful of flour, and Nu 3174, where certain articles, spoils
of war, are purified by fire or water). But the general rule was
that mdvta, z.e. everything connected with the ritual and every
worshipper, priest, or layman, had to be ceremonially purified by
means of blood (ka@apiferat as the result of éppdvticev). The
Greek readers of the epistle would be familiar with the similar
rite of aiudooew Tos Bwpovs (Theokr. Epzgr. i. 5, etc.). Finally,
he sums up the position under the first d:a6y«y by coining a term
aipatexxuota (from éxxvots aiwartos, t K 1878 etc.) for the shedding
of an animal victim’s blood in sacrifice ; ywpis atpatexxuotas ob
yiverar Gpeows, #.¢. even the limited pardon, in the shape of
“cleansing,” which was possible under the old order. “Adeots
here as in Mk 329 has no genitive following, but the sense is
indubitable, in view of 10!8 dmou 8é adheots toUTwy (Ze. of sins).
The latter passage voices a feeling which seems to contradict the

IX. 22. THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 131

possibility of any forgiveness prior to the sacrifice of Christ (cp.
95 ro), but the writer knew from his bible that there had
been an ddeors under the old régime as the result of animal
sacrifice ; al e&Adoerae mepl (or repli THs Gpaprias) aitod 6 tepevs
. .. Kat adeOnoerar abrd was the formula (cp. Lv 51° 16 18 etc.).
The underlying principle of the argument is practically (cp.
Introd., p. xlii) that laid down in the Jewish tract Joma v. 1
(“there is no expiation except by blood”), which quotes Lv 17”,
a text known to the writer of Hebrews in this form: 7 yap wox7
médons capKos aipa avtod éoriv, kal eyo dédwxa aird iptv eri Tov
Ovovacrypiov eAdoKerOae Tepl TOV Woxav tpov' TO yap aipa adrov
dvti ths Woxns e&tAdoeraz. Blood as food is prohibited, since
blood contains the vital principle ; as there is a mysterious potency
in it, which is to be reserved for rites of purification and expiation,
by virtue of the life in it, this fluid is efficacious as an atonement.
The Greek version would readily suggest to a reader like our
author that the piacular efficacy of aia was valid universally,
and that the ata or sacrificial death of Christ was required in
order that human sin might be removed. Why such a sacrifice,
why sacrifice at all, was essential, he did not ask. It was com-
manded by God in the bible; that was sufficient for him. The
vital point for him was that, under this category of sacrifice, the
atwa of Christ superseded all previous arrangements for securing
pardon.

After the swift aside of v.22, the writer now pictures the
appearance of Christ in the perfect sanctuary of heaven with the
perfect sacrifice (vv.75) which, being perfect or absolute, needs
no repetition.

3 Now, while the copies of the heavenly things had (avdyxn, sc. jv or
éatlv) to be cleansed with sacrifices like these, the heavenly things themselves
required nobler sacrifices. 4 For Christ has not entered a holy place which
human hands have made (a mere type of the reality!) ; he has entered heaven
itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. » Nor was it (sc.
eiop\Oev) to offer himself repeatedly, like the highpriest entering the holy place
every year with blood that was not his own: * for in that case he would have
had to suffer repeatedly ever since the world was founded. Nay, once for all,
at the end of the world, he has appeared with hts self-sacrifice to abolish sin.
27 And just as it ts appointed for men to die once and after that to be judged,
8 so Christ, after being once sacrificed to bear the sins of many, will appear
again, not to deal with sin, but for the saving of those who look out for him.

The higher oxnvy requires a nobler kind of sacrifice than its
material copy on earth (v.?%).! This would be intelligible enough ;

1 For dvdyxn . . . kaOaplfeoOa an early variant was dvdyxn. . . Kadapl-
terae (D* 424** Origen), which Blass adopts. But our author prefers the
nominative (v.!®) to the dative, and xa@apiferas is no more than a conforma-
tion to the xa@apifera: of v.27, The re, which some cursives (33. 1245. 2005)
substitute for 6¢é between avrd and ra éroupdvia, is due to alliteration.

132 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS __[IX. 28-26

but when the writer pushes the analogy so far as to suggest that
the sacrifice of Christ had, among other effects, to purify heaven
itself, the idea becomes almost fantastic. The nearest parallel to
this notion occurs in Col 17°; but the idea here is really unique,
as though the constant work of forgiving sinners in the upper
oxnvy rendered even that in some sense defiled. The slight
touch of disparagement in todtots (=Tots addyous, Theodoret)
may be conveyed by “like these” or ‘‘such,” and @uctats is the
plural of category (like vexpots in v.!’). After this passing lapse
into the prosaic, the writer quickly recovers himself in a passage
of high insight (vv.24£) upon the nobler sacrifice of Jesus. In-
deed, even as he compares it with the levitical sacrifices, its
incomparable power becomes more and more evident. In v.*
(=vv.1 12) by dvtitura tév d&dnOivGv he means a counterpart
(avrirvrov in reverse sense in 1 P 3?) of reality (cp. 8), avrirua
being a synonym here for trodefyuara, literally = ‘‘answering to
the tvzos” which was shown to Moses (cp. 2 Clem. 14 ovdeis ov
TO avtiturov PUeipas TO adGevtiKdv petradAnwerat). Christ has
entered the heavenly sphere viv (emphatic, ‘now at last” = 1?)
euhavicOjvar KTA. In Epparrob var T Tpocdtw tod Geos (cp. Ps
42° 6d0jocopar TS TpocdTw Tod Geod) we have éudavilew used in
its Johannine sense (14717), though passively as in Wis 1?
(€ugaviterar Tois py mustevovow ai7o). But the appearance is
before God on behalf of men, and the meaning is brought out in
776 yol%, Christ’s sacrifice, it is held, provides men with a
close and continuous access to God such as no cultus could
effect; it is of absolute value, and therefore need not be re-
peated (vv.25- 26), as the levitical sacrifices had to be. O08 tva
TohhdKes mpoopepy éautdv | What is meant precisely by mpoopépew
éavtov here (as in v.!*) is shown by waety in v.2°, ‘There is
no difference between entering in and offering. The act of
entering in and offering is one highpriestly act” (A. B. Davidson),
and zpoodépew éavrov is inseparably connected with the suffering
of death upon the cross. The contrast between his self-sacrifice
and the highpriest entering with atyatt d&AXotpiw (as opposed to
iStw, v.12) is thrown in, as a reminiscence of vv.7*, but the writer
does not dwell on this; it is the mag (cp. v.12 and 1 P 318 Xpioros
amraé mept duaptiav amrébavev) which engrosses his mind in v.29, éret
(“alioquin,” vg) éSe. (the dv being omitted as, ¢g., in 1 Co 5°
érrel @peidere . . . efeOeiv) ktA. According to his outlook, there
would be no time to repeat Christ’s incarnation and sacrifice
before the end of the world, for that was imminent; hence he
uses the past, not the future, for his reductio ad absurdum argu-
ment. If Christ’s sacrifice had not been of absolute, final value,
te. if it had merely availed for a brief time, as a temporary
provision, it would have had to be done over and over again in

IX. 26, 27.] THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 133

previous ages, since from the first sinful man has needed sacrifice ;
whereas the only time he was seen on earth was once, late in the
evening of the world. It is implied that Christ as the Son of
God was eternal and pre-existent ; also that when his sacrifice
did take place, it covered sins of the past (see v.!°), the single
sacrifice of Christ in our day availing for all sin, past as well as
present and future. Had it not been so, God could not have
left it till so late in the world’s history ; it would have had to be
done over and over again to meet the needs of men from the
outset of history. Nuvi 8é (logical, as in 8°, not temporal) ént
ouvredeta (for which Blass arbitrarily reads réAet) tv atdvew (= er’
éoxdrov Tov juepav TovTwy, 1”) KTA. ZuvTédeva is employed in its
ordinary Hellenistic sense of “conclusion” (e.g. Zest. Benj. xi. 3,
€ws ouvteAcias Tod aiavos: Test. Levi x. 2, ért TH ovvtedeia Tov
aiévwv); in Matthew’s gospel, where alone in the NT it
occurs, the genitive is rod ai@vos. Mepavépwrat, as in the
primitive hymn or confession of faith (1 Ti 3'° épavepdOy év
capxi); but the closest parallel is in 1 P 17° Xpiorovd zpoey-
vwopéevov pev mpd KataBoAns Koopov, pavepwhevros dé ex’ éxxdrov
trav xpovwv. The object of the incarnation is, as in 2%, the
atonement.

The thought of the first “appearance” of Christ naturally
suggests that of the second, and the thought of Jesus dying amag
also suggests that men have to die drag as well. Hence the
parenthesis of vv.27- 28, for ro! carries on the argument from 9”6,
It is a parenthesis, yet a parenthesis of central importance for
the primitive religious eschatology which formed part of the
writer’s inheritance, however inconsistent with his deeper views
of faith and fellowship. ‘As surely as men have once to die
and then to face the judgment, so Christ, once sacrificed for the
sins of men, will reappear to complete the salvation of his own.”
’Anékettar (cp. Longinus, de sublim. 97 GAN’ jyutv pev dvcdatpovor-
ow amoxerat Aywnv KakOv 6 Odvaros, and 4 Mac 81! ovdev syiv
arebycacw wAnv tod peta otpeBA@v arodavely azoKetraL) Tots
dvOpdrots Gag drobavety. The dag here is not by way of relief,
although the Greeks consoled themselves by reflecting that
they had not to die twice; as they could only live once, they
drew from this the conclusion that life must be “all the
sweeter, as an experience that never can be repeated” (A. C.
Pearson on Sophocles’ Fragments, n. 67). But our author (see
on 24) sees that death is not the last thing to be faced by
men; peta 8€ Todto Kpiots. This was what added serious-
ness to the prospect of death for early Christians. The Greek
mind was exempt from such a dread; for them death ended
the anxieties of life, and if there was one thing of which
the Greek was sure, it was that “dead men rise up never.”

134 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 27, 28.

Aeschylus, for example, makes Apollo declare (Zumenides, 647,
648) :
avdpos 8 ereday aly dvarracn Kovis
amaé Oavovtos, ovtis éor davdaoracts.

Even in the sense of a return to life, there is no dvdoraots
(Eurip. Heracles, 297 3 Alcestis, 1076; Supplices, 775). Kplows in
En 17f (kat kplows gorau Kata ao as the context shows, is
the eschatological catastrophe which spares the elect on earth,
just as in En 5%, which parallels He 928, sinners are threatened
thus: wacw tiv rots duaptwAots ovx traper owrypia GAGA eri
mavtas was katadvots, katdpa. In 10°7 below xptots means the
doom of the rebellious, but that is due to the context ; here it is
judgment in general, to which all dv@pwmor alike are liable (1228
Kpitn Gd mdvtwv). Only, some have the happy experience of
Christ’s return (v.28), in the saving power of his sacrifice. There
is (as in 1 P 274) an echo of Is 53)? (kai airds dpuaprias roAAGv
avnveykev) iN €is TO ToANGy (cp. above on 2!) dveveyKetv dpaptias.
MpocevexPeis may be chosen to parallel men’s passive experience
of death. At any rate his suffering of death was vicarious suffer-
ing; he took upon himself the consequences and responsibilities
of our sins. Such is the Christ who ék Seutépou éOyjoetar. In
1 P 54 davepotobar is used of the second appearance as well as
of the first, but our author prefers a variety (see on v.?°) of
expression. The striking phrase xwpts duaptias rests on the idea
that the one atonement had been final (eis aGérynow ths dpaprias),
and that Christ was now xkexwptopevos amd t&v dpaptwddv (72°),
He is not coming back to die, and without death sin could not
be dealt with. The homiletic (from 2 Ti 3!) addition of 8a
(rs, 1611. 2005) miotews, either after darexdexopevors (by 38. 68.
218. 256. 263. 330. 436. 440. 462. 823. 1837 arm. etc.) or after
owtypiavy (by A P 1245. 1898 syr™'), is connected with the mis-
taken idea that eis cwrypiav goes with dmexdexouevors (cp. Phil 3?°)
instead of with ép@jcetar. There is a very different kind of
€xS0x7 (102") for some avOpwior, even for some who once belonged
to the People!

He now resumes the idea of 9? 26, expanding it by showing
how the personal sacrifice of Jesus was final. This is done by
quoting a passage from the 4oth psalm which predicted the
supersession of animal sacrifices (vv.>!°). The latter are in-
adequate, as is seen from the fact of their annual repetition ; and
they are annual because they are animal sacrifices.

1 For as the Law has a mere shadow of the bliss that ts to be, instead of
representing the reality of that bliss, tt never can perfect those who draw near
with the same annual sacrifices that are perpetually offered. * Otherwise,

they would have surely ceased to be offered ; for the worshippers, once cleansed,
would no longer be conscious of sins! * As tt ts, they are an annual reminder

x. 1.] THE FORTIETH PSALM 135

of sins ‘(for the blood of bulls and goats cannot possibly remove sins !).
Hence, on entering the world he says,

‘* Thou hast no desire for sacrifice or offering ;
zt zs a body thou hast prepared for me—
6 in holocausts and sin-offerings (wept auaprias as 131) thou
takest no delight.
7 So (rére) I said, ‘ Here I come—in the roll of the book this
zs written of me—
I come to do thy will, O God.’”

8 He begins by saying, ‘‘ Thou hast no desire for, thou takest no delight in,
sacrifices and offerings and holocausts and sin-offerings” (and those are what
are offered in terms of the Law) ; ® he then (rére) adds, ‘‘ Here I come to do
thy will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.
10° And it zs by this ‘‘ will” that we are consecrated, because Jesus Christ once
for all has ‘‘ offered” up his ‘‘ body.”

This is the author’s final verdict on the levitical cultus,
“rapid in utterance, lofty in tone, rising from the didactic style
of the theological doctor to the oracular speech of the Hebrew
prophet, as in that peremptory sentence: ‘It is not possible that
the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.’ The
notable thing in it is, not any new line of argument, though that
element is not wanting, but the series of spiritual intuitions it
contains, stated or hinted, in brief, pithy phrases” (A. B. Bruce,
PP 373,374): In oxidy .. . odk eixdva tav mpaypdtwy (v.1) the
writer uses a Platonic phrase (Cratylus, 306 E, eixdvas tov mpay-
pdrwv); eixav (=4A7Ge0, Chrysostom) is contrasted with ox
as the real expression or representation of substance is opposed
to the faint shadow. The addition of rav zpayparwv (=réov
péAAovtwy d&yafGv) emphasizes this sense ; what represents solid
realities is itself real, as compared to a mere axed. The péddovta
dya@d (g!!) are the boons and blessings still to be realized in
their fulness for Christians, being thought of from the stand-
point of the new d.ayKy, not of the Law. The Law is for
the writer no more than the regulations which provided for the
cultus ; the centre of gravity in the Law lies in the priesthood
(721) and its sacrifices, not in what were the real provisions of
the Law historically. The writer rarely speaks of the Law by
itself. When he does so, as here, it is in this special ritual
aspect, and what really bulks in his view is the contrast between
the old and the new d:aOyjxn, z.e. the inadequate and the adequate
forms of relationship to God. Once the former was superseded,
the Law collapsed, and under the new dca6yxy there is no new
Law. Even while the Law lasted, it was shadowy and ineffective,
i.e. aS a means of securing due access to God. And this is the
point here made against the Law, not as Paul conceived it, but
as the system of atoning animal sacrifices.

The text of v.1 has been tampered with at an early stage, though the
variants affect the grammar rather than the general sense. Unless Svvarat

136 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [x. 1, 2.

(DHKLW2. 5. 35. 88. 181. 206. 226. 241. 242. 255. 326. 383. 429. 431.
547. 623. 794. 915. 917. 927. 1311. 1518. 1739. 1827. 1836. 1845. 1867.
1873. 1898. 2143 lat boh Orig. Chrys. Thdt. Oec.) is read for d¥vavra, ¢
vouos is a hanging nominative, and an awkward anacolouthon results. Hort
suggests that the original form of the text was: ka@ qv Kar’ éviavrdy Tas a’ras
Ouolas mpoopépovow, al els TO dinvexés ovdéroTe SivavTat Tovs mMpocEpxomévous
TerXeOoat. As in 9°, xaé’ fv (dropped out by a scribe accidentally, owing to
the resemblance between KASHN and KA@EN) would connect with a previous
noun (here oxidy), dl similarly fell out before e1 (€1c), and ac was changed
into dic in the three consecutive words after éviavrdv. This still leaves 6
véuos without a verb, however, and is no improvement upon the sense gained
either (a) by treating 6 véuos as a nominative absolute, and dvvavra as an
irregular plural depending on at understood! from @uclats ; or (6) by simply
reading d%vara: (so Delitzsch, Weiss, Westcott, Peake, Riggenbach, Blass),
which clears up everything. A desire to smooth out the grammar or to
bring out some private interpretation may be underneath changes like the
addition of attév after @votats (& P), or the substitution of atr&y for avrais
(69. 1319), or the omission of at’rats altogether (2. 177. 206. 642. 920. 1518.
1872), as well as the omission of ds (A 33. 1611. 2005) or als altogether, like
the Syriac and Armenian versions, and the change of teAer@oat (TeAeGout,
Blass) into kaBapioa (D vt).

Npoopépouow is an idiomatic use of the plural (Mt 27° re6v7-
xaowv, Lk 12?° airodowv), ‘ where there is such a suppression of the
subject in bringing emphasis upon the action, that we get the
effect of a passive, or of French oz, German man” (Moulton, i.
58). The allusion is to the yearly sacrifice on atonement-day,
for mpordépovow goes with kat éviautdv, the latter phrase being
thrown forward for the sake of emphasis, and also in order to
avoid bringing eis 16 Simvexés too near it. His 10 dunvexés also
goes with zpoodépovow, not (as in v.14) with reAcotv. Od8emoTE
here as in v.1! before 8uva(v)ra (never elsewhere in the epistle) is
doubly emphatic from its position. The constant repetition of
these sacrifices proves that their effect is only temporary; they
cannot possibly bring about a lasting, adequate relationship to
God. So our author denies the belief of Judaism that atone-
ment-day availed for the pardon of the People, a belief explicitly
put forward, e.g.,in Jub 517-18 (“If they turn to Him in righteous-
ness, He will forgive all their transgressions, and pardon all their
sins. It is written and ordained that He will show mercy to all
who turn from their guilt once a year”). He reiterates this in
v.2, where émet (as in 96=alioquin) is followed by ox, which
implies a question. ‘‘ Would they not, otherwise, have ceased
to be offered?” When this was not seen, either ok was omitted
(H* vg? syr 206. 1245. 1518 Primasius, etc.), leaving avy out of
its proper place, or it was suggested—as would never have
occurred to the author—that the OT sacrifices ceased to be valid

1It is inserted by A** 31. 366. 472. 1319 syrb*l arm. If the relative

pronoun were assimilated, z.e. if als (D* H L 5. 88. 257. 547, etc.) were read
for ds, the accidental omission of ai would be more intelligible.

X. 2-4.] SACRIFICE PERFECT AND IMPERFECT 137

when the Christian sacrifice took place. In odx @y ématcavto
mpoopepdpevat (for construction see Gn 118 éravcavto oikodo-
potvtes) the ay is retained (see on 9”). Kexa@apiopévous has
been altered into Kexafappevous (L), but xaGapigw, not the Attic
xafaipw, is the general NT form. If our author spelt like his
LXX codex, however, xexaGepispevovs would be original (cp.
Thackeray, 74). ZuvetSnots is again used (9%) in connexion with
“‘the worshipper(s),” but the writer adds dpaptidy (z.e. sins still
needing to be pardoned). For the genitive, compare Philo’s
fine remark in guod det. pot. 40, txeredwuev ovv Tov Gedy ot
ovveidyce TOV oikelwy adiKnudtrwv édeyxopevol, KoAdTaL paddov
neas 7» mapetvar. In v.3 dvdéuvnots means that public notice had
to be taken of such sins (‘‘ commemoratio,” vg).

There is possibly an echo here of a passage like Nu 5)° (@ucla uynuoctvov
dvapupyjocKovea duaptiav), quoted by Philo in de Plant. 25 to illustrate his
statement that the sacrifices of the wicked simply serve to recall their misdeeds
(StromiyjcKovoa Tas ExdoTwr ayvolas Te Kal dvapaprias). In véta Mosis, iii.
10, he repeats this ; if the sacrificer ,was ignorant and wicked, the sacrifices
were no sacrifices (. . . od Avow apuaprnudrwy, GAN brouynow éepydtovrat).
What Philo declares is the result of sacrifices offered by the wicked, the
author of Hebrews declares was the result of all sacrifices ; they only served
to bring sin to mind. So in de Victimis, 7, etnOes yap Tas Ovolas irduynocw
apaprnudtwv adrAa pH ANOny air&v karacKkevagerv—what Philo declares absurd,
our author pronounces inevitable.

The ringing assertion of v.* voices a sentiment which would
appeal strongly to readers who had been familiar with the
classical and contemporary protests (cp. ZZ. ili. 770%), against
ritual and external sacrifice as a means of moral purification
(see above on g}%). *Adatpetv, a LXX verb in this connexion
(e.g. Num 14!8 adaipav dvopias Kat adixias Kat duaptias), becomes
adeXeiv in L (so Blass), the aoristic and commoner form; the
verb is never used elsewhere in the NT, though Paul once
quotes Is 279 Grav adéAwpar dpaptias (Ro 117), All this inherent
defectiveness of animal sacrifices ‘necessitated a new sacrifice
altogether (v.5 80), the self-sacrifice of Jesus. So the writer
quotes Ps 407°, which in A runs as follows:

Ouoiav Kal mpoopopav ovx 7OéAnaas,
capa b€ Katypticw por’
dAokavTwpata Kal mepl duaptias ovK élyrjoas.
Tote elzov' idov 7Kw,
(ev xehadidr. Bifsrlov yéyparrar wept épod)
Tov Tomjoat TO PeAnpd cov, 6 Oeds pov, HBovdnOnv.
Our author reads eddéxnoas for é{nrjoas,' shifts 6 Aeds (omitting pov) to

1 Which is replaced in the text of Hebrews by © (éx{yrjoes) 623*. 1836.
The augment spelling ’déxnoas reappears here as occasionally at v.8 in a
small group (A C D* W, etc.), and the singular @volay x. rpoopopdy is kept
at v.8 by x D°K LW, etc.

138 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [x. 4-9,

a position after movjoat, in order to emphasize 7d éAnud cov, and by omitting
€BouvdynOnv (replaced by W in v.7), connects Tod rowjoa closely with #xw.
A recollection of Ps 5118 ef 70é\noas Ouclay . . . ddoKavTdpmara obK evdoKhoes
may have suggested evdéxnoas, which takes the accusative as often in LXX.
KegaXls is the roll or scroll, literally the knob or tip of the stick round which
the papyrus sheet was rolled (cp. Ezek 2° cedadts BiBAlov).

This is taken as an avowal of Christ on entering the world,
and the LXX mistranslation in oépa is the pivot of the argu-
ment. The more correct translation would be dria dé, for the
psalmist declared that God had given him ears for the purpose
of attending to the divine monition to do the will of God,
instead of relying upon sacrifices. Whether dria was corrupted
into o@pa, or whether the latter was an independent translation,
is of no moment; the evidence of the LXX text is indecisive.
Our author found c@pa in his LXX text and seized upon it;
Jesus came with his body to do God’s will, ze. to die for the
sins of men. The parenthetical phrase év kepodiS. BiBAtou
yéypamtot mept éuod, which originally referred to the Deutero-
nomic code prescribing obedience to God’s will, now becomes
a general reference to the OT as a prediction of Christ’s higher
sacrifice ; that is, if the writer really meant anything by it (he
does not transcribe it, when he comes to the interpretation,
vv.8). Though the LXX mistranslated the psalm, however, it
did not alter its general sense. The Greek text meant practically
what the original had meant, and it made this interpretation on
application possible, namely, that there was a sacrifice which
answered to the will of God as no animal sacrifice could. Only,
our author takes the will of God as requiring some sacrifice.
The point of his argument is not a contrast between animal
sacrifices and moral obedience to the will of God; it is a
contrast between the death of an animal which cannot enter into
the meaning of what is being done, and the death of Jesus which
means the free acceptance by him of all that God requires for
the expiation of human sin. To do the will of God is, for our
author, a sacrificial action, which involved for Jesus an atoning
death, and this is the thought underlying his exposition and
application of the psalm (vv.®!0). In v.8 dvarepov is ‘‘ above” or
“higher up” in the quotation (v.). The interpretation of the
oracle which follows is plain; there are no textual variants worth
notice,! and the language is clear. Thus eipyxev in v.9 is the
perfect of a completed action, =the saying stands on record, and
dvatpet has its common juristic sense of ‘‘ abrogate,” the opposite
of iornutz. The general idea is: Jesus entered the world fully
conscious that the various sacrifices of the Law were unavailing
as means of atonement, and ready to sacrifice himself in order

1 The vocative 6 Oeds is sometimes repeated after motjoar by x° L 104.
1288. 1739 vg syrbkl and pesh etc,, or after cov (e.g, I. 1311 harl, arm),

X. 9, 10.] THE FINAL SACRIFICE 139

to carry out the redeeming will of God. God’s will was to
bring his People into close fellowship with himself (2!) ; this
necessitated a sacrifice such as that which the o@ya of Christ
could alone provide. The triumphant conclusion is that this
divine will, which had no interest in ordinary sacrifices, has been
fulfilled in the mpoopopdé of Christ; what the Law could not do
(v.1) has been achieved by the single self-sacrifice of Christ ; it
is by what he suffered in his body, not by any animal sacrifices,
that we are jyvacpévor (v.19), Jesus chose to obey God’s will;
but, while the Psalmist simply ranked moral obedience higher
than any animal sacrifice, our writer ranks the moral obedience
of Jesus as redeemer above all such sacrifices. ‘‘ Christ did not
come into the world to be a good man: it was not for this that
a body was prepared for him. He came to be a great High
Priest, and the body was prepared for him, that by the offering
of it he might put sinful men for ever into the perfect religious
relation to God” (Denney, Zhe Death of Christ, p. 234).

In conclusion (11-18) the writer interprets (#1!*) a phrase which
he has not yet noticed expressly, namely, that Christ sat down
at the right hand of God (1*-1%); this proves afresh that his
sacrifice was final. Then, having quoted from the pentateuch
and the psalter, he reverts to the prophets (1>18), citing again
the oracle about the new day with its prediction, now fulfilled,
of a final pardon.

1 Again, while every priest stands daily at his service, offering the same
sacrifices repeatedly, sacrifices which never can take sins away— He offered
a single sacrifice for sins and then ‘‘ seated himself” for all time ‘‘at the
right hand of God,” ™ to wait ‘until his enemies are made a footstool for his
feet.” 4 For by a single offering he has made the sanctified perfect for all
time. Besides, we have the testimony of the holy Spirit ; for after saying,

16 «* This is the covenant I will make with them when that day comes,

saith the Lord,
I will set my laws upon their hearts,
inscribing them upon their minds,”

he adds,

7 And their sins and breaches of the law I will remember no more.”
18 Now where these are remitted (dpects, as 9**), an offering for sin exists (sc.
ear.) no longer.

One or two textual difficulties emerge in this passage. In v.!! tepevs was
altered (after 51 8°) into adpxrepeds (A C P 5. 69. 88. 206. 241. 256. 263. 436.
462. 467. 489. 623. 642. 794. 917- 920. 927. 999. 1836. 1837. 1898 syrbkl*
sah arm eth Cyr. Cosm.). In v.!* attés (K L 104. 326 boh Theod. Oec.
Theophyl.) is no improvement upon odros. A curious variant (boh Ephr.)
in the following words is éavrdv play bwép auapridv mpocevéyKas Ovolav.
In v.4 boh (‘‘ for one offering will complete them, who will be sanctified,
for ever”) appears to have read mud yap mpoodopd (so Bgl.) TeNewwoet KA.
In v.!° tév Savory is read by K LY drsyr sah boh arm.

The decisive consideration in favour of tepeds (v.1) is not that

140 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [x. 11-14,

the dpxvepevs did not sacrifice daily (for the writer believed this,
see on 727), but the adjective mwas. Mepredety is a literary synonym
for datpety (v.4); there is no special emphasis in the verb here
any more than, e.g., in 2 Co 3), for the (Zeph 3!5 zepueiAe xvpros
Ta aoukypard oov) metaphorical idea of stripping no longer
attached to the term, and the mepi had ceased to mean “ entirely ”
or “altogether.” The contrast between this repeated and in-
effective ritual of the priests and the solitary, valid sacrifice of
Jesus is now drawn in v.!%, where eis 17d Sinvexés goes more
effectively with éxd@icev than with mpooevéyxas Ouciav, since the
idea in the latter collocation is at once expressed in v.1# At the
opening of the writer’s favourite psalm (110!) lay a promise of
God to his Son, which further proved that this sacrifice of Christ
was final :

> ec , a 2 , 2 a
elev & KUptos TO Kupiw pov Kabov éx defiGv pov
9 vA nr & > ¥ , e / lal lol
€ws av 08 Tovs éxOpovs cov UroTooloy TOV TOOWV GOV.

Ka6ov—a unique privilege ; so Christ’s priestly sacrifice must be
done and over, all that remains for him being to await the sub-
mission and homage of his foes. As for the obedient (5°), they
are perfected “finally,” ze. brought into the closest relation to
God, by what he has done for them; no need for him to stand
at any priestly service on their behalf, like the levitical drudges !
The contrast is between éxd@icev and éotyxev (the attitude of a
priest who has to be always ready for some sacrifice). Who the
foes of Christ are, the writer never says. This militant metaphor
was not quite congruous with the sacerdotal metaphor, although
he found the two side by side in the 110th psalm. If he inter-
preted the prediction as Paul did in 1 Co 15", we might think
of the devil (214) and such supernatural powers of evil; but this
is not an idea which is worked out in Mpés ‘EBpatous. The
conception belonged to the primitive messianic faith of the
church, and the writer takes it up for a special purpose of his
own, but he cannot interpret it, as Paul does, of an active reign of
Christ during the brief interval before the end. Christ must
reign actively, Paul argues. Christ must sit, says our writer.

The usual variation between the LXX ék defy and év SeEtg is reproduced
in IIpés “Efpaiovs: the author prefers the latter, when he is not definitely
quoting from the LXX as in 138. As this is a reminiscence rather than a
citation, év deé@ is the true reading, though éx defiGv is introduced by A 104
Athanasius. The theological significance of the idea is discussed in Dr. A.
J. Tait’s monograph on 7he Heavenly Session of our Lord (1912), in which
he points out the misleading influence of the Vulgate’s mistranslation of 10%

(‘‘hic autem unam pro peccatis offerens hostiam in sempiternum sedit”’) upon
the notion that Christ pleads his passion in heaven.

1In Clem. Rom. 36°: ° they are ol gaddot kal dvriragodbpevar TH GeArjmare
avrod,

X. 15-19.] THE FINAL APPEAL 14!

After reiterating the single sacrifice in v.!* (where tots dyvafo-
pévous is “the sanctified,” precisely as in 214), he adds (v.}°) an
additional proof from scripture. Maprtupet S€ fpiv kai TO mvedpa
rd &yvov, a biblical proof as usual clinching the argument. “Hiv
is “you and me,” “us Christians,” not the literary plural, as if
he meant “what I say is attested or confirmed by the inspired
book.” Maptupetv is a common Philonic term in this connexion,
e.g. Leg. Alleg. iii. 2, waptupet 8& Kal év érépors A€ywv «TA. (intro-
ducing Dt 4°9 and Ex 17°); similarly in Xen. Mem. i. 2. 20,
paprupe: dé Kal tay woiytdv 6 A€ywv. The quotation, which is
obviously from memory, is part of the oracle already quoted
upon the new da6yxn (8812); the salient sentence is the closing
promise of pardon in v.17, but he leads up to it by citing some
of the introductory lines. The opening, peta yap 7d elpynxévat,
implies that some verb follows or was meant to follow, but the
only one in the extant text is Aéyet kuptos (v.!*). Hence, before
v.17 we must understand something like paprupet or A€yer or
mpoaéOyxev Kai gnow (Oecumenius) or Tdre elpyxev, although the
evidence for any such phrase, e.g. for torepov A€yer (31. 37. 55;
67. 71. 73. 80. 161) is highly precarious. In v.!” pynobjcopat
has been corrected into pvnoO6 by &* D°K LP, etc., since pryoda
was the LXX reading and also better grammar, the future after
od py being rare (cp. Diat. 2255, and above on 8!!). The oracle,
even in the LXX version, contemplates no sacrifice whatever
as a condition of pardon; but our author (see above, p. 131)
assumes that such an absolute forgiveness was conditioned by
some sacrifice.

The writer now (10191229) proceeds to apply his arguments
practically to the situation of his readers, urging their privileges
and their responsibilities under the new order of religion which
he has just outlined. In 10981, which is the first paragraph,
encouragement (vv.1%5) passes into warning (7°31),

19 Brothers (adedpol, not since 3) 1"), stxce we have confidence to enter the
holy Presence in virtue of the blood of Jesus, ® by the fresh, living way which
he has inaugurated for us through the veil (that is, through his flesh), ™ and
since we have ‘‘a great Priest over the house of God,” ™ let us draw near with
a true heart, in absolute assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean from
a bad conscience, and our bodies washed in pure water ; * let us hold the hope
we avow without wavering ( for we can rely on him who gave us the Promise) ;
24 and Jet us consider how to stir one another up to love and good deeds—* not
ceasing to meet together, as is the habit of some, but admonishing one another
(sc. éavrov’s, as 3!°), al] the more so, as you see the Day coming near.

The writer (@xovtes odv) presses the weighty arguments of
6201018, but he returns with them to reinforce the appeal of
31-416 ; after ro!%21 the conception of Jesus as the iepevs falls
more into the background. The passage is one long sentence,

142 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 19, 20.

EXOVTES ides ti mpocepxapeba ... kaTéxomey .. . Kal KaTavo@mev

“Exovtes odv (as in 4}*) since the way is now open (98)
through the sacrifice of Jesus, whose atoning blood i is for us the
means of entering God’s presence; tappyciay, “a fre sure
intraunce” (Coverdale), echoing 416 But the writer fills out
the appeal of 4416 with the idea of the sanctuary and the
sacrifice which he had broken off, in 51*, to develop. Though
the appeal still is mpocepydpe8a (23 = 41°), the special motives are
twofold: (a) mappyota for access in virtue of the sacrifice of Jesus
(vv.19 20), and (4) the possession of Jesus as the supreme tepeUs
(v.21). (a) The religious sense of wappyoia emerges in the early
gloss inserted after Sir 1879:

4 ,
Kpeioowv tappyoia ev Seorotn povy
N vekpa Kapdia vexpav avréxec Oat.

Here zappyoia means confident trust, the unhesitating adherence
of a human soul to God as its only Master, but our author
specially defines it as wappyota eis (cp. 2 P 1!) } cicodos eis riv
aidviov BaowWeiav) eicodov (with gen. as 6ddv in 98, but not a
synonym for 660v), z.e. for access to (tév dyiwv) the holy Presence,
év TQ aipate “Inood (qualifying eicodov).1 This resumes the
thought of 97426 1010-12 (éy aiware as in 9”), Compare for the
phrase and general idea the words on the self-sacrifice of Decius
Mus in Florus, i. 15. 3: ‘quasi monitu deorum, capite uelato,
primam ante aciem dis manibus se devoverit, ut in confertissima
se hostium tela iaculatus nouum ad uictoriam iter sanguinis sui
semita aperiret.” This efcodos tov dyiwy év TG aipare Iynood is
further described in v.29; we enter by (7v, with ddov . . . Cécav
in apposition) a way which Jesus has inaugurated by his sacrifice
(918 24 25), This way is called recent or fresh and also living.
In mpécartos, as in the case of other compounds (e.g. xeAarvedys),
the literal sense of the second element had been long forgotten
(cp. Holden’s note on Plutarch’s Zhemistocles, 24); apoodatos
simply means “fresh,” without any sacrificial allusion (‘ freshly-
killed”). Galen (de App. et Plat. plac. iv. 7) quotes the well-
known saying that Avrn éori ddfa rpdcdatos Kaxod rapovoias,
and the word (z.e. 76 dpriws yevopevov, véov, veapov, Hesychius), as
is plain from other passages like Arist. Magna Moralia, 12036
(6 &k THs mpoodpdtov gavtacias axparys xtX.), and Eccles 19 (ovx
éotw mav mpdadatov bro tov yALov), had no longer any of the
specific sacrificial sense suggested etymologically by its second
part. It is the thought of éyOés in 138, though the writer means

‘Hence the idea is not put in quite the same way as in Eph 3” (é ry
eX omer Ti wappyolay Kal THv mpocaywynv). In Sir 25% unde (dws) yuvacki
movnpg efovoiav, & A read mappyolay for B’s éfovclav, which proves how deeply
the idea of liberty was rooted in mrappyota.

X. 20-24.] THE VEIL 143

particularly (as in 11? 9%!) to suggest that a long period had
elapsed before the perfect fellowship was inaugurated finally ; it
is rpdogaros, not dpxaios. Zéeay means, in the light of 7?° (cp.
Jn 148), that access to God is mediated by the living Christ in
virtue of his sacrificial intercession ; the contrast is not so much
with what is transient, as though écav were equivalent to pévovcav
(Chrysostom, Cosm. 415a), as with the dead victims of the
OT cultus or “the lifeless pavement trodden by the highpriest”
(Delitzsch). He entered God’s presence thus 81d tod katare-
téopatos (619 9%), Todt’ €otw tod capkds adtod—a ritual expression
for the idea of 61% Ard is local, and, whether a verb like
eice Ody is supplied or not, 84 7. x. goes with évexaivcer, the idea
being that Jesus had to die, in order to bring us into a living
fellowship with God; the shedding of his blood meant that he
had a body (10°!) to offer in sacrifice (cp. 9!*). The writer,
however, elaborates his argument with a fresh detail of
symbolism, suggested by the ritual of the tabernacle which he
has already described in 9%. There, the very existence of a veil
hanging between the outer and the inner sanctuary was interpreted
as a proof that access to God’s presence was as yet imperfectly
realized. The highpriest carried once a year inside the veil the
blood of victims slain outside it; that was all. Jesus, on the
other hand, sheds his own blood as a perfect sacrifice, and thus
wins entrance for us into the presence of God. Only, instead of
saying that his sacrificial death meant the rending of the veil
(like the author of Mk 15%), ze. the supersession of the OT
barriers between God and man, he allegorizes the veil here as
the flesh of Christ; this had to be rent before the blood could
be shed, which enabled him to enter and open God’s presence
for the people. It is a daring, poetical touch, and the parallelism
is not to be prosaically pressed into any suggestion that the
human nature in Jesus hid God from men év tats tpépats tis
gapkos aitod, or that he ceased to be truly human when he
sacrificed himself.

The idea already suggested in facav is now (4) developed
(in v.22) by (€xovtes) kal tepéa péyar éml Tév otkov tod Ocod, another
echo of the earlier passage (cp. 3!® 414), tepeds péyas being a
sonorous LXX equivalent for dpxtepevs. Then comes the triple
appeal, mpocepydpcba . . . kaTéxmpev .. . Kal KaTavodpey . . .
The metaphor of tpocepydpeOa kth. (v.22), breaks down upon the
fact that the Israelites never entered the innermost shrine, except
as represented by their highpriest who entered once a year éy
aipate addotpiw (g” 25), which he took with him in order to atone
for the sins that interrupted the communion of God and the
people. In Mpds “EBpatous the point is that, in virtue of the
blood of Christ, Christians enjoy continuous fellowship with

144 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 24-29.

God; the sacrifice of Christ enables them to approach God’s
presence, since their sins have been once and for all removed.
The entrance of the OT highpriest therefore corresponds both
to the sacrifice of Christ and to that access of Christians which
the blood of Christ secures. On the one hand, Christ is our high-
priest (v.21); through his self-sacrifice in death the presence of
God has been thrown open to us (vv.!® 2°), This is the primary
thought. But in order to express our use of this privilege, the
writer has also to fall back upon language which suggests the
entrance of the OT highpriest (cp. v.19 év 76 aipati “Incod with
9”). He does not mean that Christians are priests, with the
right of entry in virtue of a sacrifice which they present, but,
as to approach God was a priestly prerogative under the older
order, he describes the Christian access to God in sacerdotal
metaphors. Mpocepydpeba is one of these. It is amplified first
by a petd clause, and then by two participial clauses. The
approach to God must be whole-hearted, peta adyOuwijs Kapdias,!
without any hesitation or doubt, év mAnpodopia (61!) mictews.?
This thought of wiorts as man’s genuine answer to the realities
of divine revelation, is presently to be developed at length
(10%), Meantime the writer throws in the double participial
clause, pepavticpévor . . . kafap@. The metaphors are sacer-
dotal ; as priests were sprinkled with blood and bathed in water,
to qualify them for their sacred service, so Christians may
approach God with all confidence, on the basis of Christ’s
sacrifice, since they have been fepavtiopeévor (Ze. sprinkled and
so purified from—a frequent use of the verb) daé cuveid8jcews
movnpas (= cvvednoews Guapti@v, 107) in their hearts (tas kapSias
—no external cleansing). Then the writer adds, kat Xedoucpevor
7 capa bat. KalapG, suggesting that baptism corresponded to
the bathing of priests (e.g. in Lev 164). Once and for all, at
baptism (cp. 1 P 3”), Christians have been thus purified from
guilty stains by the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice? What room
then can there be in their minds for anything but faith, a confident
faith that draws near to God, sure that there is no longer
anything between Him and them ?

The distinctive feature which marked off the Christian
Bamticpds from all similar ablutions (6? 9!) was that it meant
something more than a cleansing of the body; it was part and
parcel of an inward cleansing of the xapd/a, effected by 75 atpa

1 The phrase év dAnOu7 xapdlg occurs in Zest. Dan 5° (v./. kaOap@) and in
Is 38° (ev. x. d.).

2 There is a verbal parallel in the account of Isis-worship given by
Apuleius (AZetamorph. xi. 28: ‘‘ ergo igitur cunctis adfatim praeparatis . . .
principalis dei nocturnis orgiis inlustratus, plena zam fiducta germanae

religionis obsequium diuinum frequentabam ”’).
More specifically, by the alua pavyriomod of 12.

X. 23.] PURITY 145

TAs SiaOjKys (v.2).! Hence this as the vital element is put first,
though the body had also its place and part in the cleansing ex-
perience. The xapdia and the ody are a full, plastic expression
for the entire personality, as an ancient conceived it. Ancient
religious literature ? is full of orders for the penitent to approach
the gods only after moral contrition and bodily cleansing, with a
clean heart and a clean body, in clean clothes even. But, apart
from other things, such ablutions had to be repeated, while the
Christian Bamriopds was a single ceremony, lying at the source and
start of the religious experience. And what our author is think-
ing of particularly is not this or that pagan rite, but the OT
ritual for priests as described in Ex 297%, Ly 85 145 etc. (cp.

Joma 3).

Three specimens of the anxious care for bodily purity in ancient religious
ritual may be given. First (i) the ritual directions for worship in Sy//. 567
(ii A.D.) : mp@rov pév Kal 7d wéyioTov, XEtpas Kal yvwunv Kabapods Kal Wyets
imdpxovras Kal wndev avrots Sevdv svverddras. Second (ii) the stress laid on
it by a writer like Philo, who (guod deus sit immutabilis, 2), after pleading
that we should honour God by purifying ourselves from evil deeds and
washing off the stains of life, adds: xal yap etinfes els mév Ta lepa pi) eFetvar
Badiferv, ds dv wh mpdrepov Novoeduevos PardpiyyTar Td cHua, etxeTOar de kal
Ovew emcxerpety ere knudwuery Kal mepuppyévy diavolg. His argument is that
if the body requires ablutions (epippavrnpiows Kai KaBapolors aryveuTiKors)
before touching an external shrine, how can anyone who is morally impure
draw near (mpoceNOetvy Ty Oew) the most pure God, unless he means to
repent? ‘O uév yap mpds TE wndev ewetepyacacbat kaxdy Kal Ta Tahara Exvipao-
Oat Sixkausoas yeynOws mpoclrw [cp. He 101% 7], 6 & dvev rovrwy duocKdbapros
av agiotdcbw* Ancerar yap ovdémrore Tov Ta ev puxXois Tis Siavolas dpavra [cp.
He 48] cal rots ddvros avbrijs €umepiraroivta. Or again in de Plant. 39:
chpuara kal puxas Kabnpdpevor, TA wev NouTpots, Ta dé vouwv Kal ratdelas dpO7s
pedpact. In de Cherub. 28 he denounces the ostentatious religion of the
worldly, who in addition to their other faults, 7a wév cwpara RovuTpois Kal
xa0apalots dmoppUmrovrat, TA dé WuxAs éexvi~acbat r4On, ols karappuTalverae 6
Blos, ore Bovovrat ob're érirndevovot, are very particular about their outward
religious practices ® but careless about a clean soul. Finally, (iii) there is the
saying of Epictetus (iv. 10. 3): émel yap éxetva (z.e. the gods) gicer KaBapol
Kal akhparo, ép door nyytkacw avrots ol dvOpwmrot Kata Tov Néyor, éml ToToTOY
kal rod Kabapod Kal rod KaBaplov elolv avdexrekol,

For the exceptional pepayrispévar (8* A C D*), x° D® etc. have substituted
éppavticpévor (so Theodoret). The Aedovocnéve of ®& B D P is the more
common xow7 form of the Attic NeXoumévar (A C D® etc.).

The next appeal (v.?%), katéxwpev thy dpooytay Tis éAmiSos
(to which 8* vg pesh eth add the gloss of 7jéav), echoes 414

1 afua ris SiadjKns ev @ tryidoOn, as 1 Co 6" AAA azedovcacde, aNrAG
nytao Onre.

2 Cp. Eugen Fehrle’s Die Kultische Keuschheit im Altertum (1910), pp.
26f., 131 f. ; Sir J. G. Frazer’s Adonis, Atttis, Ostris (1907), pp. 407 f.

8 According to a recently discovered (first century) inscription on a
Palestinian synagogue (cp. Revue Bibligue, 1921, pp. 247 f.), the synagogue
was furnished with tov €evGva (for hospitality, cp. below, 137) kal ra xpyoT7-
pia Tv bddTwy (baths for ritual ablutions).

10

146 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 238, 24.

(kparapiev THs Spodroylas) and 3° (éav rHv mappnoiav Kat 70
Kavynpa THS eAmidos . . . Katdoxwpuev). This hope for the future
was first confessed at baptism, and rests upon God’s promise!
(as already explained in 617-18), It is to be held dkdws, a term
applied by Philo to the word of a good man (6 yap Tod crovdaiov,
yot, Adyos GpKos Eotw, BEBatos, axu7js, dWevdeoratos, épypercpéevos
dAnGeia, de Spec. Leg. ii. 1); in Irenaeus it recurs in a similar
connexion (i. 88, ed. Harvey: 6 rov kavéva tis aAnOeias axdwh
év éavta Kkatéxwv, ov dia tod Barriopatos eiAnde). The old
Wycliffite version translates finely: ‘hold we the confessioun of
oure hope bowynge to no side.” ‘The close connexion between
pepavtiopévor kTA, and eAouopévor «tA. makes it inadvisable to
begin the second appeal with kat Nedoucpévor TS cpa UdaTt Kabapd
(Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Lachmann, Liinemann, von Soden, B.
Weiss, etc.). A more plausible suggestion, first offered by
Theodoret and adopted recently by Hofmann and Seeberg, is to
begin the second appeal after miotews, making katex@pev carry
pepavticpévor . . . kaapd. This yields a good sense, for it
brings together the allusions to the baptismal confession. But
the ordinary view is more probable; the asyndeton in karexOpev
is impressive, and if it is objected that the xareyOpev clause is
left with less content than the other two, the answer is that its
eschatological outlook is reiterated in the third clause, and that
by itself its brevity has a telling force. Besides, éxovtes kth.
(19-21) introduce katex@pev as well as mpocepxdpeda.

The third appeal (24 2°) turns on love (cp. 61°), as the first on
faith, and the second on hope. The members of the circle or
community are to stir up one another to the practice of Chris-
tian love. Since this is only possible when common worship
and fellowship are maintained, the writer warns them against
following the bad example of abandoning such gatherings; kat
katavoa@pev GdAndous, for, if we are to Katavoeiv Christ (31), we
are also bound to keep an eye on one another eis mapofvopdv
dyamfs Kal Kad@v épywy (Ze. an active, attractive moral life,
inspired by Christian love). This good sense of tapofucpés as
stimulus seems to be an original touch; in Greek elsewhere it
bears the bad sense of provocation or exasperation (cp. Ac 15°),
although the verb zapogvveww had already acquired a good sense
(eg. in Josephus, Ant. xvi. 125, wapogdvar THY evvorav: in Pr 6%
ioft pn exAvdpevos, tapdguve bé kal Tov dirov gov dv eveyuyow: and
in Xen. Cyrop. vi. 2. 5, kal rovrous érawvav te mapofuve). Pliny’s
words at the close of his letter to Caninius Rufus (iil. 7) illus-
trate what is meant by zapofvopuds in this sense: ‘Scio te
stimulis non egere; me tamen tui caritas evocat ut currentem

1 An instance of this is quoted in 114,

X. 24.] CHURCH FELLOWSHIP 147

quoque instigem, sicut tu soles me. “Aya@i) & épis, cum invicem
se mutuis exhortationibus amici ad amorem immortalitatis
exacuunt.” How the zapofvopos is to be carried out, the writer
does not say. By setting a good example? By definite exhorta-
tions (wapakahodytes, v.”, like 13!)? My éykatadeimovtres—do not
do to one another what God never does to you (13°), do not
leave your fellow-members in the lurch (the force of éyxataAcirewy,
especially in the xowy)—rthv émouvaywyhv éautay (reflexive pro-
noun in the genitive = 7pav). “Emouvaywy in the cowy (cp. Deiss-
mann’s Light from the East, 102 f.) means a collection (of money),
but had already in Jewish Greek (e.g. 2 Mac 27 éws av ovvayy 6
eds éricvvaywyijv Tod Aaovd) begun to acquire the present sense
of a popular “ gathering.” KaQas €8os (sc. €orv) ticity. But who
are these? What does this abandonment of common fellowship
mean? (a) Perhaps that some were growing ashamed of their
faith ; it was so insignificant and unpopular, even dangerous to
anyone who identified himself with it openly. They may have
begun to grow tired of the sacrifices and hardships involved in
membership of the local church. This is certainly the thought
of 10°, and it is better than to suppose (0) the leaders were a small
group of teachers or more intelligent Christians, who felt able, in
a false superiority, to do without common worship; they did not
require to mix with the ordinary members! ‘The author in any
case is warning people against the dangers of individualism, a
warning on the lines of the best Greek and Jewish ethics, e.g.
Isokrates, ad Demon. 13, Tia 76 Sarpoviov ael pev, padiora O€ pera
THs TOAews, and the rabbinic counsel in Taanith, rr. 1 (“ whenever
the Israelites suffer distress, and one of them withdraws from the
rest, two angels come to him and, laying their hands upon his
head, say, this man who separates himself from the assembly
shall not see the consolation which is to visit the congregation”),
or in Hillel’s saying (Pirke Aboth 2°): “Separate not thyself
from the congregation, and trust not in thyself until the day of
thy death.” The loyal Jews are described in Ps.-Sol 1718 as
ol dyaravres cvvaywyas doiwv, and a similar thought occurs also
(if “his” and not “my” is the correct reading) in Od. Sol 3?:
“His members are with Him, and on them do I hang.” Any
early Christian who attempted to live like a pious particle without
the support of the community ran serious risks in an age when
there was no public opinion to support him. His isolation, what-
ever its motive—fear, fastidiousness, self-conceit, or anything else
—exposed him to the danger of losing his faith altogether. ‘These
are possible explanations of the writer’s grave tone in the pas-
sage before us. Some critics, like Zahn (§ 46), even think that
(c) such unsatisfactory Christians left their own little congrega-
tion for another, in a spirit of lawless pique, or to gratify their

148 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (ox: 25, 26.

own tastes selfishly ; but €auvtév is not emphatic, and in any
congregation of Christians the duties of love would be pressed,
Separatist tendencies were not absent from the early church;
thus some members considered themselves too good to require
common worship, as several warnings prove, e.g. in Barn 4!
pn Kal” éavtovs évdvvovres povalere ws 7d SediKatwpevor, GAN ei
TO avTO ouvepxopevor cuvlyTeite Tepi TOU KoW TupdépovTos) and
Ign. Eph. 5° (6 otv pi epxopevos él 7O aitd ovtos Hdyn irepndavet
kal €avrov Ouexpwev). But in our epistle (d) the warning is directed
specially against people who combined Christianity with a
number of mystery-cults, patronizing them in turn, or who with-
drew from Christian fellowship, feeling that they had exhausted
the Christian faith and that it required to be supplemented by
some other cult. “At first and indeed always there were
naturally some people who imagined that one could secure the
sacred contents and blessings of Christianity as one did those of
Isis or the Magna Mater, and then withdraw” (Harnack,
Expansion of Christianity, bk. iii. c. 43; cp. Reitzenstein’s Hellen.
Mysterienreligionen, 94). This was serious, for, as the writer
realized, it implied that they did not regard Christianity as the
final and full revelation ; their action proved that the Christian
faith ranked no higher with them than one of the numerous
Oriental cults which one by one might interest the mind, but
which were not necessarily in any case the last word on life.
The argument of the epistle has been directed against this mis-
conception of Christianity, and the writer here notes a practical
illustration of it in the conduct of adherents who were hold-
ing aloof, or who were in danger of holding aloof, from the
common worship. Hence the austere warning which follows.
Such a practice, or indeed any failure to “draw near” by
the way of Jesus, is an insult to God, which spells hopeless
ruin for the offender. And evidently this retribution is near.
Christians are to be specially on their guard against conduct
that means apostasy, for Bdémete (how, he does not say)
éyyiLoucay (as in Ro 13}*) thy hpepay (here, as in r Co 3},
without éxe(vy or tod xvpiov). This eschatological setting
distinguishes the next warning (vv.268!) from the earlier
in 6*6,

°6 Kor if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the Truth,
there ts no longer any sacrifice for sins left, " nothing but an awful outlook of
doom, that ‘‘burning Wrath” which will *‘ consume the foes” (see v.3*) of
God. * Anyone who has rejected the law of Moses ‘‘ dies” without mercy,
“‘on the evidence of two or of three witnesses.” ™ How much heavier, do you
suppose, will be the punishment assigned (t.e. by God) to him who has spurned
the Son of God, who has profaned ‘‘ the covenant-blood” (9°) with which he
was sanctified (10'°), who has insulted the Spirit of grace? ® We know who
sata, ‘* Vengeance ts mine, I will exact a requital” : and again (mwadw, as in

X. 26.| APOSTASY 149

218), ** The Lord will pass sentence on his people.” ™ [tis an awful thing to
fall into the hands of the living God.

Apostasy like withdrawal from the church on the ground
already mentioned, is treated as one of the deliberate (éxouciws)
sins which (cp. on 5?), under the OT order of religion, were
beyond any atonement. Wilful offences, like rebellion and
blasphemy against God, were reckoned unpardonable. “In the
case of one who, by his sin, intentionally disowns the covenant
itself, there can be no question of sacrifice. He has himself cut
away the ground on which it would have been possible for him
to obtain reconciliation” (Schultz, OZ’ Theology, ii. 88). There
is an equivalent to this, under the new 8:a04xy, our author
declares. To abandon Christianity is to avow that it is in-
adequate, and this denial of God’s perfect revelation in Jesus
Christ is fatal to the apostate. In éxovgiws dpaptévtay jpav (2°),
éxovoiws is put first for the sake of emphasis, and dpaprovrwy
means the sin of drooryvar ard Oeod Cavtos (3}") or of zapa-
mimrew (6°), the present tense implying that such people persist
in this attitude. ‘“Exouotws is the keynote to the warning. Its
force may be felt in a passage like Thuc. iv. 98, where the
Athenians remind the Boeotians that God pardons what is done
under the stress of war and peril, kai yap tov dkovolwy dpapty-
patwv Katapvyiv elvar tods Bwpovs, and that it is wanton and
presumptuous crimes alone which are heinous. Philo (vit. AZos.
i. 49) describes Balaam praying for forgiveness from God on
the ground that he had sinned tm’ ayvoias aAXN’ od Kal? Exovorov
yvepnv. The adverb occurs in 2 Mac 148 (AAkipos . . . Exovolws
dé pepwoAvopéevos). The general idea of the entire warning is that
the moral order punishes all who wantonly and wilfully flout it;
as Menander once put it (Kock’s Com. Attic. Fragm. 700):

vopos dvAaxGeis ovdev éotw 7H vopos*
5 pr prdrayGeis Kat yopos Kai Syptos.

Our author expresses this law of retribution in personal terms
drawn from the OT, which prove how deeply moral and reverent
his religious faith was, and how he dreaded anything like pre-
suming upon God’s kindness and mercy. The easy-going man
thinks God easy going; he is not very serious about his religious
duties, and he cannot imagine how Godcan take them very seriously
either. ‘We know” better, says the author of Ipds “E®pavous !
Christianity is described (in v.?°) as ro AaBeiv tiv éexiyvwow
THs GAnGeias, a semi-technical phrase of the day, which recurs in
the Pastoral Epistles (though with éA@ety eis instead of AaBetv). It
is not one of our author’s favourite expressions,! but the phrase

4 Here it is an equivalent for the phrases used in 65; there is no dis-
tinction between ériyvwous and yvwors (Ae00) any more than in the LXX, and

150 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 26-29.

is partly used by Epictetus in its most general sense (AaBov tis
Tapa THs PvcEws méTpA Kal Kavovas els eriyvwow THs aAnOeias KTH,
il. 20. 21), when upbraiding the wretched academic philosophers
(oi dradaizrwpor Axadypaixol) for discrediting the senses as organs
of knowledge, instead of using and improving them. All that
renegades can expect (v.27) is poBepd tus (= quidam, deepening
the idea with its touch of vagueness) éxdoxy (a sense coined by
the writer for this term, after his use of éxkdéyeo6ar in 101%) kpicews,
for they have thrown over the only sacrifice that saves men from
kptows (g2"). This is expanded in a loose? reminiscence of Is
2611 (Gyros Ajnpwerat Aadvy amaidevtov, Kal viv TUp TOs UrevavTious
éderar), though the phrase updos {idos recalls Zeph 1% (38) ev
mupt CyAov airovd katavadwOyoerat Taca 7 yn. The contemporary
Jewish Apocalypse of Baruch (48% 4°) contains a similar threat
to wilful sinners :

“Therefore shall a fire consume their thoughts,
and in flame shall the meditations of their reins be tried;
for the Judge shall come and will not tarry—
because each of earth’s inhabitant knew when he was trans-
gressing.”

The penalty for the wilful rejection (&@etjoas) of the Mosaic
law ? was severe (Dt 1771), but not more severe than the penalty
to be inflicted on renegades from Christianity (vv.?8!), The
former penalty was merciless, xwpis oiktupyav (to which, at an
early period, kai daxpiwy was added by D, most old Latin texts,
and syr™'). It is described in a reminiscence of Dt 17° émi dvaiv
paptvow 7 ert tpioly paptvcw arofavetrar 6 aroOvycKkwy (Ze. the
apostate who has yielded to idolatry). The witnesses executed
the punishment for the sin of which they had given evidence
(Dt 177, Ac 76, Jn 87, Sanhedrim 64), but this is not before the
writer’s mind ; ézé with the dative simply means ‘on the ground
of (the evidence given by).” In méow Sokette xrA. (v.29), doxetre
is intercalated as in Aristoph. Acharn. 12 (rds totr’ Evercore pov
doxets THY Kapdiav ;), and Herm. Szm. ix. 28. 8 (ei ra €Ovn Tovs
SovAovs aitav KoAdlovow, éeav Tis apvyontar Tov KUpLov éavTod, Ti
Soxeite moujoe 6 KUpios byiv;). Tldow (cp. g}4) introduces an

ad70eca had been already stamped by Philo (e.g. de /wstztéa, 6, where the
proselyte is said pweravacrds els add7jOeav) as a term for the true religion,
which moulds the life of those who become members of the People. Compare
the study of the phrase by M. Dibelius in WZ Studien fiir G. Heinricz (1914),
. 176-189.
i Probably it was the awkwardness of {7\os, coming after rupdés, which led
to its omission in W. Sah reads simply ‘‘ the flame of the fire.”
2 According to the later rabbinic theory of inspiration, even to assert that
Moses uttered one word of the Torah on his own authority was to despise the
Torah (Sifre 112, on Nu 15°).

X. 29, 30.] REN EGADES I51

argument from the less to the greater, which was the first of
Hillel’s seven rules for exegesis, and which is similarly used by
Philo in de Fuga, 16, where, after quoting Ex 211°, he adds that
Moses here practically denies that there is any pardon for those
who blaspheme God (ei yap of rods Ovynrots Kaxyyopycavtes yovets
dndyovra tiv éxi Oavdrw, tivos agiovs xpy vouilew Tiwpias Tovs
tov dAwv Tatépa Kal rountyv BrAaodypelv bropevovtas;). There
is also a passage in de Spec. Legibus (ii. 254, 255) where Philo
asks, “If a man pi mpoonkovtws dpvvs is guilty, moons agtos
Tywpias 6 Tov dvTwWS dvTa Hedv apvodpevos ;”

tipwpta originally meant vengeance. Acagéper dé rimwpia kal Kddaors* 7
uev yap Kddacts TOD mdcxovros evexa ear, H dé Timwpla Tod TovodyTos, Wa
dmorhnpw0y (Arist. Rhetoric, i. 10, 11; see Cope’s /utroduction, p. 232).

But it became broadened into the general sense of punishment, and this
obtained in Hellenistic Greek.

The threefold description of what is involved in the sin of
apostasy begins: 6 tév vidv tod Qe0d Katamatyjoas, another ex-
pression for the thought of 6°, which recalls Zec 12° (A‘Oov
Kataratovpevov Tacw Tos COvecw" Tas 6 Kataratov adtyy éumailov
éuraierar). Karaareiv dpxia was the phrase for breaking oaths
(Zliad, 4157); with a personal object, the verb denotes con-
tempt of the most flagrant kind. Another aspect of the sin is
that a man has thereby xowvév ! ynodpevos the sacrifice of Jesus ;
his action means that it is no more to him than an ordinary death
(“communem,” 2), instead of a divine sacrifice which makes him
a partaker of the divine fellowship (see p. 145). Where Christ is
rejected, he is first despised; outward abandonment of him
springs from some inward depreciation or disparagement. The
third aspect, kat 76 mvedpa THs xdprtos (Not tov vopov Muwvoéws)
évbBpioas, suggests that the writer had in mind the language of
Zec 121 (ékyed . . . wvedua yxadpiTos Kati oiKxTipyod), but mvedpa
xdputos (contrasted here, as in Jn 11%, with the voyuos Movoéws)
is a periphrasis for rveta dyvov (64), xdpis being chosen (416 12!)
to bring out the personal, gracious nature of the power so wan-
tonly insulted.2 *EvuBpifew is not a LXX term, and it generally
takes the dative. (Ev @ jyrdo0n after jynodpevos is omitted by
A and some MSS of Chrysostom.)

The sombre close (vv.°*1) of the warning is a reminder
that the living God punishes renegades. oBepév (v.*!) re-echoes
the doBepa of v.2’, and the awful nature of the doom is brought
out by two quotations adapted from the OT. “Epot ékdixyats,

1 Once in the LXX (Pr 15%) in this sense.

2In Zest. Jud. 18° the rvedua xdpiros poured out upon men is the Spirit
as a gracious gift of God. But in He 10”, as in Eph 4*, it is the divine Spirit
wounded or outraged, the active retribution, however, being ascribed not to
the Spirit itself but to God.

152 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 30, 31

éya dévtatroSdcw, is the same form of Dt 32% as is quoted in Ro
1219; it reproduces the Hebrew original more closely than the
LXX (év tyépa exdixnoews dvrarodwow), perhaps from some
current Greek version, unless the author of Hebrews borrowed
it from Paul.t Some of the same authorities as in 8)? indeed
add, from Ro 121%, déyer kdptos (8° A D° K L arm Theodoret,
Damasus, etc.). Kptvet Kuptos Tov Aady adtod is from Dt 32°°. The
thought of the original, in both passages, is God avenging his
people on their foes and championing them, not punishing them ;
but here this fate is assigned to all who put themselves outside
the range of God’s mercy in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ ; they fall
under God’s retribution. 6 épmecetv eis xetpas Qeod is a phrase
used in a very different sense in 2 S 2414, Sir 218; here it means,
to fall into the grasp of the God who punishes the disloyal?
or rebels against his authority. Thus the tyrant Antiochus is
threatened, in 2 Mac 731, od pn diaddyys Tas xetpas Tov Geod. As
in 312, Lavtos is added to @e0d to suggest that he is quick and
alive to inflict retribution. The writer is impressively reticent
on the nature of God’s tipwpta, even more reticent than Plato, in
one of the gravest warnings in Greek literature, the famous
passage in the Zeges (904, 905) about the divine diky: Tavrys
THs Oikns OTE OV py OTE OUTE Ef GAAOS ATUYXiI)/s yevOpevos ErevénTax
mepiyevér Oar Gedy’ nv Tacdv dud StahepovTus Eragay Te ot TaEavTeEs
xpewv re é€evraBcicbar Td rapdrav. od yap dpedAnOyon more ix
abtis’ ody oTw opikpods dv dion Kata TO THs ys BaGos, odd dWAds
yevopevos eis TOV otpavev dvarrnay, Teloes Oe aitov THY TpOTHKOVTAY
Tyswplav eit’ evOdde pevwv cite Kal év Aidov diamropevbeis. Plato
altered the Homeric term diky GeHv to suit his purpose; what
meant “way” or “habit,” he turned into a weighty word for
“justice.” The alteration is justified from his ‘ preaching ”
point of view, and the solemn note of the Greek sage’s warning
is that of He 1076f ; you cannot play fast and loose with God.

Yet, as at 6%, so here, the writer swiftly turns from warning to
encouragement, appealing to his readers to do better than he
feared, and appealing to all that was best in them. “ Why
throw away the gains of your fine record in the past? You have
not long to wait for your reward. Hold on for a little longer.”
This is the theme of vv.*?-89;

1 Paul cites the saying to prove that private Christians need not and must
not take revenge into their own hands, since God is sure to avenge his people
on their adversaries. Which is close to the idea of the original. Our author
uses the text to clinch a warning that God will punish (xpive?= ‘‘ punibit,” not
‘*judicabit”) his people for defying and deserting him.

2 So the martyr Eleazar protests in 2 Mac 6**, as he refuses to save his
life by unworthy compromise: el yap xal émi rod mapdvros éEehodmae Thy ef
avOpmrwv Timwplay, dAXd Tas TOD mavroKparopos xXeEipas ore {Gv ore dmoBayay
éexpeviouat.

X. 82, 33.] A FINE RECORD 153

82 Recall the former days when, after you were enlightened (pwriabévtes.
as 6'), you endured a hard struggle of suffering, * partly by being held uf
yourselves to obloguy and anguish, partly by making common cause with those
who fared in thts way ; *4 for you did sympathize with the prisoners, and you
took the confiscation of your own belongings cheerfully, conscious that elsewhere
you had higher, you had lasting possessions. *° Now do not drop that con-
fidence of yours ; tt (ijrts, as in 2%) carries with it a rich hope of reward.
86 Steady patience zs what you need, so that after doing the will of God you
may (like Abraham, 6'°) get what you have been promised. *™ For ‘in a
little, a very little” now,

‘* The Coming One (9*) will arrive without delay.
383 Meantime my just man shall live on by his faith ;
if he shrinks back, my soul takes no delight in him.”

389 We are not the men to shrink back and be lost, but to have faith and so to
win our souls.

The excellent record of these Christians in the past consisted
in their common brotherliness (61°), which is now viewed in the
light of the hardships they had had to endure, soon after they
became Christians. The storm burst on them early; they
weathered it nobly; why give up the voyage, when it is nearly
done? It is implied that any trouble at present is nothing to
what they once passed through. “AvapipvicKeobe 8é Tas mpdtepov
pépas (v.°2): memory plays a large part in the religious experi-
ence, and is often as here a stimulus. In these earlier days they
had (vv.*: 3) two equally creditable experiences (todto pév. . .
todto $¢, a good classical idiom); they bore obloquy and hard-
ship manfully themselves, and they also made common cause
with their fellow-sufferers. By saying d@\now ta@npdtwev, the
writer means, that the za@jpara made the aAnovs which tested
their powers (21°). ”A6Ano1s—the metaphor is athletic, as in 121
—came to denote a martyr’s death in the early church ; but no
such red significance attaches to it here. Apparently the per-
secution was not pushed to the last extreme (12*); all survived
it. Hence there can be no allusion to the “ludibria” of Nero’s
outburst against the Roman Christians, in (v.**) @eatpufdpevor,
which is used in a purely figurative sense (so Géarpov in 1 Co 49),
like éxOearpiZewv in Polybius (e.g. iil. g1. 10, dudmep EueArXov . . .
exOeatprety 5é Tovs ToAeutovs Puvyowaxotvras). The meaning is
that they had been held up to public derision, scoffed and
sneered at, accused of crime and vice, unjustly suspected and
denounced. All this had been, the writer knew, a real ordeal,
particularly because the stinging contempt and insults had had
to be borne in the open. “Orav pév yap tis dverdiLnrat KaP éavrov,
AuTnpov pev, TOAAG 6€ wA€ov, Grav ext wavtwv (Chrysostom). They
had been exposed to éver8ropots te kat OAipeot, taunts and scorn
that tempted one to feel shame (an experience which our author
evidently felt keenly), as well as to wider hardships, both insults
and injuries. All this they had stood manfully. Better still,

154 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 838, 84.

their personal troubles had not rendered them indisposed to
care for their fellow-sufferers, téy ottws (ze. in the rayuara)
dvaotpepopevwy (138). They exhibited the virtue of practical
sympathy, urged in 13%, at any risk or cost to themselves (kotvwvot
. . « yevn@évtes with the genitive, as in LXX of Pr 2814, Is 12°).
The ideas of v.** are now (v.*4) taken up in the reverse order
(as in 517). Kat yap tots Seoplors cuvenafyoate, imprisonment
being for some a form of their za@jpara. Christians in prison
had to be visited and fed by their fellow-members. For oupmaGetv
(cp. 41°) as between man and man, see Zest. Sym. 3° kat Nourov
ouprabet TG POovovpevw: Test. Benj. 44 76 dobevortvte ovpracyer :
Ign. Rom. 64 cuprabeirw por: and the saying which is quoted
in Meineke’s -rag. Comic. Graec. iv. 52, ék Tod mwadety ylyvwoKe
Kal To ouptrafety’ Kal gol yap aGAXAos ovpTabyoerar wafwov. They
had also borne their own losses with more than equanimity,!
with actual gladness (peta xapas, the same thought as in Ro 5°,
though differently worked out), yudoxovtes (with accus. and
infinitive) €xew éautots (= tas, which is actually read here by
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 348a@; éavrovs is not emphatic any more
than éavrév in v.25) kpetooova (a favourite term of the author)
Umapguv (Ac 2°) kat pévoucay (1314, the thought of Mt 67°), Tip
dptayhy tov Swapxdvtay Spay (cp. Polybius, iv. 17. 4, dpmayas
trapxovrwv) implies that their own property had been either
confiscated by the authorities or plundered in some mob-riot.
Note the paronomasia of trapyévrwy and vrapéw, and the place
of this loss in the list of human evils as described in the Laches,
195 E («ire tO Odvatos elite vocos cite drooAn xpypatwv €orar).

There is no question of retaliation; the primitive Christians whom the
author has in view had no means of returning injuries for injuries, or even
of claiming redress. Thus the problem raised and solved by contemporary
moralists does not present itself to the writer; he does not argue, as, ¢.g.,
Maximus of Tyre did in the next century (D2ssert, ii.), that the good man
should treat the loss of property as a trifle, and despise the futile attempts of
his enemies to injure him thus, the soul or real self being beyond the reach
of such evil-doers. The tone is rather that of Tob 47! (uh @oBob, mardlov, dru
émtwxetcapev’ vmdpxer gol moda, edv PoByOys Tov Oéoy KTr.), except that
our author notes the glow (“era xapas) of an enthusiastic unworldliness,
which was more than any Stoic resignation or even any quiet acquiescence
in providence; he suggests in éavrovs that, while others might seize and hold
their property, they themselves had a possession of which no one could rob
them. Seneca (Z4. ix. 18-19) quotes the famous reply of the philosophic
Stilpo to Demetrius Poliorketes, who asked him, after the siege and sack of
Megara, if he had lost anything in the widespread ruin, Stilpo answered
that he had suffered no loss; ‘‘omnia bona mecum sunt.” That is, Seneca
explains, he did not consider anything as ‘* good” which could be taken from
him. This helps to illustrate what the author of IIpds ‘HBpalovs means. As
Epictetus put it, there are more losses than the loss of property (ii. 10. 14,

1This is not conveyed in mpocedééacde, which here, as in 11, simply
means ‘‘ accepted,” not ‘‘ welcomed.”

X. 34, 35.] PERSECUTION 155

ada Set oe Képua dmroréoat, va fnuwOfs, dddou <5’ > obdevds dmwreca Fnucot
Tov dvOpwmor ;). A similar view pervades the fine homiletic misinterpretation
of Dt 6° in Berachoth 9° ‘*Man is bound to bless [God] for evil as for
good, for itis said, Zhou shalt love Jahweh thy God with all thy heart and
wth all thy soul and with all thy strength. With all thy heart means, with
both yetzers, the good and the bad alike: w2th all thy soul means, even if he
deprive thee of thy soul: wzth all thy strength means, with all thy posses-
sions.” A similar view is cited in Sifre 32. Apollonius, in the last quarter
of the second century, declares: ‘‘ We do not resent having our goods taken
from us, because we know that, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s ”
(Conybeare, Monuments of Early Christianity, p. 44).

No persecution known to us in the primitive church answers
to the data of this passage. But some sidelights are thrown upon
it by Philo’s vivid account of the earlier anti-Semite riots in
Alexandria. He notes that even those who sympathized with
the persecuted were punished: tév & as GAGGs terovOdtwv piror
Kal ouyyevels, OTL povov Tals THY TpoTNKdvTWY GUpEddpats cvVyA-
yyoav, amyyovro, guactvyotvto, érpoxilovto, Kat peta Tacas Tas
aixias, 6oas edvvaTo xwpyoat TA GwpaTa avrots, 4» TeAEvTALa Kal
éhedpos Tiuwpta atavpos jv (in Flaccum, 7: n. 5. neither here
nor in r1°°f does the author of IIpos “EBpaiovs mention the cross
as a punishment for sufferers). Philo (¢é¢d. g) continues: wevia
xaerov pev, kal padioG drav KatacKevdlynta mpos €xOpav, éAartov
de THs cis TA GHpata UBpews, Kav Bpaxutaty. He repeats this
(10), telling how Flaccus maltreated Jews who had been already
stripped of their property, tva of pév tropevdcor Sittas cvpudopas,
meviav 640d Kal THVv ev Tos THpacw UBpi, Kal ot pev Spavres,
Gomep év Tots Gearpixois pipous KabuTepKpivovto TOUS Tac xXOVTAS.

Three items of textual corruption occur in v.*4, (a) Seoptors (p® A D* H
33. 104. 241. 424**. 635. 1245. 1288. 1739. 1908. 1912. 2005 r vg syrhkl
boh arm Chrys.) was eventually corrupted into decpots (uov) in 8 D° © 256.
1288* etc. vt eth Clem. Orig.), a misspelling (z.¢. decuots) which, with sou
added to make sense, contributed to the impression that Paul had written
the epistle (Ph 17 4**, Col 418). Compare the text implied in the (Pelagian ?)
prologue to Paul’s epp. in vg: ‘‘nam et vinctis compassi estis, et rapinam
bonorum vestrorum cum gaudio suscepistis.”

(4) éavtovs (p'® & A H lat boh Clem. Orig. etc.) suffered in the course of
transmission ; it was either omitted (by C) or altered into éavrots (D K L ¥,
etc., Chrys.) or év éaurots (1. 467. 489. 642. 920. 937. 1867. 1873), the dative
being an attempt to bring out the idea that they had in their own religious
personalities a possession beyond the reach of harm and loss, an idea pushed
by some editors even into éavrovs, but too subtle for the context.

(c) taapéw was eventually defined by the addition of év (tots) ovpavois
(from Ph 3???) in xe De H** © 6. 203. 326. 506. 1288. 1739 syr arm Chrys.
etc.

The reminder of vy.°2-34 is now (589) pressed home. My}
amoBddyTe obv Thy Tappyoiav buay, as evinced in peta xapas. . .
yvéokovtes kt. The phrase occurs in Dio Chrys. Ovaz. 34°°
(d€dorxa py TeA€ws GwoPadyre THY wappyctar) and elsewhere in the

156 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 35, 86.

sense of losing courage, but zappyoia retains its special force
(28) here, and drofddXew is the opposite of xatéyev (“nolite
itaque amittere,” vg). The wappyoia is to be maintained, yrs
xe peyddny picOarodoctay (as 117°), it is so sure of bringing
its reward in the bliss promised by God to cheerful loyalty.
Compare the saying of the contemporary rabbi Tarphon: “ faith-
ful is the Master of thy work, who will pay thee the reward of
thy work, and know thou that the recompense of the reward of
the righteous is for the time to come” (Pirke Aboth 2}°).

Epictetus makes a similar appeal, in iv. 3. 3f., not to throw away all that
one has gained in character by failing to maintain one’s philosophical
principles when one has suffered some loss of property. When you lose any
outward possession, recollect what you gain instead of it (rl dv7’ avroid
meptTory) 5 ; otherwise, you imperil the results of all your past conscientiousness
(doa vov mpocéxets ceauT@, wédres exxelvy dravrTa Tatra Kal dvarpérev). And
it takes so little to do this ; a mere swerve from reasonable principle (mixpas
dmoarpopijs Tov Néyou), a slight drowsiness, and all is lost (4r7\Oev wavra ra
MEX pL viv cuver\eyueva). No outward possession is worth having, Epictetus
continues, if it means that one ceases to be free, to be God’s friend, to serve
God willingly. I must not set my heart on anything else; God "does not
allow that, for if He had chosen, He would have made such outward goods
good for me (dya0a memoujxer atra dv éuol), Maximus of Tyre again argued
that while, for example, men might be willing to endure pain and discomfort
for the sake and hope of regaining health, ‘‘if you take away the hope of good
to come, you also take away the power of enduring present ills” (el a@édXous
Tia édrlda T&v wédANovTwv ayabav, dpaipjoes Kai Twa alperw Tav TapdyTwy
kax@v, Diss. xxxiii).

To retain the Christian twappyoia means still éropéve, no
longer perhaps in the earlier sense (é7epetvare, v.*"), and yet some-
times what has to be borne is harder, for sensitive people, than
any actual loss. Such obedience to the will of God assumes
many phases, from endurance of suffering to sheer waiting, and
the latter is now urged (v. 36). “Yaropovijs yap exete xpetav (512) iva
7d OéXnpa Tod Aeod wornoaytes (suggested by 107) kopionobe Thy
émayyediay (612 10%), “Though the purpose of tropovy is
contained in the clause va... érayyeAiay, yet the function of
this clause in the sentence is not telic. Its office is not to
express the purpose of the principal clause, but to set forth a
result (conceived, not actual) of which the possesion of izopovy
is the necessary condition” (Burton, WZ Moods and Tenses,

93). ‘Yrouovy and tropevew echo through this passage and
tae “, the idea of tenacity being expressed in 108-1140 by miotis.
“gare here as in the LXX (cp. Dat. 3548a-c) implies the
conviction of “hope that the evil endured will be either remedied
or proved to be no evil.” Koptonode does not mean to get back
or recover, nor to gather in, but simply as in the cow to receive,
to get what has been promised (thy émayyetay) rather than to
get it as our due (which is the idea of proGaodoctay), though

X. 36-38. | THE PATIENCE OF HOPE 157

what is promised is in one sense our due, since the promise can
only be fulfilled for those who carry out its conditions (6!°), And
it will soon be fulfilled. ‘‘ Have patience; it is not long now.”
Again he clinches his appeal with an OT word, this time from the
prophets (vv.37 88), "Ete yap (om. p!*) puxpdy (sc. €orev) daov daov.
In de mutat. nomin. 44, Philo comments upon the aptness and
significance of the word vaé in the promise of Gn 17} (ri yap
evmpeTreaTEpov n Tayaa € ETL EVELY Geo kal TAX EWS OpoAoyetr ; :). Our
author has a similar idea in mind, though he is eschatological, as
Philo is not. “Ooov ov is a variant in D (on Lk 5%) for éAcyov.
The phrase occurs in Aristoph. Wasps, 213 (ri od« azrexounnOyoav
daov d6aov otiAnv), and elsewhere, but here it is a reminiscence of
the LXX of Is 267 (uuKxpov doov d6cov). Hence, although puxpov
daov is also used, as by Philo, the omission of the second éaov in
the text of Hebrews by some cursives (e.g. 6. 181. 326. 1836)
and Eusebius is unjustified. The words serve to introduce the
real citation, apparently suggested by the term sropovis (v.*°),
from Hab 2° * éay torepyoy, irdpmewov adrov, dtu épydpevos HEE
Kal ov pi) Xpovion’ €av vrooretAnTat, odK eddoKEl H WuXH Lov ev aiTa’
6 b€ Siékatos ex wicteds prov Cyoerat, especially as the LXX makes
the object of patient hope not the fulfilment of the vision, ze.
the speedy downfall of the foreign power, but either messiah
or God. (a) The author of Hebrews further adds 6 to /EPXSpEVOS,
applying the words to Christ; (4) changes 08 ph xpovicn into od
xpovet:+ (c) reverses the order of the last two clauses, and (a)
shifts pou in front of ék wiotews, as in the A text of the LXX.
In the MSS of Hebrews, pov is entirely omitted by p®’ DH K
L P W cop eth Chrys. etc., to conform the text to the Pauline
quotation (Ro 11’, Gal 3}!), while the original LXX text, with
pov after riorews, is preserved in D* d syr?****! etc. This text,
or at any rate its Hebrew original, meant that the just man (ze.
the Israelite) lived by God being faithful to his covenant with
the nation. In Mpés “EBpatous the idea is that the just man of
God is to live by his own miotts or loyalty, as he holds on and
holds out till the end, timidity meaning dm@deva (v.°°), while the
fw promised by God as the reward of human loyalty is the
outcome of wioris (€k miotews). But our author is interested in
mores rather than in wy. The latter is not one of his categories,
in the sense of eternal life; this idea he prefers to express
otherwise. What he quotes the verse for is its combination of
God’s speedy recompense and of the stress on human ziotts,
which he proceeds to develop at length. The note struck in 6
8é Sixa1ds pou also echoes on and on through the following
passage (114 “ABeX . . . €paptupyOy etvar Sixatos, 117 Noe...

1 This second cate or xpovice:, p'® x* D*, is read by some editors (e.g.
Tregelles, W-H, B. Weiss).

158 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS __[X. 88-XI. 1.

THs KaTG TloTL Stxarocuvys, 11°3 Apydoavto Sixarogdyyy, 121! Kapmov
dmodidworv Sikarogdvyns, 127° mvedpaor Sikatwy TeTeMerwpevwv). The
aim of (¢) was to make it clear, as it is not clear in the LXX,
that the subject of émooreiAntat was 6 BSikaos, and also to make
the warning against apostasy the climax. Kat édv bmootelAntor—
not simply in fear (as, e.g., Dem. adv. Pant. 630, wydev trooreA-
Aopevov pyd aicxvvopevov), but in the fear which makes men (cp.
Gal 2”) withdraw from their duty or abandon their convictions—
odk eddoKet 4 Wuxy pou év atdTG. It isa fresh proof of the freedom
which the writer uses, that he refers these last seven words to
God as the speaker; in Habakkuk the words are uttered by the
prophet himself. Then, with a ringing, rallying note, he expresses
himself confident about the issue. “Hpets $€ odk éopev boo TONS
(predicate genitive, as in 12, unless avdpes or é« is supplied) eis
Gmbdevav, GANG Tiotews eis MepiToinow Wuxfhs (=Lyoeta, v.°8).
Mepiroinots occurs three times in the LXX (2 Ch 14}, Hag 29,
Mal 31”) and several times in the NT, but never with wuyjs,
though the exact phrase was known to classical Greek as an
equivalent for saving one’s own life. ‘YzoordAy, its antithesis,
which in Jos. &./. ii. 277 means dissimulation, has this new
sense stamped on it, after bmooretAntat.

The exhortation is renewed in 12!*, but only after a long
paean on motes, with historical illustrations, to prove that iors
has always meant hope and patience for loyal members of the
People (11!“°). The historical résumé (113°), by which the
writer seeks to kindle the imagination and conscience of his
readers, is prefaced by a brief introduction (111) :

1 Now fatth means we are confident of what we hope for, convinced of what
we do not see. *Jt was for this that the men of old won their record. * It
is by faith we understand that the world was fashioned by the word of God,
and thus the visible was made out of the invisible.

Calvin rightly protested against any division here, as an in-
terruption to the thought: “‘quisquis hic fecit initium capitis
undecimi, perperam contextum abrupit.” The following argu-
ment of 11!4° flows directly out of 10°89: juouovy is justified
and sustained by iors, and we have now a Adyos zapaxAjoews
on pipytal tav dia wictews Kai paxpobvuias KAnpovopovvTwy Tas
erayyeAias (61%), Hitherto the only historical characters who
have been mentioned have been Abraham, Melchizedek, Moses,
Aaron, and Joshua; and Abraham alone has been mentioned
for his wiores ; now a long list of heroes and heroines of wioret
is put forward, from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs. But first
(vv.!-8) a general word on faith. “Eotw 8€ motes «rd. (v.1). It
is needless to put a comma after ziotis, ze., “there is such a
thing as faith, faith really exists.” Eiué at the beginning of a

>: ie tal WHAT FAITH MEANS 159

sentence does not necessarily carry this meaning ; cp. e.g. Wis
7) cit pev kayo Ovynros, Lk 81! €or dé atty 4 rapafodrn (Jn 212
and 1 Jn 5! etc.). “Eortw here is simply the copula, mots being
the subject, and éAmfopevwv sméctacis the predicate. This turn
of phrase is common in Philo, who puts éo7ru first in descriptions
or definitions (e.g. Leg. Allegor. ill. 75, €oru 5& orevaypos apodpa
kat émiterapévn Av7n: Guod deus immut. 19, éotr O€ edxy pev
airno.s ayabGv rapa Geod xrr.). Needless difficulties have been
raised about what follows. ‘Yméetacis is to be understood in the
sense of 3/4 “une assurance certaine” (Ménégoz); “faith is a
sure confidence of thynges which are hoped for, and a certaynetie
of thynges which are not seyne” (Tyndale), the opposite of
trootéAn. In the parallel clause, mpdypatwv edeyxos ob BXetr0-
pévev (which in Attic Greek would have been dy ay ts pi dpa),
grammatically zpdaypatwv might go with éAmfouevey instead of
with BXetopevwv, for the sake of emphasis (so Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, von Soden, etc.); the sense would be unaffected,
but the balance of the rhythm would be upset. ”EXeyxos is used
in a fresh sense, as the subjective “conviction” (the English
word has acquired the same double sense as the Greek); as
Euthymius said, it is an equivalent for rpaypdtwv dopatwy wXnpo-
gopia (so syr arm eth). The writer could find no Greek term
for the idea, and therefore struck out a fresh application for
eXeyxos. As for eXLopévav . . . oF Bretropevwr (0 yap BAé€re Tus,
ri eAriler; ei 68 3 ob PrA€ropev EXrriLopev Ou iropovns aexdexdueOa,
Ro 84 25), the unseen realities of which faith is confident are
almost entirely in the future as promised by God, though, as the
sequel shows, 74 od BAerdépeva (e.g. vv.* 7 8 27) are not precisely
the same as ra éAmi{oueva. It cannot be too emphatically
pointed out that the writer did not mean to say: (a) that faith
gave substance or reality to unseen hopes, though this is the
interpretation of the Greek fathers (Chrysostom, for example,
argues: éeidy Ta ev eAridt dvuToctata elvat SoKet, 1) mlotis baé-
otacw avrois xapilerar’ padrdov dé od xapilerar GAN aitd éorw
ovoia avrév). When the writer declares that it is by faith we
understand that the world was created, he does not mean that
faith imparts reality to the creation; nor, when he says, eg., the
patriarchs lived in the expectation of a celestial Fatherland,
that they thereby made this more real to themselves. No doubt
this was true in a sense; but the author’s point is that just
because these objects of hope were real, because, e.g., God had
prepared for them a City, therefore they were justified in having
faith. It is faith as the reflex of eternal realities or rewards
promised by God which is fundamental in this chapter, the faith
by which a good man lives. (4) Similarly, faith is not the €\eyxos
of things unseen in the sense of “proof,” which could only mean

160 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (eRe aig

that it tests, or rather attests, their reality. The existence of
human faith no doubt proves that there is some unseen object
which calls it out, but the writer wishes to show, not the reality
of these unseen ends of God—he assumes these—but the fact
and force of believing in them with absolute confidence. Such
erroneous interpretations arise out of the notion that the writer
is giving an abstract definition of wiotts, whereas he is describing
it, in view of what follows, as an active conviction which moves
and moulds human conduct. The happiest description of it is,
“seeing Him who is invisible” (v.?’); and this idea is applied
widely ; sometimes it is belief in God as against the world and its
forces, particularly the forces of human injustice or of death,
sometimes belief in the spirit as against the senses, sometimes
again (and this is prominent in 115") belief in the future as
against the present.

In the papyri (e.g. in OP. ii. pp. 153, 176, where in the plural it=‘‘ the
whole body of documents bearing on the ownership of a person’s property...
deposited in the archives, and forming the evidence of ownership”) vméo-
Tao.s means occasionally the entire collection of title-deeds by which a man
establishes his right to some property (cp. Moulton in Manchester Theological
Essays, i. 174; Expositor, Dec. 1903, pp. 438f.); but while this might
suggest the metaphor, the metaphor means ‘“‘confident assurance.” The
original sense of substance or reality, as in the de Mundo, 4 (cvAABdnv 5é Trav
wy dépe pavtacudrwy Ta pév éore kar’ éugaow Ta dé Kad’ brécracw), survives
in Dante's interpretation (Paradzso, xxiv. 61f.). He quotes the words asa
definition of faith :

‘‘Fede é sustanzia di cose sperate,
ed argumento delle non parventi,”

adding that he understands this to be its ‘‘quidity” or essence. But the
notion that faith imparts a real existence to its object is read into the text.
Faith as irdoraots is ‘‘ realization” of the unseen, but ‘‘ realization” only in
our popular, psychological sense of the term. The legal or logical sense of
éXeyxos, as proof (in classical Greek and elsewhere, e.g. Jos. B/. iv. 5. 4,
iw & otr édeyxos Tis TOV KaTnyopoupévwy, ore Texunpiov) is out of place
here. The existence of human faith is in one sense a proof that an invisible
order exists, which can alone explain men acting as they do év mlore. But
the writer assumes that, and declares that mloris lives and moves in the
steady light of the unseen realities. The sense of ‘‘ test,” as in Epictetus,
iii. 10. 11 (€vOG8 6 d\eyxos Tod mpdypuaros, 4 doxyuacla Tod PidocoPpoirTos),
is as impossible here as that of ‘‘rebuke”; the force of mioris in 11°#
rests on its subjective sense as an inner conviction, which forms a motive for
human life, and this determines the meaning of brdcracis and é\eyxos as
applied to it in the introductory description.

This connexion of faith with the future is emphasized by
Philo in de Migratione Abrahamt, 9, commenting on Gn 12! yy
cot del€w. It is detEw, not decxvups, he points out—eis waprupiav
miotews qv eriotevoev Wyn Od, ovk ex TdV droTehecpdTor
erideckvupevn TO €vxdpiotov, GAN ex mpoddokias Tov peAdOvTwV

. vopicaca non Tapeivat TA pay TapdvTa Ova THY TOV trod xXO-

XI. 1-3.] FAITH AND CREATION 161

pevov BeBadryta. rictw [cp. He 1073], ayabdv rédXcov, &OXov
evpyta. Faith thus relies upon God’s promise and eagerly ex-
pects what is to come; indeed it lives for and in the future.
So our writer uses wiotts, almost as Paul used éAmis (psycho-
logically the two being often indistinguishable). Nor is this riéorts
a novelty in our religion (v.”), he adds, év tauty yap éuaptupyPnoay
(78) ot mpeoButepo. “Ev=81a (tavtns) as in 4° 616 9? ol; BY
Ts epaptupyon (v.*), paptupybévtes 81a THs miotews (v.%), OF
mpeoButepor (= ot mwarépes, 1!) never bears this exact sense else-
where in the NT, the nearest! parallel being Mt 152= Mk 73-5
(riv mapadoow tov mpecButepwv). Philo (de Adbrahamo 46),
indeed, noting that Abraham the man of faith is the first man
called zpeoBuvrepos in scripture (Gn 24!), reflects that this is
significant ; 6 yap aAnGeia mperBitepos ovK év pyKer xpovwv GAN év
eraweT@ kai Teheiw Biw Oewpetrar. Aged worldly people can only
be called longlived children, rov 6€ dpovycews Kal codias kai tis
mpos Gedv rictews épacevta Aéyou Tis Gv evdikws etvar mpeo Burepov.
But our author weaves no such fancies round the word, though
he probably understood the term in an honorific sense (cp.
Philo, a2 Sobrietate, 4, mpeaButepov . . . Tov yépws Kai Tins aévov
évonaler). For éuaptupy8yoav in this sense of getting a good
report, cp. B. Latyschev’s Juscript. Antiguae Orae Septent. i.
2126f euaprupydn Tovs trép pidias xwdvvous . . . tapaPodevcd-
pevos: Syl/. 36678 (i A.D.) Gpxiréxtovas paptupynfévras tro Tis
ocpvoratys [BovAyjs], and the instances quoted in Deissmann’s
Bible Studies (265).

Before describing the scriptural record of the mpecBurepou,
however, the writer pauses to point out the supreme proof of
miotis aS mpaypdtwy Eheyxos ob BdeTopevwy. The very world
within which they showed their faith and within which we are to
show our faith, was the outcome of what is invisible (v.°), and
this conviction itself is an act of faith. Micter voodpev (cp.
Ro 12°; “yoeiy is in Hellenistic Greek the current word for the
apprehension of the divine in nature,” A. T. Goodrick on Wis
134) katnyptiobat (of creation, Ps 7316 ob xarnpticw AAvov Kal
ceAyjvnv) Tods aidvas (17) pratt Oeod (the divine fiat here), eis
(with consecutive infinitive) 76 ph €x aivopevav Td BdeTdpevoy
yeyovévat (perfect of permanence). The py goes with dawopévor,
but is thrown before the preposition as, ¢g.,in Ac 1° ob pera
moAAas tavtas ypepas (according to a familiar classical con-
struction, Blass, § 433. 3).2. Faith always answers to revelation,

1W. Brandt (/idische Reinhettslehre und thre Beschreibung in den
Evangelien, 1910, pp. 2, 3) thinks that this expression might apply to the
more recent teachers as well as to the ancient authorities.

2In 2 Mac 7% ovk é& dvTwy émoijoev atta 6 Beds (A), the ov goes with
the verb.

II

162 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 1-3.

and creation is the first revelation of God to man. Creation by
the fiat of God was the orthodox doctrine of Judaism, and
anyone who read the OT would accept it as the one theory
about the origin of the world (cp. e.g. the description of God in
the Mechilta, 334, on Ex 143! etc. as “‘ He who spoke and the
world was,” priya mm joxw, and Apoc. Bar. 1417: “when of old
there was no world with its inhabitants, Thou didst devise and
speak with a word, and forthwith the works of creation stood
before Thee”). But the explicitness of this sentence about
creation out of what is invisible, suggests that the writer had
other views in mind, which he desired to repudiate. Possibly
Greek theories like those hinted at in Wis 10!” about the world!
being created e& dudpgdov vAns, or the statement in the de
aeternitate mundt, 2, where Philo declares é« rod py) dvros ovdey
yiverat, quoting Empedocles to this effect, though elsewhere Philo
does agree that the world was made out of nothing, as, e.g., in the
de Somnits, 1. 13 (6 Geos Ta Tavta yevvnoas ov povov eis TOUppaves
nyayey GAAG Kat & mpdtepov odk Hv éxoincev, od Syutoupyos povov
GANG Kal KTloTnS avTos wv, cp. also Apoc. Bar. 214: “O Thou

. that hast called from the beginning of the world that which
did not yet exist,” and Slav. En. 24?: “I will tell thee now what
things I created from the non-existent, and what visible things
from the invisible”). What the ph datvdueva were, our author
does not suggest. R. Akiba is said to have applied the words
of Ps 1o1’ to anyone who rashly speculated on the original
material of the world. Our author does not speculate; it is
very doubtful if he intends (Windisch, M‘Neill) to agree with
Philo’s idea (in the de ofificio Mundt, 16, de confus. ling. 34) of the
gavopevos otros Koopos being modelled on the dowparos xal
vonros or archetypal ideas, for the language of 8° is insufficient
to bear the weight of this inference.

To take eis TO... . yeyovévar as final, is a forced construction. The
phrase does not describe the motive of xarnprlc@a, and if the writer had
meant, ‘‘so that we might know the seen came from the unseen,” he would
have written this, instead of allowing the vital words mzght know to be
supplied.

The roll-call of the mpeoButepor (vv.4f) opens with Abel and
Enoch, two men who showed their wiocris before the deluge
(vv.4-6). One was murdered, the other, as the story went, never
died ; and the writer uses both tales to illustrate his point about
TLOTLS.

1LXX of Gn 1? 6¢ yj Fv ddparos Kal dxaracKevacros.

2 At an early period 7d Bderéduevov was altered into ra Prerdpeva
(DK L¥ 6. 104. 218. 326. 1288. r vg syr arm), to conform with the previous
plurals BXerouévwy and pawopévwr.

XI. 4.] THE FAITH OF ABEL 163

4 7t was by faith (rlore., the rhetorical anaphora repeated throughout the
section) that Abel offered God a richer sacrifice than Cain did, and thus (6
fis, sc. mlorews) won from God the record of being ‘‘ just,” on the score of
what he gave ; he died, but by his faith he ts speaking to us still, ° lt was
by faith that Enoch was taken to heaven, so that he never died (‘‘he was not
overtaken by death, for God had taken himaway”). For before he was taken to
heaven, his record was that ‘‘he had satisfied God”; ° and apart from faith it
zs impossible (adtvarov, sc. art) ‘‘ to satisfy him,” for the man who draws near
to God must believe that he extsts, and that he does reward those who seek him.

The faith of Abel and of Enoch is not tiotts éAmfopévwr,
which is not introduced till v.72. In 4 Mac 16” the illustrations
of steadfast faith are (2) Abraham sacrificing Isaac, (4) Daniel in
the den of lions, and (c) the three men in the fiery furnace; but
in 18f the list of noble sufferers includes (a) Abel, (4) Isaac,
(c) Joseph in prison, (Z) Phinehas, (e) the three men in the fiery
furnace, and (7) Daniel. Sirach’s eulogy of famous men in
Israel (44-50) has a wider sweep: Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Joshua, Caleb, the judges,
Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Josiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, the twelve prophets, Zerubbabel, Joshua
the son of Josedek, Nehemiah, and the highpriest Simon (f.e.
down to the second century B.c.).

The first illustration (v.*) is much less natural than most of
those that follow. In the story of Gn 4*°, émidev 6 Geds eri" ABeAr
Kal émt Tots Sépors adrod. But why God disregarded Cain’s sacri-
fice and preferred Abel’s, our author does not explain. Josephus
(Ant. i. 54) thought that an offering of milk and animals was
more acceptable to God as being natural (rots atroparois Kal kara
dvow yeyoveor) than Cain’s cereal offering, which was wrung out
of the ground by a covetous man; our author simply argues
that the zAcfwy Ovoia of Abel at the very dawn of history was
prompted by faith. He does not enter into the nature of this
metova (in sense of Mt 6° or Mk 12% % xypa atry 7 Trwx7
mAclov wavtwv BéBdyKev) Ouvotay wapd (as in 14) Kdiv, offered at
the first act of worship recorded in scripture. What seems to
be implied is that faith must inspire any worship that is to
be acceptable to God from anyone who is to be God’s
Sixatos (10°8). Josephus held that Abel dixacootvys éripedeiro,
the blood of “ABeA rod dixaiov is noted in Mt 23°, and the
Genesis-words ézidev 6 Oeds are here expanded by our author
into éwaptupyOn etvar Sixatos. Note the practical equivalence of
Sdpa and Ovoia, as already in 51 etc. There is nothing in IIpés
‘EBpaious like Philo’s effort (Quaest. in Gen. 4*) to distinguish
between Spa and 6vaias as follows: 6 pév Ovwy éridcaipel, TO pev
alpa TO Pwd tpoxéwv, TA dé Kpéa oixade Kopilwv' 6 d€ dwpovpevos
ddov Zouxe Tapaxwpely TG AapBadvovte 6 ev odv Pidavtos diavopeds
olos 6 Kaiv, 6 d€ piAdbeos Swpyrar olov 6 “APeA,

164 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XxI. 4.

Mdelova: of the conjectural emendations, IIIONA and HAIONA (Cobet,
Vollgraff), the latter is favoured by Justin’s reference in Dza/. 29 (evdéxnoe
yap kal els Ta €0vn, Kal Tas Ovolas Hdvov map juiv 7) map vuav AauBdver rls
otyv ere pol meptrous NOyos, bd Tod Oeov uaprupynOévri;), and is admitted into
the text by Baljon and Blass (so Maynard in 2x." vii. 164f., who infers
from paprupnbévre that Justin knew IIpds ‘Efpaious, the original text of the
latter being air@ rod Geod). In Demosth. Prooem. 23, jd:ov has been cor-
rupted into mAetov.

In what follows, (a) the original text (uaptupoivtos . . . atta
tod Qeo%) is preserved in p¥® Clem. (om. 7@ 6e@). (6) atrd then
became airov under the influence of the LXX, and ro 6eé was
inserted after tpoonveyxe to complete the sense (X° D° K L P
r vg syr boh arm Orig. Chrys. etc.). Finally, (¢) rot Geod became
assimilated to the preceding ro Oe@, and paprupotvros . . . avrov
TO Ged (N* A D* 33. 104. 326. 1311. 1836. eth) became current,
as though Abel witnessed to God, instead of God witnessing to
Abel. Thus after rpoojveyxe the Greek originally ran: 80 fs
épaptupyOny etvat Sikatos, papTupouvTos emt Tots Swpors AUTO Tod Oeod.
Then another application of the LXX wasadded. The phrase in
Gn 4! (wv aiparos tod adeApod cov Boa mpds pe) had already
suggested to Philo that Abel was in a sense still living (guod det.
potiort insid, soleat,14: 6” ABeA, 16 rapadogdratov, évypytal Te Kat
Cy* avypytar pev ek THS TOD appovos diavoias, C4 Se rHv ev Oew Lwnv
evdaipova’ paptupyoe Sé TO xpnobev Adytov, ev w “ pwvy” ypdpmevos
kal “ Boov” (Gen 41°) & wérovOev bird Kaxod cvvderov TnAavyds
cipioxerau TOs yap 6 wnKér dv diad€éyer Oar Suvards ;). Our author
takes a similar line here: kat 8 abrijs (Z.c. miotews) amobavay Eri
hadet. Even after death, Abel’s cry is represented as reaching
God, so Philo puts it (zd¢d. 20), C9 pev yap, as Kal mpdrepov Epyy, 6
reOvavat SoKar, €t ye Kal ixérys dy Oeod kai pov xpwpevos edpioxerat,
Only, it is not the fact that the cry was one for retribution (124)
which is stressed here, not the fact that his blood cried to God
after he died ; but, as AaAeiy is never used of speaking to God,
what the writer means to suggest (as in 3!5) is that Abel’s
faith still speaks to us (AaA€«?, not the historic present, but = in the
record). Not even in 12% does he adopt the idea of a divine
nemesis for the sufferings of the pious in past generations. He
does not represent the blood of martyrs like Abel as crying from
the ground for personal vengeance ; he has nothing of the spirit
which prompted the weird vision of the wronged souls under the
altar crying out for retribution (Rev 61°). “Er. Made? means, in a
general sense, that he is an eloquent, living witness to all ages
(so recently Seeberg). Primasius (“qui enim alios suo exemplo
admonet ut justi sint, quomodo non loquitur?”) and Chry-
sostom (rotro Kai tov Chv onpelov eat, Kal Tov mapa mavTwV
adeaOat, OavpdlerGar kat paxapiler Oa’ 6 yap Tapaivav Tots a&dAots
Sixatots etvac AaAe?) put this well. The witness is that rioris may

XI. 4, 5.] THE FAITH OF ENOCH 165

have to face the last extreme of death (12*), and that it is not
abandoned by God; dmo8avwy is never the last word upon a
Sikatos. Compare Tertullian’s argument from Abel, in De Scor-
piace, 8: “a primordio enim justitia vim patitur. Statim ut coli
Deus coepit, invidiam religio sortita est: qui Deo placuerat,
occiditur, et quidem a fratre; quo proclivius impietas alienum
sanguinem sectaretur, a suo auspicata est. Denique non modo
justorum, verum etiam et prophetarum.”

The difficulty of NaXe? led to the tame correction Aadetrac in D K L d eth,
etc. Aade?ra: as passive (=)éyerac) is nearly as impossible as middle ; to say
that Abel, even after death, is still spoken of, is a tepid idea. The writer of
Hebrews meant more than an immortal memory, more even than Epictetus
when he declared that by dying é7e é5e xal ws de one may do even more
good to men than he did in life, like Socrates (iv. 1. 169, kal viv Zwxpdrous
amodavévros ovbev Arrov 7) Kal mAElov WHEALLOS EoTLY aVOpwToLs |) YIN GY ere
fav erpakev 7} eliev).

The lots Evéx (vv.>®) is conveyed in an interpretation
of the LXX of Gn 5% kai einpéotncev “Evax 7G bed" Kat odx
nupiokero, didte peteOnkev aitov 6 Geos. The writer takes the two
clauses in reverse order. Enoch peteté@y tod (with infinitive of
result) ph iSetv Odvatov (Lk 27°) kat (“indeed,” introducing the
quotation) odx nbpicxeto (on this Attic augmented form, which
became rare in the xowy, see Thackeray, 200) 8idTt petéOnkev
adtév 6 Qeds, mpd yap (resuming wiore perereOy) THs petabéccws
pepaptupyntat (in the scripture record ; hence the perfect, which
here is practically aoristic) ednpeotnkévat TO Oeod (edvapeoreiy in its
ordinary Hellenistic sense of a servant giving satisfaction to his
master). For etptoxeo8ar=die (be overtaken or surprised by
death),! cp. Epict. ili 5. 5f., od« oldas dtu Kal vocos kal Odvaros
xataXa Beiv Tpas dpeidovoivy ti mote movodvTas; . . . epol pev yap
caranpOjvat yévouro pndevos adXov eripehoupevey 7} 7] THS Tpoaipéecews
THs euns... Tatra éritndevuov Oerw ebpeOivar: iv. 10. 12, dyads
by arobavy, yevvatay mpagw émteAGv. eel yap det ravTws eangave
avayKy Ti mote TrovowwrTa etpeOjvar . .°. Th ov OeAas ToLdv ebpeO Hvar
tro tod Oavarov; Here etpefnvac (with or without rod Pavdrov)
is a synonym for kataAnPOjvae or arofavetv, as in Ph 3° (cipeOS
év avT@).

Both Clem. Rom. (9?) and Origen, like Tertullian, appear to have read
ovx evpéOn atTrod Odvaros in Gn 5%; and Blass therefore reads here ovx
noploxer(o) avrotd Odvaros, especially as it suits his scheme of rhythm. This
is linguistically possible, as evpicxecOar=be (cp. Fr. se trouver), e.g. in Lk
1718, Ph 28. Meré@yxev was turned into the pluperfect wereréOnxev by x*
D° L 5. 203. 256. 257. 326. 337. 378. 383. 491. 506. 623. 1611, etc.

Traditions varied upon Enoch (£47. 1295a), and even Alex-
andrian Judaism did not always canonize him in this way. (a)

1 In Sifre Deut. 304, the angel of death sought Moses, but found him not
(ix¥D 87).

166 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI.5, 6

The author of Wis 4%, without mentioning his name, quotes
Gn 524 as if it meant that God removed Enoch from life early
(kai Cov peragd dpaprwrav pereTeOn) 1 in order to prevent him from
sharing the sin of his age (Hprayn, py Kaxia dd\AdEn civecw aidrod,
} S0Xr0s ararnon ine avtov); he departed young, but his
removal was a boon mercifully granted by God to his youthful
piety. (4) Philo views him in de Adbrahamo, 3 (cp. de praem.
3-4), as a type of perdvova. Quoting Gn 5*4 he points out that
peraGeois means a change for the better, and that ovx ytipicKero
is therefore appropriate, T@ Tov dpxatov Kat éridnrrov aradnr\ipbar
Blov Kat jAdavicOa Kat pyKxed ecipicxecOar, xabdarep ei pyde tiv
apxnv éyévero. The Greek version of Sir 441° echoes the same
tradition ("Evwx einpéotncey Kvupio Kai perereOn, dtroderypa
peravotas Tats yeveats), viz. that pereOyxevy implies the effacement
of Enoch’s blameable past, or at any rate that he was enrolled in
better company. Our author does not share this view. His
general deduction in v.® expands the description of wiotts in v.}.
To say that a man has satisfied God is to pronounce the highest
possible eulogy upon him, says Philo! (de Abrahamo, 6, “to Ged
ednpeorn oe” ob ti yévour ay év TH yioe KpelTTov ; TIS elaen vue.
evapyéotepos éXeyxos;), though he is referring to Noah, not to
Enoch. Our author explains that to satisfy God necessarily
implies riotis (v. 6) in the sense of 10%. [uotedoar yap det tov
TMpocepxopevov 7 GG (416 etc.) Sti Eotww (so pict. ili. 26. 15,
OTL Kal €oTL Kal Kaas duoixel Ta OA) Kal Tots éexlynTodow adtdv
prcBaodétns (cf. v.2 10%) yiverat. As for the first element of
belief, in the existence of God (ot cor), the early commentators,
from Chrysostom (drt éorw* od TO ti €or: cp. Tert. adv. Marc.
i. 17, “‘primo enim quaeritur an sit, et ita qualis sit ”) and Jerome
(on Is 61-7, in Anecdota Maredsolana, ill, 3. 110: ‘cumque idem
apostolus Paulus scribit in alio loco, Credere oportet accedentem
ad Deum quia est, non posuit quis et qualis sit debere cognosci,
sed tantum quod sit. Scimus enim esse Deum, scimusque quid
non sit; quid autem et qualis sit, scire non possumus ”) onwards,
emphasize the fact that it is God’s existence, not his nature,
which is the primary element of faith. Philo does declare that
the two main problems of enquiry are into God’s existence and
into his essence (de Monarch. i. 4-6), but our author takes the
more practical, religious line, and he does not suggest how faith in
1 Philo fancifully allegorizes the phrase in the de mutat. nomin. 4:
Pbelperar oy elkdrws 7d ye@des Kal Karadverat, Grav dros dU Sdwv 6 vods
edapeoreiv mpoéAntat Pew" omavioy 5é Kal 7rd yévos Kal bods evpiokdmevor,
TAHV ovK adtvaTov yevér Bau" dm hot dé 7d xpno dev ért Tod Evwx Ndy.ov 7d6d¢€°
e’npéatnce dé’ Evax T@ Oe@ Kal o'x eb plo Kero" ou yap <dy> oxepdperds Tis
eUpo. Tayabdv Totro; . . . odx evploxero 6 evapnorhoa stpbros TH dew, ws

av dymrou brapkxros wey dv, dmoxpumrouevos O¢ kal Thy els TabTd oUvodov Huds
dmod.dpdokwy, ered) Kal werareOjvac Aéyerat.

XI. 6, 7.] FAITH AND GOD 167

God’s existence is to be won or kept. When objectors asked
him why he believed in the existence of the gods, Marcus
Aurelius used to reply: zparov pév Kal der dparot ciow" Erevta
péevrot ovde THY Wuxi THY EuavTod Edpaxa Kal duws TYLw" oUTws odv
Kat Tous Geovs, €& dv THs Suvdpews adt@v ExdoToTE TeipHpat, ek
TovTwy Ott Te eict KatadapPdvw Kal aidotpar (xii. 28). We have
no such argument against atheism here; only the reminder that
faith does imply a belief in the existence of God—a reminder
which would appeal specially to those of the readers who had been
born outside Judaism. Belief in the existence of God is for our
author, however, one of the elementary principles of the Chris-
tian religion (61); the stress here falls on the second element,
kat... puoOamoddtns yiverar. When the Stoics spoke about
belief in the divine existence, they generally associated it with
belief in providence; both Seneca (Zf. xcv. 50, ‘‘primus est
deorum cultus deos credere . . . scire illos esse qui praesident
mundo, quia universa vi sua temperant, qui humani generis
tutelam gerunt interdum curiosi singulorum”) and Epictetus (e.g.
ii. 14. II, A€yovow of Prdcodor St. pabety det mpOrov TovTO, Gre
gore Oeds Kat mpovoel Tav dAwy: LEnchir. xxxi. 1, THs Tept Tovs Geors
eioeBeias icOw Ste 76 KUpimtatov éxeivd éotw plas imoAyWes TeEpi
abrav éxew as dvtwv Kal dioikovvTwv Ta GAa KaAGs Kal dikaiws) are
contemporary witnesses to this connexion of ideas, which, indeed,
is as old as Plato (Leges, go5d, dru pev yap Geot 7 cio Kal
avOpwrww éripedodvTat).

Tots éxLArodow adtév (for which p!8 P read the simple yrovow)
denotes, not philosophic enquiry, but the practical religious quest,
as in the OT (eg. Ac 1517, Ro 3). This is not Philo’s view,
e.g., in the Leg. Alleg. 3! ei d¢ Lytotca cipjoes Geov adydAor,
moAXois yap od epavépwoev éavrov, GAN’ dreAT Tiv orovdHy axpL
mavTos éaxov" eéapkel pévror mpos petovolay dyabav Kai yddov TO
fyreiv povov, det yap at emt ra KaAd dppat Kay Tod TéAovs aruxGou
Tovs xpwévous mpoevppaivovorv. But our author has a simpler
belief; he is sure that the quest of faith is always successful.
By God’s reward he means that the faith of man reaching out to
God is never left to itself, but met by a real satisfaction; God
proves its rewarder. Such faith is a conviction which illustrates
111, for the being of God is an unseen reality and his full reward
is at present to be hoped for.

A still more apt illustration of miotis as the éAeyxos mpdypatwv
od BXeropévwv which becomes a motive in human life, now occurs
in (v.7) the faith which Noah showed at the deluge when he
believed, against all appearances to the contrary, that he must
obey God’s order and build an ark, although it is true that in
this case the unseen was revealed and realized within the lifetime
of the 8Sixatos. Like Philo, our author passes from Enoch te

168 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 7.

Noah, although for a different reason. Philo ranks Noah as the
lover of God and virtue, next to Enoch the typical penitent (de
Abrah. 3, 5, ixétws TO petavevonKore TatTEL Kata TO EENS TOV OeopiArAT
kal ptAdperov); here both are grouped as examples of miotis.
Sirach (4417) also passes at once from Enoch to Noah the Bixatos.

7 Tt was by faith (riare:) that Noah, after being told by God (xpnuariobels,
8°, sc. mapa Tod Geod) of what was still unseen (Trav pundétw BdeTopévwy, 7.€.
the deluge), veverently (etaBnOels, cp. 5°) constructed (kareckevacey, as I P

3°°) an ark to save his household ; thus he condemned the world and became
hetr of the righteousness that follows faith.

The writer recalls, though he does not quote from, the story
of Gn 615%, Miorer goes closely with edAdBnels Kateckevacer,
and mepi tr. p. BXeTopevwr goes with xpnpatiobets (as Jos. Ant. iv.
102, éxpnpuatilero wept dv édciro), not with evAaPnGeis, which is not
a synonym for ¢oByGeis—the writer is at pains always to exclude
fear or dread from faith (cp. vv.?% 27). Ets cwrnpiav is to be
taken as = “‘to save alive” (Ac 2729 raca éAris tod owleo Oar Has,
2754 rovro yap mpos THs tuerépas owrnpias imdpxet). Av As (ze. by
the faith he thus exhibited; as both of the following clauses
depend on this, it cannot refer to the ark, which would suit only
the first) katékpwe tov kécpoy, where xaréxpivey corresponds to
what is probably the meaning of Wis 4! xaraxpwet d€ dixavos
Kapov tovs Cavras doeBets, though kapwv (= Garvey) is not the
point of Hebrews, which regards Noah’s action as shaming the
world, throwing its dark scepticism into relief against his own
shining faith in God (Josephus, in Avs. i. 75, puts it less
pointedly : 6 6 Geds rotrov pev THs Sixaroovvys HyaTyGE, Katedixale
& éxeivous); Kédopos here (as in y.*8) means sinful humanity,
almost in the sense so common in the Johannine vocabulary,
the koopos adoeBov of 2 P 25. Philo (de congressu erudit. 17)
notes that Noah was the first man in the OT to be specially
called (Gn 6) 8ixatos; but our author, who has already called
Abel and Noah dixatos, does not use this fact; he contents
himself with saying that tis kata mioti Sikacocuvns éyéveto KAnpo-
vopos, ze. he became entitled to, came into possession of, the
duxacoovvyn which is the outcome or property (kara xrA., as in
Hellenistic Greek, cp. Eph 11, a periphrasis for the possessive
genitive) of such faith as he showed. Axcxatoovvy here is the
state of one who is God’s dixatos (6 dékatos pov, 10°8). A vivid
description of Noah’s faith is given in Mark Rutherford’s novel,
The Deliverance, pp. 162, 163.

The faith of Abraham, as might be expected, receives more
attention than that of any other (cp. Ac 7%). It is described in
three phases (® 910. 17-19) ; the faith of his wife Sara is attached to
his (1!-!2), and a general statement about his immediate descend-

XI. 7-9. | THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 169

ants is interpolated (15-16) before the writer passes from the second
to the third phase. As in Sirach and Philo, Abraham follows
Noah. ‘‘Ten generations were there from Noah to Abraham,
to show how great was His longsuffering ; for all the generations
were provoking Him, till Abraham our father came and received
the reward of them all” (irke Adoth 53).

8 Tt was by faith that Abraham obeyed his call to go forth to a place
which he would recetve as an inheritance ; he went forth, although he did not
know where he was to go. * It was by faith that he ‘‘sojourned” in the
promised land, as in a foreign country, residing in tents, as did Isaac and
Jacob, who were co-heirs with him of the same promise ; 1 he was waiting for
the City with its fixed foundations, whose builder and maker ts God.

The first phase (v.8) is the call to leave Mesopotamia and
travel West, which is described in Gn 12!£, The writer does not
dwell, like Philo (de Abrahamo, 14), on the wrench of tearing
oneself from one’s home. But, as Philo says that Abraham
started dua TO KeAevoOjva, Our author begins with kadodpevos.
When the call came, he obeyed it—émpxouger éfehOeiv (epexegetic
infinitive), a reminiscence of Gn 12)4 kai elrev xvpwos To
"ABpap, “HéedOe . . . kal éropevOn ABpap xabdrep éAddyoev ata
kvpios. He went out from Mesopotamia, pi émortdépevos tod
épxetat, his faith being tested by this uncertainty. So Philo (de
Migr. Abrah. 9) notes the point of the future de€m in Gn 12;
it is eis paptupiay mictews ny eriotevoev 7D Wx Gew.

The insertion of 6 before xaXovmevos (A D 33. 256. 467. 1739. 2127 sah
Loh arm Thdt.) turns the phrase into an allusion to Abraham’s change of
name in Gn 17°, which is irrelevant to his earlier call to leave the far East.

The second phase (vv.® !) is the trial of patience. He did
not lose heart or hope, even when he did reach the country
appointed to him, although he had to wander up and down it as
a mere foreigner, eis (=év, Mk 1316, Ac 84) . . . ddXotpiay.
He found the land he had been promised still in the hands of
aliens, and yet he lived there, lived as an alien in his own
country! Mapwxyoev is the opposite of katwknoev (as in Gn 373),
and with a fine touch of paradox the writer therefore goes on to
describe Abraham as év oxnvats xatouxnoas, contented patiently
to lead a wandering, unsettled life. Such was all the “‘ residence”
he ever had! What sustained him was his tiotts (v.!9), his eager
outlook for the City, js texvitns Kat Syproupyds 6 Geds. Compare
the scholion on Lucian’s Jov. Trag. 38: ov d1 Gedy Kat Snprovpyov
6 etoeBys davevpyxas Aoyiopos Epopov Kal Texvitnv Tod TavTos
mpoeutperioev. Texvirys is not a LXX term, and only began to
be used of God in Alexandrian Judaism (e.g. in Wis 131). This
is the one place in the NT where it is applied to God; after-
wards (e.g. Did. 125; Diognetus, 72) it became more common.
Anptoupydés is equally unique as a NT term for God, but it occurs

170 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (XI. 9-12.

in 2 Mac 4}, and was used in classical literature frequently for a
subordinate deity (cp. Schermann, Zexte u. Untersuchungen,
xxxiv. 24. 23). In Apoc. Esdrae (ed. Tisch. 32) the phrase
occurs, 6 raoys THs KTicews Syurovpyos. Our author simply writes
texvitns kat Syproupyds as a rhetorical expression for maker or
creator (8?), without differentiating the one term from the other,
as “designer” and “constructor” (cp. Philo, gués rer. div. 27,
6 texvirys . . . Qvika Tov Kdopov ednusovpyer: de mut. nom. 4,
€Onxe TA TaVTA 6 yevVyoas Kal TexVLTEVoUS TaTHp, GoTE TO “ eyd eit
beds ods” toov éoti Ta “ eye eis Trounris Kal Snptoupyds”).

In % the writer adds a new touch (as if to suggest that
Abraham propagated his riots) in peta “loadk kat “laxéB 1—who
shared the same outlook—rtév ouykAnpovdpov (a Kowy, though
not a LXX, term for co-heir) tis éwayyeNtas tis adtis. Their
individual faith is noted later (vv.2? 21). In sketching his fine
mystical interpretation of Abraham’s hope, the author ignores
the fact that Jacob, according to Gn 33!" (éroince ait@ éxet
oixtas), did erect a permanent settlement for himself at Sukkoth.
His immediate interest is not in Isaac and Jacob but in
Abraham, and in the contrast of the tent-life with the stable,
settled existence in a city—the idea which recurs in 12”? 13},
It is a Philonic thought in germ, for Philo (Leg. Adleg. 37”)
declares that the land promised by God to Abraham is a 7oAts
dyaby Kal todd} Kal opddpa eddaiwwv, typifying the higher con-
templation of divine truth in which alone the soul is at home, or
that the soul lives for a while in the body as in a foreign land
(de Somniis, 151), till God in pity conducts it safe to pytpdodts or
immortality. The historical Abraham never dreamed of a 7éXts,
but our author imaginatively allegorizes the promised land once
more (cp. 4°£), this time as (12%) a celestial réAs or Jerusalem,
like Paul and the apocalyptists. According to later tradition
in Judaism, the celestial Jerusalem was shown in a vision to
Abraham at the scene of Gn 15%?! (Apoc. Bar. 44), or to Jacob at
Bethel (Beresh. rabba on Gn 281"). *EfeS€xeto yap—and this
showed the steady patience( 10°) and inward expectation (111) of
his faith—riy tods Gepedtous (rovs, because it was such foundations
that the tents lacked) éxoucay mékwv. No doubt there was some-
thing promised by God which Abraham expected and did get, in
this life; the writer admits that (61-5), But, in a deeper sense,
Abraham had yearnings for a higher, spiritual bliss, for heaven
as his true home. The fulfilment of the promise about his
family was not everything; indeed, his real faith was in an
unseen future order of being (111). However, the realization of
the one promise about Isaac (61815) suggests a passing word
upon the faith of Sara (v.11: 1),

1 According to Jubilees 19! Abraham lived to see Jacob’s manhood.

SE 11.) THE FAITH OF SARA 171

11 Jt was by faith that even (kal) Sara got strength to conceive, bearing a
son when she was past the age for tt—because she considered she could rely on
Him who gave the promise. 1* Thus a single man, though (kal raira) he was
physically impotent, had issue tn number ‘‘ like the stars in heaven, countless
as the sand on the seashore.”

This is the first instance of a woman’s faith recorded, and she
is a married woman. Paul (Ro 4!%) ignores any faith on her
part. Philo again praises Sarah, but not for her faith; it is her
loyalty and affection for her husband which he singles out for
commendation, particularly her magnanimity in the incident of
Gn 162 (de Abrahamo, 42-44). Our author declares that even
in spite of her physical condition (kai atth Edppa), she believed
God when he promised her a child. The allusion is to the tale
of Gn 1715-217, which the readers are assumed to know, with its
stress on the renewal of sexual functions in a woman of her age.
This is the point of xat airy, not “ mere woman that she was”
(Chrysostom, Oec., Bengel), nor “fin spite of her incredulity ”
(Bleek), nor “Sara likewise,” z.e. as well as Abraham (Delitzsch,
Hofmann, von Soden, Vaughan), owing to her close connexion
with Abraham (Westcott, Seeberg), though the notion of “ like-
wise” is not excluded from the author’s meaning, since the
husband also was an old man. A gloss (o7eipa, 7 oTetpa, 7
oreipa ovoa) was soon inserted by D* P, nearly all the versions,
and Origen. This is superfluous, however, and probably arose
from dittography (ESAPPAZTEIPA). The general idea is plain,
though there is a difficulty in 8dvapiw eXaBey (ze. from God)
eis KataBodhy oméppatos=eis TO KataPdddrAcofar orépma, Ze. for
Abraham the male to do the work of generation upon her. This
is how the text was understood in the versions, e.g. the Latin (“in
conceptionem seminis”). Probably it was what the writer meant,
though the expression is rather awkward, for xaraBoA} oréppatos
means the act of the male; eis trodoxijv oréppatos would have
been the correct words. This has been overcome (a) by omit-
ting kat adty Zdppa as a gloss, or (4) by reading adrf Ldppa.
(a) certainly clears up the verse, leaving Abraham as the subject
of both verses (so Field in JVotes on Transl. of NT, p. 232, and
Windisch) ; (4) is read by Michaelis, Storr, Rendall, Hort, and
Riggenbach, the latter interpreting it not as “ dativus commodi,”
but=“‘along with.” If the ordinary text is retained, the idea
suggested in xati airy Sdppa is made explicit in mapa katpov
fAtkias. What rendered such faith hard for her was her physical
condition. Philo (de Adrah. 22) applies this to both parents
(ndn yap trepyAtKes yeyovores dua pakpov ynpas dréyvwoav ma.dds
omopav), and a woman in the period of life described in Gn 1811-12
is called by Josephus yvvavoy tiv HAckiav 7dn tpoBeBAnKOs (Ant.
vi. 8. 4).

172 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XxI. 11, 12.

His 7d rexvOoa (D* P 69. 436. 462. 1245. 1288. 2005 syrb*!) after AaBev
is a harmless gloss. The addition of érexey (x° K L P lat arm) after 7Acklas
was made when the force of cal (=even) before rapa xatpbv was missed.

Niotév Hyyhoato Tov émayyeAdpevoy (10%) is an assertion which
shows that the author ignores her sceptical laughter in Gn 1812;
he does not hesitate (cp. v.2”) to deal freely with the ancient
story in order to make his point, and indeed ignores the equally
sceptical attitude of Abraham himself (Gn 171”). To be mortdgs
in this connexion is to be true to one’s word, as Cicero observes
in the de Officiis (i. 7: “‘fundamentum autem justitiae fides, id
est dictorum conventorumque constantia et veritas”). The
promise was fulfilled in this life, so that Sara’s faith resembles
that of Noah (v.”). The fulfilment is described in v.!*, where,
after 86 Kai dp’ évdg (ze. Abraham),! éyevrnPyoov (ps xs LY
1739, etc.) is read by some authorities for éyevyOycav (A D K P
etc.), though the latter suits the do in a¢’ évdés rather better.
In either case something like réxva must be understood. °*Aq’
évés is resumed in kai tadta (a v./. in 1 Co 68 for the less
common xal Tovro) vevexpwyévou (in the sense of Ro 4%).
Gen. r. on Gn 25! applies Job 147 to Abraham, but the plain
sense is given in Augustine’s comment ( C7v#t. Dez, xvi. 28): ‘sicut
aiunt, qui scripserunt interpretationes nominum Hebraeorum,
quae his sacris literis continentur, Sara interpretatur princeps mea,
Sarra autem uirtus. Unde scriptum est in epistula ad Hebraeos :
Fide et ipsa Sarra uirtutem accepit ad emissionem seminis.
Ambo enim seniores erant, sicut scriptura testatur; sed illa
etiam sterilis et cruore menstruo iam destituta, propter quod
iam parere non posset, etiam si sterilis non fuisset. Porro si
femina sit prouectioris aetatis, ut ei solita mulierum adhuc
fluant, de iuuene parere potest, de seniore non potest; quamuis
adhuc possit ille senior, sed de adulescentula gignere, sicut
Abraham post mortem Sarrae de Cettura potuit [Gn 251], quia
uiuidam eius inuenit aetatem. Hoc ergo est, quod mirum
commendat apostolus, et ad hoc dicit Abrahae iam fuisse corpus
emortuum, quoniam non ex omni femina, cui adhuc esset
aliquod pariendi tempus extremum, generare ipse in illa aetate
adhuc posset.” This elucidates He 111%, In what follows,
the author is quoting from the divine promise in Gn 22", a
passage much used in later Jewish literature,? though this is the
only full allusion to it in the NT (cf. Ro 97”).

Before passing to the third phase of Abraham’s faith, the
writer adds (vv.}%16) a general reflection on the faith of the
patriarchs, an application of vv.® 1”, There were promises which

1Ts 517 éuBréWare els’ ABpadu rov warépa tuov .. . dre els Fv.

2 The comparison of a vast number to stars and sands is common in Greek
and Latin literature ; cp. ¢.g. Pindar’s Olymp. 2°°, and Catullus, 61°",

XI. 13.]} THE FAITH OF THE PATRIARCHS 173

could not be fulfilled in the present life, and this aspect of faith
is now presented.

13 (These all died in faith without obtaining the promises 3 they only
saw them far away and hailed them, owning they were “strangers and
exiles” upon earth. ‘4 Now people who speak in this way plainly show they
are in search of a fatherland. © If they thought of the land they have left
behind, they would have time to go back, ® but they really aspire to the better
land in heaven. That is why God ts not ashamed to be called their God ; he
has prepared a City for them.)

Oéto. mdvtes (those first mentioned in *!%, particularly the
three patriarchs) died as well as lived xara aiotwv, which is
substituted here for wiorec either as a literary variety of ex-
pression, or in order to suggest wioris as the sphere and standard
of their characters. The writer argues that the patriarchs
already possessed a iors in eternal life beyond the grave;
their very language proves that. M kopicdpevor explains the
mtotis in which they died; this is the force of yy. All they had
was a far-off vision of what had been promised them, but a
vision which produced in them a glad belief—i8évtes kai domacd-
pevot, the latter ptc. meaning that they hailed the prospect with
delight, sure that it was no mirage. The verb here is less meta-
phorical than, ¢.g., in Musonius (ed. Hense), vi. : Thy be Civ « as
Tov ayabév péyirtov adoralou.ea, or Philo Gane ouv aperas Kal
doracat Wuy7 TH ceavTod, guis rer. div. heres, 8). Two interesting
classical parallels may be cited, from Euripides (on, 585-587:

ov Tavrov «dos daiverat TOV TpayyaTwv

mpocwley ovtwv eyyvev & dpwpevur.

eyo S& THv pev ovpdopay aoralopar)
and Vergil (Aen. 3° “Italiam laeto socii clamore salutant”),
Chrysostom prettily but needlessly urges that the whole metaphor
is nautical (ray hedvtwv Kal Toppwbev épavrwv Tas moAes Tas
Tofoupevas, as mpw 7 eloeAbety cis aitas TH tpocpyoea AaBovres
avras oiKeLovvTat).

Kouicdpevor (p® x* P W 33, etc.) is more likely to be original than a con-
formation to 10° 1159; the sense is unaffected if we read the more common
aBdrres (R° DK LW 6, 104. 1739, Orig.), The reading of A arm (rpocdeéd-
mevot) makes no sense.

Kai épodoyjaartes, for to reside abroad carried with it a
certain stigma, according to ancient opinion (cp. e.g. Ep.
Aristeae, 249, kadov ev idia kai Cyv kai teXevTav. 7 8 Eevia Tots
pev meno. Katadpovyoww epydlerat, trois 8& movotors OvELOos, ws
dua Kakiav éexrertwxoow: Sir 29228 etc.). The admission, 81
tévor kal mapemiSnpol elow emt yfs, is a generalization from the
Oriental deprecation of Jacob in Gn 47° (etrev “IaxoB 7d Bapad,
ai nuepar Tav erwyv THS CwHs ov Gs mapotx® xrA.), and the similar
confession of Abraham in Gn 23% to the sons of Heth, zaporkos

174 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 18.

Kal maperionuos ey eit pel tuav. The emi yjs is a homiletic
touch, as in Ps 119!° (rdpoukos ei €v TH yn)» In both cases this
dpodroyia THs éAridos (107) is made before outsiders, and the
words émi trys yns Start the inference (vv.1416) that the true home
of these confessors was in heaven. Such a mystical significance
of éévor kal mapemiSypor, which had already been voiced in the
psalter, is richly and romantically developed by Philo, but it never
became prominent in primitive Christianity. Paul’s nearest
approach to it is worded differently (Phil 37°, where 76 zoAtrevpa
corresponds to watpis here). In Eph 2!%-!9, indeed, Christians are
no longer &€vou cat waporxor, for these terms are applied literally
to pagans out of connexion with the chosen People of God. The
only parallel to the thought of Hebrews is in 1 P, where Christians
are wapemionot (11) and rapoiko. kal maperdypor (2), The term
ێvoris used here as a synonym for wdpotkor, which (cp. Eph 2!*- 19)
would be specially intelligible to Gentile Christians. Iapemi-
dynos only occurs in the LXX in Gn 234, Ps 39!8; in the
Egyptian papyri zaper.dnpotvres (consistentes) denotes foreigners
who settled and acquired a domicile in townships or cities like
Alexandria (GCP. 1. 40, 55; cp. A. Peyron’s Papyri graect R.
Taur. Muset Aegyptit, 8% rév rapemidnpotvtwv kai [Ka |roukovvtwv
ev] [rlavra[s] Eévwv), and for gévo.=peregrini, Zp. Arist. 109 f.
The use of such metaphorical terms became fairly common in
the moral vocabulary of the age, quite apart from the OT, eg.
Marcus Aurelius, ii. 17 (6 dé Bids wéAenos Kai Eévov éridypia) A
similar symbolism recurs in the argument of Epictetus (ii. 23, 36f.)
against the prevalent idea that logic, style, and eloquence are the
end of philosophy: otov et tis amv eis thy Tratpida tTHy éavTod
Kal Ovodevwv TavooKeiov KaAOV apécavTos av’TO TOV TavdoKelov KaTa-
peévor ev TO TravOoKeiw. avOpwre, ereAaov cov THs mpofécews’ odk eis
TovTO wMdeves, GAG Oia TOUTOV . . . TO SE mpoKeipevov exelvo* eis THY
matpioa éraveAGetv. In a more specifically religious sense, it is
expressed in the saying of Anaxagoras quoted by Diogenes
Laertius (ii. 3. 7, mpos Tov eirdvta, “ ovdév cor péAer THS matpidos,”
“eddy” epy, “ewor yap Kal opddpa péAe THS Tatpidos,” delfas
tov ovpavev). According to Philo, the confession that they were
strangers and pilgrims meant that the soul in this world longed
to return to its pre-existent state in the eternal order, and could
never feel at home among things material. So, e.g., de confus.
ling. 17, 5a rodvro of Kata Mwvojnv codot ravtes eiodyovrat ‘ rapot-
Koowvtes” al yap Tovtwy Woxal oréANovTaL pev aroukiav ovdérore THY
e€ ovpavod, eidfacr Sé Eevexa Tod PtAobedpovos Kai diAopabors
eis THY meplyctov pvow arodnmely . . . emavepxovTat exetoe TaALY,
dOev HpynOnoavy To mpOtov, mwatpida pev Tov ovpaviov x@pov ev w
moAtrevovTat, Sévnv S€ TOV TEpiyeLov ev @ TapwKnoav vouilovaat KTH.
In Cherub. 33, 34, commenting on waporxor in Lv 257%, he argues

XI. 13-15. ] THE FAITH OF THE PATRIARCHS 175

that this is the real position of all wise souls towards God, since
each of us is a stranger and sojourner in the foreign city of the
world where God has for a time placed us till we return to Him.

The metaphor had been applied, in a derogatory sense, by Sallust to the
lazy and sensual men who never know what real life means, but who pass
through it heedlessly: ‘‘many human beings, given over to sensuality and

sloth (‘ ventri atque somno’), uneducated, and uncultured, have gone through
life like travellers” (‘‘ vitam sicuti peregrinantes transiere,” Catz/. 2).

Such a confession proves (v.!) that the men in question are
not satisfied with the present outward order of things ; éugavi-
fouow (Esth 222 cai adri évepavurey TO Bacrret Ta THs éExtBovdArs :
Ac 235, OGJS. (iii A.D.) 42°, Syll. 226° rv te rapovotay éudavi-
gavtwv tov Bacidews), they thus avow or affirm, 6m matpidsa
émfntodow (Valckenaer’s conjecture, éru fyrotvoer, is ingenious but
needless, cp. 13!*). For métpts in a mystical sense, compare Philo,
de Agric. 14, commenting on Gn 474): 7@ yap 6vtt waca Wuyi)
gopod matpida pev ovpavov, Sévnv dé ynv Edaxe, Kat vopiler Tov
pev codias otkov idiov, Tov 5& cwpatos dOvetov, @ Kai Tapemdnpety
olerat. Here it is ‘“‘heaven, the heart’s true home.” The
creditable feature in this kind of life was that these men had
deliberately chosen it.1 Had they liked, they might have taken
another and a less exacting line (v.1°). Ei peév (as in 84) épyy-
pévevoy (referring to the continuous past) xrA. The pvqpovevovow
of x* D* was due to the influence of the preceding presents,
just as éuvnpovevoay (33. 104. 216 Cosm.) to the influence of
é€éBynoav, which in turn was smoothed out into the usual NT
term é&\Oov (XS DK LW 436. gig. 1288. 1739). Mvnpovevew
here has the sense of “giving a thought to,” as in Jos. Amz. vi.
37, ovre tpodis éuvnpovevoey ovG Urvov, and below in v.4. Time
(as Ac 2475), as elsewhere in Hebrews, rather than opportunity
(1 Mac 15% jets S€ Karpov Exovtes avTexopea THs KAnpovopuias
npav Kal Tov Tatépwv yuov), is the idea of etxov Gv Katpov, katpos
taking an infinitive évaxdépat (so Codex A in Jg 11°° Kai dvexa-
pabev mpos Tov marépa avrys, for the dwéorpepev of B), as in Eurip.
Rhesus, 10 (kaipos yap axodoat).

Philo remarks of Abraham: tis 8 ovx dv perarpamduevos tahwipdunoev

oikade, Bpaxéa ev ppovricas Trav wehovoeGy éEAridwy, Thy 5€ mapotcay droplay
orevowy éxpuyeiv (de Abrahamo, 18).

‘Sometimes he wished his aims had been
To gather gain like other men;
Then thanked his God he’d traced his track
Too far for wish to drag him back.”
(THomas Harpy, 7he Two Men.)

On the contrary (v.16), so far from that, they held on, the writer

1Cp. Zest. Job xxxiii. (otrw kayo ipynoduny 7a eva, avr’ obdévos mpés
éxelvnv Thy wédw wepl 7s NeAGANKEV pot O GyyeNos).

176 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 16, 17.

adds ; viv 8€ (logical, as in 8°, not temporal) xpeitrovos épéyorrat,
rodT €otw émoupaviou (so God is described in 2 Mac 3°° as 6 ri
Katokiay émoupaviov éxwv). Ard obk émaroxuverar (Compare 21)
abtods 6 Oeds “ Oeds” emxadetoGar (epexegetic infinitive) “ adtay,”
referring to Ex 3°, Eyo eiye . . . Geds "ABpadp Kai Oeds “Ioadk Kat
eds “IaxwB, which the writer! interprets (cp. Mk 1226-27) as an
assurance of immortality. Their hope of a zarpis or heavenly
home was no illusion; it was because God had such a zoXts
(v.10) all ready for them that he could call himself their God.
He might have been ashamed to call himself such, had he not
made this provision for their needs and prepared this reward for
their faith (jrofuacev, cp. Mt 23%4).

The third phase of the faith of Abraham (vv.!7-!) is now
chronicled, followed by three instances of faith at the end of
life, in Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (vv.?0-22).

17 Tt was by faith (wiore), “when Abraham was put to the test, that he

sacrificed Isaac” ; he was ready to sacrifice *‘ his only son,” although he had
received the promises, 18 and had been told (rpds bv, as 5°) that (Sr recitative)
‘tt ts through Isaac (not Ishmael) that your offspring shall be reckoned” —
19 for he considered God was able even to raise men from the dead. Hence
(S0ev, causal) he did get him back, by what was a parable of the resurrection.
Tt was by faith that [saac blessed Jacob and Esau tin connection with the
future. Tt was by faith that, when Jacob was dying (atobvicKkwy), he
blessed each of the sons of Joseph, ‘‘ bending in prayer over the head of his
staff.” ™ It was by faith that Joseph at his end (redevrGv only here) thought
about the exodus of the sons of Israel, and gave orders about his own bones.

The supreme test of Abraham’s ziorts is found in the story
of Gn 221-18, which Jewish tradition always reckoned as the last
and sorest of his ten trials (Prrke Adoth 5%). It is cited in
4 Mac 1618-20 as a classical example of tropovn (ddpeirere ravra
movov vmropneve Sua tov Oedv, dv bv Kal 6 rarip yudv “ABpaap
éomevdev Tov eOvoraropa viov opayiacat Ioadx« xtA.). In v.17 the
perfect tense mpocevjvoxey may mean ‘‘the ideally accomplished
sacrifice, as permanently recorded in scripture” (Moulton, so
Diat. 2751); but it is more likely to be aoristic (cp. Simcox,
Lang. of NNT., pp. 104, 126). Netpaldpevos echoes Gn 22! (6
Oeds éreipaley tov ’ABpady). Kat Kepexeeeuc) Tov povoyera (a
Lucan use of the term in the NT)? mpocépepev (conative i imper-
fect of interrupted action, like é«dAovv in Lk 159) 6 tas émayye-
Alas dvadeEdpevos, z.¢. the promises of a son, of a numerous line
of descendants (v.}2), and of a blessing thus coming to all nations.

1 Origen (Joh. ii. 17): meydrn yap Swped rots mar pid pxaes TO Tov Oedy avr
évéuatos mpocdwat Thy éxelywy dvouaclay TH >Oeds< ldla avrod mpoonyopia.

2The LXX of Gn 22? reads rév dyarnrév, but perhaps the ar of IIpds
‘EBpalous read a text es that underlying Aquila (rdv povoyevq), Josephus
(rov povoyera, Ant. i. 3. 1), and Symmachus (rov pédvor). Movoyevts and
d-yamnrés, as applied to a son, tended to shade into one another. Philo reads
ayamnrods Kal wbvos (guod deus tmmut. 4, etc.).

XI. 18, 19.] ABRAHAM AND ISAAC 177

This is made explicit in v.18, with its quotation from Gn 21?%,
For dvadéyouac in the sense of ‘‘secure,” see the line from
Sophocles’ “ Ichneutae,” in Oxyrh. Papyrt, vii. 25 (ov BotBos iptv
elre x(a |vedeEaro).

In v.19 Noytodpevos (as Ro 8!8 etc.) explains why he had the
courage to sacrifice Isaac, although the action seemed certain to
wreck the fulfilment of what God had promised him. He held
étt kal ex vexp@v éyelpew (weakened into éyetpac by A P, etc.)
Suvatds (Dan 3)" ds éore Suvards e€ehéeoGau Has xtr., and Ro 41)
sc. €otw 6 Oeds. Abraham, says Philo (de Abrahamo, 22), wavta
noe Ged dvvata oxeddv e& Ett orrapyavewv Tovti 76 ddypa tpopaboica.
Later (32) he speaks of this sacrifice as the most outstanding
action in Abraham’s life—édAiyou yap dé gpdvac macas doat
Geodircts trepBdAXe. It was “a complicated and brilliant act of
faith” (A. B. Davidson), for God seemed to contradict God,
and the command ran counter to the highest human affection
(Wis 10° codia. .. emt tékvov orAdyxvois iaxupov epvdagev). As
Chrysostom put it, this was the special trial, ta yap rod Oeod
€ddket TOIs TOD Heod paxerOar, kai riotis euaxeTo TioTEL, Kal Tpdc-
Taypa érayyeAia. Hence (6@ev, in return for this superb faith)
éxopicato, he did recover him (xopileoOar, as in Gn 38”? etc., of
getting back what belongs to you),! in a way that prefigured the
resurrection (kpeitrovos dvaotdcews, v.*>). Such is the meaning
of év mapaBodq (cp. 9°). Isaac’s restoration was to Abraham a
sort? of resurrection (v.%5* ‘‘ quaedam resurrectionis fuit species,
quod subito liberatus fuit ex media morte,” Calvin). ’Ev zapa-
Body has been taken sometimes in two other ways. (a)=zapa-
Bodas, ze. beyond all expectation, almost zapadcéws, zap’
éArida(s), Or in a desperate peril, as Polybius says of Hannibal
(i. 23. 7, dveAriotws Kal rapafddws airos ev TH oxady diepvye).
This is at any rate less far-fetched than—(é) “whence he had
originally got him, figuratively-speaking,” as if the allusion was
to vevexpwyévov (in y.!2)! Against (a) is the fact that tapaBory
never occurs in this sense.

Augustine’s comment is (Czvzt, Dez, xvi. 32): ‘‘non haesitauit, quod sibi
reddi poterat immolatus, qui dari potuit non speratus. Sic intellectum est
et in epistula ad Hebraeos, et sic expositum [He 1117-19] . . . cuius simili-
tudinem, nisi illius unde dicit apostolus: Qui proprio filio non pepercit, sed
pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum?” He makes Isaac carrying the wood a type
of Christ carrying his cross, and the ram caught in the thicket typical of
Christ crowned with thorns. According to the later Jewish tradition (Pirge
R. Eliezer, 31), Isaac’s soul, which had left his body as his father’s sword

1 Josephus (Azz. i. 13. 4) describes the father and son as map éAridas
éavrovs Kekouicuévot. Philo (de Josepho, 35, 7d koulcacba Tov ddedpédv) has
the same usage.

2 Aelian (Var. Hist. ili. 33) speaks of Satyrus the flautist, rpérov twa
Thy TéexvnY Exparrifwr mapaBodry Ty pds Pirocodlay.

12

178 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 19-22.

was falling, returned at the words, ‘‘ Lay not thy hand on the lad”; thus
Abraham and Isaac ‘‘ learned that God would raise the dead.”

The next three instances are of mlotts as brdcructs eAmilopevuw,
the hope being one to be realized in the destiny of the race
(vv.20-22),

The solitary instance of miotis in Isaac (v.2°) is that men-
tioned in Gn 2728: 2% 89. 40, q faith which (11!) anticipated a future
for his two sons. EdAdynoev, of one man blessing another, as in
7 In kat mept peAddvtwr (sc. tpayudrwv), where pédAXev refers
to a future in this world, the xaé simply! emphasizes epi ped-
Advrwv ebdAédynoev, and the whole phrase goes with edAdyncer,
not with wiore. The very fact that he blessed his two sons
proved that he believed the divine promises to them would be
realized in the future. The next two instances of faith are taken
from death-beds ; it is faith, not in personal immortality, but in
the continuance of the chosen race. In v.?! the writer quotes
from Gn 47°! Kat mpocextvycev “Iopand emi TO akpov THs padov
airov, where the LXX by mistake has read Aw (staff) instead
of mwa (bed), and the incident is loosely transferred to the later

situation (Gn 48%), when Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph.
Supporting himself on? his staff, he bowed reverently before
God, as he blessed the lads. (In the Ep. Barnabas 13% 6, the
writer interprets Jacob’s preference for the younger son as a
proof that Christians, not Jews, were the real heirs of God’s
blessing!) In v.?2 the argument draws upon Gn 50775 (Ex
1319, Jos 24°2), where Joseph makes the Israelites swear to
remove his remains from Egypt to the promised land, so con-
fident was he that God’s promise to the people would one day
be fulfilled. TeNeutdv (Gn 5076 kai éreAcdtynocev “Iwondh) mept Tis
é§d8ou (only here in this sense in NT) tév vidv “lopah\ épynpoveuce
(called to mind, as v.15) kat wept tOv édotéwy (uncontracted form
as in LXX and Mt 2327, Lk 2499; cp. Cronert, Mem. Graeca
Flercul. 166*) adtod éverethato. Joseph’s faith also was shown in
nis conviction of the future promised by God to Israel, but it
found a practical expression in the instructions about conveying
his mummy out of Egypt (Sir 4918 kai ra. 607a adrov éreckéryoar).

The ninth example of miotts is Moses, of whom almost as
much is made as of Abraham. Five instances of faith are
mentioned in connexion with his career (vv.?%-29),

% Tt was by faith that Moses was ‘‘ hidden for three months” (rplunvor,
sc. xpévov) after birth by his parents, because ‘‘ they saw” the child was

1To suggest that it means “‘even” is flat for a blessing, ex hypothest,
referred to the future. Its omission (by 8 K L P, the eastern versions, etc.)
is more easily explained than its insertion.

21 K 147 mpocextvnoev 6 Baciheds éml tiv Koirny, él has the same local
sense.

XI. 23, 24.] THE FAITH OF MOSES 179

“* beautiful” (Ac 7°), and had no fear of the royal decree, ™ It was by faith
that Moses refused, ‘‘when he had grown up,” to be called the son of Pharaoh’s
daughter; » cll-treatment with God’s people he preferred to the passing
pleasures of sin, * considering obloguy with the messiah to be richer wealth
than all Egypt's treasures—for he had an eye to the Reward. ™ Jt was by
faith that he left Egypt, not from any fear of the king’s wrath ; like one
who saw the King /nvistble, he never flinched. * [t was by fatth that he
celebrated ‘‘ the passover” and performed the sprinkling by blood, so that ‘‘ the
destroying angel” (cf. 1 Co 10") might not touch Israel’s firstborn. ™ It was
by faith that they crossed the Red Sea (Ac 7**) like dry land—and when the
Egyptians attempted it, they were drowned.

Moses (v.”*) owed the preservation of his life as an infant to
the courageous miotts of his parents (watépwv = yoveis, parentes,
like patres in Ovid’s Metam. 4°, and Plato’s Leges, vi. 772 E,
ayabav watépwv divi). The writer quotes from Ex 2? 8, adding
that, as the result of their faith, they had no fear of the royal
edict (diaraypa as in Jos. Ant. xvi. 16.5; Wis 11’ etc.). This is
the main point of their wioris. On doretov see Philo’s vit. Mos.
i. 3: yevvnbeis ody 6 rats edOds ow évépawev dorelorépay 7) Kat
idvoTnV, Os Kal TOV TOD TUpavVOU KypYypaTwY, eh dooV oloV TE HY,
Tovs yovets doynoat). The Hebrew text makes the mother act
alone, but the LXX gives the credit to both parents; and this
tradition is followed by Philo and Josephus (Azz. ii. 9. 4), as by
our author.

The parents of Moses are the first anonymous people in the roll-call of
faith’s representatives. Calvin rather severely ranks their faith on a lower
level, because the parents of Moses were moved by the external appearance
of their child, and because they ought to have brought him up themselves
(‘‘notandum est fidem quae hic laudatur ualde fuisse imbecillam. Nam
quum posthabito mortis suae metu Mosen deberent educare, eum exponunt.
Patet igitur illorum fidem breui non tantum uacillasse sed fuisse collapsam ”).
Still, he reflects that this is after all an encouragement, since it proves that
even weak faith is not despised by God. Chrysostom’s comment is kinder ;
the writer, he thinks, means to afford additional encouragement to his
readers by adducing not only heroes, but commonplace people as examples
of faith (dojuwy, dvwripwr).

Another (7?) gloss has been inserted here, after v.4, by D* 1827 and
nearly all the MSS of the Latin versions, viz. rlorec uéyas yevduevos Mwvotjs
dvet\ev Tov Alyimrioy Karavody rhv Tatelywow Tay adeXpay av’rov, a homi-
letical application of Ex 24:1? (used in Ac 775),

The second item of faith (v.*4) is the first individual proof by
Moses himself. Josephus (Azz. il. 9. 7) makes Moses refuse the
Pharaoh’s crown when a baby. The Pharaoh’s daughter placed
the child in her father’s arms; he took it, pressed it to his
bosom, and to please his daughter graciously put the crown upon
its head. But the child threw it to the ground and stamped on
it. Which seemed ominous to the king! The writer of Hebrews
avoids such fancies, and simply summarizes Ex 2, where
Moses péyas yevdpevos (from Ex 2"; ze, as Calvin points out,
when his refusal could not be set down to childish ignorance

180 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 24-26.

of the world, nor to youthful impetuousness) jpyyoato (with
infinitive as in Wis 1227 1616 1710) \éyeoOar vids Ouyatpis dapad.
His religious motive in declining the title and position of son to
an Egyptian princess (Jub 47%) is now given (v.?°); jéAXov
éddpevos (for the construction and idea, cp. OGZS. 669! padXov
Thy TOV TpoTepwv erapywv aiwviov ovvyGeay pvrtdcowy <u> TiHV
TpocKatpov Tivos GOLKiav pElULNnodpevos) TuykaKouxetoOar (a new
compound, unknown to the LXX) 76 Aa@ tod Ge0d 4 mpdcKapov (a
non-LXX term! which first occurs in 4 Mac 15%: 8 73, and passed
into the early Christian vocabulary as an antithesis to aisyvcos)
éxew Gpaptias amddavow. The duaptia is the sin which he
would have committed in proving disloyal to the People of God ;
that might have been pleasant for the time being, but mtotis
looks to higher and lasting issues (10% 111). It would have
been “sin” for him to choose a high political career at court,
the “sin” of apostasy ; he did what others in their own way had
done afterwards (10%, cp. 13°).

For amédavois see Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. F/orzleg. Ixvii. 25): tov &
H0cov <Blov>, efovolay diddvTa mpods dxodaclay kal TorklXwy HOovay amdbdavow
a-yevvay Kal pixpoxapav, lod0eov voulfover, and 4 Mac 58, where the tyrant
taunts the conscientious Jews, kal yap avéynrov Todro 76 wh arodavew TWY Xwpls
évelbous ndéwy. Philo (wt. Mos. 1. 6: yevdmevds Te diapepdvTws aoKyTihs
dAvyodeclas Kal roy GBpodlarrov Blov ws ovdels Erepos xAevdoas—Wuxy yap
érbder udvy fv, od cwuar) praises the asceticism of Moses in the palace
of the Pharaoh, but gives an interpretation of his reward which is lower
than that of our author; he declares (i. 27) that as Moses renounced the
high position of authority which he might have enjoyed in Egypt (émevd} yap
tiv Alylmrov karé\urev iyyemovlay, Ouvyarpioods Tod Tére BacthevovTos wy),
because he disapproved of the local injustice, God rewarded him with
authority over a greater nation.

In v.26 the reason for this renunciation of the world is
explained. MetLova modTov Hynodpevos (cp. v.11 and Aoywrdpevos
in v.19) tay Atydrrou Onoaupay tov dvedicpdv tod Xprotod (as
involved in ovykaxovxeioGar TH Aad Tov Geod). This is one of
the writer’s dinting phrases. There is a special obloquy in being
connected with Christ. It is one of the things which Christians
have to face to-day (131%), and, the writer argues, it has always
been so; Moses himself, the leader of God’s people at the first,
showed his zioris by deliberately meeting it. The obloquy was
part of the human experience of Jesus himself (12? 131%), but the
point here in tov dvewSiopsv tod Xpiotod is that, by identifying
himself with God’s people in Egypt, Moses encountered the
same dvevduopos as their very messiah afterwards was to endure.
He thus faced what the writer, from his own standpoint, does
not hesitate to call roy évedtopov tod Xpuorod. Whether he had
in mind anything further, eg. the idea that 6 Xpuords here
, 1Tt recurs in an edict of Caracalla (215 A.D.), quoted by Mitteis- Wilcken,
i, 2:°39.

XI. 26, 27. | THE FAITH OF MOSES 181

means the pre-incarnate Logos, as though a mystical sense
like that of 1 Co r1o* underlay the words, is uncertain and
rather unlikely, though the idea that Christ was suffering in the
person of the Israelites, or that they represented him, might be
regarded as justified by the language, eg., of Ps 89°! (rod dve-
Sicpod Tav SovAwY cov... ob dveidicay 76 dvTdAAaypa TOD Xpirrod
cov). The experiences of ingratitude and insulting treatment
which Moses suffered at the hands of Israel illustrate Chry-
sostom’s definition of tov dveidicpov tod Xpiorod: 7d péxpt TEAOUS
Kat éoxatys avarvons macxew Kakds .. . TodTo éotw dvediopos
tov Xpicrod, Stay Tis Tap dv evepyeret dverdiLyrar (citing Mt 272°).
The basis of this estimate of life is now given: d&wéBdetrev yap eis
thy picPamodsoctav, as the writer desired his readers to do (10%
116), *Azodérew eis is a common phrase for keeping one’s eye
upon, having regard to, e.g. Theophrastus, ii. 10, Kal eis €xeivov
droBAérwv: Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 1, 6 pev . . . eis pdvov TO
AvoreXes 76 €k TOV dptayav aroBXAEruv, rapyKkovcev. Mr. Starkie,
in his note on Arist. Acharn. 32, suggests that daoPAérew, which
is common in the comic poets and is also a philosophical term
(e.g. Plato’s Phaedo, 115 C; Phaedrus, 234 D), “was used like
‘to prescind’ in English,” z.e. to fix one’s gaze on a single
object by withdrawing it from everything else.

The third act of faith in his life (v.2”) is his withdrawal from
Egypt to Midian (Ex 24f=Ac 7°). In ph poBnOeis tov Oupdy
tod Baowhéws the author ignores the statement of the OT that
Moses did fly from Egypt, in terror of being punished by the
king for having murdered the Egyptian (6pyyv dpetAccrov BaoiAéws
drrodidpacxwv, Philo, de vit. Mos. i. 9). Josephus in his own
way also (Az?. ii. 10. 1) eliminates the motive of fear, Our
author declares that if Moses did retreat from Egypt, it was
from no fear of Pharaoh, but in the faith that God had a future
and a mission for him still; he had as little fear of Pharaoh as
his parents had had, tév yap ddparov (5c. BactAéa) ds Spav éxapré-
pyoev (cp. Sir 2? edOuvov tiv Kapdiay cov Kai Kaprépyoov). “The
courage to abandon work on which one’s heart is set, and accept
inaction cheerfully as the will of God, is of the rarest and highest
kind, and can be created and sustained only by the clearest
spiritual vision” (Peake). The language and thought are illus-
trated by Epict. ii. 16. 45-46: ek tis diavoias ekBare . . . Avryy,
poBov, éribupiav, POdvov, éemyatpexaxiav, pirapyupiav, padaxiay,
dxpagiav. Tatra & ovk éoTw adAws éxBareiv, ei pi) TpOs povov TOV
Geov aroBAérovta, éxeivw povw tpoorerovOdra, Tois éxel(vou TpooT-
aypact Kafwowwpevov. The phrase @s opév means the inward
vision where, as Marcus Aurelius observes (x. 26), dp@pev, odxi
tois 6pOadpots, GAN’ ovx Hrrov éevapyas. In the de Mundo, 3992,
God is described as dopatos av dAAw tAHV Aoywopd. Philo had

182 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 27, 28.

already singled out this trait in Moses, e.g. de mutat. nomin. 2:
Movons 6 tis dedodts picews Geatys Kai Oedmtns—eis yap Tov
yvopov dacty atrov of Geto. xpnopot eiceAOety (Ex 2071), tH
adpatov kal dowpatov ovoiay aivirropevot. In vit. Mos. i. 15 he
declares that the Pharaoh had no notion of any invisible God
(undێva 76 waparav vontov Gedy ew Tov Spatdv vopuilwy), and later
on, commenting on Ex 20?! (i. 28), he adds that Moses entered
the darkness, rouréorw eis tHv detdn Kal ddpatov kal dowpatov Tav
6vTwY TapaderypatiKny ovoiav, TA G0éata dioe. OvyTH Katavodv.

On ph poByOels tov Oupdv tod Bacidéws, it may be noted that
the Stoics took the prudential line of arguing that one ought not
needlessly to provoke a tyrant: ‘‘sapiens nunquam potentium
iras provocabit, immo declinabit, non aliter quam in navigando
procellam ” (Seneca, £/. xiv. 7). Various attempts have been
made to explain away the contradiction between this statement
and that of Ex 2!4. (a) Some think they are not irreconcilable ;
“so far as his life was concerned, he feared, but in a higher
region he had no fear” (A. B. Davidson), ze. he was certain
God would ultimately intervene to thwart Pharaoh, and so took
precautions to save his own life in the interest of the cause. This
is rather artificial, however, though maintained by some good
critics like Lunemann. (6) Or, the @vuos may be not anger at
the murder of the Egyptian, but the resentment of Moses’ action
in refusing a court position and withdrawing from Egypt
(Vaughan, Dods, Delitzsch, etc.). (c) A more favourite method
is to deny that the writer is alluding to Ex 21415 at all, and to
refer the passage to the real Exodus later (so Calvin, Bleek,
Westcott, Seeberg, and many other edd.); but this is to antici-
pate v.78, and the Israelites were ordered out of Egypt by
Pharaoh, not exposed to any anger of his.

The fourth act of faith (v.?8) is his obedience to the divine
orders of Ex 121248 (cp. Wis 185-9), which proved that he be-
lieved, in spite of appearances, that God had protection and a
future forthe People. Mezoinxkev is another aoristic perfect ; mpdo-
xvas is not a LXX term, and @/yyavw (@tyn) only occurs in LXX
in Ex 1918 (=Heb 12”). As Oiyyavw may take a genitive (12°)
as well as an accusative, dAo#pevwy might go with mpwrdtoKa (Ze.
of the Egyptians) and @tyy with adréy (the Israelites). Note the
alliteration in mioter wen. mdoxa .. . mpdcxuow The iva py
clause explains tiv mpdcxuow Tob aipartos.

By one Old Latin, or at any ratea non-Vulgate, text of this passage, in Codex
Harleianus (ed. E. S. Buchanan, Sacred Latin Texts, i., 1912), a gloss is
inserted at this point: ‘‘fide praedaverunt Aegyptios exeuntes” (Ex 12% %6),
which was evidently known to Sedulius Scotus (Migne, ciii. 268 C), who
quotes it as ‘‘fide praedaverunt Aegyptios, quia crediderunt se iterum in
Aegyptum non reversuros.”

XI. 29-31.] THE FAITH OF ISRAEL 183

The fifth act of faith (v.2°) is the crossing of the Red Sea
(Ex 1416), Strictly speaking, this is an act of faith on the part
of the Israelites; the 8éByoay depends on, for its subject, the
attav of v.28. But those who crossed were ot éfe\Oovres €&
Aiytrrov 614 Mwicéws (31°), and the action is the direct sequel
to that of v.”8, though Moses is now included in the People. 8a
énpads ys is from Ex 147°; duBaivew goes with the genitive as
well as with the accusative. The Israelites took a risk, in
obedience to God’s order, and so proved their miotts. But there
are some things which are possible only to faith. “Hs (z.e. épv6pa
Oddacon) wetpav AaBédvtes ot AtyUmtio. KateTOOnoay (from Ex 154
xaterdOnoav év épvOpa Oaraoon, B), z.e. the Egyptians tried it and
were swallowed up in the sea. Here zetpav AapPdvew is a
classical phrase for (2) making an attempt, almost in the sense of
testing or risking. They “ventured on” (cp. Dt 28°° 7 rpudepa,
Hs ovxl wetpay é\aBev 6 zovs aitns Baive éri ths ys), or tried
it (cp. Jos. Ant. 8. 6. 5, codias PBovdropevn AaPetv zeipar,
etc.). The other meaning is that (0) of getting experience (so
in v.36), which is often the sad result of (a); so, e.g., Demosth.
in Aristocratem, 131, haBov épyw Tis exeivov pirias reipay. The
writer ignores the legendary embroidery of Philo (v7. Mos. iii.
34, ws éxt EnpGs arparod Kal ALGwHdovs edddovs—éexparpwby yap 7
Wappos Kal 7 oropas aitns otola cuppica yvibn).

Two more instances of faith are specially cited, both in con-
nexion with the fall of Jericho (vv.* 31). During the interval
between the Exodus and the entrance into Canaan the writer, we
are not surprised to find (31%), notes not a single example of
miotis, but it is remarkable that neither here nor below (v.*£) is
there any allusion to Joshua.

30 Jt was by faith that the walls of Jericho collapsed, after being surrounded
for only seven days. * It was by faith that Rahab the harlot did not perish
along with those who were disobedient, as she had welcomed the scouts
peaceably,

The faith that had enabled Israel to cross the Red Sea in
safety enabled them years later to bring the walls of a city crash-
ing to the ground (v.*°), There was no siege of Jericho; Israel
simply marched round it for a week, and that act of faith in
God’s promise, against all probabilities, brought about the marvel.
So the writer summarizes Jos 612°. Judas Maccabaeus and his
men also appealed, in besieging a town, to Tov péyay Tod Koopov
duvvacrnv, Tov atep KplOv Kal pyyavav épyaviKOv KaTakpnyvicavTa
tiv leptxw Kata Tos Incod xpdvous (2 Mac 12)°), and one Egyptian
fanatic (for whom Paul was once mistaken, Acts 21°°) promised
his adherents, in rebelling against the Romans, that the walls of
Jerusalem would collapse at his word of command (Josephus,
Ant. xx. 8. 6).

184 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 31, 82.

The faith of a community is now followed by the faith of an
individual. The last name on the special list is that of a
foreigner, an unmarried woman, and a woman of loose morals
(v.81), in striking contrast to Sara and the mother of Moses.
The story is told in Jos 21-71 675, For # wépvy (“ Ratio haec cur R.
solita sit peregrinos excipere,” Bengel) see below on 13% A
tendency to whitewash her character appears in the addition of
émtAeyouevy (& syr>k! Ephr.), which is also inserted by some
codices in the text of Clem. Rom. 121. Her practical faith
(Ja 2%; Clem. Rom. 112 &4 riorw kai didrogeviay éowby), shown
by her friendly (yer eipyvys) welcome to the spies, which sprang
from her conviction that the God of Israel was to be feared, saved
(cuvamdderto, cp. Sir 8!5) her from the fate of her fellow-citizens
(rots dmrev@joaow) who declined to submit to the claims of Israel’s
God. They are described by the same word as are the recalci-
trant Israelites themselves (318). Even Jewish priests were
proud to trace their descent from Rahab; her reputation
stood high in later tradition, owing to the life which followed
this initial act of faith (cp. Mt 15).

For lack of space and time the writer now passes to a mere
summary of subsequent examples of faith (vv.°2/). Roughly
speaking, we may say that vv.°%- 94 describe what the folk of old
did by faith, vv.°5! what they did for faith.

32 And what more shall I say? Time would fatl me to tell of Gideon, of
Barak and Samson and Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—
33 men who by faith (dia mlarews) conquered kingdoms, administered justice,
obtained promises, shut the mouth of lions, *4 quenched the power of fire,
escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness won to strength, proved valiant
in warfare, and routed hosts of foreigners.

Kat ti ér. (om. D*) déyw (deliberative conjunctive) does not
necessarily imply that Ipods “EBpadous was originally a sermon or
address ; it was a literary as well as an oratorical phrase. Thus
Josephus uses a similar phrase in Av¢. xx. 11. 1 (kal ri det tAciw
A€yew ;). Faith did not die out, at the entry into Palestine. On
the contrary, the proofs of faith are so rich in the later story of
the People that the writer has no time for anything except a
glowing abstract. “Emudeiper ydp pe Sinyoupevov 6 xpdvos is one
form of a common rhetorical phrase, though % 7epa is generally
used instead of 6 xpévos. Three instances may be cited: Dion.
Hal. De Compositione Verb. 4 (after running over the names of a
number of authors) kai dAXAous pupiovs, dv ardvtwv Ta dvépara «i
Bovroipny ré€yev, emidetiver pe 6 THS Nuepas xpdvos: Demosth. de
Corona, 324, emrcivea pe A€yovO 1) Hepa TA TOV TpoddTwv 6vopaTa,
and (out of several instances) Philo, de Sacrif. Abelis et Caint, 5,
emiAciver me 7 Hepa Aéyovta Ta TOV Kart €i0os apeTav dvouara,

XI. 82, 33.] HEROES OF FAITH 185

Aunyoupevov . . . mepi, as, ¢g., in Plato’s Huth. 6 C, wodda
mepi tov Oetwy Suyynooua, and Philo’s de Adbrah. 44, dv ddrA/yw
mporepov évia dueEHAPov (=“‘gone over”). For pe yap (8 A D*
33- 547), yép me is rightly read by p#® De K L P W Clem. Chrys.
etc. (cp. Blass, § 475. 2), though yap is omitted altogether by
W 216*. Six names are specially mentioned, to begin with.
Gideon’s crushing victory over the Ammonites echoes down later
history (e.g. Is 93 1076, Ps 83"). The singling out of Barak is
in line with the later Jewish tradition, which declined to think of
him as a mere ally of Deborah; he was the real hero of the
exploit. For example, some rabbis (cp. Targ. on Jg 52%, Yalkut
on Jg 42) gave him the high name of Michael, and praised this
brave leader for his modesty in allowing Deborah to occupy so
prominent a place. Later tradition also magnified Samson’s
piety and divine characteristics (e.g. Sotah 94, 10a). Of all the
four “judges” selected, Jephthah has the poorest reputation in
Jewish tradition; he is censured for rashness, and his rank is
comparatively insignificant. Augustine, however (Quwaest. vil.
xlix.), points out that the “‘spirit” came both on Jephthah (Jg
112% 30) and on Gideon (8). Why these four names are put in
this unchronological order (instead of Barak, Gideon, Jephthah,
and Samson), it is impossible to guess; in 1 S 121! it is Gideon,
Barak, Jephthah, and Samson, followed by Samuel. David here
(Aavei8 te) belongs to the foregoing group, the only one of
Israel’s kings mentioned in the list. In Jewish tradition (e.g.
Josephus, Azz. vi. 2, 2-3) Samuel’s career was interpreted with
quite martial fervour; he was credited with several victories over
the Philistines. Hence he forms a transition between the
previous heroes and the prophets, of which he was commonly
regarded as the great leader (cp. Ac 374). “A\\wv (+74r?) is
superfluously inserted before mpopytay by syr®*! pesh arm eth sah
boh 69. 1288 Theod. Dam. In ot 814 tictews (v.%*) the of covers
vv.33: 34, but dua wicrews includes vy.*-88 as well, and is reiterated
in v.89, The following nine terse clauses, devoid of a single kai,
begin by noting military and civil achievements. In kxatnywvi-
cavto Baowelas, Kataywvifowar (not a LXX term) is the verb
applied by Josephus to David’s conquests (in Avz. vii. 2. 2, adrd
caoar Kataywvicapevw Tadaortivois dédwxey 6 eds); its later
metaphorical use may be illustrated from Mart. Pol. 19? (da
THS Uropovns KaTaywvicdmevos Tov GdLKov apxovTa). *Hpydoavto
Sixarocvvny in the sense of 2 S 815 (kai eBacidevoey Aaveid ézi
‘Iopand* kal hv rowdy Kpipa Kai dixavocvvnv eri mavta Tov adv
airod) etc., the writer applying to this specific activity, for which
miotis was essential, a phrase elsewhere (cp. Ac 10*°) used for a
general moral life. Such was their faith, too, that they had pro-
mises of God’s help realized in their experience ; this (cp. 61°) is

186 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (XI. 33-35.

the force of émétuxov émayyehuav. Furthermore, Eppatav ordpata
hedvtwy, as in the case of Daniel (Dn 618 23 6 Geds pou evéppag ev
Ta oTOpata Tov AedvTwv, Theod.), E€sPeoav Suvaptv mupds, as in the
case of Daniel’s three friends (Diy 9198 Mize? 3 Mac 6°).
In €puyov otdpara pHaxatpns, the unusual plural of oropa (Cp.
Lk 2174 recotvra. ordpate waxaipys) may be due to the preceding
oropara rhetorically; it means repeated cases of escape from
imminent peril of murder rather than double-edged swords (4!2),
escapes, ¢g., like those of Elijah (1 K 19!) and Elisha (2 K
614 31f)) In euvapdOnoav (pl x* A D* 1831; the v.2. évedvva-
pdnoav was probably due to the influence of Ro 42°) dé
doGeveias, the reference is quite general; Hezekiah’s recovery
from illness is too narrow an instance.!_ The last three clauses
are best illustrated by the story cf the Maccabean struggle,
where dAAdrpioe is the term used for the persecutors (1 Mac 27
etc.), and zapeuPoAy for their hosts (1 Mac 3! etc.). In wapep-
Bodas éxdtvay addoTpiwy, mapeufory, a word which Phrynichus
calls devas Maxedovxdv, means a host in array (so often in 1 Mac
and Polybius); «Aivw (cp. Jos. Anz. xiv. 15. 4, kAiverau TO...
Képas THS pdAayyos) is never used in this sense in the LXX.

What the heroes and heroines of mioms had to endure is now
summarized (vy.*5-88) : the passive rather than the active aspect
of faith is emphasized.

35 Some were given back to their womankind, raised from the very dead ;
others were broken on the wheel, refusing to accept release, that they might
obtain a better resurrection ; *® others, again, had to experience scoffs and
scourging, aye, chains and imprisonment—*' they were stoned... sawn in
two, and cut to pieces ; they had to roam about in sheepskins and goatskins,
forlorn, oppressed, ill-treated *® (men of whom the world was not worthy),
wanderers in the desert and among hills, in caves and gullies.

"EdaBov yuvaixes? «rd. (85) recalls such stories as 1 K 171%
and 2 K 488! (kai 7 yuv) . . . EAaBey Tov vidv adits Kai e&AdOer) ;
it was a real dvdotacis, though not the real one, for some
other male beings became literally and finally vexpot, relying by
faith on a kpeloowv dvdotacis. “Addor S€ (like Sokrates in Athens:
cp. Epict. iv. I. 164-165, Zwxparys 8 aicxpas od owlerar...
TOVTOV OUK EoTL TaaaL aicxpds, GAN’ aroOvncKwy owlerat) could
only have saved their lives by dishonourably giving up their

1A more apt example is the nerving of Judith for her act of religious
patriotism (cp. Rendel Harris, Sédelights on NT Research, 170f.), though
there is a verbal parallel in the case of Samson (Jg 16% dmdarnaet am’ éuod H
loxvs wou Kal dobevijcw).

2 The odd v.2. yuvacxas (p'? x* A D* 33. 1912) may be another case (cp.
Thackeray, 149, for LXX parallels) of -as for -es as a nominative form ; as an
accusative, it could only have the senseless meaning of ‘‘ marrying”
(AauBdvew yuvaixas). Strong, early groups of textual authorities now and
then preserve errors.

XI. 35, 36. | MARTYRS OF FAITH 187

convictions, and therefore chose to suffer. This is a plain refer-
ence to the Maccabean martyrs. °*EtupmavicOnoav (Blass prefers
the more classical form in D* dzetupravicOyocay), a punishment
probably corresponding to the mediaeval penalty of being broken
on the wheel. ‘“ This dreadful punishment consists,” says Scott
in a note to the thirtieth chapter of Zhe Betrothed, “in the
executioner, with a bar of iron, breaking the shoulder-bones,
arms, thigh-bones and legs of the criminal, taking his alternate
sides. The punishment is concluded by a blow across the
breast, called the coup de grace, because it removes the sufferer
from his agony.” The victim was first stretched on a frame or
block, the tvyzravov! (so schol. on Aristoph. Plut. 476, ripmrava
fvAa ed’ ols érupmavigov’ éxypOvto yap tavtn TH Tyswpia), and
beaten to death, for which the verb was dzotupravilectar (e.g.
Josephus, ¢. Apionem, i. 148, quoting Berossus, AaBopocodpxodos

. td Tov pidwv adretupravicGy: Arist. Ret. li. 5. 14, dozep ot
aroruptravicopevot, etc.). So Eleazar was put to death, because
he refused to save his life by eating swine’s flesh (2 Mac 619
6 O€ Tov per evxXcias Odvatrov padrdov 7) Tov peta pioouvs Biov
dvadegdpevos aiGaipérws eri TO TUpravov mpoonyev). It is this
punishment of the Maccabean martyrs which the writer has in
mind, as Theodoret already saw. ‘The sufferers were “ distracti
quemadmodum corium in tympano distenditur” (Calvin); but
the essence of the punishment was beating to death, as both
Hesychius (zAjooerat, éxdeperar, ioyupOs tUrrerar) and Suidas
(€iAw wAHooeTaL, exd€petat, Kal Kpeuarar) recognize in their defini-
tion of tuymavilerar. The hope of the resurrection, which
sustained such martyrs ob mpoodefdpevor (cp. 10°4) thy drrodUTpwo,
is illustrated by the tales of Maccabean martyrs, e.g. of Eleazar
the scribe (2 Mac 62!£), urged to eat some pork iva totro rpa€éas
azroAv67y Tov Gavarov, and declining in a fine stubbornness ; but
specially of the heroic mother and her seven sons (did. 71),
who perished confessing aiperov petadAdooovtas azo avOpHrwv
Tas UO TOD Oeod mpocdoKav eAridas waAw avactHoecOat br airod

. Ob pev yap viv Herepor AdeApol Bpaxdv érevéyKavtes rovov
devaov Cwns b76 duabyKynv Geod meTTaOKacrv.

In v.°6 érepo. 8é (after of pév . . . dAXo. S€ in Matt 1614)
Tretpav €XaBor (see On v.”*) éumorypay (cp. Sir 2778 eurarypos Kat
évevdicp0s) Kat paotiywv—a hendiadys; the writer has in mind
shameful tortures like those inflicted on the seven Maccabean
brothers, as described in 2 Mac 7! (udorvéw Kai vevpats aixiLo-

1 Another word for the frame was tpoxés, as in 4 Mac 9”, where the
eldest of the seven famous Jewish brothers is beaten to death. Hence
the verb used by Philo (zz //accum, 10) to describe the punishment inflicted
on the Alexandrian Jews (Iovdatoc waotiyovmevor, Kpeuduevor, Tpoxifduevor,
KATOLKLEOMEVOL).

188 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 36

péevous . . . 7 Hyov ert Tov éumatypov), although in this case the
beating is not at once fatal, as the next words prove (éru de
decpav kat pvdakyjs). The passage would be more clear and
consecutive, however, if repo. 8€ preceded wepiAdOov (in v.°"),
introducing the case of those who had not to suffer the martyrs’
death. This would leave éurotyp@v xrA. as a reiteration or
expansion of érupravicOyoav. Before Seopav kat pudaxis, ete S€
probably (cp. Lk 14?¢) heightens the tone—not merely passing
blows, but long durance vile: though the sense might be simply,
‘Cand further.” In v.87 é\v@dc@noav (as in the case of Zechariah,
2 Ch 2420-22, Mt 2355) was the traditional punishment which
ended Jeremiah’s life in Egypt (Tertull. Scoxp. 8) ; possibly the
writer also had in mind the fate of Stephen (Acts 758).
"EmploOqoav (Am 13 éxpifov mpioow odypois xtA.) alludes to the
tradition of Isaiah having being sawn in two with a wooden saw
during the reign of Manasseh, a tradition echoed in the contem-
porary Ascensio Isaiae 51-14 (Justin’s Dial. cxx.; Tertull. de
Patientia, xiv. etc.) ; cp. R. H. Charles, Zhe Ascension of Isatah
(1900), pp. xlv—xlix.

After é\@dc@noav there is a primitive corruption in the text. Four
readings are to be noted.

éreipdcOnoar, érplcOncay: & L P 33. 326 syrbXl,

érplcOnoar, érepdcbncav: p® A D © 6. 104. 1611. 1739 lat boh arm.

érecpacOncav: fuld, Clem. Thdt.

érpla@noav: 2. 327 syr’é Eus. etc.

Origen apparently did not read éreipdoOnoar, if we were to judge from
Hom. Jerem. xv. 2 (ddov éAiGoBdrnoav, Edov Empicav, GAdNov améxTeway
perakd TOD vaod Kal ToD Bvo.acryplov), but shortly before (xiv. 12) he quotes
the passage verbally as follows: éA:@dc@noav, érpicOnoay, émepdcOnoay, év
povy paxalpas dréfavov, though éreipdoOynoay is omitted here by H. In
c. Cels. vii. 7 it is doubtful whether émeipddnoay or émepdc Onoay was the
original reading. Eusebius omits the word in Prep. Evang. xii. 10 (5834),
reading é\OacOnoav, érploOnoav, év pdvw xrd., and sah reads ‘‘they were
sawn, they were stoned, they died under the sword.” It is evident that
ére_pdcOnoay (written insome MSS as émup.) as ‘* were tempted ” is impossible
here ; the word either was due to dittography with érplo@ncay or represents a
corruption of some term for torture. Various suggestions have been made,
e.g. émnpoénoay (mutilated) by Tanaquil Faber, érpd@noav (sold for slaves)
by D. Heinsius, éore:pdcOnoay (strangled) by J. Alberti, or érép@noav
(impaled) by Knatchbull. But some word like érupw(dc)@noav (Beza, F.
Junius, etc.) or érpijc@noav (Gataker)! is more likely, since one of the seven
Maccabean brothers was fried to death (2 Mac 74), and burning was a
punishment otherwise for the Maccabeans (2 Mac 6"). It is at any rate
probable that the writer put three aorists ending in -c@ycav together.

Death év $dvm paxaipys (a LXX phrase) was not an un-
common fate for unpopular prophets (1 K 19!, Jer 267); but
the writer now passes, in wepiAOov xrA. (37-88), to the sufferings

1 Or éverpijc@noav, which is used by Philo in describing the woes of the
Alexandrian Jews (2 Flaccum, 20, fvres ol wev éverrpjobnoar),

XI. 36-38. | THE PERSECUTED 189

of the living, harried and hunted over the country. Not all the
loyal were killed, yet the survivors had a miserable life of it, like
Mattathias and his sons (1 Mac 278 éfvyov . . . eis Ta 6p), OF
Judas Maccabaeus and his men, who had to take to the hills
(2 Mac 527 év rots épeow Onpiwv tpdrov defy ody Tots per’ adrod,
Kal THY XopTwoN TpoPpyy oLTovpevor OveTéAOvv), Or Others during the
persecution (2 Mac 6! érepor 5& rAyoiov ovvdpapovtes eis 7a
omjdaa). When the storm blew over, the Maccabeans recol-
lected as tiv TOV oKnvav éopriy ev Tots Gperw Kat ev Tots ornXalots
Onpiwy tpdmov Hoav veuopevor (2 Mac 10°). They roamed, the
writer adds, dressed év pyndwrtats (the rough garb of prophets, like
Elijah, 1 K 19119), év aiyelos Séppacw (still rougher pelts).
According to the Ascensio Lsaiae (27) the pious Jews who
adhered to Isaiah when he withdrew from Manasseh’s idolatry
in Jerusalem and sought the hills, were “all clothed in garments
of hair, and were all prophets.” Clement (17!) extends the refer-
ence too widely: oirwes év déppacw aiyeious Kal pydwtais Tept-
rdatnoav Knpvocovtes THY EAevoww TOV Xpiotod" Aéyomev Oé “HXetav
Kat “EAurasé, ere 5€ kal “IeLexunA, Tovs mpodyras: mpos Todrois Kal
TOUS [EMAPTUPH[LEVOVS.

A vivid modern description of people clad in goatskins occurs in Balzac’s
Les Chouans (ch. i.): ‘‘ Ayant pour tout vétement une grande peau de chévre
qui les couvrait depuis le col jusqu’aux genoux. . . . Les méches plates de
leurs longs cheveux s’unissaient si habituellement aux poils de la peau de
chévre et cachaient si complétement leurs visages baissés vers la terre, qu’on
pouvait facilement prendre cette peau pour la leur, et confondre, a la premiere
vue, les malheureux avec ces animaux dont les dépouilles leur servaient de
vétement. Mais a travers les cheveux l’on voyait bientét briller les yeux
comme des gouttes de rosée dans une épaisse verdure ; et leurs regards, tout
en annoncant J’intelligence humaine, causaient certainement plus de terreur
que de plaisir.”

Their general plight is described in three participles, borepov-
pevor, OAcBdpevor (2 Co 48), kakouxodpevor (cp. 13°, and Plut.
Consol. ad Apoll. 26, dote rpiv drdcacbat Ta TévOy Kakovxoupéevous
reXeuvTpoae TOV Biov). Kaxovyew only occurs twice in the LXX
(1 K 226 1199 A), but is common in the papyri (e.g. Zest. Pap.
10422, B.c. 92). This ill-treatment at the hands of men, as if
they were not considered fit to live (cp. Ac 22%), elicits a
splendid aside—éyv otk fv dgios 6 Kéopos. Compare Mechilta,
5a (on Ex 12°): “Israel possessed four commandments, of
which the whole world was not worthy,” and the story of the
bath gol in Sanhedr. 11. 1, which said, “One is here present
who is worthy to have the Shekinah dwelling in him, but the
world is not worthy of such.” Koopos as in v.?; Philo’s list
of the various meanings of xécpos (in de aetern. mundi, 2) does
not include this semi-religious sense. Of the righteous, Wis 3°
remarks: 6 Oeds éwe(pacev adrovs Kal etpev adtovs a&iovs éavrod.

190 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XxI. 38-40.

‘There is a class of whom the world is always worthy and more than
worthy: it is worthy of those who watch for, reproduce, exaggerate its foibles,
who make themselves the very embodiment of its ruling passions, who shriek
its catchwords, encourage its illusions, and flatter its fanaticisms. But it isa
poor 7é/e to play, and it never has been played by the men whose names
stand for epochs in the march of history” (H. L. Stewart, Questions of the
Day in Philosophy and Psychology, 1912, p. 133).

In °8 it was the not infrequent (cf. Mk 145) confusion of
EN and ETT! in ancient texts which probably accounted for év
being replaced by emi (颒) in p!® 8 A P 33. 88, etc.; émé does
not suit omndalos. . . dats, and the writer would have avoided
the hiatus in émt épypias. Still, tAavdpevor suits only épypuiars Kat
dpeow, and émi may have been the original word, used loosely
like wAavdépevor with orydalos xrA. In Ps.-Sol 17!% the pious
érAavavro ev épnpuots, cwOnvar Woxas aitov aro Kaxov. For érais,
cp. Ob 3 év tais érais trav merpov. X7ndAatov, like the Latin
spelunca or specus, eventually became equivalent to a ‘ temple,”
perhaps on account of the prominence of caves or grottoes in the
worship of some cults.

Now for an estimate of this réoris and its heroic representa-
tives (vv.39- 40)! The epilogue seems to justify God by arguing
that the apparent denial of any adequate reward to them is part
of a larger divine purpose, which could only satisfy them after
death.

39 They all won their record (waprupnbévres=euaprupHOnoay in v.*) for
faith, but the Promise they did not obtain, © God had something better in
store for us (juav emphatic); he would not have them perfected apart
from us.

Some of these heroes and heroines of faith had had God’s
special promises fulfilled even in this life (e.g. vv. %%), but the
Promise, in the sense of the messianic bliss with its eternal life
(10%: 87, cf. 617£), they could not win. Why? Not owing to
any defect in their faith, nor to any fault in God, but on account
of his far-reaching purpose in history ; o6tot mdvtes (again as in
v.43, but this time summing up the whole list, vv.4°8) otk
€xopicavto (in the sense of v.18 wx Kopiodpevor; not a voluntary
renunciation, as Wetstein proposes to interpret it—‘non
acceperunt felicitatem promissam huius vitae, imo deliberato
consilio huic beneficio renunciaverunt et maluerunt affligi
morique propter deum”) thy émayyeAtay (in v.18 ¢Ae Promise was
loosely called ai ézayyeAfa, and the plural ras érayyeAcas is
therefore read here by A W 436. 1611). The reason for this is
now given (v.4°) in a genitive absolute clause, toG @e00 mept hpav
Kpettrév TL mpoPAcpapevou (the middle for the active). I[poSA¢erew
only occurs once in the LXX (Ps 371 6 88 xvpuos . . . mpoBAEre
ru n&et 7) Hepa avrod), and only here in the NT, where the re-
ligious idea makes it practically a Greek equivalent for providere.

XI. 40.] THEY AND WE 191

Kpeirrév te is explained by tva ph xwpls hpav teAerwOdow, which
does not mean that “our experience was necessary to complete
their reward,” but that God in his good providence reserved the
messianic Pereioaie of Jesus Christ until we could share it. This
teXetwars is now theirs (g! 127%), as it is ours—if only we will show
a like strenuous faith during the brief interval before the end.
This is the thought of 121", catching up that of 10°, God
deferred the coming of Christ, in order to let us share it (cp. 1 P
110.20), his plan being to make room for us as well. The
teAeitwors has been realized in Jesus; till he reappears (9%8 ro! 87)
to complete the purpose of God for us, we must hold on in faith,
heartened by the example of these earlier saints. Their faith
was only granted a far-off vision of the hoped-for end. We have
seen that end realized in Jesus; therefore, with so many more
resources and with so short a time of strain, we ought to be
nerved for our endurance by the sense of our noble predecessors.
It is not that we experience xpeirrév te by our immediate experi-
ence of Christ (10!*), who fulfils to us what these former folk
could not receive before his coming. This is true, but it is not
exactly the point here. The x«petrrov tu is our inclusion in this
People of God for whom the reAetwors of Christ was destined,
the privilege of the xpeirrwv duabyxy. The writer does not go
the length of saying that Christ suffered in the persons of these
saints and heroes (as, e.g., Paulinus of Nola, Zfzs¢. xxxviil. 3:
“ab initio saeculorum Christus in omnibus suis patitur ... in
Abel occisus a fratre, in Noe irrisus a filio, in Abraham peregrin-
atus, in Isaac oblatus, in Jacob famulatus, in Joseph venditus,
in Moyse expositus et fugatus, in prophetis lapidatus et sectus,
in apostolis terra marique iactatus, et multis ac uariis beatorum
martyrum crucibus frequenter occisus”), and this consideration
tells against the theory of a “mystical” sense in v.28. The con-
clusion of the whole matter rather is (vv.°% 4°) that the reward of
their faith had to be deferred till Christ arrived in our day. The
reXeiwors is entirely wrought out through Christ, and wrought
out for all. It covers all God’s People (cp. 127), for now the
Promise has been fulfilled to these earlier saints. But the writer
significantly ignores any idea of their co-operation in our faith;
we neither pray to them, nor they for us. Josephus interpreted
the sacrifice of Isaac, as if Abraham reconciled himself to it by
reflecting that his son would be a heavenly support to him (Azz.
iF I 3+ 3, éxetvou, 2.2. TOU Geod, THY yuxny THY onV mpoadexopevov
Kal Tap avTo KkaQeEovtos’ éoet TE pol eis Kndcwova KQL Y7POKO}LOv

. Tov Gedv avTi cavtod mapecxnpevos). Such ideas lie outside
the range of our epistle, and there is significance in the fact that
the writer never touches them.

192 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XxI. 40-XII. 1.

In Clement of Alexandria’s comment (Strom. iv. 16) on this passage, he
quotes 10°59 (reading decwots mov: éavrots: xpovet: dikads mov), then
hurries on to 11612? (reading EXLBdo Onoav, erepdcbnoay, év povw mb. amé-
Oavoy: év epnulats : Thy émayyeNlay Tov Geo0), and adds: dmoNelmerar voetv Td
Kara Tapacwmnow eipnevov pdvot. emigépet yoo Tepl quay Kpetrrév Tt
mT poeoouévou Tov Oeot (ayabds yap jy), t va wy xwpls hudy redewOdor.. The
collocation of thy érayyeAlav with Tod Geod is a mistake.

From the jpév .. . qpav of the epilogue the writer now
passes into a moving appeal to his readers (121),

1 Therefore (Tovyapoiy, as in I Th 48), wzth all this host of witnesses
encircling us, we (Kal juets, emphatic) mst strip off sin with zts clinging
folds, to run our appointed course steadily (6 bropovis), * our eyes fixed upon
Jesus as the pioneer and the perfection of fatth—upon Jesus who, in order to
reach his own appointed joy, steadily endured (bméwevev) the cross, thinking
nothing of its shame, and zs now “‘ seated at the right hand” of the throne of
God,

The writer now returns to the duty of tzouovy as the im-
mediate exercise of iors (10°), the supreme inspiration being
the example of Jesus (121%) as the great Believer, who shows us
what true wiorts means, from beginning to end, in its heroic
course (Tov mpokeiuevov uty ayava).

The general phraseology and idea of life as a strenuous dywy, in the
Hellenic sense (see on 5!4), may be seen in many passages, ¢.g. Eurip. Orest.
846 f. :

mpos & ’Apryetov otxerar Newry,

Wuxis ay@va rov mpoxkeluevov mépe

ddowr, ev @ Sv 7) Oaveiv buds xpewr,

Herod. viii. 102 (7roAXOvs ToANdKis dyGvas Spauéovrar ol “EAqves) and ix. 60
(ayGvos peylarou mooi tae éNevbépny elvar 4 dedovAwperny Thy ‘EN\déa), and
especially in 4 Mac 14° mdyres (the seven martyrs), ®omep ém’ aOavacias odov
Tpéxovres, él Tov dia THY Bacdvev O@dvarov éomevdor, and Philo’s de mzgrat.
Abrah, 24, kal yap ‘ABpadm micretoas ‘ éyylfew ew” (Gn 18%, cp. He 11°)
Aévyerat. av pévror mopevduevos unre Kaun (cp. He 12°) unre pabuunoy, ws
map éxdrepa éxtpamduevos (cp. He 12)8) mravacbat rhs wéons Kai evOurevois
diapaprwv d600, pipnodpevos dé rods ayabods Spomets TO oTdd.ovy amtaloTws
dvicn Tod Blov, oredavwy Kal KO\wy éraklwy TevEeTar mpds Td Tédos EOwWY.
The figure is elaborately worked out in 4 Mac 17114 (d\n0Gs yap hv a-yov
Geios 6 OC abr&v yeyernuévos. 7OA0OéTEL yap Tore dpeTH Sv bromov7s SoKimua-
fovea’ 7d vixos év ddOapala év wy wodvxpoviw. ’EHXeafap dé rponywvifero: H dé
parnp Tov érra ratdwy évjOrer' ol 6é ddeAGol Hywrlfovro* o TUpavvos avTnywvlfero*
66é kécpos Kal 6 TSv dvOpwrwy Bios éBewper), where the Maccabean martyrs are
athletes of the true Law; but the imagery is more rhetorical and detailed
than in IIpds ‘ESpatous, where the author, with a passing touch of metaphor,

suggests more simply and suggestively the same idea.

"Exovtes . . . GroOdwevor . . . ddopavtes, three participles
with the verb after the second, as in Jude 7° *!; but here the first,
not the second, denotes the motive. Teacgre! (thrown forward,
for emphasis) “nae TEPLKELMEVOV TLLY Vepos papTUpwr. Mearines
here, in the light of 117 45 89, denotes those who have borne

1 Tydckovrov, x* W-

XII. 1, 2.| THE CLOUD OF WITNESSES 193

personal testimony to the faith. Heaven is now crowded with
these (1275), and the record of their evidence and its reward enters
into our experience. Such mvevpara dixaiwy rereAeewpéevwv speak
to us (114) still; we are, or ought to be, conscious of their record,
which is an encouragement to us (kai wpeis) ex é€oydtov Tov
neEepav TovTwr ,17). It is what we see in them, not what they
see in us, that is the writer’s main point; zrepixe/wevoy suggests
that the idea of them as witnesses of our struggle (see the quot.
from 4 Mac, above) is not to be excluded, but this is merely
suggested, not developed. Maprvs is already, as in Rev 2!
etc., beginning to shade off into the red sense of “martyr” (cp.
Kattenbusch i in Zetisch. fur neutest. Wissenschaft, 1903, pp. 111 f. ;

G. Krier, zd7d., 1916, pp. 264 f. ; Reitzenstein in Hermes, 1917,
pp. 442f., and H. Delehaye in Analecta Bollandiana, 1921, pp.
20 f.), though the writer uses the word with a special application
here, not as usually of the Christian apostles nor of the prophets,
but of the heroes and heroines of the People in pre-Christian
ages. He does not even call Jesus Christ paprus (as does the
author of the Johannine apocalypse).

The meaning of ‘‘ witnesses of our ordeal” (z.e. spectators) is supported by
passages like Epict. iv. 4. 31, oddeis dyav! diya OopvBov yiveras* modXods det
mpoyuuvacras elvat, moos [rovs] emixpavydfovras, moNovs emiordras, toN\\ovs
Geards, and particularly Longinus, de swb/im. xiv. 2, who, in arguing that many
people catch their inspiration from others, notes : TO yap dvTe péya TO
ayovicua, Tovovrov wmoridecOat THv ldlwy Nbywr dixaori} prov kal @éarpov, kal
év TnALKoUTOLS pwot KpiTais Te Kal udprvow Uréxew TOV ypadouévwy evOUvas
metatxdat. In Hducational Aims and Methods (p. 28), Sir Joshua Fitch
writes: ‘* There is a remarkable chapter in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in
which the writer unfolds to his countrymen what is in fact a National Portrait
Gallery, as he enumerates, one by one, the heroes and saints of the Jewish
history, and adds to his catalogue these inspiring words . . . [He 11°74],
And, finally, he draws this conclusion from his long retrospect . . . [He 12!].
How much of the philosophy of history is condensed into that single sentence }
It is suggestive to us of the ethical purpose which should dominate all our
historical teaching. To what end do we live in a country whose annals are
enriched by the story of great talents, high endeavours and noble sacrifices, if
we do not become more conscious of the possibilities of our own life, and

more anxious to live worthily of the inheritance which has come down to
us?”

Népos (never in this sense in LXX) has its usual Greek mean-
ing of “host” (Latin nimbus or nubes), as, eg., in Herod. viii.
109, vépos TocotTo avOpwrwv. In dykov dmobepevor Tévta Kal Thy
eUmeplotatoy apaptiav, oyxov is thrown first for the sake of
emphasis: ‘‘any encumbrance that handicaps us.” The conjec-

1 The broader conception of the moral life as an athletic contest recurs in
Epict. ili. 25. 1-3, oxéWar, dv rpo€ov apy duevos, Tivwy pev éexpdtycas, Tivwy 5
oJ . . . o8 yap admoxyyntéov Tov ayGva Tov méytoTov dywrifouévors, a\AA Kal
TAnyas Antréov* ob yap brép ways kal wmayKparlou 6 dyav mpdxerrat. . . GAN
umép a’ris evTuxias Kai evdamovias. a

13

194 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (arr. Ty 2.

ture dxvoy (P. Junius) is relevant, but superfluous; sloth is a
hindrance, but the general sense of dyxos in this connexion is
quite suitable. Compare Apul. Afgologia, 19 (‘‘etenim in
omnibus ad vitae munia utendis quicquid aptam moderationem
supergreditur, oneri potius quam usui exuberat”), and the evening
prayer of the Therapeutae (Philo, w7t. Contemp/ 3) to have their
souls lightened from tod tav aicbjoewv Kal aicbyTdv dyxov.
"Oyxos had acquired in Greek literature the sense of pride, both
bad and good, and it has been taken here (so sah= “having
forsaken all pride”) as an equivalent for pride in the sense of
conceit (fastus), as, e.g., by Bengel and Seeberg. But what the
readers seem to have been in danger of was not arrogance so
much as a tendency to grow disheartened. The metaphor is not
“reducing our weight,” though é6yxos had sometimes this associa-
tion with fleshiness ; it refers to the weight of superfluous things,
like clothes, which would hinder and handicap the runner. Let
us strip for the race, says the writer. Put unmetaphorically,
the thought is that no high end like wiotts is possible apart
from a steady, unflinching resolve to do without certain things.
What these encumbrances are the writer does not say (cp.
1115. 25. 26); he implies that if people will set themselves to the
course of faith in this difficult world, they will soon discover
what hampers them. In kal rhy edwepioratov épaprtiay, the article
does not imply any specific sin like that of apostasy (v.”) ; it is
dpmaptia in general, any sin that might lead to apostasy (e.g. v.18).
The sense of evrepioratos can only be inferred from the context
and from the analogy of similar compounds, for it appears to have
been a verbal adjective coined by the writer; at any rate no in-
stance of its use in earlier writers or in the papyri has been as
yet discovered. As the phrase goes with dmo@épevor, the intro-
ductory xaé linking thy. . . Gpaptiav with dyxov, edrepiotatos
probably denotes something like “‘circumstans nos” (vg), from
meptiotavas (=cingere). The ed is in any case intensive. The-
ophylact suggested “endangering” (8: jv edkdAws tis eis Tept-
oraces éurimre’ ovdey yap ovTw KivdvvGdes ws duaptia), as though
it were formed from zepiorao.s (distress or misery). Taken
passively, it might mean (a) ‘‘ popular,” or (4) ‘easily avoided,”
or (c) “easily contracted.” (a) mepioratros may mean what
people gather round (zepirraréw) to admire, aS, €.8.5 in Isokrates,
de Permut. 135 E, Gavparorottacs Tails... 070 TOV dvoynTwY
mepioTarows yevopevais, and evzepiotatov would then = “right
popular.” This is at any rate more relevant and pointed than
(4), from zepitotapot, which Chrysostom once suggested (ryv
edxdAws TepucTapevny Huas 7 THY ev’koAws TepioTacw Suvapevynv
mabeiv: padrov dé rodro, padiov yap «av OdAwpev TwEpryevéeo ac THs
duaptias), though mepicraros does mean “admired,” and dept

KIT. 1; 2:} DIFFICULTIES OF THE COURSE 195

oraros is sometimes, by way of contrast, “unsupported.” On the
other hand, dzepioratos may mean ‘‘unencumbered,” as in the
contrast drawn by Maximus of Tyre (Diss. xx.) between the
simple life (dzAotv Biov kal drepictarov Kai éAeviepias é77jPoXov)
and a life r@ ody awAG GAN avayxaiw Kal repiotdcewy yewovTt.
The former life he declares was that of the golden age, before
men worried themselves with the encumbrances of civilization.
In the light of this, edwepioratos might mean “which sorely
hinders” (z.e. active), a sense not very different from (vg) “cir-
cumstans nos,” or “which at all times is prepared for us” (syr).
(c) is suggested by Theodoret, who rightly takes 7 duapria as
generic, and defines eizepiotaroy as eixdAws cuvioTapevyy TE Kat
ywouenv. Kai yap dpOarpos Sededlerat, axon xatrabeAyerar, adi
yapyapilerat, kal yAdooa paora diodiGaive, Kal 6 Aoyiopos epi
TO xetpov 6gvpporos. But “easily caught” is hardly tense enough
for the context. Wetstein, harking back to repiotaros and zrepi-
otacis, connects the adjective with the idea of the heroic on-
lookers. ‘‘Peccatum uestrum seu defectio a doctrina Christi
non in occulto potest committi et latere ; non magis quam lapsus
cursoris, sed conspicietur ab omnibus. Cogitate iterum, specta-
tores adesse omnes illos heroas, quorum constantiam laudaui,
quo animo uidebunt lapsum uestrum? qua fronte ante oculos
ipsorum audebitis tale facinus committere?” But “open” or
“conspicuous” is, again, too slight and light a sense. If any
conjecture had to be accepted, edwepictaktoy would be the best.
Cp. the schol. on Ziad, ii. 183 (dro 6€ xAaivay Bare), xAatva
Tetpdywvos xAapis 7H eis déb Ayyouca’ dwéBare SE aiti ba 70
eirepictraAtov. Hence Bentley’s note: “ Lego tiv imép ixavoy
dmraptiav . . . immo potius evzepioraArov dmaprtiav.” In Soph.
Ajax, 821, the hero says of the sword on which he is about to
fall, “I have fixed it in the ground, ed wepioretAas, right care-
fully.” The verbal adjective would therefore mean, in this
connexion, “ close-clinging,” while dvapriav (= burden) would be
practically a synonym for dyxov.

Tpéxopev . . . ahopavtes, for the motive-power in life comes
from inward convictions. What inspires Christians to hold out
and to endure is their vision of the unseen (cp. Herodian, v.
6. 7,6 8 ’Avrwvivos eee . . » &s TE TOV Gedy aroBA€rwv Kal Tors
xadwovs avréxwv Tov intwv' Tacdv Te Ti Sdov HAYLE TPEXwY Ewrradw
éavtod ddopav te eis TO mpdcbev tov Geov), as the writer has
already shown (111), Tév mpoxeipevoy tpiv dyava is built on the
regular (p. 193) phrase for a course being set or assigned; e.g.
Lucian in de Mercede Conduct. 11, cot 6¢ 6 irép ths Wuy7s ayov
Kal trép amravtos Tov Biov Tore mpoKetoGar Soxet: Plato’s Laches,
182a, o yap aydvos aOAnral éopey Kal ev ols qyiv 6 ayov
mpoxertat kTA., and Josephus, Azz. vill. 12. 3, ot mpoxeypéevwv atrois

196 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS XII. 1, 2.

dOAwr, era rept Tt cTOVodT WoW, ov diadelrover TeEpl TOUT evepyodrrTes.
For a&popavtes eis (v.2), see Epictetus, ii. 19, where the philosopher
says he wishes to make his disciples free and happy, eis tov Oeov
aopOvras év Tavti Kai puixp@ kat weyédAw. An almost exact parallel
occurs in the epitaph proposed by the author of 4 Mac (17?°)
for the Maccabean martyrs, ot kai e€edécnoav 1d éOvos «cis Oedv
adopOvtes Kal pexpt Oavdrov tas Bacdvous tropeivartes. *“Adopav
implies the same concentrated! attention as amroBAéreav (see on
1126); ‘with no eyes for any one or anything except Jesus.”
*Inoodv comes at the end of the phrase, as in 2°, and especially
31; the terms tév tis miotews dpxnyov Kat teNevwryy describe
him as the perfect exemplar of miots in his earthly life (cp. 215),
as the supreme pioneer (dpxnyés as in 2°, though here as the
pioneer of personal faith, not as the author of our faith) and the
perfect embodiment of faith (reXevwtys, a term apparently coined
by the writer). He has realized faith to the full, from start to
finish. TeAewwrys does not refer to reAcewHSow in 1149; it does
not imply that Jesus “perfects” our faith by fulfilling the divine
promises.

In 6s dvti Tis mpoKepevns att xapds, the xapa is the unselfish
joy implied in 2° %, “that fruit of his self-sacrifice which must be
presupposed in order that the self-sacrifice should be a reason-
able transaction. Self-sacrificing love does not sacrifice itself
but for an end of gain to its object; otherwise it would be folly.
Does its esteeming as a reward that gain to those for whom it
suffers, destroy its claim to being self-sacrifice? Nay, that which
seals its character as self-sacrificing love is, that this to it is a
satisfying reward” (M‘Leod Campbell, Zhe Mature of the Atone-
ment, p. 23). As Epictetus bluntly put it, eay pi ev to aito 7
TO evoeBes Kal cupdépov, od dvvatat awOjvar TO edioeBis ev TE
(i. 27. 14). So, in the Odes of Solomon 31°’, Christ says:

“They condemned me when I stood up...
But I endured and held my peace,
that I might not be moved by them.
But I stood unshaken like a firm rock,
that is beaten by the waves and endures.
And I bore their bitterness for humility’s sake ;
that I might redeem my people and inherit it.”

Hence éyti (as i in v.16 ayri Bpdcens : cp. Plato’s Menex. 237 A,
dvopas dyabois €TALVOUVTES, OL... THV TeAeuray a avTt THS TOV an
Twv owtnpias nAAdgavto) means, ‘‘to secure.” The sense of

1 Epictetus, in his praise of Herakles (iii. 24), declares that his hero lived
and worked with a firm faith in Zeus the Father. ‘‘ He considered that
Zeus was his own father; he called Zeus father, and did everything with his
eyes fixed on Zeus (pds éxetvov dgpop&v erparrev & érparrev).”

XII. 2.] JOY AND SHAME 197

mpoxerpevns (cp. v.!) tells against the rendering of dvti . . . yxapas
as “‘instead of the joy which had been set before him,” as though
the idea were that of 1175-26, either the renunciation of his pre-
incarnate bliss (so Wetstein, von Soden, Windisch, Goodspeed,
etc., recently), or the renunciation of joy in the incarnate life (so
Chrysostom, Calvin), z.e. the natural pleasure of avoiding the way
of the cross. This is a Pauline idea (2 Co 8%, Phil 2&7), which
the writer might have entertained; but (p. 1) he never hints at it
elsewhere, and the other interpretation tallies with the idea of
28-9, Inspired by this, Jesus éméyewe (+7¢6v, p!® D*) ctaupdyv—
as we might say in English “a cross.” Aristotle (Vik. Zh. ix.
1, 2) declares that courage is praiseworthy just because it involves
pain, xaderurepov yap Ta AvTypa tropéve 7 TA HOewv améxec Oat :
no doubt the end in view is pleasant (76 kata tiv avdpetav TéAos
70v, cp. He 1214), but the end is not always visible. In aicxdvys
katappovyoas it is not the horrible torture of the crucifixion, but
its stinging indignity (cp. Gal 3! for an even darker view), which
is noted as a hard thing; it was a punishment for slaves and
criminals, for men of whom the world felt it was well rid (cp.
11°84), But Jesus did not allow either the dread or the experience
of this to daunt him. He rose above “indignity and contumely,
that is to say, all that would most touch that life which man has
in the favour of man, and which strikes more deeply than
physical infliction, because it goes deeper than the body—wound-
ing the spirit” (M‘Leod Campbell, Zhe Nature of the Atonement,
pp. 229, 230). Musonius (ed. Hense, x.) defined tprs or aioyivn
as olov AowWopyOjva } TANYHVaL 7) eumTvaOAvaL, dv TO XaXerwTaTOV
mAnyat. But the special aioxdvyn here is that of crucifixion.
This, says the writer, Jesus did not allow to stand between him
and loyalty to the will of God. It is one thing to be sensitive to
disgrace and disparagement, another thing to let these hinder us
from doing our duty. Jesus was sensitive to such emotions ; he
felt disgrace keenly. But instead of allowing these feelings to
cling to his mind, he rose above them. This is the force of kata-
dpovyjcas here, as in the last clause of St. Philip of Neri’s well-
known maxim, ‘‘Spernere mundum, spernere te ipsum, spernere
te sperni.” It is the only place in the NT where xatadpovety is
used in a good sense (true and false shame are noted in
Sir 4-21 repi ras Yux7s cov py aicyvOijs: éorw yap aicytvyn érd-
youoa apaptiav, kal éorw aicxvvyn dda Kai ydpis). The climax is
put in one of the writer’s favourite quotations from the psalter ;
only this time he uses xexd@xev (perfect here alone for the more
usual aorist, 1° 8! 10!*)=and so has entered on his xapa.

Jesus thus had to suffer worse than anything you have had to
bear; this is the thought of vv.%4, which round off the first
movement of the appeal in 12! ;—

198 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XITI. 3.

3 Compare him who steadily endured (wropepevyndta) all that hostility
from sinful men, so as to keep your own hearts from fainting and failing.
* You have not had to shed blood yet in the struggle against sin.

The writer assumes, as in 57%, a close knowledge of the
Passion story. Before proceeding to argue that suffering is a
fruitful discipline, with which God honours them (v.5f), he re-
minds them that as yet they have not had to face the worst (v.*).
The metaphor of the race-course dies away into the general
military metaphor of v.*, where dpaprtia is half-personified as
in 313. *Avadoyioac@e ! (the yap is corroborative: “yes, dvado-
yicaoGe ” xrX.) is more than katavoyoate (3!): “consider him and
compare his treatment at the hands of these sinners (dpaptwdéav
as in Mk 14*!) with what you are called to suffer.” Tovadtnv echoes
otaupov and aicxurys, and is explained by péxprs atpartos in the next
verse, while 6ropepevyKdta is another aoristic perfect like cexdOuxev.

*Avtidoyiav is used here of active opposition, as in Ps 17*
(pioat pe €€ dvrioy@v Aaod), where 8 R read dvrAoyias, and
in the papyri (eg. Zedt. P. 138 [ii B.c.] dvrwWoyids paxnv).
Like the verb (cp. Jn 192, Ro 1071), the noun covers more than
verbal opposition, as in Nu 20 and Jude !! r9 avtiAoyia rod Kopeé.
The words eis adrdév (or éavrov, A P syr™'! etc.: in semetipsum,
vg.) have no special emphasis; all the writer means to say is
that Jesus himself, Jesus in his own person, had to encounter
malevolent opposition.

This is one of the places at which textual corruption began early. The
curious v./, éavrovs finds early support in 8* D* (adrods, p!® x° 33. 256. 1288.
1319”. 1739. 2127 Lat syr’8 boh Orig.); p'’ x* and D* go wrong here as in
11°, D* and Lat asat 113 (insertion). It is extremely unlikely that the read-
ing arose from a recollection of passages like Nu 16*” (Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram) tylacay ra mupeta Tov auaptrwrOv rovrwy ev (z.e. at the cost of) rats
Wuxats avray, or Pr 8° oi dé els éue duaprdvorres doeBovow els Tas EavTay Wuxds.
The notion that an evil-doer really injured himself was a commonplace (e.g.
M. Aurel. 94 6 auaprdvwy éavr@ auaprdvec’ 6 dduxGv éavrdv dédixet, the remark
of Chrysippus quoted by Plutarch in de Stotc. repugn. xvi., ddixeto Oar bp
éaurov Tov ddtxodvra Kal abroy dduKeiv, bray dddov ddixy, Aristotle in Magn.
Moral. 1196a, 6 dpa radra wh mpdrrwy adixetatrdv, and Xen. Hellen. i. 7. 19,
huaptnkéras Ta wéyioTa els Oeovs Te Kal buds avrovs); Philo works it out in
quod deter, 15, 16. But there is no point in suggesting here, as this reading
does, that the auaprwdol were acting against their better selves, unconsciously
injuring their own souls, as they maltreated Jesus. The writer deals with sin
in a more straightforward and direct way, and, in spite of all arguments to the
contrary (é.g. by Westcott, von Soden, Seeberg, Peake, Wickham), this
seems a far-fetched idea here. It is like the similar interpretation of éavrovs
in 10%, a piece of irrelevant embroidery; it ‘‘ looks like the conceit which
some reader wrote upon his margin” (A. B. Davidson). Theodoret took els
éavrovs with dvadoylcacbe=‘‘think to yourselves.” Which is not natural,
though the Ethiopic version follows this interpretation. In some early
versions (e.g. sah arm) neither els éauréy nor els éavrovs seems to be implied.

1’ Avadoylfoua, though not a LXX term, begins to be used in Hellenistic
Judaism (e.g. Ps.-Sol 8’ cvedoyicdunv ra Kpluara 190 Oeod) in a religious sense.

XII. 3, 4.| A ROUSING REMINDER 199

In iva . . . exAudpevor, exAvopevor (ékAeAvpevor p!® D*) might
go with rats Wvyats tudv (cp. Polybius, xx. 4. 7, od povov Tots
copacw éeAVOnoav, GAAG Kai Tals Wuxais), as readily as Kdpyre
(cp. Job 10! kdprvw d€ rH Yvy7 pov). Both verbs connect with
it, to express the general sense of inward exhaustion and faint-
heartedness; indeed, Aristotle uses both to describe runners
relaxing and collapsing, once the goal has been passed: émi rots
KapmrtTppow (at the goal of the race, not till then) éxwvéover Kat
€xAvovTar' mpoopavres yap TO Tépas ov Kapvovor mpdtepov (Lhet.
iii. 9. 2). In v.4 odmw (ydp is superfluously added by DL 440.
491. 823 arm sah boh) «rAd. does not necessarily imply that they
would be called upon to shed their blood in loyalty to their
faith, as if martyrdom was the inevitable result of tenacity. Nor
is the writer blaming them ; he does not mean to suggest that if
they had been truly decided for God against the world, they
would by this time have suffered péxpis atpatos. He is shaming
them, not blaming them. ‘“ Your sufferings have been serious and
sharp (10°), but nothing to what others before you, and especi-
ally Jesus, have had to bear. Will you give way under a lesser
strain than theirs?” The coming of the messiah was to be
heralded by birth-pangs of trouble for his adherents on earth,
and it might be supposed that the writer implies here: “ The
Coming One (10%”) is near (1276), as is evident from your woes ;
do not fail, but be ready for him.” But this line of thought is
not worked out elsewhere by the writer, and is not necessary to
his argument at this point. To fight péxpis aiuaros is to resist
to the death; cp. the cry of Judas Maccabaeus to his troops
(2 Mac 13}4), aywvicacGar péxpr Gavdrov. Meéxpris aiparos has the
same meaning of a mortal combat, eg. in Heliod. vii. 8, ras
Meéxpts alwatos oTacews.

Note another case of rhetorical alliteration in afu. dyrix. . . . dmapr.
avraywrigiuevor (cp. Clem. Hom. iv. 5, mpos Ttocattny Sivanw dyvtaywvl-
gacGat), and the use of dvraywrifécOat above (v.!) in the quot. from 4 Mac.

The connexion of thought in wv.5 is: God has not yet asked
from you the supreme sacrifice (v.4), and, besides (vv.5), any
demand he makes upon your courage is in your highest
interests.

ae have you forgotten the word of appeal that reasons with you as
SONS §—

“* My son, never make light of the Lora’s discipline,
never faint (éxvov) under his reproofs ;

8 for the Lord disciplines the man he loves,
and scourges every son he receives.”

7 It ts for discipline that you have to endure. God ts treating you as sons ;
for where ts the son who ts not disciplined by his father? *® Discipline is the
portion (méroxor yeyovact, as 3)4) of all; tf you get no disctpline, then you are
not sons, but bastards. * Why, we had fathers of our flesh to discipline us,

200 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XII. 5.

and we ytelded to them! Shall we not far more submit to the Father of our
spirits, and so live? For whtle thetr discipline was only for a time, and
inflicted at their pleasure, he disciplines us for our good, that we may share in
his own holiness. \ Discipline always seems for the time to be a thing of
pain, not of joy ; but those who are trained by it reap the fruit of tt afterwards
in the peace of an upright life.

With the interrogative kat ékdéAnoGe xrA. (v.5) the writer
opens his next argument and appeal. All such trowom means
a divine watSela or moral training, which we have the honour of
receiving from God. Instead of adducing the example of Jesus,
however (see on 57-8), he quotes from the book of Proverbs
(vv.5- 6), and then applies the general idea (vv.71!), “Exdav6a-
vera (not a LXX term) in v.5 is slightly stronger than the more
common émAavOaverOar, though it may be rhetorically chosen
for the sake of assonance after éxkAvopevor. The mapaxAyors is
personified rhetorically ; “Hts (2°) 6piv (for the scripture applies
to all believers) &s utots Siaddéyetar. It is the wapdkAnors of
God, who speaks as a father to his son (vié pov), though in the
original “son” is merely the pupil of the sage (personifying
the divine wisdom). IlapdkAyo.s in Alexandrian Judaism “is
the regular term for ‘an appeal’ to an individual to rise to the
higher life of philosophy” (Conybeare’s ed. of Philo’s de vit.
Contempl., p. 201). The quotation is from Pr 31+? (A):

es \ > , 6 / U
vie, py OAry@pe madetas Kvpiov,
Cans , (eet) > a > abl. .
poe éxAvov tr atrov éAeyxopevos
dv yap ayara Kipios raudever (€Xéyxet, B)
cal / ex a
paotryot 6&€ mavta viov bv mapadéxerat.

After vig, pou is added (except by D* 31 Old Latin, Clem.), but
otherwise the citation is word for word. Philo (De Congressu.
Erud. 31) quotes the same passage to prove that discipline and
hardship are profitable for the soul (otrws dpa 4 émimdnégts Kat
vovbecia Kadov vevouiotar, vote di’ avTns 7 pds Gedy Spodroyta
ovyyéveta yiverat. Ti yap oikedrepov vid ratpos 7) viod ratpi;). The
LXX contains a double mistranslation. (a) It is at least doubt-
ful if the Hebrew text of the second line means ‘‘ be not weary
of”; the alternative is a parallel to the first line, ‘scorn not.”
(6) It is certain that the second line of v.® originally ran, “ he
afflicts the man in whom he delights,” or ‘‘and delights in him as
a father in his son.” Our writer, following the free LXX version,
notes the twofold attitude of men under hardship. They may
determine to get through it and get over it, as if it had no
relation to God, seeing nothing of him in it. Stronger natures
take this line; they summon up a stoical courage, which dares
the world to do its worst to them. This is éAvywpetvy watdetas
Kupiov. It ignores any divine meaning in the rough experience.
Other natures collapse weakly (ékAvew); they see God in the

XII. 5-7.] |. PROVIDENCE AND ENDURANCE 201

trial, but he seems too hard upon them, and they break down
in self-pity, as if they were victims of an unkind providence.
"Eheyxpevos . . . maSever is used, as in Rev 31° (dc0vs cay
pro eheyxw kal maevw), Of pointing out and correcting faults ;
HaorLyol, as in Judith 877 (cis vovbérnow pacrryot Kuptos tovs
éyyiovras airé) and often elsewhere ; mapaSéxerat, in the sense
of Lk 15%. In fact, the temper inculcated in this passage
resembles that of Ps.-Sol 16f. where the writer prays:

yoyyvo pov kal dAryoprxiav ev Odifer paKpuvov am é€u0v,
eav Gpapticw ev TO GE maudevew eis emvotpopiy “Kine

€v TO eeyxer bau Woy év xetpt campias avTAs | es

év tO tropeivar Sikarov ev TovTous eAenOyoeTat bro Kupiov.

In eis madetav Gropevete (v."), with which the writer begins his
application of the text, the vigour is lost by the change of eis
into ef (in a group of late cursives, including 5. 35. 203. 226°.
241. 242. 257. 337- 378. 383. 487. 506. 547. 623. 794. 917. 1319.
1831. 1891. 1898. 2127. 2143 + Theophyl.), and dtopévere is
indicative, not imperative. To endure rightly, one must endure
intelligently ; there is a reason for it in God’s relations with us
(ds uiots Gpiv mpoopépetar). Mpoodéperar (cp. Syl. ars ae D.)
is a non-biblical Greek term for “treating” or “handling”
(“‘tractare, agere cum”); cp. Sy//. 37118, 1 a.D., and Latyschev’s
Inscript. Antig. Orae Septentrionalts, i. 2278 ae pev HAtKLUdTaLs
mpoodepomevos ws adeApds . . . Tots O& Tatcly ws TaTHp) ; Tis goes
with vids, as in Mt 79 (ris éorw e& tudy dvOpwros) etc., and éorw
after vids is rightly omitted by 8* A P W 104. 256 vg sah Origen.

A mood of bitter scepticism about the discipline of provi-
dence recurs in some contemporary Roman writers ; both Lucan
(Pharsalia, iv. 807 f., “ Felix Roma quidem, civesque habitura
beatos, | si libertatis superis tam cura placeret | quam uindicta
placet ») and Tacitus (//7s¢. 1. 3, “nec enim umquam atroci-
oribus populi Romani cladibus magisve iustis indiciis adprobatum
est non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem ”)
speak as if the gods showed an unpaternal vindictiveness. But
the idea of a fatherly providence was far-spread, both within and
without Judaism. When our author argues: “You think that
if God were fatherly, he would spare you these hardships? On
the contrary, they are the proof of his wise affection ””—he is not
far from Seneca’s position (in the de Providentia, iv. 7): “hos
itaque deus quos probat, quos amat, indurat recognoscit,
exercet.” And in 2 Mac 6! the author bids his readers re-

1D takes els ma:delav with the foregoing mapadéxerar, as Hofmann does
with paorvyot. This leaves trouévere (tropelvate D) in quite an effective
opening position for the next sentence ; but it is not the writer’s habit to end
a quotation with some outside phrase.

202 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XII. 7, 8.

member ras tipwpias py mpds drcOpov, GANA mpds raidiav Tod
yévous jpav eivac, According to Sanhedr. roza (cp. Sifre, Deut.
32), Rabbi Akiba comforted R. Eliezer on his sick-bed by
explaining to him that “chastisements are precious,” whereas
the other three rabbis who accompanied him had only praised the
sick man for his piety. There is a fine passage in Philo’s guod
deter. potiort tnstd. soleat, 39-40, where he argues that discipline
at God’s hands is better than being left to oneself in sin and
folly; edruxéorepor S€ Kat xpeirtous tov dveritporedtwv véwy ot
pddiora pev ériotacias Kal dpyns aéwhévres pvowxis, Av ob yevv7-
gavres eri Téxvois KekAypwrvTat . . . tkerevwpev ody Tov Oedy ot
guvedyoe Tov oiketwy ddiKnudtwv édeyxomevol, KoAdoar pas
paddov 7 wapetvar. Similarly, in de sacrificantibus, 11, he writes
of parental care, human and divine, apropos of Deut 14} (vioi
éore kupiw TH Ged Sudv) dyrovdtt wpovoias Kal Kydenovias a£uvby-
gopevor THS Ws ex matpds' 7» Sé eryseAeca ToTOUToy diolcer THS az
avOpwrwv doovrep, olyat, Kai 5 éripedovpevos Siadéper. Compare
M. Aur. i. 17, 70 dpxovte kat watpi brorayOjvat, ds euedAe ravra
Tov Tipov ddaipyrev pov (cp. v. 31). When the king asks, in
the Zpist. Arist. 248, what is the supreme instance of neglect
(Gpédera), the Jew answers, ei réxvwy ddporrtis tis ein, Kal pul) Kara
mavta, tpomov ayayeiv omevdor... To S& emidetaOar madelav
gwppoovyys petacxetv, Deovd Suvdper TovTo yiverat,

Jerome writes in his letter (Zfzs¢. xxii. 39) to Eustochium: ‘‘haec est
sola retributio, cum sanguis sanguine conpensatur et redempti cruore Christi
pro redemptore libenter occumbimus. quis sanctorum sine cerfamine corona-
tus est? Abel justus occiditur; Abraham uxorem periclitatur amittere, et,
ne in inmensum uolumen extendam, quaere et invenies singulos diuersa per-
pessos. solus in deliciis Salomon fuit et forsitan ideo corruit. quem enim
diligit dominus, corripit ; castigat autem omnem filium, quem recipit.” He
often quotes this verse (°) in his letters of counsel and warning. Thus in
Ixviii. I he prefixes it with the remark, ‘‘ magna ira est, quando peccantibus
non irascitur deus.” The modern parallel would be Browning’s hero in
Christmas-Eve and Easter- Day (pt. 2, xxxiii.), who is

‘“happy that I can
Be crossed and thwarted as a man,
Not left in God’s contempt apart,
With ghastly smooth life.”

In v.8 mdvres (sc. viol yvyowot) recalls mévta vidy (v.8). NéQor
are children born out of wedlock, who are left to themselves ;
the father is not sufficiently interested in them to inflict on
them the discipline that fits his legitimate children for their
place in the home. No@os (not a LXX term) seems to mean
born of mixed marriages, in Wis 43 (cp. Aristoph. Birds, 1650-
1652, voGos yap ef Kod yvyjows . . . wv ye Eévys yuvatkds). So Philo
compares polytheists and lovers of material pleasure to trav éx
mopvns aroxunbevtwy (de Confus. ling. 28), as distinguished from

XII. 8-10. ] FATHERS AND THE FATHER 203

the sons of God. The double éore (not 7re) makes the sentence
more vivid ; the writer supposes an actual case. In vy.® 1° the
writer simply develops this idea of ma:8eta, comparing the
human and the divine methods. Hence ¢e?ra cannot mean here
“further” (deinde) ; it is ‘‘ besides,” in the sense that it brings
out another element in the conception.

Etra might be taken interrogatively (=itane or siccine), to introduce
an animated question (as often in Plato, e.g. Leges, 9646, Theat. 2074,
Sophist. 2226), though we should expect a $€ in the second clause here or a
kat before ov mod paddov. Kypke suggests that elra=el dé (quodsi) as,
e.g.,in Jos, B./. iii. 8. 5, el7’ dv pév ddavion tis dvOpmrov mapaxarabykny,
H OidOnrar kakas.

NaSeurHs Only occurs once in the LXX, and there as a de-
scription of God (Hos 5? éyw 6€ radevrys iuav); in 4 Mac 9°
(6 wadeutijs yépwv) it is applied to a man, as in Ro 2%. Kat
évetpendpeba (“reverebamur,” vg), we submitted respectfully to
them (the object of the verb being watépas), as in Mt 21%”, not,
we amended our ways (as in LXX, e.g. 2 Ch 71* and Philo’s
quaest. in Gen. 49 76 ph dpaptavev pndtv TO Tapapéyiotov ayabov"
TO dpaptavovta évtparjvat cvyyéeves éxetvov). In ob mod pa&dXor,
the more common moAh@ is read by D° K L, and after woAv a
few authorities (p!3 x° D* 1739 Origen) supply the 6€ which is
strictly required after the preceding pwév. The description of
God as T@ tatpi tév Tveupdtwy is unexpected. In the vocabulary
of Hellenistic Judaism God is called 6 tév rvevpatwv Kai dons
efovatas Suvdarys (2 Mac 374), and “ Lord of spirits ” is a favourite
Enochic title; but “spirits” here cannot mean angels (cp. Nu
1622), The contrast between tods tis capkxés matépas and Ta
Tatpl Tay mveupdtwy denotes God as the author of man’s spiritual
being; the expression is quite intelligible as a statement of
practical religion, and is only rendered ambiguous when we read
into it later ideas about traducianism and creationism, which
were not in the writer’s mind. Shall we not submit to Him, the
writer asks, kat {icopev (cp. 10%8 Lyoerar) ? “‘ Monemur hoc verbo
nihil esse nobis magis exitiale quam si nos in Dei obsequium
tradere recusemus” (Calvin). In v.!° the assumption that the
readers were mature men (etxopey, v.°) is made explicit by mpés
ddjiyas Apéepas (till we became men). Ipods here, as in Wis 166
(cis vovGeriav 5€ mpds dXdlyov érapdxOyoay) etc., means duration ;
it is not final, as if the parental discipline were with a view to
the short, earthly life alone. Kata 15 Soxodv adtots (as they
chose) refers to the arbitrariness of the patria potestas. “‘ Parents
may err, but he is wise,” as the Scottish metrical paraphrase
puts it.

The writer has in mind the familiar patrza potestas of the Romans, as in
Terence’s Heauton Timoroumenos (100: ‘‘vi et via pervolgata patrum” ;

204 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XII. 10.

204-207: ‘‘parentum iniuriae unius modi sunt ferme . . . atque haec sunt
tamen ad virtutem omnia”), where one father is confessing to another how he
had mishandled his boy (99f. : ‘‘ubi rem rescivi, coepi non humanitus neque
ut animum decuit aegrotum adulescentuli tractare”), Compare the remark
of the Persian officer in Xenophon’s Cyrofaedza (ii. 2. 14), who argued that a
man who set himself to make people laugh did less for them than a man who
made them weep, and instanced fathers—xAavuaor pév ye kal marépes viots
cwppoctvny unxavavrat. This is wholesome correction. But it was not
always so. ‘‘Qur postremo filio suscenseam, patres ut faciunt ceteri?” old
Demaenetus asks, in the Aszvzaréa (49) of Plautus. Ovid’s ‘‘ durus pater”
(Amores, i. 15. 17) was more than a tradition of literature. Pliny tells us,
for example, that he had once to remonstrate with a man who was thrashing
his son for wasting money on horses and dogs (Z//. ix. 12): ‘‘haec tibi
admonitus immodicae seueritatis exemplo pro amore mutuo scripsi, ne
quando tu quoque filium tuum acerbius duriusque tractares.” There is also
the story told by Aelian ( Var. H7zst. ix. 33) about the youth who, when asked
by his father what he had learned from Zeno, was thrashed for failing to
show anything definite, and then calmly replied that he had learned stoically
to put up with a father’s bad temper (@67 pewabynxévar pépew dpyiv marépwr
kal ph ayavakteiv). Sons, says Dio Chrysostom (xv. 240 M), rpégovrat
mares 01rd Tay Tarépwv Kal malovrar 7éd\dNaKis Um’ av’tGv. The general point
of view is put by Epictetus (Zzchirzdion, 30, marip éotw* braryopeverat
émipenetobat, mapaxwpelvy amdvrwy, avéxerOar oLdopovvrTos, malovros), and the
connexion of ‘‘ life” with madela in Pr 4° éridaBod éufis mardeias, uh adjs,
GAG PUAa~ov abrhv ceauT@ els fwhv gov: Pr 673 Avxvos éevToA} vouou kal pds,
kal 000s fwijs kal €Aeyxos Kal madefa, and Sir 41",

Now for the contrast. ‘O 8€ (God; sc. radever judas) em 7d
auppepov (cp. 1 Co 127; Ep. Arist. 125, ovpPovrevdvtwy mpos
TO cvpdépov Tov didwy), which is explained in eis 176 petahaPetv
(cp. 67) tis dyidtyTos adtod. “Ayiétns is a rare term, which
begins to appear late in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 15? tov
mavta epopavtos pe aylorntos: Test. Levi 34 trepdvw macys
dy.oTytos), and, except as a v./. in 2 Co 1}%, occurs nowhere else
in the NT. Here it denotes the divine life, to share in which is
the outcome of 6 dyracpds 06 yxwpis oddels Setar (Ze. have a
direct experience of) tév kuptov (v.14). The writer, in this contrast,
is simply arguing that the divine education, which involves some
suffering, as all watdefa does, is more worthy of obedience from
mature people than even the parental discipline to which, for all
its faults ot temper, they submitted during childhood. The say-
ings of Isokrates, that while the roots of zavdefa were bitter, its
fruits were sweet, was a commonplace of ancient morals; the
writer is going to develop it in a moment. Meantime he alludes
to the equally well-known truth that wadeca might involve severe
physical treatment.

Two examples may be added of this doctrine that education involves a
discipline which sometimes requires the infliction of pain. Maximus of Tyre
(Diss. iv. 7), in arguing that the desire to give pleasure is by no means an in-
variable proof of true affection, asks: g¢idodow dé mov kal matdas rarépes Kal
diddoxador wabyrds kal rl av etn dviapdbrepov # maidt warhp Kal pabnry diddc-
kados; so Philo argues in de Migrat. Abrah. 20, cwdhpovicray ws Eoxe Tord

SILT] THE GOOD OF DISCIPLINE 205

éott 70 @O0s, matdaywydv, didackddwv, yovéwy, mpecBurépwr, apxévTwr, vduwv"
dverdlfovres yap, are 5 Srrov kal ko\dfovres Exacta TovTwy dpelvous Tas WuxXas
dmepyafovrar TY madevoueévwv. Kal €xOpds wev ovdeis ovdevl, dito. d€ mace
mavres. In de parent. col. 4, he explains, dca rovr éfeore rots marpdot Kal
KaTnyopely mpos Tovs Tatdas Kal éuBpilécrepov vouberety kal, el wy Tats Ov akoav
ametNats Urelkovot, TUmTEw Kal mpoTnAaklfev Kal KaTadely.

In v.! the writer sums up what he has been saying since v.9.
Discipline or maSeta mpds 76 Tapdv (a classical Greek phrase = =for
the moment, e.g. Thue. ll, 22, Op@v avbtovs mpds TO wapoyv xaAerai-
vovtas) o0 Gast . . . ov=absolute negative, not any) doxet (to
human feelings and judgment) xapas etvar dddAad Amys (to be a
matter of, efvac with gen. as in 10°).

Naoa pév (x* P 33. 93) and waca 8é (p! xc A De H KL ¥ 6. 326. 929.
1288. 1836 vg syr boh Chrys. etc. ) practically mean the same thing, for the
uéyv is concessive ( ‘‘of course” ) and 6é is metabatic. But probably it was the
awkwardness of the double év that led to the alteration of this one. The other
readings, waca yap (Cosm. (221 C) Jer. Aug.) and raéca (D* 104. 460. 917 arm
eth Orig. Cosm. (376 D)) are obviously inferior attempts to clear up the passage.

“Yotepov S€ (cp. Pr 5% 4 (of the harlot) 7 mpos xarpoy Auraiver
cov dapvyya' voTEpov pévToL miKpOTepov XoANS evpyoers), but later
on discipline yields fruit; it is not a stone flung down arbitrarily
on human life, but a seed. By kapmév eipyyvixdy Stxarocdvys the
writer means fruit (kaprds as often=result or outcome), which
consists in (genit. of apposition) dicavoovvy (as in 117 a generic
term for the good life as a religious relationship to God). But
why eipnytkdv? Possibly in contrast to the restiveness and pain
(Avans) of the period of discipline, when people are being trained
(yeyupvacpévos); when the discipline does its perfect work,
there is no friction between the soul and God. But there is also
the suggestion of “‘saving” or “blissful.” Philo quotes Pr
311-12 (see above on v.5) as a saying of Solomon ¢he peaceful
(eipnvixds) ; the significance of this he finds in the thought that
subjection and obedience are really a wholesome state for people
who are inclined to be self-assertive, uncontrolled, and quarrel-
some. He thinks that Noah is rightly called by a name denoting
rest, since periaow jpepatov de Kal ovyxdlovta kal orabepov ere dé
Kal eipyvixov Biov ot Kadokadyabiay tetiunKotes (Abrah. 5). To
take eipyvixdv in some such sense (salutaris) would yield a good
interpretation ; and this is confirmed by the similar use of eipyvy
in v.14 and of the adjective in 3 Mac 6%, where the Jews, in the
ecstasy of their relief, xopovs ovvictavto eddppootvys cipynvixijs

onueov. Those who stand their training reap a safe, sound life
‘at last. In its social aspect, eipyvixdv could only refer to the
brotherly love of the community ; the writer might be throwing
out a hint to his readers, that suffering was apt to render people
irritable, impatient with one another’s faults. The later record
even of the martyrs, for example, shows that the very prospect of

206 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 11, 12.

death did not always prevent Christians from quarrelling in
prison. This may be the meaning of eipyvixdy in Ja 38, but it is
out of keeping with the present context.

A close parallel to v.!! is the saying of Aristotle (see above, for the similar
remark of Isokrates), quoted by Diog. Laertius (v. 1. 18): ts matdelas én
Tas mev plfas elvac mixpas, yAuKels O€ rods Kaprovs. In pest. Arist. 232,
rods yap am’ abris (ze. Stkacoovvns) ddurlay karackevdfew, though the ddurla
here is freedom from misfortune. Clem. Alex. (S¢vom. vii. 10. 56), after
speaking of the time when we are delivered from the chastisements and
punishments as ék T@v auaprnudrwy els madelay vrouévomev owrnpiov [He
127], adds: ped’ Av amodttpwow 7d yépas kal al rial TeNerwHetoww drodldovras

. kal Peol rhv mpoonyoplay KéxAnvrat ol civOpova THv dAAwY Deby, Tov brd
T@ TWTApl THSTwy TETAYMEVWY, YEvNTOMEVOL.

The writer now resumes the imperative tone (vv.!2), with a
blend of counsel and warning. The discipline of trouble is
viewed under an active aspect; men must co-operate with God,
exerting themselves to avoid sin (v.!) by the exercise of personal
zeal and church-discipline. Otherwise, the results may be fatal.
The exhortation broadens out here, resuming the tone and range
ol.t0",

12 So (616 as in 61) ‘up with your listless hands! Strengthen your weak
knees!” 8 And “‘ make straight paths for your feet” to walk in. You must
not let the lame get dislocated, but rather make them whole. 34 Aim at peace
wrth all—at that consecration without which no one will ever see the Lord ; see
to it that no one misses the grace of God, ‘‘ that no root of bitterness grows up
to be a trouble” by contaminating all the rest of you ; 8 that no one turns to
sexual vice or to a profane life as Esau did—Esau who for a single meal
“‘ parted with his birthright.” ™ You know how later on, when he wanted to
obtain his inheritance of blessing, he was set aside; he got no chance to repent,
though he tried for it with tears.

For the first time, since the hints in 3!? 41 and 611, the writer
alludes to differences of attainment in the little community.
Hitherto he has treated them asa solid whole. But the possi-
bility of individual members giving way has been voiced in 10”,
and now the writer (18>) widens his appeal; his readers are to
maintain their faith not only for their own sakes but for the sake
of those who at their side are in special danger of collapsing.
The courage of their 6ropovy is more than a personal duty ; they
are responsible for their fellow-members, and this involves the
duty of inspiriting others by their own unswerving, unflagging
faith. The admonition, as in 13)", is addressed to the whole
community, not to their leaders. The general aim of vv.!% 38 is
to produce the character praised by Matthew Arnold in his lines

on Rugby Chapel:

“Ye move through the ranks, recall
The stragglers, refresh the out-worn...
Ye fill up the gaps in our files,
Strengthen the wavering line,

XII. 12, 13.] RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS 207

Stablish, continue our march,
On, to the bound of the waste,
On, to the City of God.”

He Fos in v.}2 by using scriptural language borrowed freely
from Is 35° (icxvoare, xéEtpes dvetpevat kal yovata mapaXehupera),
but in a form already current in Sir 25% (xetpes Tapepevat kal
yovara mapaeAvpeva), and also from Pr 47° (dp0as tpoxias role
tots wootv). ‘This metaphorical language ra collapsing in listless
despair is common, e.g., in Sir 212 where xetpes mapepevar is
bracketed with ‘cowardly hearts,” in Philo’s description of the
Israelites who longed to return to Egypt, ol pev yap TpoKapovres
avererov, Bapvv dvtimaov HynTdpevou TOV TOvov, Kal Tas XEtpas or
padeeaad Gomep ameipykotes abAnTat KabijKav (de Congressu Erud.
20; ep. He 11’), and ee! in the description of moral
encouragement in Job 4°34 ei yap od évovérnoas moAXods, kal
Xétpas dobevois wapexdArecas, dobevodytdas TE e~aveotyoas pypyacw,
yovacly te advvatodow Odpoos wepiéOyxas. In Dt 32°° wapadedv-
pevous is parallel to wapeévouvs, and in Zeph 3/6 the appeal
is @apoe . . . py TapeicOwoav at Xeipés cov.t *AvopOdcate
(literally = straighten, renew) goes with yovara better than with
xetpas, but the sense is plain. In v.}3, if _Toujoare is read in the
first clause, kat Tpoxtds 6p8as moujoare TOUS Tool Opav is a hexa-
meter (p. lvii). By 1 xwdéy the writer means “those who are
lame,” these crippled souls in your company.

Probably the zroveire of 8* P 33. 917. 1831 (Orig.) has been conformed, in
mounoare (R° ADHKL, etc., Chrys. ), to the preceding dvop@woare (so, é.g.,
B. Weiss, in Zexte wu. Untersuch. xiv. 3. 4, 9, who declares that the older
codices never yield any case of an original aor. being changed into a present),

though some edd. (e.g. von Soden) regard mo:joare as the original text and
moveire as having been conformed to LXX (cp. Mt 3?).

As ia@ 8€ paddov shows, éxtpaf here has its medical sense
(e.g. Hippol. de offic. med. 14, os pare dvaxAarau majre €xTpe-
myrat), not the common sense of being “turned aside” (as, ¢.g.,
in Philo, Quaest. in Exod. 2379 of advdAdktus ddouropotyres
Stapaprdvovow THS opOijs kal Aewddpou é as ToAhaKes eis avodlas Kal
dug Barous Kal Tpaxelas GT parrovs extpéme Oat" TO Tapamhyo.v eat
ore Kal at doxal TOV veov TaLdeias auorpovow, and in M. Aurel. i. 7,
kal TO py éxtparjvar eis CAov codiotixov). In Od. Sol 64f the
ministers of the divine grace are praised in similar terms for
their service to weaker Christians :

“They have assuaged the dry lips,
And the will that had fainted they have raised up:...
And limbs that had fallen
They have straightened and set up.”
1 Clem. Hom. xii. 18, al xetpes bd Snypdtwv wapelOnoay.

208 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 138, 14.

But here it is the members as a whole who are addressed, and
Tpox. dp0as 7. T. Tooty Suey means “ keep straight ” (rociv, dative =
“for your feet”)—it is the only way to help your fellow-members
who have weakened themselves. Keep up the tone of your
community, move in the right direction, to prevent any of your
number from wavering and wandering. The straight path is the
smooth path, it is implied; if any limping soul is allowed to
stray from the straight course, under the influence of a bad
example, he will be made worse instead of better. The admoni-
tion in Zest, Sim. 52-8 is interesting, as it suggests the train of
thought here between vv.!2 and 16;

> , ‘ , ea eld ,
dyabivare tas Kapdias tuav évartiov Kupiou
kal eiOivare Tas Sd0vs buav évomiov Tov avOparwv
{2 ,

kal écecbe eiploxovtes xapw évsriov Kupiov Kai dvOpwrwr.
pvrdéacbe ovv dad THs Topvetas,
OTe 7) Topvela pyTNP OTL TOV KAKO,

4 > \ a “ \ A fol ,
xwpilovca ard Tod Oeod Kat mpooeyylotca TH BeXéiap.

The author of Mpés ‘EBpatous knows that the difficulties in the way
of faith are more than mere despair. In 12!" he has been
dealing with the need of cheerful courage under the strain of
life ; this leads to the appeal of v.!%. But while there is nothing
so infectious as cowardice or despair, he rapidly passes on,
in vv.J8£ (kat «rd.), to warn his readers against some specific
temptations in the moral life. He continues, in a third impera-
tive (v.!4), eiphyny Sudxete (an OT phrase, 1 P 31!) pera mdvtwv.
Here perd goes with dudxere in the sense of “along with” (as in
119 138, for our author avoids ovv), and wdvrwy means “all the
(other) dyvou” (as in 1374). The call is to make common cause
with all the rest of the Christians in the quest for God’s eipyvn,
i.e. (see above on v.!!) the bliss and security of a life under God's
control. It is e’p%jv7 in a sense corresponding to the older sense
of felicity and prosperity on the ground of some (messianic)
victory of God, practically as in Lk 17 19%8 the Christian
salvation; only this comprehensive sense does justice to the
term here and in 132%. Hence the following xaé is almost=
‘eyen.”

Eipyvy in a similar sense occurs repeatedly in the context of the passage
already quoted from Proverbs: e.g, 3h? vid, éudy vouluwv uh émdavOdvou,
Ta 6€ phuara sou Typelrw oh Kapdla* uijKos yap Blov kal érn fwis Kal elpyyny
mposbhrovoly co. . . 3° amdpxov adr@ dd ody Kaprav Sikatootvns . . .
316 17 éx rod orbuaros airis éxmopeverat Otxacocvvn Kal mavres ol tplBa avdrijs
év cipdvg . . « 3% iva ropety memoBas ev elpiivn mdoas Tas ddovs cov. After

Pr 4*8 (as quoted above) there follows the promise, adrds 5¢ ras dp0ds roujoe
ras Tpoxlas gov, Tas dé mopelas cou év elpnyy mpodger.

The conventional interpretation takes elpyvyv with peta mavtwv (z.¢. all

XII. 14, 15 | A WARNING 209

your members). This yields a fair sense, for a quarrelsome church is a real
hindrance to effective faith ; the quarrelsomeness here would be due to the
presence of faulty persons, whose lapses were apt to be irritating, and what
would break eipyv7 (z.e. mutual harmony) in such cases is the spirit of harsh-
ness in dealing with faults, censoriousness, or aloofness, just as what makes
for elpjvn is a concern for purity and goodness inspired by forbearance and
patience. But all this is read into the text. There is no hint of such dangers
elsewhere in IIpds ‘ESpalous as there is in 1 P 3°- and Ro 1218... Our author
is characteristically putting a new edge on an old phrase like duixere elpyyny.

What <ipyvy specially involved is shown in kat téy dyracpdv
kth. Here dytacpés is not to be identified with owdpoovvy in the
special sense of 134; it is the larger “consecration” to God
which all é&yvot must maintain. In fact, Sidkete tov dytacpdv KrA.
is simply another description of the experience called “sharing
in God’s éytétns” (v.19). Xwpis generally precedes, here it follows,
the word it governs (08), either for the sake of the rhythm or to
avoid a hiatus (08 odSeis). ‘To see the Lord,” is an expression
common in Philo for that vision of the Divine being which is
the rare reward of those who can purify themselves from the
sensuous (cp. H. A. A. Kennedy’s Philo’s Contribution to Religion,
pp. 192f.). Képtos is God in vwv.®and ®; here, in view of 9%, it
might be Jesus (as 2°), though “to see God” (vg “deum”) as a
term for intimate personal fellowship is more adequate to the
context. People must be on the alert against tendencies to in-
fringe this dyvaopds (v.15) ; émtcxotrobvtes, one form and function of
mapaKkahoortes (107°), introduces three clauses, beginning each with
pi tus, though it is not clear whether the third (v.!°) is intended
as an example of ptavOdow or as a further definition of the
second py tts (pila x7A.). The first clause, py tes botepay (sc. n)
dnd THs xdpitos Tod Oeod, shows dotepetv (4!) with dé as in
Eccles 6? torepOv . . . dd mavtos od emiOupnoe (Sir 7°4 wy torépe
a7 kAawvrwv has a different sense). In writing aro tHs yaputos
tov Oeod the writer may have had already in mind the words of
Dt 2918 (uy tis eorw ev ipiv .. . Tivos 4 didvora efexAwev ad
kuptov Tov Heod Hu.0v), which he is about to quote in the next clause.

The rhetorical tone comes out in the two iambic trimeters 05 xwpls ovdels
Bperar Tov Kvptov and émicKxorobvTes ux Tis LoTEpoy ad.

The next clause, py tis pila mxpias avw pvouga évoxh#, is a
reminiscence of the warning against idolatry and apostasy in Dt
2918, which A (as well as F*) preserves in this form, py tis éorev
év ipiv pila mixpias avw pvovoa évoxAy (so B*: év xoAW B) kai
mukpia (B*: kai muxpia B). The form is ungrammatical, for éorw
is superfluous, as is kat mxpia. On the other hand, the text of B
yields no good sense, for a root can hardly be said to grow up év
XoAf, and xai mexpia is left stranded; the alteration of auxpia
in B* does not help matters, for it is not preceded by év yoA7,

14

210 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (XII. 15, 16.

Plainly the writer found something like the words of A in his
text of the LXX; he may have omitted éorw and kat mxpia.
The confusion between -oxAy and xodAy is intelligible, as 6yAos
and xéAos are confused elsewhere (Blass reads év yxod7q here,
which requires 7 or éorw to be supplied). *Evoxd is the present
subjunctive of évoxXety, which is used in 1 Es 2!9 (évoyAotca)
and 2% (évoyAjoat) of rebellion disturbing and troubling the
realm. As a general term for “troubling” or ‘‘ vexing,” it is
common both in classical Greek and in the papyri, either
absolutely or with an accusative, as, e.g., Polystr. Apicur. (ed.
C. Wilke) 84. 4, od3° td’ évds rovtwv évoyAncapévovs Aas, the
edict of M. Sempronius Liberalis (Aug. 29, 154 A.D.): ev TH
oixeta TH yew[py|ia mpockaprepotor pn evoxrciv (BGU. ii. 372),
and Aristoph. Frogs, 709 f., od roddy otd 6 wiG)KOS ObTOS 6 Viv.
évoxAdv. As for fila (of a person, as, ¢g., in 1 Mac 130 kal
eémAOev e€ aitav pila apuaptwAds "Avtioxos *Emigavys) mxplas
(genitive of quality), the meaning is a poisonous character and
influence (cp. Ac 8%8). The warning in Deuteronomy is against
any pernicious creature in the community, who by cool insolence
and infidelity draws down the divine sentence of extermination
upon himself and his fellows. Here the writer thinks of people
who consider that immediate gratification of their wishes is
worth more than any higher end in life; they value their spiritual
position as sons (vv.*") so little, that they let it go in order to
relapse on some material relief at the moment. Such a nature
is essentially BéByAos, devoid of any appreciation of God’s
privileges, and regarding these as of no more importance than
sensuous pleasures of the hour. Under ie bad influence of this
Ue: taitns, ND K LW 326, etc, as in 137: dca airys, A H P 33.
424* syrbkl boh Clem. etc., as in 114 121), all the rest (ot moddol,
after one has been mentioned, as in Ro 5) etc.) may be tainted
(ptav@dor), and so (cp. on 1022) rendered incapable of épeo@ar tov
Kuptov.

The third clause (v.16) is py tes (sc. 4) mépvos 4 BéBn dos (for
the collocation see Philo, de Sacerdot. 8, ropvyn kai BeByrAw copa
kai Wuxyv, and for this transferred sense of f. (= Lat. profanus)
see Jebb-Pearson’s Fragments of Soph. ii. 208) ; BéBnXos is
only once applied to a person in the LXX, viz. in Ezk 21?° ov
BeBnre advope (=05n), then to people like Antiochus (3 Mac

27 14) or (3 Mac 7) rovs BeByAovs Xetpwodmevor) recreant Jews.
In adding ds *Hoad xrA. the writer chooses the story of Esau, in
Gn 2578-34 271-39, to illustrate the disastrous results of yielding
to the dpaptia of which he had spoken in v.14. There can be no
Stopovn, he implies, without a resolute determination to resist
the immediate pleasures and passions of the hour. As Cicero
puts it in the De Finibus, i. 14, “plerique, quod tenere atque

STG, 27. | THE SIN OF ESAU 211

servare id quod ipsi statuerunt non possunt, victi et debilitati
objecta specie voluptatis tradunt se libidinibus constringendos
nec quid eventurum sit provident, ob eamque causam propter
voluptatem et parvam et non necessariam et quae vel aliter
pararetur et qua etiam carere possent sine dolore, tum in morbos
graves, tum in damna, tum in dedecora incurrunt.” But why
choose Esau? Probably owing to rabbinic tradition, in which
Esau is the typical instance of the godless who grow up among
good people (Isaac and Rebekah) and yet do not follow their
deeds, as Obadiah is of the good who grow up among the wicked
(Ahab and Jezebel) and do not follow ¢hezr deeds (Sifre 133 on
Nu 27!). The rabbinic tradition! that Esau was sensual, is
voiced as early as Philo, in the de (Vobilitate, 4 (6 S€ peilwv
dmreOijs éx TOY yaoTpos Kal TOV peTaA yaoTEpa TOOVaV axpaTos Exwv,
if’ Gv dvercicOn Kai mpecBeiwy éSictacbor TH per avrod kal
peravoeiv evs ed’ ols ebéoTn Kai hovay Kara Tod ddeAgod Kai pydev
érepov 7) &¢ Gv AvTYTEL TOs yovels mpaypareveobar), where Philo
interprets the petdvora of Esau as simply regret for a bad bargain.
Our author may have considered Esau a mépvos literally—and in
any case the word is to be taken literally (as in 13*), not in its
OT metaphorical sense? of “ unfaithful”—but the weight of the
warning falls on BéB7Aos, as is clear from the phrase déyti Bpdcews
puds (cp. Gn 2578 7) O@xyjpa airod Bpoos aird). T. H. Green
(Prolegomena to Ethics, § 96) points out that hunger was not the
motive. ‘If the action were determined directly by the hunger,
it would have no moral character, any more than have actions
done in sleep, or strictly under compulsion, or from accident, or
(so far as we know) the action of animals. Since, however, it is
not the hunger as a natural force, but his own conception of
himself, as finding for the time his greatest good in the satis-
faction of hunger, that determines the act, Esau recognizes
himself as the author of the act... . If evil follows from it,
whether in the shape of punishment inflicted by a superior, or
of calamity ensuing in the course of nature to himself or those in
whom he is interested, he is aware that he himself has brought
it on himself.” The puds is emphatic: “id culpam auget, non
misericordiam meretur” (Bengel).

In the quotation from Gn 25%% (drédoro 6¢ "Hoad ra mpwroroxeita Te
"TaxwB), amrédSero (A C 623), as if from a form @modi8w (cp. Helbing, 105), is
preferred by Lachmann, B. Weiss, WH.

The warning is now (v.!") driven home. “*lote, indicative here
(a literary Atticism, though Blass insists that it is chosen for the

1Jub 258 (Esau tempting Jacob to take one of his own two sensual
wives).

2 TIopyvela has this sense, and so has the verb (¢.g. Ps 7377 ¢EwéOpevoas
mwdayvra Tov TopvevovTa ard gov).

212 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XII. 17.

sake of the rhythm, to assimilate tote yap 61 kat pe(témerta) to
the closing words of the preceding sentence), recalls to the
readers the scripture story with which they were so familiar.
“lore Ste kai (another item in his story) petémerta QAwy KAnpovo-
pjcat (1 P 3%) thy eddoylay (=mpwrordxa as in 1 Ch 5)?)
dmeSoxipdoOn (Jer 6° dedoxipacey adtovs Kipios: Ign. om. 8°
éav dodoxipacGa). “AmodoxipdtecOar is common in the Greek
orators for officials being disqualified, but the rejection here is
an act of God; Esau is a tragic instance of those who cannot
get a second chance of perdvova (6°). The writer has again the
sombre, serious outlook which characterizes a passage like 64°.
The very metaphor of plant-growth occurs here as there, and
dredSoxiudaOn recalls é5dxypos. Meravora is impossible for certain
wilful sins ; certain acts of deliberate choice are irrevocable and
fatal Why this was so, in Esau’s case, is now explained;
petavotas yap témov ox ebpe (etpicxw=obtain, with éx{yreiy as
often in LXX, eg. Dt 4°), xatwep peta Saxpdwy (emphatic by
position) éx{ytijeas adthy (z.c. pweravoiav. ‘‘ Meravotas TO7os is, in
fact, werdvora. . . . When per. rozov is taken up again, the mere
secondary tézos disappears, and it is airyv, not airov, agreeing
with the great thing really sought,” Alford). If the writer used
his usual A text of the LXX, he would not have found any
allusion to the tears of Esau in Gn 27°8, but the tears were
retained, from the Hebrew, in Jub 26%, in other texts of the
LXX, and in Josephus (Azz. i. 18. 7, révOos iyyev emi TH Siapapria.
Kal aitod tots Saxpyow axOopevos 6 watyp xtA.).1 ‘Those tears
of Esau, the sensuous, wild, impulsive man, almost like the cry
of some ‘trapped creature,’ are among the most pathetic in the
Bible” (A. B. Davidson). Aéryy refers to petavolas, not to
eddoylas (which would require petavoias . . . ebpev to be taken
as a parenthesis, a construction which is wrecked on the anti-
thesis between edpev and éxlntycas). The petdvoia is not a
change in the mind of Isaac, which would require some additional
words like tod watpés. Besides, Esau does not beseech Isaac to
alter his mind. Nor can it refer to a change in God’s mind. It
is ‘a change of mind” on Esau’s part, “undoing the effects of
a former state of mind” (A. B. Davidson). Bitterly as Esau
regretted his hasty action, he was denied any chance of having
its consequences reversed by a subsequent perdvova ; this is the
writer’s meaning. "Advvaroy raAw dvaxawilew eis peTavo.ay is the
law of God for such wilful offenders, and to try for a second
perdvoa is vain. Such is the warning that our author deduces
from the tale of Esau.

1 There is a striking parallel in De Mercede Conductis, 42, where
Lucian describes an old man being met by % merdvora daxptovoa és ovdey
bpedos.

XII. 17.] THE SIN OF ESAU 213

This inexorable view agrees with Philo’s idea (Leg. A/leg. iii. 75, modais
yap Wuxats pweravola xpjobat BouvdAnbeicats ov émétpeWev 6 Geds) that some,
like Cain! (guod deter. pot. 26, Tw be pH Sexouévw petrdvoray Kalv ov
brepBodnv ayous), are too bad to repent, though Philo illustrates it here not
from Esau, but from Lot’s wife. In de Spec. Leg. ii. 5 he declares that
luxurious spendthrifts are ducxd@apro kal Svolaror, ws unde Oe~ TH Thy piow
Trew cvyyvepns dévoicAat. In Jub 35'4 Isaac tells Rebekah that ‘‘ neither Esau
nor his seed is to be saved.” But the idea of IIpds ‘ESpatous is made still more
clear by the use of petavotas téaov as an expression for opportunity or
chance to repent. This is a contemporary Jewish phrase ; cp. Apoc. Bar
85)? (‘‘ For when the Most High will bring to pass all these things, there will
not then be an opportunity for returning . . . nor place of repentance”),
4 Es 9! (‘‘ while a place of repentance was still open to them, they paid
no heed”), which goes back to Wis 12!° xplywy 6€ xara Bpaxd édldous rémov
peravolas (of God punishing the Canaanites). It is linguistically a Latinism,?
which recurs in Clem. Rom. 75 (év yeved kal yevea peravolas témov tdwxev
6 deomérns Tois Bovlouévas émiotpapjvar ém’ avrév) and Tatian (Orat. ad
Graecos, 15, dia Tolro yodv 7 T&v datudvwv bréoracts ovK exer peravolas
témov). But a special significance attaches to it in 4 Esdras, for example,
where the writer (e.g. in 7!°*f-) rules out any intercession of the saints for the
ungodly after death, in his desire to show that ‘‘the eternal destiny of the
soul is fixed by the course of the earthly life” (G. H. Box, Zhe Ezra-
Apocalypse, pp. 154, 155). Here, as in the Slavonic Enoch (53), which also
repudiates such intercession, ‘‘ we may detect the influence of Alexandrine
theology, which tended to lay all stress upon the present life as determining
the eternal fate of every man.” The author of IIpds ‘Efpatous shared this
belief (cp. 9°”) ; for him the present life of man contains possibilities which
are tragic and decisive. He ignores deliberately any intercession of saints or
angels for the living or for the dead. But he goes still further, with Philo
and others, in holding that, for some, certain actions fix their fate beyond any
remedy. He regards their case as hopeless; characters like Esau, by an
act of profane contempt for God, are rejected for ever, a second uerdvow being
beyond their reach.

The connexion (ydp) between the finale (vv.!829) and what
precedes lies in the thought that the higher the privilege, the
higher the responsibility. In Zeg. Adleg. iii. 1, Philo quotes Gn
2527 to prove that virtue’s divine city is not meant for human
passions ; ov yap répuxey 4 TOV addy Oypevtixy Kaxia THY apeTAs
moXAwv, wickedness banishing men from the presence and sight
of God. But this line of thought is not in the writer’s mind.
It is more relevant to recall that Esau typifies exclusion from
God in Jub 15%° (“Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and
Esau, the Lord did not cause to approach Him”); yet even
this is not needful to explain the turn of thought. The writer is
continuing his grave warning. As vv.!4-17 recall the first warning
of 6*8, so he now proceeds to reiterate the second warning of
1076-31, reminding his readers that they stand in a critical position,

1 Philo read pelfwy 7 alrla pov Tod d@eOFvac in Gn 4}8,
2 Livy, xliv. 10, ‘‘ poenitentiae relinquens locum” (cp. xxiv. 26, ‘‘locus
Seer pte a ; saee
poenitendis”) ; cp. Pliny’s Zp. x. 97, ‘‘ex quo facile est opinari, quae turba
hominum emendari possit, si sit poenitentiae locus,” where the phrase is used
in quite a different sense, of a chance to give up Christianity.

214 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII 17, 18.

in which any indifferences or disobedience to God will prove
fatal. This is the note of vv.%5-9 in particular. But he leads up
to the appeal by describing in a vivid passage the actual position
of his readers before God (vv.!8-4); their new status and en-
vironment appeals even more powerfully and searchingly for an
unworldly obedience to God than the old status of the People.

18 You have not come (wpowednAVOare) to what you can touch, to ** flames
of fire,” to ‘‘ mist” and “ gloom” and ‘‘ stormy blasts, * to the blare of a
trumpet and toa Voice” whose words made those who heard it refuse to hear
another syllable * (for they could not bear the command, ‘If even a beast
touches the mountain, tt must be stoned”)—* indeed, so awful was the sight
that Moses said, ‘‘ l am terrified and aghast.” ™ You have come (wpooedndv-
Oate) to mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to
myriads of angels in festal gathering, * to the assembly of the first-born
registered in heaven, to the God of all as zudge, to the spirits of just men made
perfect, 4 to Jesus who mediates (8° 9) the new covenant, and to the sprinkled
blood whose message ts nobler than Abel’s.

The passage moves through two phases (vv.!82! and 22-24),
contrasting the revelation at mount Sinai (2? 1078) with the new
SvaOyjxy, the one sensuous, the other spiritual; the one striking
terror with its outward circumstances of physical horror, the
other charged with grace and welcome as well as with awe. The
meditation and appeal are woven on material drawn from the
LXX descriptions of the plague of darkness on Egypt (Ex 1o02!f
Wnrapytov aKdTos .. . éy€vero oKdtos yvopos OveAXa) and the
theophany at Sinai (Dt 4! wpooyGere kat éorynte ird TO dpos”
Kal TO Opos éxaleTo Tupt Ews TOD ovpavod, aKdTOS, yvodos, OvedXAa,

gpuv?) peyddy, and Ex 19! rpoce€xere Eavtois tod dvaBnvat eis 7d
Opos Kal Oryety Te abtod' was 6 adyevos TOD Gpous Oavarw reAeuTHCEL

. &v AGors ALGoBorAnOyjcerar 7 Bord. KataroevOnoerar’ édy Te
KTHvos €av te avOpwros, ov Cyoerar. . . kai eyivovtro dwvat Kat
dotparai Kai vepérn yvopudys éx’ Gpous Lewd, pov) ris cddArvyyos
NXEL péya’ Kal éxtonOy was 6 Aads 6 ev TH wapeuBoAy). In v.18
the text is difficult and perhaps corrupt. Wndadwpévy sper
would be equivalent to WyAadyto@ spe, a tangible, material
mountain; but as dpe is a gloss (added, from v.22, by D K L
255 syr™! arm Athan. Cosm. etc., either before or after wyA.),
though a correct gloss, y. may be taken (a) either with supi,
(4) or independently. In the former case, (2) two constructions
are possible. (i) One, as in vg (“ad tractabilem et accensi-
bilem ignem ”), renders “to a fire that was material (or palpable)
and ablaze”; (ii) ‘‘to what was palpable and ablaze with fire”
(xvpi in an ablative sense). (i) is a daring expression, and the
implied contrast (with v.2°) is too remote. The objection to (ii)
is that rvpi here, as in the OT, goes with the following datives.
It is on the whole preferable (4) to take YnAaduwpery by itself

XII. 19-21.] THE TERRORS OF SINAI 215

(sc. tut). The mountain could not be touched indeed (v.?°), but
it was a tangible object which appealed to the senses. This is
the point of contrast between it and the Xihv dpos, the present
participle being equivalent to the verbal adjective WnAadytés.
Kypke connects y. with wvpé in the sense of “touched by
lightning” (‘Signe tactum et adustum”), comparing the Latin
phrase “fulmine tactum.” But the Greek term is @¢yyavew, and
in any case this interpretation really requires épe, the mountain
“‘sundering ” under the lightning touch of God (Ps 1445 etc.).

Two conjectures have been proposed, twee vevepwuevw by G. N. Bennett
(Classical Review, vi. 263), who argues that this ‘‘ would fit in exactly with
the OT accounts, which represent the summit of the mountain as burnt with
fire, while lower down it was enveloped in a dense cloud” ; and regeWadw-
pévw (3pe) by E. C. Selwyn (Journal of Theological Studzes, ix. 133, 134)=
calcined” (a calcined volcano). Others (e.g. P. Junius) less aptly insert
ov or uu before YnAagwuevw, to harmonize the phrase with v.”.

In the rest of the description, {6 is a poetical word (cp.
de Mundo, 400a, heaven ravtos fodov kai ataxtov Kiwypatos Kexw-
piopevov), which the writer prefers to oxdros. Kat @uéAXn—
OveAAn, a hurricane, is defined by Hesychius as dvénov ovetpody
kal dppy, 7 Kataryts (cp. Hom. Od. 5. 317), and in de Mundo, 3952,
as mvedua Biaov Kat adpvw mrpocadAcuevov. In v.!® Hyw (yx
*Artixot’ 7x0s “EAAnves, Moeris) is a synonym for the LXX wr4,
which the writer intends to use immediately. Philo had already
used 7xos in de Decalogo, 11: wavta 8 &s eixds Ta Tepl TOY TOToV
eBavparoupycito, KtUmos BpovTav pelovov 7} q) wore Xwpely axods,
dotparav Adppeou avyoeWertdrars, dopdrov cadmyyos 1X0 ™pos
PNKLOTOV GroTELVovoN . . . TupOS ovpaviov popa katve@ Babet Ta év
KUKAw ovoKidlovTos. In de Spec. Leg, li. 22 he explains that the
gwv7) oddreyyos announced to all the world the significance of
the event. Finally, cat dwva pnydtwy (the decalogue in Dt 4!2),
fis (Ze. the pwr) ot dxodcavtes Tapyticavto pi) (pleonastic nega-
tive as in Gal 57; hence omitted by &* P 467) mpooteOfvat (the
active mpooGeivat, in A, is less apt) adrots (z.e. the hearers) Adyov
(accus. and infinitive construction after yy, cp. Blass, § 429).
The reference in v.?° is to the scene described in Dt 525, where it
is the leaders of the nation who appeal in terror to Moses to take
God’s messages and orders for them: kai viv pH darofdvwper, ore
eavadwoe Has TO Tip TO péya TovTO, éay TpocOwpeba pets
axovaat THY pwvyv Kupiov tod Geov ypav ert, Kai arobavovpeda.
But in Ex 20! it is the people, as here, who appeal to Moses,
py AaXreitw mpos Has 6 Oeds, wy arofdavwpev. Td SracteAddpevov
(in Ex 19}8, see above) is passive. AvaoréAdomar is said by Anz
(Subsidia, 326f.) not to occur earlier than Plato; here, as in
Jth 11)? (60a duecreiAato avrots 6 Geds), of a divine injunction.
In v.?! davrafopevov is not a LXX term (for the sense, cp. Zec 1o!

216 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS | XII. 21-23

KUplos érolnoev havtacias, of natural phenomena like rain); it is
used here for the sake of alliteration (fof. darr.). To prove
that even Moses was affected by the terrors of Sinai, the writer
quotes from Dt 9!° éxoBés eipet, adding rhetorically kat évtpopos.
He forgets that Moses uttered this cry of horror, not over the
fearful spectacle of Sinai but at a later stage, over the worship of
the golden calf. For €vtpopos, cp. 1 Mac 13? évtpopmos kal éxpoBos
(v.2. EupoBos). The phrase évtpouos yevopuevos is applied by
Luke to the terror of Moses at the dwv7 Kvpéov out of the burning
bush (Ac 72),

Assonance led to &xrpouos (x D*) or éupoBos (M 241. 255. 489. 547.
1739 Thdt.). “Evrpouos was read by Clem. Alex. (Protrept. ix. 2).

The true position of Christians is now sketched (vv.22-*),
"ANAG tpoceAnAUOate Xiwv Sper Kal moder (111% 16) Beod Lavtos,
the author adding ‘lepovcadip émoupaviw (111°) in apposition to
7oAe, and using thus the archaic metaphors of Is 187, Am 12,
Mic 4" etc., in his picture of the true fellowship. Paul had
contrasted mount Sinai (=the present Jerusalem) with 7 dvw
‘TepovoaAnu. Our author’s contrast is between mount Sion
(=‘TepovoaAnp érovpdvios) and mount Sinai, though he does not
name the latter. From the zédts he now passes to the 7roAftrat.

In Chagiga, 124, i. 33, Resh Lakish deduces from 1 K 818 and Is 63%
that zebul, the fourth of the seven heavens, contains ‘‘ the heavenly Jerusalem

and the temple,” z.e. as the residence of deity ; while Ma’on, the fifth heaven,
holds the ‘‘ companies of ministering angels.”

The second object of mpooehndUOate is Kat pupidow (so
En 40!: “I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times
ten thousand before the Lord of spirits”) éyyé\wv, with which
tavnyupe. must be taken, leaving the following kat to introduce
the third object (v.23). The conception of the angels as pupiddes
goes back to traditions like those voiced in Ps 681" (76 dpya rod
God pupoAdcuov, xiArddes edOnvovvTwv" 6 KUpLos ev adrois év Swd)
and Dan 7!° (yvpiar prupiddes). Tlavyyvpis was a term charged
with Greek religious associations (cp. R. van der Loeff, De Zudis
LEleusinits, pp. 85 f.), but it had already been adopted by Greek
Jews like the translators of the LXX and Josephus for religious
festivals. Mavnydper describes the angelic hosts thronging with
glad worship round the living God. Their relation to God is
noted here, as in 1! their relation to human beings. “*Ev6a
mavnyupis exec xapd, as Theophylact observes (iAapas eibupias,
nv wavyyupis émityret, Philo, in Flacc. 14); but the joy of
Lk 151° is not specially mentioned. Chrysostom’s suggestion is
that the writer évradéa rHv xapay Seixvucr Kal ryv edppoodvyyv avti
TOU yvopov kai TOU oKdTous Kal THS OvéAAns. Augustine (Quaest.
i. 168: “accessistis ad montem Sion et ad ciuitatem dei Hier-

XII. 28. | THE CELESTIAL CITIZENS 217

usalem et ad milia angelorum exultantium ”) seems to imply not
only that wavnyvper goes with dyyéAwy, but that he knew a text
with some word like zavyyvpiévrwv (Blass), as is further proved
by boh (“keeping festival”), Orig'** (laetantium, collaudantium),
and Ambrose. There is a hint of this in Clem. Alex. Protrept.
ix. 6, 7, avrn yap % mpwrdtoKos éxxAynola » ék ToddGv ayabav
ovyKeevyn Taidiwv’ tTadr got. TA TpwTdToKa TA evarroyeypappeva
€v ovpavois Kal ToTavTals pupldow ayyéAwv cupravyyupicovTa.

The human odiro are next (v.?) described as éxkdyota
Tpwrotdkwy atoyeypappevwv ev odpavois. (For the collocation of
angels and men, see En 39° ‘Mine eyes saw their [¢e. the
saints’] dwellings with His righteous angels, and their resting-
places with the holy”; the Enoch apocalypse proceeding to the
intercession of the angels (‘‘and they petitioned, and interceded,
and prayed for the children of men”) which the Christian writer
deliberately omits.) The phrase describes what the author else-
where calls 6 Aads (rod Geod), but in two archaic expressions,
chosen to emphasize what Paul would have called their election.
They are mpwrdroxo (as Israel had been zpwrétokos, Ex 4”? etc.),
with a title to God’s blessing (v.16 rpwrordxia). The choice of
the plural instead of the collective singular was due to the
previous plural in pupidow ayyéAwv. In droyeypappevav év
odpavois there is a passing allusion to the idea of the celestial
archives or register—a favourite poetical figure in which the
Oriental expressed his assurance of salvation! As in Lk 10”
so here, the phrase refers to men on earth, to the church militant,
not to the church triumphant; otherwise év odpavots would be
meaningless.

This interpretation, which groups ravnyvper with what precedes, is current
in nearly all the early versions and Greek fathers, who generally assume it
without question. The real alternative is to take wupidow as further defined
by ayyé\wv mavynytpe: kal éxxAnola mpwrordkwy damoyeypauuévwv ev ovpavots.
This introduces and leaves «vpidow rather abruptly, and implies that angels
alone are referred to (so recently Dods, von Soden, Peake, Seeberg), called
mpwrorékot as created before men. But, while a later writer like Hermas
( Vis. ili. 4) could speak of angels as of rp@rou xricOévres, Atroyeypappevev

cannot naturally be applied to them. Hermas himself (Vs. i. 3) applies that
term to men (éyypadpjoovra: els ras BiBAous THs (wHs weTa TOY aylwr).

A fresh sweep of thought now begins (7824). The writer
is composing a lyrical sketch, not a law-paper; he reiterates the
idea of the fellowship by speaking of God, men, and him by whom
this tie between God and men has been welded, the allusion
to Jesus being thrown to the end, as it is to form the starting-
point for his next appeal (vv.2%). In kat xpitq 6€6 mdvtwy it is
not possible, in view of 9°7 (wera dé rodro Kpicis) and of the
punitive sense of xpivw in 10°, to understand xpirys as defender

1 Clem. Hom. ix. 22, Ta dvépara ev obparg ws del fdvTwy dvaypapfvat.

218 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS |XII. 23, 24.

or Vindicator (so, e.g., Hofmann, Delitzsch, Riggenbach). The
words mean “to the God of all (angels and men, the living and
the dead, Ac 10*?), and to him as xpityjs, to whom you must
account for your life.” It is implied that he is no easy-going
God. The contrast is not between the mere terrors of Sinai
and the gracious relationship of Sion, but between the outward,
sensuous terror of the former and the inward intimacy of the
latter—an intimacy which still involves awe. In the next phrase,
Tvevpata Sikatwy means the departed who have in this life been
Sikavot in the sense of 10°! ; rereherwyévwv is added, not in the
mere sense of “departed” (reAevTay = TeAccovc Ga, een but
to suggest the work of Christ which includes the décato., who
had to await the sacrifice of Christ before they were “ perfected ”
(11). If this involves the idea of a descent of Christ to the
under-world, as Loofs (e.g. in ZRE. iv. 662) argues, it implies
the group of ideas mentioned in 2!4, which may have lain in the
background of the writer’s thought. At any rate the “ perfect-
ing” of these dicaor, their teXeiwors, was due to Jesus; hence
(v.24) the writer adds, kai S:aOyxns véas peoity “Inood (again at
the end, for emphasis), where véas is simply a synonym for xawv7js
(88 etc.). The classical distinction between the two terms was
being dropped in the xowy. Tis véas ‘Iepovoadnp occurs in Zest.
Dan 5%", and the two words are synonymous, e.g., in Zest. Levi
814 (émixAnOnoerat aitd dvoma Kaivov, Gtr Bacireds . . . moijoe
iepateiav veav). Indeed Blass thinks that the unexampled dca6yKxns
vedas was due to a sense of rhythm; the author felt a desire to
reproduce the — .. — — J— of the preceding wy rereActwpevur.

In Cambodia (cp. ZZ. iii. 164) those who are present at a death-bed all
‘repeat in a loud voice, the patient joining in as long as he has the strength,
¥ Arahan | ! Arahan!’ ‘the saint! the just one!’ (Pali araham=<‘the
saint,’ ‘one who has attained final sanctification’).” Bleek is so perplexed
by kal mveun. dik. TeX. coming between Oe@ and "Inood that he wonders
whether the author did not originally write the phrase on the margin, intending it
to go with wavnyvpec or éxxAnolg. The curious misreading of D d, rePenediw-
pévwv, underlies Hilary’s quotation (¢vact. 22 Ps. 124: ‘‘ecclesia angelorum
multitudinis frequentium—ecclesia primitivorum, ecclesia spirituum in domino
fundatorum’’). Another odd error, mvevware for mvevuact, appears in D
(boh?) d and some Latin fathers (e.g. Primasius)—a trinitarian emendation
(iO)

In 8:aOjKns véas, as in 137°, the writer recalls the conception
with which he had been working in the middle part of his argu-
ment (chs. 7— 10) ; now he proceeds to expand and explain the
allusion in kat atpatt paytiopod (go) kpeitTov ee as in
1 Co 7°8) Xadodvtt mapa (as in 14 etc.) tov “ABeX (=70! Tod "ABeA,

. Jn 5°*). Reconciliation, not exclusion, is the note of the véa
diaOyxn. The blood of the murdered Abel (114) called out to

1 +d” ABeX (genitive) was actually read by L and is still preferred by Blass.

XII. 24, 25. | A WARNING 219

God in En 22° (where the seer has a vision of Abel’s spirit
appealing to God) for the extinction of Cain and his descendants.
The xpetrrov in Jesus here is that, instead of being vindictive
and seeking to exclude the guilty, he draws men into fellowship
with God (see p. xlii). The contrast is therefore not between the
Voice of the blood of Jesus (AaAotvr:) and the Voice of the
decalogue (v.!*), but between Jesus and Abel; the former opens
up the way to the presence of God, the latter sought to shut it
against evil men. The blood of martyrs was assigned an atoning
efficacy in 4 Mac 628 172!f; but Abel’s blood is never viewed in
this light, and the attempt to explain this passage as though the
blood of Jesus were superior in redeeming value to that of Abel
as the first martyr (so, e.g., Seeberg), breaks down upon the fact
that the writer never takes Abel’s blood as in any sense typical
of Christ’s.

The application of vv.18-*4 now follows. Though we have a far
better relationship to God, the faults of the older generation may
still be committed by us, and committed to our undoing (vv.?>*9),

25 See (BAémere as 3!) that you do not refuse to listen to his voice For if
they failed to escape, who refused to listen to their instructor upon earth, much
less shall we, if we discard him who speaks from heaven. * Then his voice
shook the earth, but now the assurance ts, ‘once again I will make heaven as
well as earth to quake.” ™ That phrase (rd dé as Eph 4°), ‘‘ once again,” de-
notes (ndo?, as in 9°) the removal of what ts shaken (as no more than created),
to leave only what stands unshaken. * Therefore let us render thanks that we
get an unshaken realm ; and in this way let us worship God acceptably—™® but
with godly fear and awe, for our God ts indeed ‘‘ a consuming fire.”

The divine revelation in the sacrifice of Jesus (AaAodvrc)
suggests the start of the next appeal and warning. From the
celestial order, just sketched, the divine revelation (tév Aahovvta

. . Tov dm odpavay) is made to us; instead of rejecting it, which
would be tragic, let us hold to it.. The argument is: God’s
revelation (v.25) implies a lasting relationship to himself (v.%8) ;
and although the present order of things in the universe is
doomed to a speedy fall (v.26), this catastrophe will only bring
out the unchanging realm in which God and we stand together
(v.27), The abruptness of the asyndeton in (v.?°) BXémwete py KrA.
adds to its force. Mapatmmonode . . . mapaitnodpevor are only a
verbal echo of mapytjgavto xrA. in v.19; for the refusal of the
people to hear God except through Moses is not blamed but
praised by God (Dt 5%). The writer, of course, may have
ignored this, and read an ominous significance into the instinctive
terror of the people, as if their refusal meant a radical rejection
of God. Butthisis unlikely. By mapatrnodpevor tov xpnpatilovta
he means any obstinate rejection of what Moses laid down for

220 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS | XII. 25, 26.

them as the will of God. Ei. . . odk (as was the fact) éfépuyov
(referring to the doom mentioned in 2? 37% 1029), As in 2° (zés
myuets expevEdueBa), expedyw is used absolutely ; the weaker épvyov
is read only by 8 D K LM W tog, etc. In the following words
there are three possible readings. The original text ran: (a) émi
yijs Tapartnodpevor tov xpypatiLovta (8* A C D M d boh Cyr.),
ext ys being as often thrown to the front for the sake of
emphasis. But the hyperbaton seemed awkward. Hence (é)
Tov éml ys mapaitnodmevor x. (N° K L P Chrys. Thdt. etc.)
and (c) wapairnodpevor tov emt ys x. (69. 256. 263. 436. 462.
467. 1837. 2005 vg) are attempts to make it clear that émt yjs
goes with tov xpyparifovta, not with wapattnodpevor. The latter
interpretation misses the point of the contrast, which is not
between a rejection on earth and a rejection in heaven (!), but
between a human oracle of God and the divine Voice dam
ovpavav to us. The allusion in rov xpnuariovra! is to Moses,
as Chrysostom was the first to see. To refuse to listen to him is
what has been already called dOereiv vopov Mwicéws (1078). As
the Sinai-revelation is carefully described in 2? as 6 dv dyyéAwv
AadyGets Adyos, so here Moses is 6 xpypatifwv, or, as Luke puts
it, Os édeLato Adyia Ldvra Sodvac (Ac 7°8); he was the divine
instructor of the Aads on earth. It is repeatedly said (Ex 207%,
Dt 4°°) that God spoke to the people at Sinai éx tod ovpavod, so
that to take tov xpynpatifovra here as God, would be out of
keeping with émt tis yas. The writer uses the verb in a wider
sense than in that of 8° and 117; it means “the man who had
divine authority to issue orders,” just as in Jer 26? (trois Aoyous
ovs ovvéraéd cor avtots xpymaticoat), etc. He deliberately writes
Tov xpypatifovta of Moses, keeping rév Aadodvra as usual for
God. ‘Then, he concludes, wodd (altered, as in v.%, to toAA@ by
D° K LM P ® 226, or to wdc, as in g!4, by 255) padXov (sc. obK
éexevéopeba) Hpets ot tov (sc. xpnuariLovta) aw otpavav amoctpeds-
pevo. (with accus. as 3 Mac 3%3 dmeorpeWavto tHv atipnrov
moAwretav, and 2 Ti 1) dreotpadyody pe raves).

It is surprising that ovpavod (w M 216. 424**. 489. 547. 623. 642. 920.
1518. 1872 Chrys.) has not wider support, though, as 9”: 24 shows, there is
no difference in sense.

In v.76 o& 4 havi Thy yhv éoddeuce téTe is another (cp. vv.}* 14)
unintentional rhythm, this time a pentameter. Tore, ze. at
Sinai. But in the LXX of Ex 19!8, which the writer used, the
shaking of the hill is altered into the quaking of the people, and
Jg 54 does not refer to the Sinai episode. Probably the writer
inferred an earthquake from the poetical allusions in Ps 1147

1Cp. Jos. Ant. iii. 8. 8, Mwiions . . . éxpnuarigero wepl dv édeiro mapa
Tou Geou.

XII. 26. | THE FINAL CATASTROPHE 221

(€carevOn 4 yn), Ps 688! 7718, when these were associated with
the special theophany at Sinai. Név 8é émpyyeArat (passive in
middle sense, as Ro 4?!) Xéywy, introducing a loose reminiscence
and adaptation of Hag 2° (ér ama éy® celow Tov oipavoy Kai THY
ynv «rA.), where the prediction of a speedy convulsion of nature
and the nations has been altered! in the LXX, by the intro-
duction of én, into a mere prediction of some ultimate crisis,
with reference to some preceding cetots, z.e. for our writer the
Sinai-revelation. The second and final ceious is to be at the
return of Jesus (978).

The anticipation of such a cosmic collapse entered apocalyptic. Thus the
author of Apoc. Baruch tells his readers, ‘‘if you prepare your hearts, so as
to sow in them the fruits of the law, it shall protect you when the Mighty
One is to shake the whole creation” (32).

In v.2” the Haggai prediction is made to mean the removal
(petdbeow, stronger sense than even in 7!*) tay cadevopévwy (by
the oetovs). There is a divine purpose in the cosmic catastrophe,
however; it is tva petvn to ph cadeudpeva, ze. the Bactdeia
dadXeutos of the Christian order. For dod\eutos, compare Philo,
de vit. Mosis, ii. 3, TA be ToUTOU povou BeBaua, dodXevra, dxpddavra

- pever mayiws ab 7s Tpépas eypadn péxpe viv kal mpos TOV
ereita TavTa Suapevety eAmris aita aidava domep dfdvara, elw and
oadeuw are cognate terms (cp. e.g. Sir 1618 19 6 otpavos . . . Kal yy
gadevOnoovtar . . . Guarta opy kal Ta GepéAa THs ys ovocelovTat).
Here ceiow is changed into cetw by D K L P d arm and some
cursives, probably to conform with the form of the promise in
Hag 27! (éym oeiw tov ovp. kat tHv ynv). The hint is more
reticent, and therefore more impressive than the elaborate pre-
diction of the Jewish apocalyptist in Apoc. Bar 59°: “but also
the heavens were shaken at that time from their place, and those
who were under the throne of the Mighty One were perturbed,
when He was taking Moses unto Himself. For He showed him

. the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of
which was to be made the sanctuary of the present time ” (cp.
He 85). There is a premonition of the last judgment in En
601, as a convulsion which shook not only heaven, but the nerves
of the myriads of angels.

‘“‘There have been two notable transitions of life,’ says Gregory of
Nazianzus (Orat. v. 25), in the history of the world, z.e. the two covenants,
‘which are also called earthquakes on account of their arresting character”
(dca 7d TOD mpayuaros wepiBdyrov) ; the first from idols to the Law, the second
from the Law to the gospel. We bring the good news of yet a third earth-

quake, the transition from the present order to the future (rv évretGev éml ra
éxeioe perdoraciv, Ta unkere Kiovpmeva, unde carevdpueva).?

1 ¢.e. while Haggai predicts ‘‘it will be very soon,” the LXX says ‘‘once
again.”
2 Probably a reference to He 12%,

222 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 26-28.

Changes and crises may only serve to render a state or an
individual more stable. Thus Plutarch says of Rome, in the
disturbed days of Numa, xa@dep 1a xatarnyvipeva TO oeler Oar
padAov édpalerat, povvvebar doxotoa da tov Kwdvvov (Vit. Mum.
8). But the writer’s point in v.?’ is that there is an é&oddeutos
Baotheia ! already present, in the fellowship of the new dca6yxn,
and that the result of the cosmic catastrophe will simply be to
leave this unimpaired, to let it stand out in its supreme reality
and permanence. The passage is a counterpart to 110-12, where
skies and earth vanish, though they are God’s own épya. So
here, the writer puts in, by way of parenthesis, ds memounpéver.
Kypke took merommpévwv, “pro mrerounpévny, sc. petabeow,” com-
paring Mt 5!® where he regarded éAaxiorwy as similarly equiva-
lent to €Aayiornv. The word would then be a genitive absolute,
connecting with what follows: “all this being done so that,” etc.
Even when zezounuévwy is taken in its ordinary sense, it is
sometimes connected with tva xrA. (so, e.g., Bengel and Delitzsch) ;
the aim of creation was to replace the provisional by, the per-
manent, the temporal by the eternal. A far-fetched interpreta-
tion. Even the conjecture (Valckenaer) rerovnpevwr (labouring
with decay) is needless, though ingenious. In vy.%8-29 the final
word upon this prospect and its responsibilities is said. Awd (as
in v.12), in view of this outlook (in v.?’), Baothelay doddeutov
(metaphorical, as, ¢g., Diod. Sic. xii. 29, oovdat doddevrar)
tapahapBdvovtes (cp. 2 Mac rol! and Fpist. Arist. 36, cat apets
dé mapadaBdvres THY Bacrretav xrd., for this common phrase)
éxwpev xdpw (dud with pres. subjunctive as in 61). The unique
and sudden reference to the primitive idea of Baoweia (see
Introd., p. xxxili) may be a reminiscence of the scripture from which
he has just quoted ; the prediction about the shaking of heaven
and earth is followed, in Hag 2?%, by the further assertion, kai
Katactpeyw Opovovs Bacirt€wv, Kal éEorAcbpevow Sivaywv Baciiewv
tav éOvav. Possibly our author regarded the prediction in Dn 738
(kai mapadyWovra, tiv Baocrreiav ayror tiorov Kai KabeLovow
avTHVv €ws ai@vos Tov aiwvwv) as fulfilled already in the Christian
church, though he does not mean by BaotAclay rapadapBavovres
that Christians enter on their reign.

Why thankfulness (for this common phrase, see Epict. i. 2. 23,
éxw xapiv, Ore pov geidy, and OP. 138178 (2nd century) da
Ovovav TH odoavte dredidouev xdpitas) should be the standing
order for them, the writer explains in 80 fjs xrA.; it is the one
acceptable Aatpevew (g!*), or, as he puts it afterwards (1315), the
real sacrifice of Christians. Av js \atpevdpev (subj. cohortative
in relative clause, like orjre in 1 P 5!) edapeorads (not in LXX;

1Cp. Wis 5’ 18 Sixacoe dé els rdv aldva fGow . . . Afjupovra 7d Bacl-
Necov THs edmperrelas . . . Ex etpds Kuplov, dri TH Sekia oKeTdce avrous.

XII. 28. | THE DUTY OF AWE 223

an adverb from the verb in the sense of 11° ®) tO @€6. The v./.
éxowev (WS K P Lat syr™! eth etc.) is the usual (see Ro 5?)
phonetic blunder, though Aatpevouey (8 M P syr™ arm) would
yield as fair a sense as Aatpevwpev (A C D L 33. 104 Lat sah
etc.). In pera... Séous he puts in a characteristic warning
against presumption. There are three readings. (a) edAaPetas
Kat déous, S* A C D 256. 263. 436. 1912 sah boh syr® arm.
(4) evdaPeias kai aidods, 8° M P W 6. 104. 326. 1739 lat Orig.
(c) aidots cai eiAaBetas, K L 462 syr™ Chrys. Thdt. The acci-
dental doubling of a (from xaé) led to (4), especially as aidods
and etAaBeia were often bracketed together, and as deds was a
rare word (first popularized in Hellenistic Judaism by 2 Macca-
bees). EdAaBeta here as in 57 (cp. 117) of reverent awe. Kat
yap 6 Beds pay mip Katavadioxoy (v.79). Not “for our God too
is a wip av.,” for the writer believed that the same God was God
of the old da6yxy and of the new; besides, this rendering would
require kat yap jpav 6 Beds. The phrase is from Dt 474 (Moses
at Sinai to the Israelites) 6re Kvpuos 6 Oeds cov rip KatavaXiocKov
éativ, Geos CnAwrys (cp. 93), referring to his intense resentment of
anything like idolatry, which meant a neglect of the dan.
There is no allusion to fire as purifying; the author of Wisdom
(1616) describes the Egyptians as wvpt xatavaAtckdmevor, and it is
this punitive aspect of God which is emphasized here, the divine
fhdos (see p. XXXvi).

This is one of Tertullian’s points (adv. Marc. i. 26-27) against the
Marcionite conception of a God who is good-natured and nothing more:
‘‘tacite permissum est, quod sine ultione prohibetur . . . nihil Deo tam
indignum quam non exsequi quod noluit et prohibuit admitti . . . malo
parcere Deum indignius sit quam animadvertere. . . . Plane nec pater tuus
est, in quem competat et amor propter pietatem, et timor propter potestatem ?
nec legitimus dominus, ut diligas propter humanitatem et timeas propter
disciplinam.” In IIpds ‘E8patous there is no softening of the conception, as in
Philo’s argument (de Sacrificantibus, 8) that God’s requirement is simply
ayamay avrov ws evepyérny, el 6€ uh, PoBeicPat your ws dpxovTa kal KUptov, Kal
dia macdy lévar Tov els dpéoxecay Gd@v Kal aTpevery aiT@ wi Tapépyws adda
dAn TH WuxD weTANpwLEevyn yvouns Piroéov kal Tov évrodGv avrod mepiéxerOar
kal ra& Oikata Tiuav. In de Decalogo, 11, he spiritualizes the fire at Sinai thus:
TOU mupds TO mev Pwtifew 7d dé kalew mépuxev (those who obey the divine laws
being inwardly enlightened, those who disobey being inflamed and consumed
by their vices), and closes the treatise (33) by enunciating his favourite doc-
trine that God never punishes directly but only indirectly (here by Alxn, whose
appropriate task is to punish those who disobey her liege Lord), Indeed he
allegorizes the OT comparison of God to a flame (Quaest. in Exod. 24!
womep 6¢ 7 PACE Tacayv Thy wapaBAnOeioay Srnv avaNrioxe, otrws, bray ém-
porno eldukpiwis Tod Oeod evvora rH WuxH wavras rods érepoddtous doeBelas
Noytcuovds StapOelper, kaBocrotca Thy SAnv didvoray). The closest parallel to
our passage lies in Ps.-Sol 15° where the author declares that praise to God
is the one security for man. Wadydv cal alvov per’ @dijs év evppootiyy kapdids,
Kapmov xeikéwy . . . amrapxny xethéwv amd Kapdlas ocias kal dixalas, 6 mov
Tavra ov cadevOyoerar els Tov aldva dd (2.¢. Ud) Kakod, POE Trupds Kal

224 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XII. 28—XIII. 2.

bpyh ddlkwy odx dperar abrod, bray eféhOy éwi auaprwrods awro mporwmou
kuplov.

With this impressive sentence Mpés ‘EBpatous really closes.
But the writer appends (see Introd., pp. xxvilif.) a more or less
informal postscript, with some personal messages to the com-
munity. A handful of moral counsels (vv,"") is followed by a
longer paragraph (vv.816), and the closing personal messages are
interrupted by a farewell benediction (v.?°).

1 Let your brotherly love continue. * Never forget to be hospitable, for by
hospitality (51a Tavs, as 12'°) some have entertarned angels unawares. * Re-
member prisoners as tf you were in prison yourselves ; remember those who are
being tll-treated (11°"), since you too are in the body.

Neither piAadedpia nor pidofevia is a LXX term, though
the broader sense of the former begins in 4 Mac 137% 76 14}.
Mevérw (cp. 61° 1074 32), though its demands might be severe at
times (cp. Ro 121°, 1 P 12; Clem. Ro 1?; Herm. Aand. 810) ; the
duty is laid as usual on members of the church, not specially on
officials. In v.? a particular expression of this @Aadeddia is called
for. vofevia was practically an article of religion in the ancient
world. The primary reference here in twes is to Abraham and
Sara (Gn 181), possibly to Manoah (Jg 1 3°), and even to Tobit
(Tob 1215) ; but the point of the counsel would be caught readily
by readers familiar with the Greek and Roman legends of divine
visitants being entertained unawares by hospitable people, eg.
Hom. Odyss. xvii. 485 f. (kat re Geot Setvorow €oixotes GAXOOaTrotce

| wavrotor TeA€Oovtes, EmiaTpwpoot woAnas, cp. Plat. Soph. 216 B) ;
Sil. Ital. vii. 173 f. (‘laetus nec senserat hospes | advenisse
deum”), and the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, Mer.
viii. 626 f.) alluded to in Ac 144. In the Hellenic world the
worship of Zeus Xenios (e.g. Musonius Rufus, xv. a, 6 wept vous
dducos eis Tov E€vvov dmapraver Aia) fortified this kindly custom.
According to Resh Lakish (Sota, roa), Abraham planted the tree
at Beersheba (Gn 213%) for the refreshment of wayfarers, and
iofevia was always honoured in Jewish tradition (¢.g. Sabbath,
127. 1, “there are six things, the fruit of which a man eats in
this world and by which his horn is raised in the world to come:
they are, hospitality to strangers, the visiting of the sick,” etc.).
But there were pressing local reasons for this kindly virtue in the
primitive church. Christians travelling abroad on business might
be too poor to afford a local inn. Extortionate charges were
frequent ; indeed the bad repute which innkeepers enjoyed in
the Greek world (cp. Plato’s Zaws, 918 D) was due partly to this
and partly also to a “general feeling against taking money for
hospitality” (cp. Jebb’s Theophrastus, p. 94). But, in addition,
the moral repute of inns stood low (Theophrastus, Char, 6°

XIII. 2, 3.] HOSPITALITY 225

dewvos 5€ ravdoxedoa Kal ropvoBooxjaa tA.) ; there is significance
in the Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus (Ant. v. 1. 1)
that Rahab 7 zopyy (11%!) kept an inn. For a Christian
to frequent such inns might be to endanger his character,
and this consideration favoured the practice of hospitality on
the part of the local church, apart altogether from the discomforts
of aninn. (“In the better parts of the empire and in the larger
places of resort there were houses corresponding in some
measure to the old coaching inns of the eighteenth century ; in
the East there were the well-known caravanserais ; but for the most
part the ancient hostelries must have afforded but undesirable
quarters. They were neither select nor clean,” T. G. Tucker,
Life in the Roman World, p. 20.) Some of these travellers
would be itinerant evangelists (cp. 3 Jn °°).

According to Philo the three wayfarers seen by Abraham did
not at first appear divine (of 5 Qevorepas dvres Hicews éheAjOerar),
though later on he suspected they were either prophets or angels
when they had promised him the birth of a son in return for his
splendid hospitality (Adrah. 22-23). ‘In a wise man’s house,”
Philo observes, ‘‘no one is slow to practise hospitality: women
and men, slaves and freedmen alike, are most eager to do
service to strangers”; at the same time such hospitality was
only an incident (mdpepyov) and instance (detypa cadéotarov)
of Abraham’s larger virtue, #.e. of his piety. Josephus also
(Anz. i. 11. 2) makes Abraham suppose the three visitors
were human strangers, until at last they revealed themselves
as divine angels (Ocacdpevos tpeis ayyéAouvs kai vouioas clvat
éévous Homagatd 7 dvactas Kal map aiTd KataxGévtas wapexadet
éeviwy petradaBeiv). It was ignorance of the classical idiom (cp.
Herod. i. 44, tiodeéduevos tov Eeivov dovéa tod madds eAdvOave
Booxwv) in @abov gevicavtes, which led to the corruptions of
éXafov in some Latin versions into “latuerunt,” ‘‘ didicerunt,”
and ‘‘placuerunt.” Note the paronomasia ém)av@dveode .
é\aSov, and the emphatic position of dyyéAous. “ You never know
whom you may be entertaining,” the writer means. “Some
humble visitor may turn out to be for you a very dyyeAos Geod”
(cp. Gal 414).

MipvjoKeoGe (bear in mind, and act on your thought of) ray
Seopiwy. Strangers come within sight; prisoners (v.°) have to
be sought out or—if at a distance—borne in mind. Christian
kindness to the latter, ze. to fellow-Christians arrested for some
reason or other, took the form either of personally visiting them
to alleviate their sufferings by sympathy and gifts (cp. Mt 2556,
2 Ti 116), or of subscribing money (to pay their debts or, in the
case of prisoners of war, to purchase their release), or of praying
for them (Col 4}8 and 4). All this formed a prominent feature

T5

226 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS | XIII. 3.

of early Christian social ethics. The literature is full of tales
about the general practice: eg. Aristid. Afol. 15; Tertull. ad
Mart. 1 f. and Afol. 39, with the vivid account of Lucian in the
de Morte Peregr. 12, 13. This subject is discussed by Harnack
in the Expansion of Early Christianity (bk. ii. ch. 3, section 5).
Our author urges, “remember the imprisoned” ds ouvdedepevor.
If ws is taken in the same sense as the following ws, the meaning
is: (a) ‘‘as prisoners yourselves,” z.e. in the literal sense, ‘‘ since
you know what it means to be in prison”; or (4) “as im-
prisoned,” in the metaphorical sense of Diognet. 6, Xpioriavoi
KatéxovTa ws ev Ppovpa ta kéopw. A third alternative sense is
suggested by LXX of 1 S 18! (4 Woyy “Iwvdbav cvvedé6y rH Wry}
Aavid), but the absence of a dative after ovvdedeuévor and the
parallel phrase és év odpar rule it out. Probably as is no more
than an equivalent for woe’. Christians are to regard themselves
as one with their imprisoned fellows, in the sense of 1 Co 1276
cite Tacxe. ev pédos, ouprdoyxe TavTa TA w€An. This interpreta-
tion tallies with 10% above (cp. Neh 1%4). It does not, however,
imply that év odpart, in the next clause, means “in the Body (of
which you and your suffering fellows are alike members”) ; for
év owpate refers to the physical condition of liability to similar
ill-usage. See Orig. ¢. Cels. 11. 23, r@v Tots €v cdyacr (Bouhéreau
conj. gwpart) ovpBawovrwy, and especially Philo’s words describ-
ing some spectators of the cruelties inflicted by a revenue officer
on his victims, as suffering acute pain, ws év Trois érépwv cwpacty
avrot kaxovpevor (de Spec. Leg. iii. 30). So in de Confus. Ling. 35,
Kal TO ovppopav avyvitwv Tv Kaxovxopévuy (7.e. by exile, famine,
and plague; cp. He 11°") otk évdebetoar ywpiw, cwpare.

Seneca (Ef. ix. 8) illustrates the disinterestedness of friendship by
observing that the wise man does not make friends for the reason suggested
by Epicurus, viz., to ‘‘have someone who will sit beside him when he is ill,
someone to assist him when he is thrown into chains or in poverty,” but
‘that he may have someone beside whom, in sickness, he may himself sit,
someone whom he may set free from captivity in the hands of the enemy.”
The former kind of friendship he dismisses as inadequate : ‘‘a man has made
a friend who is to assist him in the event of bondage (‘adversum vincula’),
but such a friend will forsake him as soon as the chains rattle (‘cum primum
crepuerit catena’).” In Zp. Arist. 241, 242, when the king asks what is the
use of kinship, the Jew replies, €av rots cuuBalvovor voulfwuer drvxodor mer
éA\atrovcbat kal KakoTadGmev ws avrol, palverar TO ovyyeves dcov loxidv éort.
Cicero specially praises generosity to prisoners, and charity in general, as
being serviceable not only to individuals but to the State (de Offc. ii. 18,
‘*haec benignitas etiam rei publicae est utilis, redimi e servitute captos, locu-
pletari tenuiores”’).

4 Let marriage be held in honour by all, and keep the marriage-bed un-
stained. God will punish the victous and adulterous.

5 Keep your life free from the love of money ; be content with what you
have, for He (airés) has sazd,

“© Never will I fail you, never will I forsake you.”

XIII. 4. } SEXUAL PURITY 227

8 So that we can.say confidently,

‘* The Lord ts my helper (Bon 86s, cp. 2'8 418), 7 well not be afraid,
What can men do to me?”

As vy.!»2 echo 10%: 82. 83, y,.4 drives home the zdpvos of 1219,
and vv.5 § echo the reminder of 1084. Evidently (v.*), as among
the Macedonian Christians (1 Th 4°), ¢AadeAdia could be
taken for granted more readily than sexual purity. Tipuos (sc.
éorw as in v.5, Ro 12%, the asyndeton being forcible) 6 ydpos év
taouv, #.e. primarily by all who are married, as the following
clause explains. There may be an inclusive reference to others
who are warned against lax views of sexual morality, but there is
no clear evidence that the writer means to protest against an
ascetic disparagement of marriage. Kotry is, like the classical
X€xos, a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse, here between
the married ; dpiavtos is used of incest, specially in Zest. Reubd.
i. 6, éuiava Koitny trod marpés pov: Plutarch, de Fluvits, 18, py
OéAwv puaivery THY KolTyv Tod yevyynoavTos, etc.; but here in a
general sense, as, ¢.g., in Wisdom:

paKapta 7” oreipa. 7 dpiayros,
HTUS OvK eyve Koirny év mapaTTopatt,
eeu Kapmov év émiokoTy Wuxov (3!%),

and ovre Biovs ovre ydpovs Kabapors ere Pvddocovcw,
9 8 9g x Xr “ > a an 6 , 56 a 24
€repos 8 Erepov 7) Aoxa@v avaipet } vobevwv ddvva (1474).

In mépvous yap kat porxous x7A., the writer distinguishes between
poorxot, Ze. married persons who have illicit relations with other
married persons, and zépvoe of the sexually vicious in general,
Z.e. married persons guilty of incest or sodomy as well as of
fornication. In the former case the main reference is to the
breach of another person’s marriage; in the latter, the pre-
dominating idea is treachery to one’s own marriage vows. The
possibility of zopvefa in marriage is admitted in Tob 87 (od da
mopveiay eyo AapPavw tHv adeAdyv pov tavrnv), Ze. Of mere
sexual gratification! as distinct from the desire and duty of
having children, which Jewish and strict Greek ethics held to be
the paramount aim of marriage (along with mutual fellowship) ;
but this is only one form of zopveta. In the threat xpwvet (as in
10°°) 6 6eds, the emphasis is on 6 @eds. ‘‘ Longe plurima pars
scortatorum et adulterorum est sine dubio, quae effugit notitiam
iudicum mortalium . . . magna pars, etiamsi innotescat, tamen
poenam civilem et disciplinam ecclesiasticam vel effugit vel
leuissime persentiscit ” (Bengel).

This is another social duty (cp. Philo, de Decalogo, 24). In view of the
Epicurean rejection of marriage (¢.g. Epict. iii. 7. 19), which is finely

1 un év wade érOuulas, as Paul would say (1 Th 4°).

228 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 4, 5.

answered by Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. Florzleg. Ixvii. 25: 6 edyevns Kal
edpuxos véos . . . Oewpady didte rédevos olkos Kal Blos ovK dAAws ddvarat
yevésBar, A perd. -yuvarxds kal réxvwy xrh.), as well as of current ascetic
tendencies (e.g., I Ti 43), there may have been a need of vindicating marriage,
but the words here simply maintain the duty of keeping marriage vows
unbroken. The writer is urging chastity, not the right and duty of any
Christian to marry. Prejudices born of the later passion for celibacy led to
the suppression of the inconvenient év maou (om. 38. 460. 623. 1836. 1912*
Didymus, Cyril Jerus., Eus., Athan., Epiphanius, Thdt.). The sense is
hardly affected, whether ydp (x A D* M P lat sah boh) or 6¢ (C D° w 6 syr
arm eth Clem., Eus., Didymus, Chrys.) is read, although the latter would
give better support to the interpretation of the previous clause as an anti-
ascetic maxim.

A warning against greed of gain (vv.® ®) follows the warning
against sexual impurity. There may bea link of thought between
them. For the collocation of sensuality and the love of money,
see Epict. iti. 7. 21, cot Kady yuvaixa paiverOar pydepiav 7 THY
ony, kadov raida pydéva, Kaddov dpytpwpna pybev, xpvowpa per:
Test. Jud. 18, pvddgacbe azo ris mopvelas kal THS pirapyuplas...
éru tattra ... ovK adie. dvdpa eAeHoa TOv TAyncLoy av’tov, and
Philo’s (de Post. Caini, 34) remark, that all the worst quarrels,
public and private, are due to greedy craving for 7 cipopdias
yuvarxos 4 xpypatrwv «th. In de Abrah. 26, he attributes the
sensuality of Sodom to its material prosperity. Lucian notes the
same connexion in Migrin. 16 (cvvewépyerar yap porxeta Kal
didapyupia xtAX., the love of money having been already set as
the source of such vices). In 1 Co 5! Paul brackets oi adpvor
with of wAcovéxrat, and zwAecovegia (cp. 1 Th 4°) as selfishness
covers adultery as well as grasping covetousness. But the
deeper tie between the two sins is that the love of luxury and
the desire for wealth open up opportunities of sensual indulgence.
In injuries to other people, Cicero observes (de Offic. i. 7. 24),
“ Jatissime patet avaritia.” When Longinus describes the deterior-
ating effects of this passion or vice in character (de Sudblim. 44),
he begins by distinguishing it from mere love of pleasure ;
dirapyupia pev voonpa puxporoov, ptAndovia 8 dyevvertatov.
Then he proceeds to analyse the working of ¢Aapyupia in life,
its issue in bBpis, tapavopuia, and dvacoxvrtia.

*Adiddpyupos (the rebel Appianus tells Marcus Aurelius, in
OP. xxxiii. 10, 11, that his father 7d pev tparov Hy pirdco¢gos, Td
Sevrepov adiAdpyupos, TO tpitov PiAdyaGos) 6 tpdmos (in sense of
“mores,” as often, ¢g., M. Aurelius, i. 16, Kat mas 6 tTovodros
tpdros). *Apkovpevor is the plur. pte. after a noun (as in 2 Co 1’,
Ro 129), and with tots mapodow reproduces a common Greek
phrase for contentment, e.g. Ze/es, vii. 7, GAN’ pets od Suvdpeba
dpxeioOar Tois Tapovow, Stay Kal tpupy TOAD dwdGpev, and XXVill. 31,
Kal pi) Exwv odk érurobjcets GAA Budoy apkovpevos Tois Tapotow.
The feature here is the religious motive adduced in adros yap

XIII. 5, 6.] CONFIDENCE IN GOD 229

etpynxev (Of God as usual, e.g., 118), a phrase which (cp. Ac 20%
airos elev) recalls the Pythagorean airdos éfa (“thus said the
Master”). The quotation of py ce dvd 008° od py ce éyxataditw is
a popular paraphrase of Jos 1° or Gn 285 (cp. Dt 318, 1 Ch 28°)
which the writer owes to Philo (de Confus. Ling. 32), who quotes
it exactly in this form as a Ady.ov Tod tAew Geod peotov Nueporytos,
but simply as a promise that God will never leave the human
soul to its own unrestrained passions. The combination of the
aor. subj. with the first od my and the reduplication of the
negative (for ovd ov py, cp. Mt 24?!) amount to a strong
asseveration. Note that the writer does not appeal, as Josephus
does, to the merits of the fathers (Amtig. xi. 5. 7, Tov pev Oedv
iore pny tov matépwv “ABpdpov kai “Iodkov xat “laxiPov
mapapevovta kai dud THS exeivwv Sukacocvvys ovK éyKaTaXe(movTa THY
trép yuav mpdvo.ay) in assuring his readers that they will not be
left forlorn by God.

*Eyxatadelrw (so all the uncials except D) may be simply an ortho-
graphical variant of the true reading éyxaraXlrw (aorist subj.). In Dt 31%
the A text runs ov 4% ce dvq ovd’ od ce éyxataXelry, in Jos 15 ovK éyxaradelrw
ge ovdé brepdYoual ce, and in Gn 28) od uy ce éyxatadelrw. The promise

originally was of a martial character. But, as Keble puts it (Chrestian Year,
‘The Accession ”) :

“Not upon kings or priests alone
the power of that dear word is spent;
it chants to all in softest tone
the lowly lesson of content.”

“Qote (v.6) Bappodvtas (on the evidence for this form, which
Plutarch prefers to the Ionic variant Oapoety, cp. Cronert’s
Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, 133°) jpas (om. M, accidentally)
héyew. What God says to us moves us to say something to
ourselves. This quotation from Ps 118% is exact, except that
the writer, for the sake of terseness, omits the cai (=so) before
oF doPnOycopat, which is reinserted by x° A DK LM syr™ ete.
For the phrase @appotytas Xéyew, see Pr 121 (Wisdom) ézi 8
mats rdAews Oappotoa réyer: and for BonOds and Gappetv in con-
junction, see Xen. Cyr. v. i. 25, 26, ered) 8 éx Lepcav Bonbds
Hey oppyOns . . . viv & ad otrws exopev Os otv péy cot duws Kai
év TH ToAepia. dvtes Oappotpev. Epictetus tells a man who is
tempted (ii. 18. 29), rod Geod peuvyco, éxetvov émxadod BonOov Kat
mapaotatnv. This is the idea of the psalm-quotation here.
Courage is described in Galen (de H. e¢ Plat. decr. vii. 2) as the
knowledge &v xpy Oappety 7% py Oappetv, a genuinely Stoic defini-
tion; and Alkibiades tells, in the Symposium (221 A), how he
came upon Sokrates and Laches retreating during the Athenian
defeat at Delium xat idiv ed6ds wapaxedevopal te abroiv Oappeiy,
kat €eyov Ott ovK dodcivw aitd. In the touching prayer pre-
served in the Acta Pauli (xlii.), Thekla cries, 6 Beds pov Kat rod

230 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 6, 7.

oixov Tovtov, Xpioté Incod 6 vids Tod Geod, 6 euoi BonOos ev pudraxy,
BonOds éxi jyepovev, BonOds ev rupi, BonGos év Onpiors.

According to Pliny (Z//. ix. 30: ‘‘ primum est autem suo esse contentum,
deinde, quos praecipue scias indigere sustentantem fouentemque orbe quodam
societatis ambire”’?) a man’s first duty is to be content with what he has ; his
second, to go round and help all in his circle who are most in need.
Epictetus quotes a saying of Musonius Rufus: ob OéAecs weherav dpkeicOa TY
dedouévy ; (i. I. 27); but this refers to life in general, not to money or property
in particular. The argument of our author is that instead of clinging to their
possessions and setting their hearts on goods (10“), which might still be
taken from them by rapacious pagans, they must realize that having God
they have enough. He will never allow them to be utterly stripped of the
necessaries of life. Instead of trying to refund themselves for what they had
lost, let them be content with what is left to them and rely on God to
preserve their modest all; he will neither drop nor desert them.

Hitherto the community has been mainly (see on 1214)
addressed as a whole. Now the writer reminds them of the
example of their founders, dead and gone, adding this to the
previous list of memories (121*),

7 Remember your leaders, the men who spoke the word of God to you; look
back upon the close of their career, and copy their fatth.

Mvnpovevete Tov iyoupevwv Spay oftives (since they were the
men who) éAd\ynoov bpty Tov Adyov Tod Geos. The special function
of these primitive apostles and prophets was to preach the
gospel (cp. 1 Co 117) with the supernatural powers of the Spirit.
Then the writer adds a further title to remembrance, their con-
sistent and heroic life; they had sealed their testimony with
their (Gv xrA.) blood. ‘Hyovpmevos, like dpxwv, was a substantival
formation which had a wide range of meaning; here it is
equivalent to “president” or “leader” (cp. Epp. Apollon. ii. 69,
avopas Tovs Hyoupevous tuav = your leading citizens, or prominent
men, and Ac 1572).! It was they who had founded the church
by their authoritative preaching; éAdAycav tyiv tov Adyov Tot
Geod recalls the allusion to the cwrypia which t16 tay axovedvtwv
(ze. Jesus) cis Has ¢BeBaw6y (2°). The phrase denotes, in
primitive Christianity (e.g. Did. 41 where the church-member is
bidden remember with honour tot Aadotvros wor Tov Adyov Tod
@cod), the central function of the apostolic ministry as the
declaration and interpretation of the divine Adyos. These men
had died for their faith ; €kBaots here, as in Wis 21? (ra év exBaoe
avrov), is, like é£0d0s, a metaphor for death as the close of life,
evidently a death remarkable for its witness to faith, They had
laid down their lives as martyrs. This proves that the allusion
in 124 does not exclude some martyrdoms in the past history of
the community, unless the reference here is supposed to mean

1In Ep. Arist. 310, of the headmen of the Jewish community at
Alexandria.

SIT: 7,'| GOOD EXAMPLES 231

no more than that they died as they had lived xara wiorw (1118),
without giving up their faith.

In Egypt, during the Roman period, ‘‘a liturgical college of zpecBirepa
or 7yovmevot was at the head of each temple” (GCP. i. 127), the latter term

being probably taken from its military sense of ‘‘ officers” (¢.g. 77yeudves TOV
tw ratewr).

*Avabewpodvtes is “scanning closely, looking back (dva-)
on”; and dvactpopy is used in this sense even prior to Polybius ;
e.g. Magn. 46° 4# (iii B.c.) and Magn. 1655 (i A.D.) dua ry Tod
nOovs Kkoop.ov avaotpodyy. As for pipetobe, the verb never occurs
in the LXX except as a v./ (B*) for éuionoas in Ps 31%, and
there in a bad sense. The good sense begins in Wis 4?
(rapovedy Te pipotvta aityv), so far as Hellenistic Judaism goes,
and in 4 Mac 9” (uipjoacbe pe) 13° (pipnodpeba tovs tpeis Tods
él THs Supias veavicxovs) it is used of imitating a personal
example, as here. In the de Congressu Erudit. 13, Philo argues
that the learner listens to what his teacher says, whereas a man
who acquires true wisdom by practice and meditation (6 é¢
adokynoer TO KaAdv GAAG py) SidacKadia KTwpevos) attends od Tots
Aeyouevors GAAG Tois A€yovot, pipovpevos TOV éxeivwy Biov ev Tats
Kata pépos averi\ymros mpdgeot. He is referring to living
examples of goodness, but, as in de Vita Mos. i. 28, he points out
that Moses made his personal character a mapddevrypa tots
€Géovar pipetoGar, This stimulus of heroic memories belonging
to one’s own group is noted by Quintilian (Zmstit. Orat. xii. 2. 31)
as essential to the true orator: “‘quae sunt antiquitus dicta ac
facta praeclare et nosse et animo semper agitare conveniet.
Quae profecto nusquam plura maioraque quam in nostrae
civitatis monumentis reperientur. . . . Quantum enim Graeci
praeceptis valent, tantum Romani, quod est maius, exemplis.”
Marcus Aurelius recollects the same counsel: év rots tév ’Em-
Koupétwv ypdppact mapdyyeApa exetto cuvex@s tropipvyocKer Oar TOV
traXdaiay Twos Tov GpeTH xpyoapevwy (xi. 26).

Human leaders may pass away, but Jesus Christ, the supreme
object and subject of their faithful preaching, remains, and
remains the same; no novel additions to his truth are required,
least of all innovations which mix up his spiritual religion with
what is sensuous and material.

8 Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. * Never
let yourselves be carried away wrth a variety of novel doctrines ; for the right
thing is to have one’s heart strengthened by grace, not by the eating of food—
that has never been any use to those who have had recourse to it. ™ Our
(Exouev as 4’) altar is one of which the worshippers have no right to eat.
1 For the bodies of the animals whose ‘‘ blood is taken into the holy Place” by
the highpriest as a ‘‘sin-offering, are burned outside the camp”; '° and so
Jesus also suffered outside the gate, in order to sanctify the people (cp. 107) by
his own blood (9'*). 1% Let us go to him ‘outside the camp,” then, bearing

232 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 8, 9.

his obloguy (for we have no lasting city here below, we seek the City to
come). © And by him ‘‘let us” constantly ‘‘offer praise to God” as our
“* sacrifice,” that ts, ‘‘the fruit of lips” that celebrate his Name. 8 Do not
forget (uh émihavOdveode, as in v.”) beneficence and charity either ; these are
the kind of sacrifices that are acceptable to God.

V.§ connects with what precedes and introduces what follows.
"Ex0es 1 refers to his life on earth (2° 5”) and includes the service
of the original yyovpevor; it does not necessarily imply a long
retrospect. ypepov as in 3), and 6 adrds as in 11%, The finality
of the revelation in Jesus, sounded at the opening of the homily
(11f-), resounds again here. He is never to be superseded; he
never needs to be supplemented. Hence (v.®) the warning
against some new theology about the media of forgiveness and
fellowship, which, it is implied, infringes the all-sufficient efficacy
of Jesus Christ. At8axats (62) motkidats (24 in good sense) xat
févats ph wapapeperbe. Ilapadepeo Gar (cp. Jude !2) is never used in
this metaphorical sense (swayed, swerved) in the LXX, where it
is always literal, and the best illustration of ێvais in the sense of
“foreign to” (the apostolic faith) is furnished by the author of
the epistle to Diognetus (111), who protests, od ێva 6umAd.. .
GAXG arogroAwy yevopnevos padnrHs yivouat SidacKados eOvav. Such
notions he curtly pronounces useless, év ots odk epednOyoay oi
mepitatouvtes, where év ols goes with wepirarotvres; they have
never been of any use in mediating fellowship with God for
those who have had recourse to them. It is exactly the tone of
Jesus in Mk 738,

Ilapapépeo Ge was altered (under the influence of Eph 44) into repupépea be
(K LW 2. 5. 88. 330. 378. 440. 491. 547. 642. 919. 920. 1867. 1872. 1908.
arm sah). Ieperarjoavtes (8° C D° K L M P syr'kl arm Orig. Chrys. etc.)
and mepirarobyres (k* A D* 1912 lat) are variants which are substantially the

same in meaning, 7epirarety év being used in its common sense =living in the
sphere of (Eph 2" etc.), having recourse to.

The positive position is affirmed in kadév xrd. (kaddy, as in
1 Co 7}, Ro 14”! etc.). ‘‘Kadds... denotes that kind of good-
ness which is at once seen to be good” (Hort on 1 P 2?), ze.
by those who have a right instinct. The really right and good
course is xdpitt BeBarodcbat thy Kapdiay, z.e. either to have one’s
heart strengthened, or to be strengthened in heart (xapdéav, accus.
of reference). Bread sustains our physical life (apros xapdiav
avOpuirov otypitea, Ps 104)5), but xapdia here means more than
vitality ; it is the inner life of the human soul, which God’s xépus
alone can sustain, and God’s xdprs in Jesus Christ is everything
(2° etc.). But what does this contrast mean? The explanation
is suggested in the next passage (vv.}0-16), which flows out of

1 The forms vary ; but this, the Attic spelling, has the best repute upon
the whole (see W. G. Rutherford’s Mew Phrynichus, pp. 370f.), and strong
support here in x A C* D* M.

XIII. 9.] FOOD AND FAITH 233

what has just been said. The various novel doctrines were
connected in some way with Bpépata. So much is clear. The
difficulty is to infer what the Bpwyara were. There is a touch of
scorn for such a motley, unheard of, set of dudayaié. The writer
does not trouble to characterize them, but his words imply that
they were many-sided, and that their main characteristic was a
preoccupation with Bpdpara. There is no reference to the
ancient regulations of the Hebrew ritual mentioned in 9!°; this
would only be tenable on the hypothesis, for which there is no
evidence, that the readers were Jewish Christians apt to be
fascinated by the ritual of their ancestral faith, and, in any case,
such notions could not naturally be described as zoxiAau Kat
éévat. We must look in other directions for the meaning of this
enigmatic reference. (a) The new é.dayaé may have included
ascetic regulations about diet as aids to the higher life, like the
évradApata Kai didacKxaAdiac t&v avOpwrwv which disturbed the
Christians at Colossé. Partly owing to Gnostic syncretism,
prohibitions of certain foods (dzéyecOat Bpwydtwv, 1 Ti 4°) were
becoming common in some circles, in the supposed interests of
spiritual religion. ‘‘We may assume,” says Pfleiderer, one of
the representatives of this view (pp. 278f.), “‘a similar Gnostic
spiritualism, which placed the historical Saviour in an inferior
position as compared with angels or spiritual powers who do not
take upon them flesh and blood, and whose service consists in
mystical purifications and ascetic abstinences.” (6) They may
also have included such religious sacraments as were popularized
in some of the mystery-cults, where worshippers ate the flesh of
a sacrificial victim or consecrated elements which represented the
deity. Participation in these festivals was not unknown among
some ultra-liberal Christians of the age. It is denounced by
Paul in 1 Co 1o, and may underlie what the writer has already
said in 10%, Why our author did not speak outright of eidwAddura,
we cannot tell; but some such reference is more suitable to the
context than (a), since it is sacrificial meals which are in question.
He is primarily drawing a contrast between the various cult-feasts
of paganism, which the readers feel they might indulge in, not
only with immunity, but even with spiritual profit, and the
Christian religion, which dispensed with any such participation.
(c) Is there also a reference to the Lord’s supper, or to the
realistic sense in which it was being interpreted, as though
participation in it implied an actual eating of the sacrificial body
of the Lord? This reference is urged by some critics, especially
by F. Spitta (Zur Geschichte u. Litteratur des Urchristentums,
i. pp. 325 f.) and O. Holtzmann (in Zettschrift fiir die neutest.
Wissenschaft, x. pp. 251-260). Spitta goes wrong by misinterpret-
ing v.10 as though the o@ua of Christ implied a sacrificial meal

234 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 9, 10,

from which Jewish priests were excluded. Holtzmann rightly
sees that the contrast between xdpis and Bpdpara implies, for
the latter, the only Bpaya possible for Christians, viz. the Lord’s
body as a food. What the writer protests against is the rising
conception of the Lord’s supper as a gayeiv 76 cpa tov Xpiorov.
On the day of Atonement in the OT ritual, to which he refers,
there was no participation in the flesh of the sacrificial victim ;
there could not be, in the nature of the case (v.!). So, he
argues, the g@za Xpiorod of our sacrifice cannot be literally eaten,
as these neo-sacramentarians allege ; any such notion is, to him,
a relapse upon the sensuous, which as a spiritual idealist he
despises as “‘a vain thing, fondly invented.” A true insight into
the significance of Jesus, such as he has been trying to bring out
in what he has written, such as their earlier leaders themselves
had conveyed in their own way, would reveal the superfluousness
and irrelevance of these d:dayaé. As the writer is alluding to
what is familiar, he does not enter into details, so that we have
to guess at his references. But the trend of thought in vv.!9- is
plain. In real Christian worship there is no sacrificial meal ;
the Christian sacrifice is not one of which the worshippers
partake by eating. This is the point of v.!® The writer
characteristically illustrates it from the OT ritual of atonement-
day, by showing how the very death of Jesus outside the city of
Jerusalem fulfilled the proviso in that ritual (vv.1: 12) that the
sacrifice must not be eaten. Then he finds in this fact about
the death of Jesus a further illustration of the need for unworldli-
ness (vv.}3 14), Finally, in reply to the question, “Then have
Christians no sacrifices to offer at all?” he mentions the two
standing sacrifices of thanksgiving and charity (vv. 16), both
owing their efficacy to Christ. Inwardness is the dominating
thought of the entire paragraph. God’s grace in Jesus Christ
works upon the soul; no external medium like food is required
to bring us into fellowship with him; it is vain to imagine that
by eating anything one can enjoy communion with God. Our
Lord stands wholly outside the material world of sense, outside
things touched and tasted; in relationship to him and him
alone, we can worship God. The writer has a mystical or
idealistic bent, to which the sacramental idea is foreign. He
never alludes to the eucharist ; the one sacrament he notices is
baptism. A ritual meal as the means of strengthening communion
with God through Christ does not appeal to him in the slightest
degree. It is not thus that God’s xdpus is experienced.

The clue to v.!° lies in the obvious fact that the @uc.acTprov
and the oxy belong to the same figurative order. In our
spiritual or heavenly oxyvy, the real oxnvy of the soul, there is
indeed a Quctactipiov é§ of (partitive ; cp. ra els Tov iepod éoOiov-

XIII. 10-12. ] UNWORLDLINESS 235

atv, 1 Co 9}*) gayety (emphatic by position) od éxouow éfouciay }
(1 Co 94) ot tH oxnvy Aatpedovtes (Aatpevey with dative as in 85),
It makes no difference to the sense whether oi . . . Aarpevovres
means worshippers (9° 10?) or priests (8°), and the writer does not
allegorize @Pvovacryprov as Philo does (e.g. in de Leg. Alleg. i. 15, THs
kafapas Kal duidvtov dicews THS avapepovoys TA aduwpa TO Oew,
avrn d€ éot. TO Ovovacrypiov). His point is simply this, that the
Christian sacrifice, on which all our relationship to God depends,
is not one that involves or allows any connexion with a meal. To
prove how impossible such a notion is, he (v.!!) cites the ritual
regulation in Lv 16”? for the disposal of the carcases of the two
animals sacrificed Tept THS dépaptias (oy TO aipa elornvexOy eéido-
agar év TO ayiw efoicovew avTa ew THS mapenBorANs Kal KaTakavcov-
ow aita évrupi). For a moment the writer recalls his main argument
in chs. 7-10; in v.29 Christ is regarded as the victim or sacrifice
(cp. mpocevexGeis in 98), but here the necessities of the case
involve the activity of the Victim. Atéd Kat “Ingots xrA. (v.!?).
The parallel breaks down at one point, of course; his body was
not burned up.? But the real comparison lies in €€w tis Uns
(sc. ths mapeuBorrs, as Ex 327627), The Peshitto and 436 make
the reference explicit by reading wéAews, which seems to have
been known to Tertullian (adv. Jud. 14, “extra civitatem”). The
fact that Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem influenced the
synoptic transcripts of the parable in Mk 128= Mt 2199=Lk 2o}5,
Mark’s version, dzéxrewvav airov Kal e€€BaXov adbtov é£w Tov aumed-
vos, was altered into (e&€Badorv) éxBaddvres abrov é€w Tod dumreA@vos
(kal) aréxrewav. Crucifixion, like other capital punishments, in
the ancient world was inflicted outside a city. To the writer this
fact seems intensely significant, rich in symbolism. So much so
that his mind hurries on to use it, no longer as a mere confirma-
tion of the negative in v.!, but as a positive, fresh call to unworldli-
ness. All such sensuous ideas as those implied in sacrificial
meals mix up our religion with the very world from which we
ought, after Jesus, to be withdrawing. We meet Jesus outside
all this, not inside it. In highly figurative language (v.}5), he
therefore makes a broad appeal for an unworldly religious fellow-
ship, such as is alone in keeping with the xdpis of God in Jesus
our Lord.

Totvuy (beginning a sentence as in Lk 20% rotivuy drddore KT.,
instead of coming second in its classical position), let us join
Jesus €&w tis mapeuBodjs, for he is living. The thought of the

1 The omission of éEovclay by D* M and the Old Latin does not affect the
sense ; éxetv then has the same meaning as in 61%,

2 The blood, not the body, of the victim mattered in the atonement ritual.
Hence, in our writer’s scheme of thought, as Peake observes, ‘‘ while he fully

recognises the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, he can assign it no place in
his argument or attach to it any theological significance.”

236 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 13-15.

metaphor is that of Paul’s admonition pi owoxnpatilerbe ta
aiave rovTw (Ro 12”), and the words rév dve8iopdv abtod pépovtes
recall the warnings against false shame (1126 122), just as the
following (v.1*) reason, o yap éxouey Se (in the present outward
order of things) pévoucav! médwv GANG Thy péAdoucay éemLyTodper
recalls the ideas of 11101416. The appeal echoes that of 4!)
orovddowpev odv cicedOelv els exelvny THY Katdravow. It is through
the experiences of an unsettled and insulted life that Christians
must pass, if they are to be loyal to their Lord. That is, the
writer interprets é£w rs tapeuBodjs figuratively (“ Egrediamur
et nos a commercio mundi huius,” Erasmus). Philo had already
done so (cp. specially guod. det. pot. 44), in a mystical sense:
paxpav dvoixiler ToD cwpatiKod otpatorédov, pdvus av ottws éAmioas
ixérns kat Oeparevtys ExeaOar TéAeLos Oeov. Similarly in de Lbrietate,
25, commenting on Ex 33’, he explains that by év r@ otpatorédw
(= rij tapeuBodrg) Moses meant allegorically év 76 pera cdparos
Aiw, the material interests of the worldly life which must be for-
saken if the soul is to enjoy the inward vision of God. Such is
the renunciation which the writer here has in view. It is the
thought in 2 Clem. 5} (dev, adeAgol, xataXeiavtes THv maporkiay
Tod Koo TovTOU TonTwmEV TO OeAnpa TOD KadécavTos Huds, Kal
pn poBynbapey eedOciv ex tod Kocpov tovrov) and 65 (od duva-
pela trav dvo Piro elvar' Set 88 Huds tovrw droragapévovs exeiva
xpac6a.). Only, our author weaves in the characteristic idea
of the shame which has to be endured in such an unworldly
renunciation.

The next exhortation in v.15 (dvapépwpev) catches up éepye-
pefa, as 80 adtod carries on rpos airév. For once applying sacri-
ficial language to the Christian life, he reminds his readers again
of the sacrifice of thanksgiving. The phrase xapwév yethéwv ex-
plains (toét’ éotiv) the sense in which @uala aivésews is to be
taken; it is from the LXX mistranslation (xapzov yeAéwv) of
Hos 14° where the true text has o%8 (bullocks) instead of "5
(fruit). In épodoyouvtwy 14 dvdpart adtod, Suodoyety is used in
the sense of éfouoroyetobar by an unusual? turn of expression.
The ovoya means, as usual, the revealed personality. Probably
there is an unconscious recollection of Ps 548 (€€opokoyjoopar To
dvopati gov); Ovaia aivécews® is also from the psalter (e.g.
5014 28), *Avadépew elsewhere in the NT is only used of spiritual
sacrifices in the parallel passage 1 P 25 dvevéyxae mvevparixas
Guolas evrrpordextous bed 5a "Inood Xpicrod. We have no sacri-

1 In the sense of Aeneas (Verg. Aen. iii. 85, 86, ‘‘da moenia fessis | et genus
et mansuram urbem”). Note the assonance uévovsay . . . uédAdovcary.

2 But duodoyetv rive occurs in 3 Es 48 558 (A).

®In the LXX éfouodéynors is generally preferred to alveots as an equiva-
lent for 77n.

XIII. 15, 16.] CHRISTIAN SACRIFICES 237

ficial meals, the writer implies ; we do not need them. Nor have
we any sacrifices—except spiritual ones. (The ovv after dv atroi,
which X° A C D° M vg syr®*! boh arm eth Orig. Chrys. ete. re-
tain, is omitted by x* D* P © vt syr’®; but s* D* om. ody also
1 Co 67, as D in Ro 7%). The thought of 12%8 is thus expanded,
with the additional touch that thankfulness to God is inspired
by our experience of Jesus (8 airot, as Col 37 evxapicroivtes 7
Ged marpi d¢ avrod); the phrase is a counterpart of 8a tod
épxtepéws in v.11, This thank-offering is to be made 8a zavros
(sc. xpovov), instead of at stated times, for, whatever befalls us, we
owe God thanks and praise (cp. 1 Th 536). The Mishna (cp.
Berachoth 5%) declares that he must be silenced who only calls
upon God’s name with thankfulness in the enjoyment of good
(Berachoth 5° {nix ppnvin oi OTD Wo TaN Tip by. . . wie).

The religious idea of thanksgiving was prominent in several quarters.
According to Fronto (Loeb ed. i. p. 22) thank-offerings were more acceptable
to the gods than sin-offerings, as being more disinterested: pdvrewy 5é maidés
gacw Kal Tots Oeois ndlovs elvar Ovoidv Tas Xaptornplous 7 Tas metdcxlous.
Philo had taught (de Plant. 30) that evyapioria is exceptionally sacred, and
that towards God it must be an inward sacrifice: Oeq@ 6€ ovK éveote yunolws
evxapiorhoas Ov dy voulfovow oi moAdol KatacKkevav avabnudrwv Ovordv—ovde
yap ciumas 6 Kécpos lepdy akidxpewy Av yévorro mpos Thy TovTou Tiv—adAd Se
éralivwy kai tuvwy, odx ods 7 yeywvds doeTar gwvh, GANA ods 6 decdys Kal
kabapwraros vovs émnxjoce kal avauédWe. He proceeds (zdzd. 33) to dwell
on the meaning of the name Judah, ds épunveverac xuply éEouoddynots. Judah
was the last (Gn 29) son of Leah, for nothing could be added to praise of
God, nothing excels 6 evNoyGv rév Gedy vots. This tallies with the well-known
rabbinic saying, quoted in Tanchuma, 55. 2: ‘‘in the time of messiah all
sacrifices will cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving will not cease; all
prayers will cease, but praises will not cease” (on basis of Jer 33! and Ps
56'%). The praise of God as the real sacrifice of the pious is frequently noted
in the later Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 10’).

In v.!6 the writer notes the second Christian sacrifice of
charity. Evdmouia, though not a LXX term, is common in
Hellenistic Greek, especially in Epictetus, ¢.g. Fragm. 15 (ed.
Schenk), ért xpyorornte kai evrouwa; Fragm. 45, ovdev Kpetocov

edmoulas (where the context suggests ‘* beneficence ”).
Kowwvia in the sense of charity or contributions had been
already used by Paul (2 Co g}8 etc.). To share with others,
to impart to them what we possess, is one way of worshipping
God. The three great definitions of worship or religious service
in the NT (here, Ro 121? and Ja 177) are all inward and
ethical; what lies behind this one is the fact that part of the
food used in ancient OT sacrifices went to the support of the
priests, and part was used to provide meals for the poor.
Charitable relief was bound up with the sacrificial system, for such
parts of the animals as were not burnt were devoted to these
beneficent purposes. An equivalent must be provided in our

238 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ [XIII. 16.

spiritual religion, the writer suggests ; if we have no longer any
animal sacrifices, we must carry on at any rate the charitable
element in that ritual. This is the force of ph émdavOdvecbe.
Contributions, ¢.g., for the support of 7yovuevor, who were not
priests, were unknown in the ancient world, and had to be
explicitly urged as a duty (cp. 1 Co 9%14). Similarly the needs
of the poor had to be met by voluntary sacrifices, by which
alone, in a spiritual religion, God could be satisfied —rotattats
(perhaps including the sacrifice of praise as well as evzouwa and
kowwvia) uctats edapeotettat (cp. 11> 6 1228) 6 Geds. This counsel
agrees with some rabbinic opinions (e.g. T. B. Sukkah, 594: “he
who offers alms is greater than all sacrifices”). The special duty
of supporting the priesthood is urged in Sir is but our author
shows no trace of the theory that “‘almsgiving in general was not
only superior to sacrifices but possessed atoning merit before
God (Sir 3l4 éhenuooivy yap watpos ovK émtAnoOyoerat, Kal dytt
dpapTiav TpogavorkodounOycerat co). In the later rabbinic
theology, prayer, penitence, the study of the Torah, hospitality,
charity, and the like were regarded as sacrifices equivalent to
those which had been offered when the temple was standing.
Thus Rabbi Jochanan b. Zakkai (cp. Schlatter’s Jochanan ben
Zakkai, pp. 39f.) consoled himself and his friends with the
thought, derived from Hos 6%, that in the practice of charity
they still possessed a valid sacrifice for sins; he voiced the
conviction also (e.g. b. baba bathra ro?) that charity (np?¥) won
forgiveness for pagans as the sin-offering did for Israel. In the
Ep. Barnabas (27) the writer quotes Jer 72% 28 (Zec 817) as a
warning to Christians against Jewish sacrifices (aicOdverBar ouv
dpeiAopev THY yopny THs dyabwovvys TOU mar pos pov or Hpiv
A€yet, GdAwy Huds py dpolws TAavwpEevous exeivors Lytelv, was
mpocaywpev aito), but he quotes Ps 51% as the description of
the ideal sacrifice.

The tendency in some circles of the later Judaism to spiritualize sacrifice

in general and to insist on its motive and spirit is voiced in a passage like
Jth 164%":

8pn yap ék OeueXlwy ortv Vdaow carevOjoera,

métpat & dmrd mporwmov gov ws Knpds Taxi}oovTas*

ére 0€ Tots PoBovpévas ge od etiaTeEvers avTois®

Ort puxpdy maca Ovala eis douhv evwolas,

kal é\dx.crov mav otéap els ddoka’Twud oot"

6 6é PoBovmevos Tov Kiprov péyas did Tavrds,

Also in a number of statements from various sources, of which that in 2.
Arist. 234 (ri wéyuordv éore SdEns ; 6 dé ele’ 7d Tidy Tov Bedv* TodTO & early
ot Sdbpos ode Ovolais, dAKa Wuxis KaOapdérnre Kal Siadjwews dolas) may be
cited as a fair specimen. The congruous idea of bloodless sacrifices was
common in subsequent Christianity. Thus the martyr Apollonius (Acta
Apollonit, 44; Conybeare’s Monuments of Early Christianity, pp. 47-48)
tells the magistrate, ‘‘I expected . . . that thy heart would bear fruit, and

IEG, 1 7.\| CHURCH LEADERS 239

that thou wouldst worship God, the Creator of all, and unto Him continually
offer thy prayers by means of compassion ; for compassion shown to men by
men is a bloodless sacrifice and holy unto God.” So Jerome’s comment runs
on Ps 154 ob wh cuvaydyw Tas cuvaywyas alrav 連 aiudrwy. LZuvdywr,
gnoly, cuvayuryas éx Tov eOvdvy, od Se aludrwy ravras cuvdéw* rodr’ ari, ob
mapackevdow did THs voucKxys or mpocépxerOat AaTpelas, dc’ alvécews 5é uaddov
Kal THs dvaudkxrov Ovolas (Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. 123). Both in the
Didache (14! xkAdoatre dprov Kal evxapicrncate mpocetomodoynoduevar Ta
TapamTapara vuor, drws kabapa Ovoia buay 7) and in Justin Martyr (Déa/.

117, mdvras ody of dia Tod dvduaros rovrouv Ovclas, As mapédwxev Inaois 6
Xpicrds ylvecOat, rovréoriv él TH evxaptoria Tod dprov Kal Tod rornplou, Tas év
mwavrl tTérw THs yas ywoudvas Urb Tav Xpicriavav, mpodkaBwv 6 Geds waprupet
evapéorous vrdpxew avTw), the very prayers at the eucharist are called @ucla:,
but this belongs to a later stage, when the eucharist or love-feast became the
rite round which collections for the poor, the sick, prisoners, and travelling
visitors (vv./) gathered, and into which sacrificial language began to be
poured (cp. Justin’s AZo/. i. 66, 67). In IIpds ‘EBpalous we find a simpler
and different line of practical Christianity.

Now for a word on the living jyoupevo. of the community
(v.17), including himself (vv.1® 19),

11 Obey your leaders, submit to them; for they (abrol) are alive to the
interests of your souls, as men who will have to account for their trust. Let
their work be a joy to them and not a grief—which would be a loss to yourselves.

18 Pray for me, for Iam sure I have a clean conscience ; my desire is in
every way to lead an honest life. ™ J urge you to this (¢.e. to prayer) all the
more, that I may get back to you the sooner.

The connexion of vv.!7£ is not only with v.7, but with vv.&16,

It would be indeed a grief to your true leaders if you gave way to
these zorxiAar kal évac doctrines, instead of following men who
are really (this is the force of airo/) concerned for your highest
interests. Mei@eobe (cp. Epict. Fragm. 27, tov apocoptAodvra
diacxomov . . . ei prev Gyeivova, akovew xpi Kal meiGecbar
att@) Kat Gmeixete (te/kw is not a LXX term); strong words but
justified, for the Adyos tod Geot which Christian leaders preached
meant authoritative standards of life for the community (cp. 1 Co
417. 21 1437 etc.), inspired by the Spirit. Insubordination was
the temptation at one pole, an overbearing temper (1 P 53) the
temptation at the other. Our author knows that, in the case
of his friends, the former alone is to be feared. He does not
threaten penalties for disobedience, however, as Josephus does (c.
Apionem, ii. 194) for insubordination on the part of the Jewish
laity towards a priest: 6 d€ ye rovrw py TeHopevos ipeea dikny ws
els Tov Gedy aitov doeBav. Rather, he singles out the highminded
devotion of these leaders as an inducement to the rank and file
to be submissive. Adrtot yap dyputvotcw bmép Tay Wuxdv spar,
almost as Epictetus says of the true Cynic who zealously con-
cerns himself with the moral welfare of men, trepyypimvyKev trép
avOpwrwy (ill. 22. 95 ; he uses the verb once in its literal sense
of a soldier having to keep watch through the night, iii. 24. 32).

240 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XIII. 17.

The force of the phrase is flattened by the transference of i:ép
Tov YuxGv bor to a position after ds Adyov doddcortes (as A vg).
The latter expression, ®s (conscious that) Adyov dzodwaovrtes (ds
with fut. ptc. here only in NT), is used by Chrysostom, de
Sacerdotio, iii. 18 (cp. vi. 1), to enforce a sense of ministerial
responsibility (et yap trav oixefwv tANupEANpaTwv edvOivas iméxovTes
ppitropev, ds ov SuvyTdpevot TO Tp expuyetv exeivo, TL xpi) TetceTOat
mpoodokav Tov tmrép tocovTwy dmoXoyeicOat péAXovta;), but in
IIpés “EBpatovs the writer assumes that the 7yov¥mevor are doing
and will do their duty. Any sadness which they may feel is
due, not to a sense of their own shortcomings, but to their
experience of wilfulness and error among their charges. Adyov
dzoovddvae is more common in the NT than the equivalent Adyov
d.ddvat, which recurs often in Greek literature, e.g. in Plato’s
Sympos. 1896, mpocexe Tov vodv Kai ovtws déye ds SHcwv Adyor,
or in the complaint of the Fayyum peasants (A.D. 207), who
petition the local centurion that the disturbers of their work may
be called to account: dg.odvres, édv oor Sdéy, KedXcDoa avrovs
dxOjvar éri ce Adyov arodwcovtas Tepi TovTov (GCP. i. 3542 2),
In Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, John says to the captain of
the robbers, éy® Xpirta Adyov Sdcw trép cor.

The iva clause (iva peta xapas todTo movdow Kal ph otevdlovtes)
goes back to weiBeoOe . . . tmeixere. The members have it in
their power to thwart and disappoint their jyovpevo. Todro z.
refers to dypurvovcw, and the best comment on kat py orevafovtes
is in Denny’s hymn:

“O give us hearts to love like Thee,
Like Thee, O Lord, to grieve
Far more for others’ sins than all
The wrongs that we receive.”

The last four words, dduottehés yap spiv todro, form a rhe-
torical litotes, as when Pindar (Olymp. i. 53) remarks, axépdea
A€édoyxev Gapuva Kaxaydpos. It would bea “sore loss” to them
if their lives failed to answer the hopes and efforts of their
jyovpevor, hopes like those implied in 69 and 109% ’AAvotredés
(‘no profit”) is probably used after Adyov droddécovres with its
sense of “reckoning.” Compare the use of the adverb in
Theophrastus, vill. 11 (od yap povoy Wevdovrat dAAG Kal dAvoLTEAGS
drahAarrover), and the dry remark of Philo (é% Flaccum, 6),
speaking about the attempt of the Alexandrian anti-Semites to
erect images in Jewish places of worship, when he says that
Flaccus might have known as ov Avowredes €6n watpia Kuweiv !
The term lent itself to such effective under-statements, as in
Philo’s aphorism (fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris,

Pp. 70) TO értopKely avdciov Kai dAvovred €oTarTov.

XIII. 18, 19.] PRAYERS 241

The next word .(v.!8) is about himself. MpocedxeoGe (continue
praying) wept (cp. 2 Mac 18 kai viv dde eopev mpocevyopevor rept
jporv) hpov (plural of authorship), wev@dp,e6a (a modest confidence :
“whatever some of you may think, | believe”) yap ot xadhy
guveidnow éxonev. He is conscious of a keen desire (@éAovres as
in 1217) to act in a straightforward, honest way ; hence he can ask
their prayers. Hence also they may feel confident and eager
about praying for him. The writer chooses xadny (cp. on v.9)
instead of ayaOnv as his adjective for ovveidnow, probably for the
sake of assonance with the following xaAds, perhaps also to avoid
the hiatus after 6r. When he adds, év waow (here neuter)
Kahas Oédovtes dvactpépecOar (a phrase which occurs in the
Pergamos inscript. 459° xaAd@s kai évddgws dvactpapfvat, in the
1st century B.C. inscription (Priene, 115°) dvaotpepopevos ev racw
pA[avOpwrws|, and in Epict. iv. 4. 46, éopryv dyew dvvaca caf?
Hpépay, OTe KaAds aveotpadys év THdE TO Epyw, etc.), the language
recalls that of 2 Co 11! 12 where Paul appeals for the help of his
readers’ prayers and pleads his honesty of conscience (76 paprv-
ploy THS cvvELdnoEWSs HUaV, OTL. . . dveotpdd>nev KTA.). Perhaps
the writer is conscious that his readers have been blaming him,
attributing (say) his absence from them to unworthy motives, as
in the case of Paul (e.g. 1 Th 2!8, 2 Co 11"), This may be the
feeling which prompts the protest here and the assurances in
vy.19 23, “JT am still deeply interested in you; my absence is
involuntary ; believe that.”

Kat is inserted before wept by D vt Chrys. (possibly as a reminiscence of
1 Th 5%), z.e. pray as well as obey (‘‘et orate pro nobis,” d); this would
emphasize the fact that the writer belonged to the 7yyovuevo. But the plural
in v.!8 is not used to show that the writer is one of the 7yovpevor mentioned
in v.17, for whom the prayers of the community are asked. He was one of
them ; uv here is the literary plural already used in 5 611. There
are apt parallels in Cicero’s de Officizs, ii. 24 (“‘ Quem nos. . . e Graeco in
Latinum convertimus. Sed toto hoc de genere, de quaerenda, de collocanda
pecunia vellens etiam de utenda”), and OP. x. 1296 (the letter of a boy
to his father), ra® . . . ¢tdorovoduev kal avawuxduev. lecOdueba (relOouae
256. 1319. 2127) has been changed into tremroi@apev by xe C° D © W 6. 104.
263. 326 (Blass), probably because the latter (‘‘ we are confident”) is stronger
than me(@oueGa, which (cp. Ac 268) only amounts to ‘‘ we believe” (though
implying ‘‘we are sure”). Retaining wecOdueGa, A. Bischoff (Zezts. fiir ate
neut, Wiss. ix. 171 f.) evades the difficulty by altering the order of the words :
Tpocevx. mwepl Nuav’ Kahnv yap ouv. Exouev, Srt mwelOoucba ev maow x. 0.
dvaotpépeo Oat, z.¢, taking 87 as ‘‘ because.”

As in Philem *, the writer’s return is dependent on his friends’
prayers (v.19) ; specially (see p. 17) let them intercede with God for
his speedy restoration to them, tva téx.ov drokatactaQa spiv (cp.
OP. 181 (A.D. 49-50) dmoxarectdfy por 6 vids). Tdxrov may
mean “the sooner” (ze. than if you did not pray) or simply
“soon” (as in v.?5, where, as in Hellenistic Greek, it has lost

16

242 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS ([XIII. 19, 20.

its comparative meaning). What detained the writer, we cannot
tell. Apparently (v.?%) it was not imprisonment.

A closing prayer and doxology, such as was not uncommon
in epistles of the primitive church (e.g. 1 Th 5%, 1 P 514), now
follows. Having asked his readers to pray for him, he now prays
for them.

2 May the God of peace ‘‘who brought up” from the dead our Lord (74)
Jesus (see p. Ixiii), ‘‘the” great ‘‘ Shepherd of the sheep, with the blood of
the eternal covenant,” * furnish you with everything that ts good for the doing

of his will, creating in your lives by Jesus Christ what ts acceptable in his
own sight! To him (i.e. God) be (sc. etn) glory for ever and ever. Amen.

‘O Qeds Tis eipyvns means the God of saving bliss (see on 1214),
eipnvn being taken in a sense like the full OT sense of the secure
prosperity won by the messianic triumph over the hostile powers
of evil (cp. 214 7%). There is no special allusion here, as in
Paul’s use of the phrase (Ro 15%%, 2 Co 131! etc.), to friction in
the community ; the conflict is one in which God secures ecipyvn
for his People, a conflict with evil, not strife between members
of the church. The method of this triumph is described in
some OT phrases, which the writer uses quite apart from their
original setting. The first quotation is from Is 6314 wrod 6
dvaBiBaoas ék THs ys Tov Toeva TOV mpoBdtwv, which the writer
applies to Jesus—his only reference to the resurrection (cp. on
vy.11 12), But there is no need (with Blass) to follow Chrysostom
in reading trys yas here for vexp@v. With évayetv in this sense,
éx vexpav (so Ro ro”) or some equivalent (é& gdov, Ps 304, Wis
1618, Joseph. Amz. vi. 14. 2) is much more natural. In tédv
Trowséva, Tov mpoRdtwv Tov péyay, 6 peyas is applied to him as in
444 102l, The figure of the zouuyv, which never occurs in Paul,
plays no réle in our author’s argument as it does in 1 Peter (2
5‘); he prefers tepeds or dpynyds, and even here he at once
passes to the more congenial idea of the d.ajxy. Jesus is the
great Shepherd, as he has made himself responsible for the
People, identifying himself with them at all costs, and sacrificing
his life in order to save them for God. But as death never
occurs in the OT description of the divine shepherd, not even
in the 23rd Psalm, the writer blends with his quotation from
Isaiah another—év aipate S1abyKns aiwviov, a LXX phrase from
Zech 91! (év atuate Siabyxys cov éfaréoterAas Seopiovs cov),
Is 553 (Stabyoopa tyiy duabyxyy aidviov), etc. “Ev atpare diabyxys
aiwviov goes with dvayaywv, not with tov woueva, in which case
rév would need to be prefixed to the phrase. Jesus was raised
to present his blood as the atoning sacrifice which mediated the
diabjxn (911 24f). To the resurrection (cp. on v.1#) is thus
ascribed what elsewhere in the epistle is ascribed to the cioeAOetv
cis 7a dye. But as the stress falls on aiwvéov, then more is

XIII. 20, 21.| THE SHEPHERD’S BLOOD 243

implied than that apart from the aia no dia6y«n could have
been instituted. In reality the thought resembles that of g!4
(os dua mvevpatos aiwviov éavtov mpoojveyxey . . . Kabapret tiv
guvelonow ypaov ... els TO AaTpeve Ged Cdvrr), where «is 7d
Aatpevey Oem corresponds to eis 1d Torjoar Td OAnpa adtod
below ; & xrX. is “equipped with,” not “in virtue of.” This
interpretation is in line with the author’s argument in chs.
7-10. ‘‘Videtur mihi apostolus hoc belle, Christum ita resur-
rexisse a mortuis, ut mors tamen eius non sit abolita, sed
aeternum vigorem retineat, ac si dixisset: Deus filium suum
excitavit, sed ita ut sanguis, quem semel in morte fudit, ad
sanctionem foederis aeterni post resurrectionem vigeat fructumque
suum proferat perinde ac si semper flueret” (Calvin). In
katapticat (the aor. optative)! «xrd., there is a parallel to the
thought of Ph 21%, Eis 7d wowjoar ro O€Anpa airov recalls the
language of 10°6, and 8&4 “Inaod Xptotod goes with mov: the
power of God in our lives as for our lives (v.2°) works through
the person of Jesus Christ. To take 61a "I. X. with 16 eddpeotov
évétov adtod yields an unobjectionable sense, corresponding to
the thought of v.45 But 76... adrod stands quite well by
itselfi(eh nJn-372):

The writer makes no such use of the shepherd and flock metaphor as, ¢.z.,
Philo had done. The Jewish thinker (Vz¢. Jos. i. 11) argues that the
calling of a shepherd is the best preparation for anyone who is to rule over
men ; hence ‘‘ kings are called shepherds of their people” as a title of honour,
He also interprets the sheep as the symbol of a nature which is capable of
improvement (de sacrzf. Abel. 34, mpoxomis 6¢ rpdBarov, ws Kal abrd dndoi
rotvoua, cUuBorov). The classical habit of describing kings as shepherds of
their people would help to make the metaphor quite intelligible to readers of
non-Jewish origin, Compare, é.g., the saying of Cyrus (Xenophon, Cyropaedia,
viii. 2, 14), that a good shepherd resembled a good king, rév re yap vouéa
Xphvat py evdaluova TA KTHVNH ToLovvTa xXpHoAar avrois, 7) dn mpoBdrwy evdat-
povla, Tov Te Bacikéa woadTws evdalwovas médets Kal avOpwrovs moiodvTa
XpIcPat avrocs,

Navri was soon furnished with the homiletic addition of épy@ (C K M P
syr sah arm eth Chrys. Thdt. etc.), or even épyw kal Adyw (A, from 2 Th 2}”).
IIovév has either adrw (x* A C* 33* 1288 boh) or éau7r@ (Greg. Nyss.) or
a’rés (d 1912) prefixed. Hort, admitting that ‘‘it is impossible to make
sense of at7w” (B. Weiss, Blass=éavr@), maintains that av’rés is original.
It is a homiletic insertion, out of which a’7@ arose by corruption. ‘Hyiv

(sD M © 33. 104. 181. 326. 917. 927. 1288. 1739. 1912, etc. syr¥S sah boh
arm) is merely an error for tptv, due to the preceding judv.

A personal postscript (vv.?4) is now added, as 1 P 5214
after 510 1,

2 7 appeal to you, brothers (3\-* 101°), to bear with this appeal of mine.
Lt is but a short letter.

1 This lonely occurrence of the optative points to its tendency after the
LXX to disappear; thus, apart from mm yevolro, it only occurs once in a
writer like Epictetus (iii. 5. 11).

244 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XIII. 22.

3 You must understand that our brother Timotheus ts now free. If he
comes soon, he and I will see you together.

4 Salute all your leaders and all the saints. The Italians salute you.

*5 Grace be with you all. Amen.

The Timotheus referred to (in v.*%) is probably the Timo-
theus who had been a colleague of Paul. The other allusions
have nothing to correspond with them in the data of the NT.
But there is no ground for supposing that vv.?225 were added,
either by the writer himself (Wrede) or by those who drew up
the canon, in order to give a Pauline appearance to the docu-
ment (see Introd., pp. xxvilif.). Seeberg’s reasons for regarding
vv.2225 as a fragment of some other note by the same writer are
that 23> implies not a church but a small group of Christians,
and that vv.18- 23 presuppose different situations ; neither reason
is valid. The style and contents are equally unfavourable to
Perdelwitz’s theory, that vv.?2-°5 were added drevi manu by some
one who wrote out a copy of the original Adyos tapaxAjoews and
forwarded it to an Italian church.

In v.”" évéxeoe, for which avréxeobe (J. Pricaeus apud Tit 19)
is a needless conjecture, takes a genitive (as in 2 Ti 4° rips
bytawovons Sidackadias od« avefovrat, and in Philo, guod omnis
probus, 6, kat mOs matpos pev 7) MYTpPOs ewiTAypaTwv Taides avexXovTat,
yvaipyror Oe dv av idyynrai duaxeAevwvrar). It has been flattened
into avéxeoOaz (infinitive as in 1 P 2") by D* © vg arm 181. 436.
1288. 1311. 1873, etc. (Blass). A written homily may be like a
speech (Ac 13)5), a Ndyos Tis TapaxAnoews (Cp. On 12°); mapa-
kAnots echoes tapaxakéw He is not the only early Christian
writer who mildly suggested that he had not written at undue
length (cp. e.g. 1 P 51280 éAiywr eypaa, tapaxadGv ktX. ; Barn 15 8)
Kat yap (‘‘etenim” as 4?) 8d Bpaxéwy (sc. Aoywv) éméoterha !
(epistolary aorist) piv. Ava Bpaxéwv was a common phrase in this
connexion; ¢.g. Lucian’s Zoxaris, 56 (meoréov Kai tTatTa cor
vopoberovvte kat dia Bpayéwv Aextéov, wy Kal Kapys Huly TH akon
cuurepwoortav). Ipods “EBpatovs may be read aloud easily in one
hour. The writer has had a good deal to say (odvs, 514), and
he has now said it. Not I hope, he adds pleasantly, at too great
length! As for the dvcepujvevros A€yecv, that is another question
which he does not raise here. He is not pleading for a patient
reading, because he has had to compress his argument into a
short space, which makes it hard to follow, owing to its highly
condensed character. What he does appear to anticipate is the
possibility of his readers resenting the length at which he has

1 For éréore:ha (here as in Ac 15% 21% 3 Theophr. 24)8 émoré\\wv uh
ypdpew «Tr. =‘ write,” ‘*send a letter”), see Laqueur’s Quaest. Epigraph.
et Papyr. Selectae, 16 f. (émcoré\\ew = “‘ communicare aliquid cum aliquo sive
per hominem sive per epistolam ”).

XIII. 22, 23.] SHORT LETTERS 245

written. When the younger Pliny returned a book to Tacitus,
with some criticisms upon its style and matter, he said he was
not afraid to do so, since it was those most deserving praise whc
accepted criticism patiently (‘‘neque enim ulli patientius repre-
hunduntur quam qui maxime laudari merentur,” Z//. vii. 20).
The author of IIpés ‘EBpadous might have taken this line, for he
has done justice to the good qualities of his friends (e.g. 6°* 10°?
13/f), even in reproving them for backwardness and slowness.
But he prefers to plead that his words have not been long; his
readers surely cannot complain of being wearied by the length of
his remarks. Not long before, Seneca had made the same kind
of observation to Lucilius (Z#f. xxxviiil. 1) about short letters
being more effective than lengthy discussions. ‘“ Merito exigis
ut hoc inter nos epistularum commercium frequentemus, pluri-
mum proficit sermo, quia minutatim inrepit animo.. . ali-
quando utendum est et illis, ut ita dicam, concionibus, ubi qui
dubitat inpellendus est: ubi vero non hoc agendum est ut velit
discere sed ut discat, ad haec submissiora uerba ueniendum est.
facilius intrant et haerent: nec enim multis opus est, sed efficaci-
bus.” But Seneca’s practice was not always up to his theory in
this respect. His Stoic contemporary Musonius Rufus gave
examples as well as precepts of brevity, which were more telling
(e.g. doris O€ ravtaxod Seirar arode(Eews Kal Orov cadpy Ta Tpdypara
éot, 7) Sia wodA@y arrodeikvucGar BovrAeTar ait@ Ta Ov 6Alywv
duvdeva, Tavtamacw aroros kai dvcpabys, ed. Hense, pp. 1, 2).
The literary critic Demetrius considered that the length of a
letter should be carefully regulated (76 dé péyefos cvvertadOw tis
eriotoAns, De ELlocut. 228); letters that were too long and stilted
in expression became mere treatises, ovyypdupata, as in the case of
many of Plato’s, whereas the true érvoroAy, according to Demetrius
(tb¢d. 231), should be giAodpovyers in a brief compass (avvropos).
Which would apply to IlIpés “Efpaiovs. Erasmus comments:
‘“‘Scripsi paucis, ut ipse vos brevi visurus.” He may have, but
he does not say so.

In y.?> ywooxete is imperative; he is conveying a piece of
information. * See, ¢.g., Zebt. P. 377 (73 B.C.) ywwwowe Kepaday
» » . TpocedAnArdevar Anpytpiw: ibid. 127 (118 B.C.) 362. 56°. The
construction with the participle is common (e.g. Lk 84°); you
must understand tév adedpdv jpav (omitted by 8° D> °K PW 6
Chrys. etc.) TipdPeov drodehupévov, ze. “is (set) free,” not
necessarily from prison. The general sense, ranging from “is
free” to ‘has started,” may be illustrated, e.g., from the applica-
tion of a woman to leave Alexandria via Pharos (OP. 1271* 5,
Ili A.D.: a&@ ypdat oe TH exitpOrw THS Pdpov drodioar pe Kata
To os), or from BGT. i. 273215 (xa® tuepav mpoodexoule}6a
Sipicowpiay wate €ws onpepov pydevay aroAcAvabat Tov peTa ciTOV),

246 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 28, 24,

where a. = “‘has set out,” as in Ac 28% (dmedvovro). The inter-
pretation of the next words pe® 06 édy tdxrov Epyxntat Spopar Spas
depends upon whether Timotheus is supposed to join the writer
or to journey straight to the community addressed. In the
latter case, the writer, who hopes to be coming soon (v.!®)
himself, looks forward to meeting him there. In the former
case, they will travel together. It is natural to assume that when
the writer sent this message, Timotheus was somewhere else, and
that he was expected ere long to reach the writer. For dwouau=
visit, see 3 Jn 14 e€Amilw dé eifews ideiv oe, etc. "“Eay taxiov
épxnta may mean either, “as soon as he comes,” or “if he
comes soon.” The latter suits the situation implied in v.!9
better. The writer (in v.19) asks the prayers of his readers, that
some obstacle to his speedy return may be removed. If this
obstacle were the hindrance that kept Timotheus from joining
him on a journey which they had already planned to the church
(Riggenbach), he would have said, “Pray for Timotheus, I
cannot leave for you till he rejoins me.” But the idea is: as
the writer is rejoining his friends soon (he hopes), he will be
accompanied by Timotheus, should the latter arrive before he
has to start. Written advice is all very well, but he hopes soon
to follow up this Adyos zapaxAjocews with personal intercourse,
like Seneca in Z/. vi. 5 (‘‘ plus tamen tibi et uiua vox et convictus
quam oratio proderit. in rem praesentem uenias oportet, primum
quia homines amplius oculis quam auribus credunt, deinde quia
longum iter est per praecepta, breue et efficax per exempla”).
The greeting comes as usual last (v.74). “Aomdoac@e xrA. is
an unusual turn, however; the homily was evidently sent to the
community, who are told to greet all their jyovpevor. This finds
its nearest parallel in Paul’s similar injunction (Ro 16%") to the
Ephesian Christians to salute this and that eminent member of
their circle. Still, no other NT church is bidden to salute its
leaders ; and though the writer plainly wishes to reinforce his
counsel in v.!’, the mdvtas suggests that the persons addressed
were “‘part of the whole church of a large city . . . a congrega-
tion attached to some household” (Zahn); they are to convey
the writer’s greetings to all the leaders of the larger local church—
and to all their fellow-members (kal mdvras tos dylous being more
intelligible, in the light of a passage like Ph 4?! dordoace wavta
ay.ov). To his personal greetings he now adds greetings from some
Italians. In ot éwé ris “ItaXias, dd may have its usual sense of
‘domiciled at” (practically = érv), as, ¢.g., in OP. i. 81 (A.D. 49-50),
where tov dm “Ogvpiyywv means “the inhabitants of Oxy-
rhynchus,” or in IIAyve . . . aro Pyat, ze. at Phmau (ostracon of
A.D. 192, quoted in Deissmann’s Light from the East, p. 186).
If it thus means residents in Italy, the writer is in Italy

XIII. 24.] FAREWELL 247

himself. But of aro rs “Iradias, on the analogy of Ac 2127
(ot dd rHs "Acias "Iovdator), might equally well mean Italians
resident for the time being outside Italy; in this case the
writer, who is also abroad, is addressing some Italian community,
to which their countrymen forward greetings. Grammatically,
either rendering is possible, and there 1s no tradition to decide
the question. Perhaps of ard trys “Iradias is more natural,
however, as a description of some Italian Christians abroad who
chanced to be in the same locality as the writer and who take
this opportunity of sending their greetings by him to an Italian
community. If the writer was in Italy, we should have expected
TavtTes of aro THs “IraXias, considering the size of Italy and the
scattered Christian communities there at this period.

The final benediction, 4 xdpis (sc. éorw or ety) peta TévTwv
spay (Tit 3), 2 Ti 4?) has a liturgical dyyv, which is omitted
by &* W fuld sah 33; the homily was, of course, intended to be
read aloud at worship.

INDEXES.

- >}

I. INDEX GRAECITATIS.

Words marked * are peculiar in NT to Hebrews.

” ”

” ”

” 99

+ occur only in quotations from LXX.
{¢ are peculiar in NT to Luke (gospel, Acts) and Hebrews.
[Paul] [T] [P] are only used elsewhere in NT by Paul, or in

the Pastoral Epistles, or in 1 Peter.

t’Aapwy, 5%, 71, 9%.
PATBEN eI hoes
"ABpadu, 218, 613,
11% 27,
ayabds, 13%: Ta ayadd, 9! rol.
+ dyadAlaocs, 1%,
+ dyardw, 19, 12°,
aydn, 61°, 1074,
dyamnrés (ayamnrol), 6%.
dyyedos, 14% © & (LXX)™ (LXX) 38,
2% 5 7 (LXX)9%16, 72% 132,
* dyeveaddynros, 7°.
Gyidtw, 2", g)8, 7ol- M29 7312,
ay.acuds, 12}4,
dy.os, 3! (Christians) : of &y.or, 61°,
1374: (7d) d&-yea, 82, 9% & 8 12 24 25,
109 13": mvedua dyiov, 24, 37,
64, 98, 10): 7d dy.ov, 9}.
ayérns, 12) [Paul ?].
t dyxupa, 6%,
dyvoéw, 57.
* d-yvonua, 97.
aypumvéw (vmép), 1317,
dyw, 21°,
ayy, 12) [Paul].
adeddés, gu. 12. (LXX) 17, ge 12, 7
81 (LXX), 10!9, 1322 23,
+ ddcxla (19?), 812,
ddcxos, 61°.
ddéxiuos, 68 [Paul].
ddvvaros (advvarov), 6* !8, 104, 118,
+ del, 3,
aberéw, 107,

1. 2, 4. 5. 6.9
ages ,

* a0érnots, 738, 9%,
* 4OXnots, 10°,
* alyevos, 1157,
+ Alydrrvos, 1179.
Atyurros, 33%, 89, 116 27,
aldws, 1278 (s.v.Z) [T].
alua, 24, g7- 12 13. 14. 18, 19, 20.
(LXX) 21+ 2225 yos 19.29) 28
12% 24) 731. 12. 20(T. XX),
* aiuarexxucla, 97.
*t alveows, 1315.
aipetoOat (EXduevos), 11° [Paul].
*alaOnrnpiov, 514,
aloxvvn, 127.
airla, 21},
talrios, 59.
alév, r8(LXX), 5°(LXX), 65 20,
77. (LXX) 2! (LXX), 724%: ol
al@ves, 17, 976 113, 13% 21
aluwvios, 137° (dtaOjKn), 91° (KAnpo-
vouta), 6? (kpiua), 9)” (AvTpwors),
g'4 (rvedua), 5° (cwrnpia).
dxakos, 77° [Paul].
déxavéa, 68,
* dxardduros, 718,
* dkdws, 107.
doy, 4”, 51.
aKovw, 2). 3, exe (LXX) 15. 16, 427
(EXSxo) rane
* dxpoOlnov, 74.
t dxpos, 117! (7rd &xpov, LXX).
ar7jPea, 1078,
dAnOwéds, 87, 974, 107,

248

INDEXES

add, 216 get Ge 5 718 gs
Toe 25. 39° 118) ppl 22 98 (TL XX),
1244,
iT édddoow, ya;
aAdjAos, 1074,
&ddos, 48, 1155,
adXérptos, 925, 11% 3,
GAN ov, 3), 4?.
* ddvotredjs, 137.
dpapravw, 3!7, 1076,
duapria, 13, 217, 318, 415, 51-3, 7
giz (LXX), 6. 4 ee Sa 4
(LXX) & 4. 22. 17. (LXX) 18. 26,
TI*, 12): aS rou
dpaprwnés, 7%, 125:
dpuedréw, 2°, 89 (LXX).
dueumros, 87.
* duerdberos, 617 18,
dry (2), 1322,
* dujrwp, 7°.
dplavros, 778 (Christ), 134 (Chris-
tians).
+ dupos, 112%,
&uwuos, 94,
dy, 13(LXX), 48, 8% 7, 107, 115,
dvaryKaios, 83,
avayKn, maze 27 96 23
avayw, 13°.
t dvadéxouat, I
t dvabewpéw, 137.
dvatpéw, 10%,
* avaxawiiw, 69.
dvakdumrrTw, 111%,
* dvadoylfoua, 12%,
avauiuviocKw, 10°,
avduynots, 10°.
“t+ dvaplOunros, 117%,
avdoraots, 67, 11%,
* dvacraupow, 6°.
dvactpépomat, 10°, 1318,
dvactpop?}, 137.
avatéAdw, 74,
dvapépw, 777 (Avctas), 97 (duap-
rlas), 13) (@uctav).
avéxw, 13.
&vOpwros, 28 ((D.C.9)5 Ry GY, Get
8, 977, 13° (LXX).
t dale rope
avicrnm, 71-15 (intrans.).
+ dvouta, 19 (?), 81%, 1017,
+t dvopAdw, 12),
* dvraywritoua, 124.
+ dvrarodléwu, 10”,
dvri, 12? 16,
* dyrixablornu, 124.
avriroyla, 618, 77, 12%,
ayrirutos, 9% [P].

249

dvuméraxtos, 2° [T].

t+ dvw, 12),

t dvarepor, 10°.
avwderns, 7° [T].
Gévos, 11%,
déidw, 3°, 10°,
déparos, 1177 [Paul].

+ admayyé\Xw, 2).

tamadX\doow, 2),
dak, 64, 7% 2%. 28

(LXX) 77,

* drapaBaros, 774,
amar, 3'8,

* drdtwp, 73.

* dratyaoua, 13,
amelOea, 4% 4 [Paul].
amedéw, 338, 1151,

* dmrecpos, 518,
amekdéxoua, 98,
admoria, 317 19,
and, 34, 3.4.10 67. 8

+218. 26° gil” gid. 26,
lee 15.84, 7915.25 1324,
amoBad\dw, 10”.

* aroBhérw, 117,

t dmoypagdw, 12%.
amodexaréw, 75 (?),
arodl6wus, 121-16, 1317,
dmodoxwdtw, 1217,
drobvnokw, 7°, 927, 1078, 114 18. 21-37,
amokabiornu, 13).
améxepat, 9??.
dmédavots, 11° [T].
dmonelrw (dronelmerat), 4% 9, 1076,

+ dwéddupe, 12,
dmodtTpwots, 95, 11%,
dmodtw, 137,
amoaoréAXw, 114,
dméoronos, 3! (Christ).
admrosrpépw, 12”,

- dmorl@nut, 121,
dmwdeua, 10°,
dpa, 4°, 128,
dpxéw, 135,

* apuos, 42
dpvéowat, 1174,
apmayn, 10%,

Gpros, 9?.
dpxy, 1° (xar’ dpxds, LXX), 23,
314, 522, 61, 73,
+ dpxnyos, 2°, 12°.

1027,

Gaye peu, 2" Bu 14.15 51. 5. 10,
620, 726. 27.28 81. 3 7. 11. 25, 70%
(s.v.2.), ant

t doddevuros, 1278,
dobévea, 41, 5°, 7°, 1154.
doGevts, 7°8.

250 INDEXES

, 3

domdfouat, SIM) ligne
+f doretos, 11.
+ dorpov, 11!?,
aogpanys, 619,
atrd, 2", 9°

t Bo7jBea, 418,
Bondéw, 218,
*+ BonOds, 13%.
PD DONES) (Saziaes) saizeen
* Boravn, 6%.

air, 4° 6%, 7s 18 gh) ys 1, Boudh, 617.
T2i- Bovd\oua, 617.

abrés (aird, avrots, avtov, avr, Bpaxus, 27 (LXX), 1374,
atréy), 13 46 7.8 1.12 (LXX), Bpaua, 9, 13°.
28 (LXX)7 (LXX)", 32 3 10 Bpaore, 1236,

(LXX), 4% 8, 5% 7, 8& * (LXX) 2,
9%, 1018, Tyo: 6 1. 16, 19 2°
(LXX) 10-17, 13% 28-17,

airés, 1° (LXX) 12, p14 18° 410, 52,
1o4, 13° 5: aural, 111(LXX),
3!°(LAX), 8% (LXX) (LXX),

yada, 53% 18,
yduos, 134,
yap (90 times),

*Tedewy, 11°,

t+ yeved, 32°.

et LO Chi eS? ((IDDO2Q) U * yeveahoyéew, 76.

(LXX), geo, eb ab bib ea) yerrdes, P (LXX), 55 (LXX),
+ 26. 28° 75. 6. 19. cig, Soe 2 (2

1“ 12(LXX), 21, 48 8%(LXX)| -yedw, 29, 6 5,

10 (LXX) 108 (LXX), 118:| * yewpyéw, 67.

aird, 97: atrds, r0!, 1173: vi, TCL XX), 67, 8 (XxX),

ai’rh, 114; adriy, 48, 51, rol, 11% 18. 29. 38 725. 26 (XX),

12!) avrns, (6%) 78g 11s? ynpdokw, 8°,

12; adrov, 18, 26 (LXX)& ylvopau (30 times).

(LXX), 3% (LXX)® 6" (LXX)| ywdonw, 3! (LXX), 84 (LXX),

15(LXX), gl 7 (LXX) 1-138, 610, 10%, 13°,

7%, 1918 (LXX), 115, 125 (LXX)| *t yrdqos, 1238,

10 1318. 15. 21s qiyrap (210, 75. 6 25

ry16: 8 35. TL XX — ge 10 1. 12
161127) Matrans a5) (1X)
(LXX), 2%0-8(LXX), 43, 98,
710, 108 (LXX), 12?: avrots, 615,

85-10 TE XOX), tS or 210e18 urn

711: avrais, 108;
aparpéw, 104,
*adavis, 4).

* dpavicpds, 818,
dgeois, 97", 1018,
adlnut, 2°, 61.
apirdpyupos, 13° [T].
adlornut, 3).

* ddouobw, 7°.
apopdw, 127 [Paul].
adxpt, 417, 6", 31% (dxpes od).

avTé, 9),

Barricpds, 67, g}.

* Bapdx, 11%,

Baorrela, 18 (LXX), 1193, 1278,
Baowdevs, 71+2(LXX), 117% 27,
BéBaros, 22, 3% 4, 619, g}7,
BeBardw, 2°, 139.

BeBalwors, 6!6 [Paul].

BéBnros, 1216 [T].

+ BiBXlov, 9), 107 (LXX).
Bdacrdvw, 94

Brérrw, 2°, geet Heh 10%, Ir: Sie 12”, |

)
b

+ yévu, 12),

+ ypdgw, 107.
yunvatw, 514, 12,
yupres, 4},
yurnm, 11%,

ddxpu, 5’, 12),
* Sduaris, 9},
Aaveld, 47, 11,
dé (67 times).
dénous, 57.
dei, 2', 97, 119,
+ decxviw, 8°.
* dexarn, 1 fas 4.8. 9
* Sexardw, 7% 9.
betids (€x Se&iGv), 118 (LXX), (é
deéia), 18, 81, 10!?, 127,
* Sé0s (s.v.2.), 1278.
* dépua, 11%".
décpucos, 10%4, 135,
deouds, 11%,
devrepos, 87, 937 8, 10%.
déxoua, 115),
dnddw, 98, 1277 (of the Spirit [P)).
* Snucoupyds, 1129.
* Sirov, 23°,
did, with accusative (17 times).
with genitive (38 times).
diaBalyw, 117

INDEXES

5idBoros, 2",
dad, 722, 8% 8-10 (LXX), of 15.16.
17. 20([XX), rol® 29, 72°41 320,
diaxovéw, 6",
Siaxovla, 14,
Sidxpiows, 5'4 [Paul].
diaréyouar, 12°,
Siauapripouar, 2°,
+ Gtayévw, 113,
+ dtdvora, 8°, 1018,
duacré\Aw, 12”,
* didrayua, 112%,

£ dearlAnur, 81° (LXX), 9! 17, ro}6
(LXX).

Sidopos, 14, 8°, 9) [Paul].

dvddoKanos,

diddoKkw, 512) Shae
6dax7, 62, 13%:
Sldwur, 2"2(LXX), 74, 8!°(LXX),
1016 (LXX).
Siépxouwar, 434.
Sinryéouat, 11°,
* Senvexys, 73, 10+ 1% 14,
* Suixvéowa, 4).
dixavos, 10°8(LXX), 114, 1273,
Stxatoovvn, 19(LXX), 513, 72, 117: 33,
12U.
dikauspara, 9} 1°,
5:6, 32, 61, 108, r1}2 16 p212 28
1332;
* drdpOwors, 9,
Sid7t, 11> %,
Slarouos, 412,
Oidkw, 1244,
doxéw, 4}, 10%, 7210.17
*+ doxiacla, 3°.
Oeaty Us 27 (LXX))* 20) 3°, 9°,
1371,
Sotdtw, 5S
doudela, 2° [Paul].
Bivayat, 218, 318 415, 62.7, 725, o9
Io!
dvvauts, 13, 24, 65, 716 yz 11. 36,
dvvaudw, 1154 [Paul].
Ouvarés, 11),
dvo, 618, 1078,
* ducepunvevtos, 51,
duped, 64.
dGpov (dGpa), 51, 8% 4, 9%, 114,

dda ish) (EX) ER (Ieee) an ng?
(LXX), To (LXX), 137:

* édvrrep, 314, 6°.

éavrod, 318, 5% 45, 68.18 727,
9? 14. 25) 7925. 34 98. 16,

€Bdouos, 44.

éyyifa, 772, 10%.

251

* &yyvos, 77.
eyyus, 68, 813,
éyelpw, 1119,
* éyxawitw, g!8, 107,
éyxaradelrw, 10%, 135(LXX).
PENS EROS AN Sie Bry
€8os, 10°,
el, 27, 3 (LXX), 4% 5 (LXX)8,
64 (LXX), 74-15, 847, g!8, 715,
el kal, 6%
él N; 38.

eldov, 3*(LXX), py5=/18- 28)
elkwv, 10},
elul, 12!(LXX).
+ ef, 1512 5d,
éorly (8 times).
éopév, 38, 42, 110-99,
éoré, 128,
elaly, 11% (LXX) 4,
pis
elvat, 51°, 114, 121),
elmov,) 1°, 345(LXX),, 72. 210%
(TEXX)8) 7272
elpnxev, ™, Ae ATO ror
eipnvn, 77, 11”, 124 B30:
elpnuixds, 12!
eis (75 times).
els, 21!, rol 14, yz12, 7216,
elodyw, I
elaaxovw, 57.

0. 23
yee;

t elcermr, 9%.
elaépxopat, 34+ (LXX) 1-19, gl 3.
(LXX) & (LXX) & 10.11, “619. 20,

9)? 24. as) 10°,

eicodos, 10),
elopépw, 1311.
elra, 12%.
éx (22 times).
Exaoros, 3}5, 611, 84(LXX), 112),
* éxBalvw, 1115,
éxBacs, 137 [Paul].
exdéxouat, 10!3, 1119,
+ éxdixyots, 10°,
* éxdoxH, 1077,
éxet, 73,
éxeivos, 4 1, 67, 87-10 (LXX), 10'5,
1125, 12”,
éxfnréw, 118, 1217,
éxkAnola, 212(LXX), 12%.
* éxdavOdvw, 125,
+ éxXelrrw, 112,
éxdUw, 128, 12° (LXX).
éxovolws, 1078 { P].
éxtpérw, 128 [T].
éxpépw, 68,

252

éxgpetyyw, 23, 1275,
+ xpoBos, 127,
+ @\acov, 1°.
éX\doowr, 77.
+ ddéyxw, 125.
+ d\arréw, 27%
* Qeyxos, 11},
+ édéyxw, 12°.
éXejuwy, 217,
édeos, 4/8.
+ éXloow, 1)? (s.v.2.).
édrifw, 11},
éArls, ah. 6 18 oe 1073,
+ éupéva, 89.
éuol, 10°, 138.
* dumarypds, 11°,
éuminrw, 107,
éugpavifw, 974, 1114,
év (65 times).
évdelxvuut, 6! 1! [Paul].
évdiKos, 2* [Paul].
évOvunors, 4).
éviautés, 9%, ro} 3,
évlarnut, 9° [Paul].
évvoa, 4)* [P].
+ évoxdéw, 121°,
évoxos, 21°,
évré\\w, 97 (LXX), 117.
evroAh, 75 18: 18, gl,
évtpérw, 129.
t vrpomos, 127),
évtvyxavw, 7.
* évuBplfw, 10°.
évwmiov, 433, 1371,
’"Evwy, 11°,
+ efayw, 8%.
étépxouat, 31%, 75, 118, 1333.
re ELSyaGues
éodos, 1177.
éfoucla, 13).
gw, 131s 12 18,
eraryyenla, 4
108, 119 4? v7. 53. 39.
érayyéddw, 6'3, 107, 114, 1278,
érauxvvouat, 24, 116,
eel, 521, 613, ol%- 26,
érrel ody, 214, 48,
* érecaywyn, 7).
émeita, 77+ 7%

10’,

éxl: accus. 27(LXX), 3%, 61, 7%,
88. 10(LXX), Iol6- (exexs))/ 25

T12!+ 80. 7310,

dat. 213(LXX), 8! 6,
17. 35 107°(LXX), I1*: 38

Pent, 12) Ol] eo ie (ENO),

Ww, 127.

L, 612-15. 17, 76, Bb ld,

1 ee

10. 15.
9

INDEXES

érlyvwots, 107,

+ émvypdgw, 8!", 1018,
émideixvume, 61".
émifnréw, 1114, 1334.
érideots, 67.
émOunéw, 611,
émixahéw, 118,
émixermat, 9)°,
émuauBavw, 2", 8°(LXX).
émuravOdvoua, 6, rigeh

* éridelrw, 115%,

+ émicxérrouat, 2°,

* émisxoréw, 12° [P ?].
érlarapat, 118.

t émisté\w, 1372.
émisuvaywy7n, 10” [Paul].
émritenéw, 8°, 98,
émirpérw, 6°,
émitvyxavw, 6, 11°,

* étros, 7°.
éroupavios, 31, 64, 8, 9%.

eer

émra, I

érydtouat, yi Gat.

Epyov, 6 (1371): épya, 11° (LXX),
ZU (TECK) eg on (INOS) Soh
(LXX), 61, 9 an

épnula, 1158,

tT Epnuos, 3° (LXX)™.
épiov, 9”.
Epunvedw, 7?.

tf épuOpés, 117%.
épxouat, 67,

xX

rs

12°,

Des (Go On
écBiw, 1077, 133°.

+ Zrouat, 15, 218, 10-12 (312),
éoxaros, 17.

t éowrepos (7d éowrepov), 61.
Erepos, 58, 71+ 18 15, 1136,
ert, 710 ll. 15 82 (L XX), 98, 10% 37

87 (LXX), "p14 82. Sh ES (AILS ON)
27 (LXX).

érodtw, 1138,

+ &ros, 12, 3117,
_ ebaryyedlter Oat, eae:
* evapeoréw, gt (LXX)8, Tats
evdpeotos, 137! [Paul].

* evapéorws, 127,

+ evdoxéw, 10% ® 38,

t edderos, Of.

*+ evOurns, I
eKatpos, 438 :
* eUAdBea, 57, 127,
t evrAaBéouat, 117.
evroyéw, 614 (LXX), 72+ 6&7, 11% 22,
evdoyla, 67, 1217.

« ebreplararos, E20

INDEXES

* evrotta, 131°.
evploxw, 4'®, 9! (edpduevos), 11°
(TEX rete
épdrat, 727, 9!, 10".
exbés, 13°.
+ éxOpos, 118, 1038,
éxw (38 times).
qT fs; t,o", 10".

+ fHrdos, 1077,

tav, 218, 312, 42, 7828, git 17
1020 31. 88(LXX), 1 129 22. d
tnréw, 87
+ (dos, 1238
fang

fGor, 133.

4, 28 (UX); 107%). 11>, m2.
jryéomat, 10°, Trl. 26 , 137 27 24,
+ Hkw, I 107+ 9: 37,
mia, Hie
quets (31 times).
insépa, ’, gk (LXX)™, 4 4. (LXX)
73. 27, 88. % to (LXX),
ate ones 32° 7130 p21,
Av (Foar), Dek Fae a gis us 1158; 127),
’Hoad, 11”, 1216 [Paul].
t Axos, 121%.

Oddacoa, 111% (LXX)*.
Odvaros, 2% 14-15, 57, 723, gl. 16, 715,
Oappéw, 13° [Paul].
* Geatpifw, 10%
aed 107 (LXX)® Gaxeg) 2%
oe
* Barats:
bw,
13/8,
Geuédos, 63, 117°,
+ Oeverdiow, 17°,
Geds (66 times).
*+ Oepatrwy, 3°.
Bewpéw, 74.
+ Onplov, 127.
Onoaupés, ur”.
Oryydvw, 1178, 12°°(LXX) [Paul].
AriBw, 1157.
ANtYus, 10%.
Opdvos, 18(LXX), 41%, 81, 127,
Ovydrnp, 1174,
*+ @véd\Xa, 12)8,
*+ Oupiariprov, 94
Oupusbs, 1177,
Buola, 51, 72%, 83, 9% 228, rol 6
(LXX) ® (LXX) Wh Set ee
131516,

He (TEXEXD 8 (EXE) 237,

Buciacripior, Fped, Tigh

253

Jiipnfehy Sit bet A
ldouwar, 12},
15wos, 4°, 777, 91, 131.

+ l5ob, 233, 88, 107-9,

t leparela, 7°.
‘Tepecx, 11°.
lepevs, 5°(LXX),

(LXX) 2. 21-23 ga
‘Tepovoadju, 127%,

* Lepwodvn, 7i- 12 24,

*'Tepdde, 11°.
‘noous, 29), 3841462 TO!

(‘Inood Xpiarod), 10!9, 12? 4, 138
("Incobs iXpto;r6s), gy site ee- 22
(Incod Xpicrod), =Joshua, 48.

* txernpla, 57.

t lAdoxouat, 2)”.
itacrnpiov, 9° [Paul].

t tiews, 8},

+ tudriov, 111 (12%),

Wa, 217, 418 ol G18 9% 10% 36
1135, 12”, 13) 17.19

wa wh, 338, 41, 622, 1128 Aor 283133

*Tovdas, a ee (EXE):

"Toadx, 11% 17-18 (LX X) 2

torn, 10% 1,

loxupés, 57, 618, 11%,

1. 3. 11. 14. 15, 17.
9°, Io!l- 21

+ ayo, 8%
Kadatep, 47.
Kabapliw, os 22, ose 10%
Kabapicpués, I
xaOapéds, 107%,

* kabapérns, 9°.

+ kd@nuat, 1°.

+ xadigw, 13, 81, 10!®, 122,
Kabiornpt, 2" (LXX ?), 51, 778, 8°.
kabus, 3’, 4° ¢ Cy .; oe; ro*; aa,
Kabworep, 54.
kal (54 times).

Kadi, 114,

kawds, (dtab7nKn), 8% (LXX) 18, 915,

kaltep, 58, 75, 1217,

kaupds, Q% 10, yyM- 15,
tratro, 43,
t+ xkalw, 1238,

Kakeivos, 42,

kakés, 54,

* kaxouxéw, 1157, 138,

Kone 2) eas aioe:
(EXEX):

KO NOSIS GO Os Qo 28"

Kad@s, 13}8,

Kduyw, 123,

112 18

254

+ xdv, 12”,
Kapote,) 35 (I Xexs)) 407 ((Ie Xexe) a=:

4™ (LXX)!2, 8!(LXX), 1078
(GOOG) Tesh:
kapmés, 1211, 1315 (LXX).
* kaprepéw, 1177,
kard: genit. 61316; accus. 11°

(LXX), 2% 17, 33-8 (LXX) 13 415,
5% (LXX) ®, "620 (LXX), 75 lL. 15.
2. 1% (LX X) 20+ 2% 27 B45. (LX X)9
(LXX), 9% 9: 19. 22 25. 2 yol-3. 8.11,
117 18, 10,
karaBaddw, 61.
KaraBonn, 4°, 978, 1111,
* kataywvifoua, 11°,
* karddndos, 7).
t karakalw, 1311.
Katakplvw, 11".
katadelrw, 4, 1177,
*+ karavaNloxw, 127%,
Karavoéw, 31, 1074,
Karamar€w, 10”,
tt kardémravats, an 18 gl. 8. 5. 10. 12,
tkararavw, 4* (LXX)& a0)
karaméracpa, 62503107:
karamlyw, 1179,
kardpa, 68.
katapyéw, 214,
karaprifw, 10° (LXX), 113, 1372.
Karackevatw, 34, 96, 117,
* katacKidtw, ae
* katdoKoros, 111,
$ karadetyw, 618.
Katappovéw, 12%,
karéxw, 3° 14, 10%,
Karouxéw, 11%,
* kadots, 68,
kavynua, 3°[ Paul].
t xepadraov, 8}.
*t kepanls, 107.
KiBwrds, 94, 117,
KAnpovonéw, 1414, 612, 1217,
KAnpovoula, 9}, 118,
KNnpovdmos, 17 (of Christ), 67, 117.

kowwvéw (gen.), 2)4,
Kowwvla, 1318,
Kowvwyds, 10°,
kolrn, 137.
kéxkwos, 9}.
koulfw, 10%, 1113 19. 39,
*t kor}, 7}.
Kkoopixés, 9! [T].
koopos, 4°, 9°, 10°, 117 88,

INDEXES

kparéw, 44, 618,
Kparos, 214,
Kpavyi}, 57.
KpelrTwv, 14 69, 77 19. a3) 85, 9%,
1034, 1116-35. 40 p24
Kplua, 67.
kplvw, 10° (LXX), 134.
plows, 97", 1077,
kpirjs (God), 12%,
* kpirikés, 4},
t+ Kptrrw, 117,
xrlows, 4}8, gl.
KuxAdw, 11°,
KUptos, ye (TExox): 218 7d. 21(LXX),
82. 8. (LXX) 9. (LXX) 10. (TEXSR) 1]

(LXX);. » tol (LIEK); a2
(LXX) 4, 13% (LXX) ®,
*+ k@dov, 317.
kwriw, 773,
hadéw, 162, 2285, 35 48 65 69
714 gl®, 11* 18, 13283, 137,
AauBdvw, 2%3, 416, ia ‘7s 8. 9

? ?
9) at} 10%, r1® 11. 29. 85. 36.

NawBdses, 13
ads, 217, re aa 75.1. 7 810 (LXX),
og? ‘19, 103 (LXX), 1 1125, 1322,
arpele., oo
NAT PEUO Os Or LO 12-5 Lt
eye, 187, 612 7. 15, 4’, 8. 11
ots "i. 13, 21 , 8 8, (LXX)9 “(LXX)
10. (LX X)U (LXX) 8,“ g% 3:5: 20,
To & 16 yy14. 24, 32, 1235, 13°.
Aecroupyéw, 10",
Aecroupyta, 8°, 97,
* Necroupyixés, 114.
Xetroupyés, 17(LXX), 8? [Paul].
Aevt, 7°: 9,
* Acvirexés, ae
Aéwr, 1133,
NOdiw, 1187,
+ AcBoBoréw, 127,
Noylifouar, 11,
Aédycoy (plur.),
Aébyos, 22, 421% 8 5118 Gl, 728,
12), 137° 17, 22,
Nous (7d ovwéy), 10)°
Aovw, 107,
Urn, 121,
t Avrpwors, 9).

Auxvla, 9.

paxpobupéw, 61,
pakpoOuula, 612,

bMadXov, ot 10”, 12°: 13. 25
HavOdvw, 5%.
bavva, 9%

INDEXES

paprupéw, 7827, 108, 11% 4 5. 39,
Mapriptov, ae
bdprus, 10° (LXX), 12},
t paorrysw, 12°.
paoré, 1156,
pdxatpa, 41, 11%: 97,
peyadwotvn, 13, 8},
neyas, qt, gu (LXX), ol $5) p72

13”,
nelfcor, 618-16 gl 7726,
pw, 14, 25, 65/85, gi) sro! 27,
11° a I 14,
= Medyatedér, 58 ag 7
é au
rae 3° [ 2. 5, Le 20.23 gf. 23,
rails 3 115, 12" 10. 11,
pév ody, 71}, 84, 9
Lev, 7 a 104, ed ree 14
peplfw, 7%.
. eee 234s:
bépos, 9°.
* weotrevw, 617,
peclrns, 8, 95, 1274 [Paul].
t wécos, 2)”

ped: genit. 4°, 5, 7,9 19 7022 34,
11? oe 17. 28
Ls 2

alte 2 25,

accus. 47:8, es 819 (LXX),
3.27 10): 16. 26.

1, 10, 11. 15. 17,

>

* uerdBeots, 71, 115, 12%7,
peradauBdvw, 67, 12)°,

+ perapédrouat, 77).
perdvowa, 618, 1217,
perarlOnu, 737, 115.

* werémeita, 1217,

peréxw, 234, 53%,

+ wéroxos, 19 (Exe), ee 14\ 645128,
* uerpioTrabéw, 5*.

péxpt, 3° 14, 9", 124,
wy (28 times).

+ undé, 12).
bndels, 10.

* undéra, 117.

* umwrh, 1157,

t* why, 6",
MATOTE, 25 Se 4), 9”,
paw, 9° [Paul].
pare, 7°.
puatyw, 12},

+ puxpds, 84, 10%”,
pipéouat, 137.
pipnrhs, 617 [Paul].
pupyjoKkw, 2° (LXX),

TO!) (TEXEX) r*:

+ micéw, I

* wicBarrodocla, 27, 10%, 117,

* wis Oarodérns, 11%,

812 (LXX),

255

pu nuovedw, 1115 2, 737,
Howxds, 13%.
+ povoyevys, 1127.
povov, 9), 1278 (LXX).
pbvos, 9’.
pbrxos, Ql 19,
* wvedés, 4}.
pupids, 127,
Mauofjs, 3% 35:18, 714 gs
112% 24 “7921,

g}®, 10%,
vexpds, 62, gl 17, 119. 95 7320,
vexpow, 11}? [Paul].
véos, 1274,

* végos, 121,
vymios, 518,
voéw, 11%,

* yé80s, 128,

* vouoberéw, 711, 88,
vouos, 75 1216.19.28 g4.10 (LX X),

g}¥- 22° pol. & 16. (LX X) 3,
EA Ot tei ODL Sar yep)
vuvi, 88 (s.v.2.), 978.

NGe, 117.
* vwOpés, 511, 61%,

Eevitw, 13%.
éévos, 1138, 13%,
Enpds, 117%,

6 (7, 76) (170 times).
* byxos, 12),

636s, 31° (LXX), 98, 10”.

Bev, 217, 31, 7, 88, o!8, 1119,

olkos, 37 (LXX)% * > (LXX)&, 8%
(XX) 2°(L XX); ro#4, 117.

olkoupévn, 1%, 2°,

olxtipuds, 10°° [Paul].

éXiyos, 12°.

*+ ddvywpéw, 12°.
*+ d\oOpevw, 11°,

+ dAoKka’rwua, 10% 8,
dos, 3°.
duvtw, 3" (LXX) 38, 43 (LXX), 61%
162i (LXX).
* ouordrys, 4), 7),
dpotdw, 217,
duolws, 97).
duoroyéw, 1138, 1335,
omoroyla, 31, 414, 107%.
dverdiopuds, 10°, 1178, 1318 [ Paul].
bvoua, 14, 212 (LXX), 6%, 133.
éry, 118,
Sov, 679, g'6, 1018,
dirws, 2°, 9),
épdw, 2°, 85 (LXX), 9%, 1177, 12),
igo)

256 INDEXES

+ dpyh, 34, 4°. * rapaderyuatitw, 68,
dpéyw, 1116 [T]. + mapadéxoua, 12°,
tt 6p8és, 1238, maparéouat, 121% 25,
opliw, 47. mapaxahéw, 3'8, 10%, 131% 22,
dpxos, 636-17, mapaxAnots, 618, 125, 1372,
* Opxwuocta, 77-21. 28, mapakon, 27 [Paul].
pos, 85(LXX), 1158, 12° (LXX) *. mapahauBave, 1278,
ds (75 times). tt wapadvw, 12°,
dacos, 7°78, mapaméevw, 773,
Soos, 14, 215, 38, 720, 86. o27, 10%: 87) *+ wrapamixpalyw, 316.
(LXX). *+ rapamixpacuds, 3° 35,
éoréov, 117. * rapaminrw, 68,
doris, 28, 85 6 92-9, 108 11-35, 725, 137, | * rapamAnoiws, 214,
dagus, 7% 1° * rapapéw, 2
éray, 1°, tapagépw, 13%.
dre, 72°, 91” mapejt: Td twapdy, 12%: ra wa
Bre, 28 (LXX), 3%, 7&1 17, 89. pévra, 13°.
(LXX) 10 12. 12, 768, "y 76 13. 14. 18. 19 mapeusory, 1154, 131+ 18,
12", git + maperldnuos, 1133 [P].
t 05, 3 tt mapinu, 12).
ov (ir) (61 times). + mapotxéw, 119.
+ od wy, 84-22, rol, 1335, t mapotvouds, 1074,
ovdé, 83, gi wee 25) 108 (LXX), 13° mappyala, 3°, 416, 101% %,
(LXX). mwas (48 times).
Gund EL GPR Reh et mdaoxa, 1178,
ovdérore, toh", mdoxw, 2 Sr bG anno
ovKéri, 1018: 6, maTnp, 1 8 (LXX), 3° (LXX), 5
ofv, 214, gl: (82). 6.111416 yi gs, (LXX), 710, go (LXX), 113, ay
Ol aIO ohana i(p}s t rarpidpxns, 74.
ovrw, 28, 124, marpls, rn
ovpavés, 11° (LXX), 414, 775, 8}, mavouat, 10%.
Oo: 4, Ir? (LXX), 1273: 25. 26 Tweldw, gis (LXX), 6°, 13h 18
(EXS3): *“retpa, Ii
odros (43 Boe) meipagw, 218, 38 (LXX), 435, 1127.
obra) 44, 55, 6") of 3, 10%) | of werpacpés, 3°.
mépas, Gs:
see 14, Ke MEpls Cents Dozen e LE Gaza.
ese a) 512, 9°, 10% (LXX) * (LXX)& (LXX)
spbarués, 43, in "28, [17+ 20- 22.82. 40° 7 311. 18,
meptapéw, 1012,
mdOnua, 21° 10%, + mepiBoracov, 1}? [Paul].
matdela, 12% (LXX)% & 1, wepiepxouat, 11°7,
* raideurys, 12° [Paul]. Tepikahi@Tw, 94.
madevw, 12% (LXX) 7 22, meplkermai, 5°, 121,
matdlov, 2)3-(LXX)}4, 1173, mepim@aréw, 139.
mddat, 1}, mepurolno.s, 1089.
t mwadatdw, 111 (LXX), 83. mepioobrepov, 617, 7},
wdAep, 15 © (45- 7-33. (c12 Gl. 6 Q™. mepiocorépws, 21, 13)9 [Paul].
* raviyyupts, 12°, * riyyvuut, 8.
t mavredjs, 7>. mnXixos, 74 [Paul].
mavrobev, 94. + mixpla, 121,
mdvrote, 7>. mivw, 67.
raph: accus. I* 9(LXX), 27: (LXX) alrrw, 317, 44, 11.
Shh Chad Teo 5 et miorevw, 43, 11%,
mapdpacts, 2", ae PPaull ators, 47, 6)-13, 10% 3) (xx)
mapapon4, 9°, pris & 4.5.6.7. 8 9 11. 18. 17, 20. 21, 22.

waparyivouat, ght, %. 24, 27, 28, 29. 8. 81.93.39 p92 37,

INDEXES

micros, 217, 325, 19%) y172,
mravdw, 31° (LXX), 57, 11°.
mraé, 94 [Paul].
mrelwy, 3°, 773, 114,
mwAHGos, 1132,
t+ wAnBvvw, 614,
mAnpopopla, 6, 107 [ Paul].
mAovTos, II
mvedua, 17 (LXX)%, Pad et Vt
8.14” pols. 29 129. 23
12> 8-7 (as XX), 3%, 68, 727,
85: (LXX) ®(LXX), roe (LXX)%
(ERO) aes) eS (ES-O.6), Ere
136 (LXX) 27 19.21,
motktdos, 24, 13%.
mouunv (of Christ), 13.
wédenos, 11*4,
MONS, TIO 16, yo32) 7314)
t+ roNirns, 81),
To\Adxis, 67, 9% 26, rol,
* rokuuepas, 1}.
moNvs, 21°, 51, g%8 182, 12% 18. 25,
* rodurpérws, 1},
mona, 9° [Paul].
movnpés, 317, 107%,
mépyn, 11°),
mopvos, 1216, 134,
t wéppwOer, 1138,
moécos, 9'4, 107%,
moré, 15 18,
mov, 118,
mov, 2°, 44.
+ mous, 138) 28) rol8) 7218
mpayua, ‘618, Oy 1st
mpémw, 210, 726,
«Toes spes, 11? (plur.).
* rpifw, 1187
mpd, 115,
mpodyw, 738,
mpoBarov, 13,
* rpoBdérw, 11%,
mpddnros, 714 [T].
* mpddpouos, 6”,
mpoep, 47.
mpd0ects, 97.
wpoxemuar, 618, 121-3,
mpbs : Bee ER 18. 217, 418 51.5.
+14, 611, 721, ls. ‘20 (LXX), 1016
(LXX), 118, he 10.11, 7318.
* mpocayopevu, 5,
mpocdéxouat, 10°4, 11%,
meeecexones PE trea (ue 6 tah
12)8-
Tpocetxouat, 1318,
mpocéxw, 2}, 713,
wpockatpos, 117,
mpooxuvéw, 18 (LXX), 1172,

17

12 Os)

ToLew,

257

*+ mpocoxOltw, 31% 17,

mpoorl@nus, 121%,

* rpdcparos, 10”,

por pep, 51-87, 7%, 88.4 7.9. 14,
25. 28.11. yy 7 127,

pordop4, 10°: (LXX) & (LXX) ws

* rpboxuors, iit

mpdcwmov, 9*4,

mpérepos, 48, 727, 1052,

mpopyrns, 11, 115,

mpwrov, 77.

mp@ros, $718, gl. % 6. 815.18 109,
* rpwrordkia, 12)8,

mpwrdroxos, 18, 1178, 123,

mUdAN, 133%.

wtp, 17(LXX), 107, 1134, 1218. 29

XX).

mwas, 23,

‘PadB, 1154,
paBdos, 18 (LXX), a 117! (LXX).
pavrigw, gl 19. 21,
parriapds, 1274 [P].
phua, 15, 65, 115, 1219,
t pita, 12 15,

* caBBaricuds, 4°.
cadevw, 1275 27

i Lady, ie +

t oddmeyé, 1219,
t Lamoujr, 1132,
* Daupar, 1152,
odpxivos, 736 [Paul].
dpe, 214, 57, gl 18 15% 129.
Zdppa, 111,
oBévvusn, 11%,
t+ celw, 12°76,
onueiov, 24,
onuepov, 1° (LXX), 37 (LXX) 13: 1
(LXX), A'(LXX), 3s (LXX), 13°.
Ziwy, 127%,
oxevos, 9”.
oKnv, S208 9" 8. 6. 8. 11. 31° Tre 1310:
oxida, 85, 10.
+ oxAnpive, pers 7
omépua, 2}, pS Sa 18 (LXX).
om7ndacov, 1138
amodds, 9}3,
omovddew, 41,
orovdy, 61,
* orduvos, 94.
ordots, 98.
oraupés, 123,
orevatw, 1317,
orepeds, 512 18,

t crepavdw, 27 * (T}.

258

aro.xetov, 522.
oréua, 11% %,
tab, 15 8-10.11. 12,
ai. 21, 85 107 3 118, 13°.

ovyxaxouxée, 1125,
ovykepdvvum, 4? [Paul}-
ouykAnpov duos, 11%.
* cuuTabéw, 4), 10%,
cupdépw, 12),
towarrdw, 7 deyL
* cuvam bdruut, 1151,
* cuvdéw, 13°.
cuveldnats, 9% 14, 10% 2, 1338,
* cuverypaprupée, 2
ouvTédeua, 96,
t cuvTeréw, 88,
3 t oxeddr, o*:
oyu, Ca
oGpa, 10° xx). a ight
owrnpla, 114, 23-10, 59, 62) Geek Teh

+ rdgis, 5% 1°, 62, 711-27,
tavpos, 9'%, 104.
TaxLov, 131% 23,
ré, 15) 24: at FUEL 5

88, gl: 2% 19 yo88, 1782, 122,
retxos, 11%,
rédevos, 534, gl.
eens 6} + Paul],

TENELOW, ap. Be, GALE 28 9°, Io! ass

rr; 123,
t rerelwors, 74.
* reXewwrhs, 12%,

Tépas, 2
+ reccapdxovra, 3% 17,
rexvirns, 1119 (God).
TALKoOTOS, on,
rlOnut, 1718 (LXX), 1018 (LXX).
tiktw, 67.
ry, 27 (LXX)%, 3%, 5%.
Thuwos, I a
Tid0e0s, 13%.
* riyuwpla, 10%,
ris, 1 13 26 (LXX), 316 17. 18518,
, 1182, 127, 13° (LXX).
rts, a: 7. (LXX) o “ 12, 13,
M1 5412 B83 Q20. 27. 98 740,
16 732,
rovyapoov, 121 [Paul].
rolyuy, 133°,
roovros, 7%, 8}, 114, 128, 1316,
* rouwrepos, 4)",
rémos, 87, 118, 1217,
rocovros, 14, 47,.7%, 107, 12},
rére, 10° (LXX)%, 1276,

gi- aa i Lf 614,

7 4, 5.
1.7.14 62 5. 19)

1. 6. 7.
1215.

INDEXES

rod: infin, 2', 51%,
(IE XOxe) rss
* Tpayos, g!?- 13. wh 10%,”
Tpdmega, 9%.
* rpaxnrifw, 4)3,
+ pets, 107,
Tpéxw, 12},
tplBonos, 68.
* rolunvos, 1173,
Tpomos, 13°.
pop, SE 3
*+ rpoxid, 1238,
tuyxdvw, 88, 11%,
* ruprravitw, 11%,
+ rézros, 8°,

107 (LXX) 9

Udwp, 9), 1077.
tverds, 67.
coe (Christ), 175 (LXX)®, 38,
5 (LXX)8, 65, 73%, 10%:
aon 2°- (LXX)™, 707 pale a3 24
125: & (LXX) 78,
bets (34 times).
+ buvéw, 2%,
vraKon, Re
vraxovw, 5°, 118.
+t Uoraptis, 10%,
umdpx, 10".
* brelkw, 1317.
if Tepes 1077 [Paul].

brép: genit. 2°, 5}, 67, Yok gh
cd Shes 137: accus. 4”
Urepdva, 9°.

ims: genit. 52°, 34, 597577 9",
TT r2* 5) (Iexexe)s

brddevrypa, 44, 8°, 9%.

+ broxdrw, 2°.
Yropévw, 10°, 1278-7
brouovy, 10°, 12),

+ brorddiov, 138, 1038,
brécracts, 13, 344, 111 [Paul].

. trocré\Xw, 10%,
* brocroA}, 10°.

+ vroctpépw, 7}.
bmrordoow, 2h Si(TXOX) 2s
Uoowros, 9,
vorepéw, 4}, 1157, ri
torepos (Uorepov), 121,
bymrés, 18, 778,

+ tyuoros, 7}.

gpatvw (pavdueva), 112
gpavepbw, 9°

* gavrdfo, 12%,

Papaw, 1174,

dep, 1°,-6', 98,12, 13.
gevyw, 11%,

INDEXES

gnul, 8°,

drradergla, 13}.

prrokevia, 137 [Paul].
t pdoE, 17,

poBéouar, 41, 117% 27, 138 (LXX).
at

* poBepds, 1077 31, 127
P6Bos, 25,
ovos, 1187,
gpdcow, 11*8 [Paul].
gpurakh, 11°,
Purn, 718. 14
tt diw, 1235,
guy, 3” (LXX) * (LXX), 4?
(EEXE)N 1218: 28:
guritw, 64, 10%.

PEI Mow, OAT Pi
* yapaxrhp, 13.
xdpts, 2° (s.v./.), 438, 1079, 1235-28,
13% 3,
xethos, 1177, 1315 (LXX).
pel ps aye) (Taxes): 27s (eXOxe) Gas
8? (LXX), 10%, 127 (LXX).
xEtpoTrolnros, gi}: %4,
xelpwr, 10%,
* xepouBelv, 9°.
xpela, 532, 721, 10%,

259

xpnuarltw, 85, 117, 125,
Kpirrds, 3534, 58, 6}, gil 14 26 28,
rol, 1128, 138-21,
t+ xplw, 1.
+ xpovitw, 10%.
xpdvos, 47, 51%, 11.
xpuceos, 94,
xpuclov, 94.
xwrds, 1238,
xwpliw, 7°.
xwpls, 415, 7720, 7. 18.2% 28 1928,
118 40) 728-14,

Wevdouar, 618,

Ypr\agddw, 12}8,

yuxh, 41, 6%, 10% (LXX)®, 128,
Tau

de, 78, 1344.

ws, pl (LXX) 12 (TEXEXS)§ gh abi nl
(OE.O.9) BETO.) (00.070) 7
(TEXOR) G18 79 erst (Te KON)
27. 29 725.7. 16.27 7 33. 17,

t doel, 17.
domep, 41, 777, 9%.
ore, 13°.

wperéw, 47, 13%

II. SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS.

Aaron, 63 f.

Abbott, E. A., 67.

Abel, xlii, 163 f., 218 f.

Ablutions, 75, 144 f.

Abraham, xv, 37, 85f., 168f., 224.

Access to God, xliif., 60, 125, 143 f.,
210.

Adjectives, Ix.

Aeschylus, 29, 66, 134.

Age, old, 72.

Agriculture, metaphors from, 81.

Alexandrian Church, its attitude to-
wards ‘‘ Hebrews,” xviii f.

Alford, 212.

Alliteration, Ix, 57, IOI, 199, 216,
etc.

Altar of incense, 114 f.

Anastasius Abbas, 26.

Anchor, metaphor of, 88 f.

Angels, 9 f., 16, 18, 21 f., 100, 216f. |

Anthology, the Greek, xix, 89.
Aorist participle, use of, 31, 121.

Apocalypse of John, the, xlvii, 114,
164, 193.

Apollinarius, xix.

Ape xxiv, 39, 43, 77, 82, 149,
180.

Apuleius, 144.

Aristophanes, 70, 150, 157.

Aristotle, lvi, 29, 60, 85, 151, 197.

Ark of covenant, 115 f.

Armenian version, Ixxi, 4, 17, etc.

Arnold, Matthew, xxxv, xxxix, 206.

Article, 47, 88.

Assonance, lx, 87, 96, 100, etc.

Atheism, 167.

Atonement, Day of, xxxvii, 63, 117.

Augustine, 43, 103, 172, 177, 185, 216.

Aurelius, Marcus, 10, 72, 81, 167,
174, 181, 228.

Awe, xxxvi, Ixiii, 218 f., 223.

Bacher, W., 91.
Backwardness, 71.

260

Bakhuyzen, Van de Sande, 96.

Balzac, 189.

Baptism, 75, 144 f.

Barak, 185.

Barnabas, and the authorship of
** Hebrews,” xviii f.

Barnabas, Epistle of, xiv, xxvili, 52,
79, 148, 178, etc.

Baruch, Apocalypse of, 12, 106, 114,
162, 213, 220, 1etc:

Beneficence, 237 f.

Bengel, 87, 110, 139, 184, 194, 211,
2277)

Bennett, G. N., 215.

Bentley, 33, 39, 95, 195.

Beza, 37, 66, 188.

Bezaleel, 106.

Bischoff, A., 241.

Blass, lix, 42, 54, 66, 69, 73, 113, 115,
165, 211, 218, 242.

Bleek, 24, 218.

Blood in sacrifices, xxxviif., xlii.

Blood of Jesus, the, xlif., 123f.,
243.

Bousset, xliv.

Box, G. H., 9, 213.

Brandt, W., 161.

Bréhier, 6.

Brotherly love, 84, 224.

Brown, T. E., 23.

Browning, Robert, 47, 202.

Bruce, A. B., 41, 66, 76, 135.

Burton, E. D., 31, 156.

Cain, 92, 163 f.

Calvin, xxxivf., 4, 8, 19, 37, 59, 87,
158, 177, 179, 243.

Campbell, Macleod, 26, 40, 196, 197.

Canon, ‘‘ Hebrews” in the NT, xixf.,
xx.

Carlyle, xxxvi.

Carlyle, A. J., xii, xiv.

Castellio, 37.

Censer, the golden, 115.

Chrysostom, Ixxiii, 2, 7, 31, 48, 70,
153, 159, 179, 194, 216, 220, 240,
242.

“Christ,” Ixiii, 14.

Church, the, 4, 33, 39, 48.

Cicero, 27, 106, 178, 210, etc.

City of God, 170, 216.

Clement of Alexandria, xv, 46, 47,
125, 192, 206, 216, 217.

Clement of Rome, xiii, xiv, xix,
xxii, 8, 140, 165, 184, 189, 213.
Clement, Second (homily of), xiv,

XXVili, 236, etc.

INDEXES

Confidence, religious, 44, 48, 229.

Contentment, 229.

Conybeare, F. C., Ixxi, 200.

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 37, 143, 154.

Courage, 229.

Covenant, Ideas of the, xxvf., xl,
LOZ, 272

Coverdale, 104, 142.

Creation and Christ, 5, 6, 15, 23f.,
30, 159, 161 f.

Cromwell, 73.

Cronert, 61, 104, 178, 229.

Crucifixion, 80, 197, 235.

Cyprian, 75.

Dante, 46, 160.

Date of ‘‘ Hebrews,” xvi, xxi, 45.

Davidson, A. B., xxxi, 2, 38, 56, 88,
132, 177, 182, 198, 212.

Death, 35 f., 133.

Delitzsch, 143.

Demetrius, 245.

Denney, James, iii, 6, 124, 139.

Devil, the, 11, 34 f.

Didache, the, 75, 113, 239.

Diognetus, Epistle to, xxii, xlix, 232

Discipline, 64, 66, 67, 201 f.

Dods, Marcus, 25, 125.

Dryden, xlvi.

Education, 199 f.

Endurance, 85, 199 f., 210.

Enoch, 165 f.

Ephraem Syrus, Ixxi, 58.

Epictetus, 35 f., 71, 156, 193, 196,
etc.

Erasmus, xix, 79, 97, 236, 245.

Esau, 81, 210f.

Eschatology, xxxiii, xxxiv, liv, 4, 16,
134, etc.

Eucharist, xxxiii, 128, 234.

Euripides, 56, 73, 81, 82, 83, 173.

Eustathius, 2.

Examples, 85, 193, 231.

Ezra, Fourth book of, 12, 53, 213.

Faith, xliiif., 50, 85, 157f., 160f. ;
of Jesus, xliv, 33, 192 f., 196.

Fatherhood of God, xxxv, 30, 201 f,

Fear, 35, 168, 179, 181.

Field, Dr., 46, 171.

Fire, metaphor of, 84, 150, 223.

Fitch, Sir Joshua, 93.

Fourth Gospel, xlix, 6, 7, 168.

France, Anatole, xxiv.

Friendship, 226.

Fronto, 237.

INDEXES

261

Genitive absolute, the, lxi, 110, 190. | Jacob, 178.

Gethsemane, 33, 39, 66, 198.

Gideon, 185.

Gilmour, James, 8o.

God, as creator, 51, 162 f. ; as Father,
XXxv, 30; as Judge, liv, 150f.;
as transcendent, xxxvi,

Goodrick, A. T., 161.

Gosse, Edmund, xxx.

Grace, 26 f.

Greek fathers, interpretation of
‘*Hebrews” in, 26, 37, 48, 128,
159, etc.

Green, T. H., 211.
Gregory of Nazianzus, 221.
Gregory of Nyssa, 8.
Grotius, 79.

Grouping of MSS, Ixxii.
Growth, 72 f.

Habakkuk, 157 f.

Haggai, 221.

Hands, Laying on of, 75.

Hardy, Thomas, 175.

Harnack, 73, 148, 226.

Heaven,

‘“Hebrews,” meaning of the title,
Xv.

** Heirship,” lili, 5.

Hellenistic Judaism, Ixiii, 18.

Hermas, xiv, xviii, 217, etc.

Herwerden, 51.

Hickie, W. J., 19.

Hicks, 22.

Holtzmann, O., 233.

Holzmeister, 3.

Hope, 33, 44, 85, 98.

Hort, 136, 232, 243.

Hospitality, 224 f.

Household of God, 42.

Image of God, the, 6.

Impossible things, the four, 76.

Individualism, 147.

Infinitive, the epexegetic, 63; for other
uses of the infinitive, see 35, 47,
83, 96.

Inns, 224 f.

Inspiration, 22, 44, 150.

Insubordination, 239.

Intercession of saints and angels,
xxxix, xli, 16, 100, 213.

Isaac, 178.

Isaiah, martyrdom of, 188, 189.

Isidore, 128.

Isokrates, lvi, lvii, 194, 204.

Italy, xxi, 246f.

Jebb, R. C., 224.

Jephthah, 185.

Jeremiah, xl, 107f., 139f., 188.

Jerome, 26, 81, 166, 202, 239.

Jesus, birth of, lii; death of, xxxiv f.,
xxxix, 27 f. ; human characteristics
of, xxxvi, xlif) 655) 101.) LO2 ts
names of, Ixili; prayers of, 66;
priesthood of, xxv f., 98f.; teach-
ing of, 19; as Son, xxiiif., xlf.,
II, 66f., 164, etc.

Joseph, 178. .

Josephus, xxii, 130, 163, ete.

Joshua, 43, 52, 183.

Joy, 154; of Jesus, 14, 196.

Jubilees, Book of, 91, 136, 170.

Judaism, xxvif.

Judith, 186.

Junius, P., 17, 194, 215.

Juristic terms, 87, 97, I11, 127f.,
138.

Justin Martyr, xiv, xlix, II, 33, 41,
75, 99, 164, 239.

Justinian, 5.

Keble, 229.

Kennedy, H. A. A., xl, lv, 123, 209.
Kingdom of God, xxxiii.

Kogel, Julius, xxvii.

Kypke, x, 61, 203, 215, 222.

Lactantius, 7, 42, 93.

Lake, Kirsopp, Ixx.

Latin Versions, lxix, 91, 155, 171,
182, 225.

Law, the, 96f.

Levitical priesthood, 94, 96.

Libations, 119.

Living God, the, 47, 54, 152.

Logos, the, xxxiv, xlvii, xlix, 6, 54f.

Loofs, 218.

** Lord,” liv, Ixiii.

Love, xxxv, xxxvi, 82, 146f.

Lucian, 20, 56, 212, etc.

Lucretius, 36.

Macalister, R. A. S., 122.

Macaulay, xxx.

Maccabean martyrs,
186 f., 189, 192, 196.

Maccabees, Fourth book of, 59, 176,
192.

Mackintosh, H. R., 1.

MacNeill, H., xliv.

Marett, R. R., 123.

Marriage, 226 f.

N52 Lose,

262

Martial metaphors, 15, 140, 198.

Maximus of Tyre, 34, 53, 154, 156,
195, 204.

Mediation, 107.

Melanchthon, xxi.

Melchizedek, xxxiif., go f.

Menander, 3, 7, 85.

Ménégoz, xxi, 159.

Merits of the fathers, xxxix, 229.

Michael, 37, 100, 107, 185.

Milk, metaphor from, 7of.

Miracles, 19 f.

Mixed metaphors, 89.

Money, 228 f.

Montefiore, C. G., xxxvii, 77.

Moses, 40f., 107, 216f.

Moulton, J. H., 94, 136, 176, etc.

Muratorian Canon, xv.

Musonius Rufus, 35 e¢ passzm.

Mystery-religions, li, 75, 148, 233.

Mysticism, livf., 9, 170, 181, I91,
234.

“Name,” 8.

Nestorians, 26.

Noah, 167 f.

Nominative for vocative, 13, 138.
Norden, 30.

Novatians, xx.

Oath of God, 86f., 99.

Obedience of Jesus, 67 f.

Odes of Solomon, 34, 147, 196, 207.

Oecumenius, Ixxiv, 26, 74, 99, 128. ©

Officials of the church, 230 f.

Old Testament, use of, xvi, Ixii, 45,
129, 215f., etc.; argument from
silence of, 92.

Optative mood, 243.

Origen, on authorship of ‘‘ Hebrews,”
xvilif.; on interpretation of, 25,
70, 80, 81, 129, 131, 165, 176, 188.

Parables of Jesus, 5, 50; Jewish, 111.
Paronomasia, 29, 66, 154, etc.
Participles, use of, 32, 240.

Patience, 157, 169f.

Patria potestas, 203 f.

Paul, and the authorship of
“Hebrews,” xviil, xxix; and
author of ‘‘ Hebrews,” xxxixf.,
xviii, 10, 18, 34, 126, 155, 197,
216, etc.

Paulinus of Nola, 191.

Peace, 205 f., 242.

Peake, A. S., 181, 235.

Pearson, A. C., 133, 210.

INDEXES

People of God, the, xxxviii, 39, etc.

Perdelwitz, xxvii, 244.

Perfect tense, lix, 91, 94, etc.

Persecution, 36, 153f.

Peter, First Epistle of, xv,
xxxvl, lxiv, 36, 124, 175, etc.

Pfleiderer, lii, 233.

Philo, xxxiii, xxxv, xlix, Ixif., 4 4
passim.

Philosophical ideas, xxxif., 106.

Pilgrims, 174 f.

Platonism, xxxi, 102, 152.

Polykarp, 80.

Praise, 33, 236.

Prayer, 241.

Pre-existence of Christ, 5 f.

Prepositions, 4, 9, 17, 19, 29f., 45,
63, 96, II10, III, 120, 126, 129,
161.

Present tense, use of the, xxii.

Priesthood of Jesus, xxvf., xxxix f.,
xliv f., etc.

Priests, 95 f., 144.

Primasius, 27, 136, 164.

Prisoners, 154, 225.

Promise, God’s, 85 f., 190 f.

Prophets, the OT, 2 f.

Psichari, 20.

Purdy, Professor, xxvi f.

Pythagoras, 71, 89.

XVii,

Quintilian, 71, 81, 231.
Quotations from the LXX, Ixxii.
Index III.

Sea

Rabbinical interpretations of the OT,
7, 12, 32, 46, 52, 77, 81, etc.

Radermacher, 53, 105, 128.

Rahab, 184, 225.

Ransom, 126.

Reiske, J. J., 88, 125.

Religion as worship, xlivf., 125.

Rendall, F., 25.

Repentance, 74; no second, 77f.,
212f.

Resch, 72.

Rest of God, the, 45 f.

Resurrection of Jesus, xxxviiif., 237,
242.

Retribution, 46, 149.

Reuss, 29, 42.

Revelation, 2, 55.

Reverence, xxxvi, 66.

Reward, 167.

Rhythm in style, lvif., 159, 209, etc.

Riggenbach, 71, 218, 246.

Ritschl, 39.

INDEXES

Sabatier, xxxil.
Sacerdotal metaphors, 34, 60, 144,

234f.

Sacrifice of Christ, xxxivf., xliif.,
111f., 131 f.; in OT ritual, xxxvf.,
xlii., 233.

Samson, 185, 186.

Schoettgen, 18, 52, 79.

Schultz, 149.

Scott, E. F., xxxiii, 73.

Scott, Sir Walter, 187.

Sedulius Scotus, Ixxiv, 5, 182.

Seeberg, 37, 38, 194, 219, 244.

Selwyn, E. C., 215.

Semitisms, Ixii.

Seneca, 7, 36, 57, 60, 83, 106, 182,
226, 245, 246.

Septuagint. See Old Testament.

Shakespeare, 22.

Shame, xxii, 153, 180f., 197, 236.

Simcox, W. H., Ixiv.

Sin, 8, 19, 39, 62, 74, 117, 126f.

Sinai, theophany at, 18, 214f.

Sinlessness of Jesus, 32, 123 f.

Sins, unpardonable, 63, 79f., 148 f.

Smith, W. Robertson, xv, xxxviii, 5,
of., 18, 34, 67.

Son of Man, xlix, 23.

Souter, A., xxi.

Spirit, the human, 56; the Holy, 18,
19, 20, 44, 75, 78f., 117, I5I.

Spitta, F., 3, 233.

Starkie, 181.

Stephen, speech of, lxii, 18, 106.

Stewart, H. L., 190.

Stoicism, 30, 59, 69f., 72, 154, 182.

Stuart, Moses, 25.

Suetonius, 57, 99.

Sufferings of Jesus, xxxviii, 1, 20f.,
27f., etc. ; of men, 28, 39.

Sumerian religion, lii, 106.

Symbolism, xlvi f.

Sympathy of Jesus, 37f., 59f.

Syriac versions, Ixxi, 36, etc.

Tears of Jesus, 65.

Temple, the Jewish, xvi, xxii.

Temptation, 36, 59.

Temptation of Jesus, the, 38 f., 59.

Tertullian, xvii, xviii, 75, 79, 165,
166, 223, 235.

263

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
xli, xlvii, etc.

Textual problems, lix, lxivf., 26f.,
Qos 1O9K., 135, 171; 165, 198;
214.

Thekla, 229.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ixxili, 26.

Theodoret, Ixxiv, 35, 93, 145, 195,
198.

Theodotion, 10, 129.

Theophylact, 87, 107, 128, 194, 216.

Timotheus, 244.

Tithes, 91 f.

Morrey, \C-1@-5)-xx1x.

Tucker, Tj; G:,)225.

Tyndale, 13, 66, 82, 159.

Union with Christ, liv f., 32, 47.
Unworldliness, 235.
Upanishads, 15.

Valckenaer, x, xxvili, II, 21, 175,
222.

Variety in revelation, 2.

Vaughan, C. J., 80.

Vision of God, 181, 209.

Vocation, 67.

Volz, xlix.

Vulgate, Ixixf., 1f., 27, 62, 65, 100,
140, etc.

Warneck, G., 82.

Weiss, B., Ixxili, 110, 207.

Western Church, attitude
“* Hebrews,” xix f.

Wetstein, 57, 190, 195, 197.

Wickham, E. C., 13, 36, 79, 127.

Williams, C. R., xxix.

Windisch, 25.

Wisdom, the Book of, xxxi, lii, lvii,
7, 34, 90, 106, 166, etc.

Women, 184.

World, creation of the, 5f.,
159f. ; end of the, 15, 52, 221.

** World,” The, 168.

Worship, xliiif., 11, 125, 237.

Wrath of God, xxxv, 48.

Wrede, W., xxix, 70, 244.

towards

30

Zahn, Theodor, xviii, xx, 147, 246.
Zimmer, F., 14, 21 f., 30, 33.

264

INDEXES

III. QUOTATIONS OR REMINISCENCES OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT.

NUMBERS.
PAGE
2! 42
246 105
DEUTERONOMY.
gilt. 214
474 - P 223
peti e iS 215
9/9 216
mye 150
2918 209
216. 8 . 229
328° 5 LOE
B28 : 152
aoe eabiee Ore) are II
JOSHUA.
re 229
2 SAMUEL,
wis i 10
PSALMS.
27 9, 64
Sof 22
2273 : 33
407 a oc 137 f.
te le 12f.
eee 43 f.
10275-28 14f.
1044 12
UIGr ts ad hey LS, 140
TIOs sree re O4190

GENESIS.

PAGE
pe 81
an c 5if.
SHE SI
45oy sPT tee ac 163
Sout at ten eh DOSE
613f- F 168
nite 169
Aleaey 90 f.
18? 22 Ani
or 177
22 i6t 176 |
23% 173 |
25 7 210ne|
27% 212
47° 173 |
47>) 178
rom 178

Exopus.
22 8 179
PD 181
rozlt. , 214
ARR. 182
We fetter, ° 214
NG 6 oc 5 2a.
24st. 5 fo eee
Pi PAS sg |) os DELISIE
PK) 105
30 o* AIT7
33” 105, 236
LEVITICUS.

161 2 SO fs) 117,
MU oe ig on BRS

PROVERBS.
PAGE
gilt. 200
Bee 17
45 207
ISAIAH.
817 33
oe 150
2 x I
AUP? i 37
sl ae 134
63° 242
JEREMIAH.
Sree 1ogf., 141
HOosEA.

14? 236
HABAKKUK.
ae 157
HAGGAI.

26 221
2a\~ Ay. aes = CR
ZECHARIAH.
gee en ie ge aad

+
ty =
by
ere J
diay
av
P| Me a
, oe
¢ % . a
4 i, oi,
“wy a
4 act ay &
Aba *' ~
file i
a
i)
An
y
ub
ul
rt
j
;
7
r

a —

; sare
ilies Hy eee
i b, var i Hae
ri} be, , Ppp

a
‘

a an

mi
seal

r] ‘Heiek

ay i 7 J

yt nie : '
i 1 7. : *
* F

iow.

on} cs
1 ah Sal idadothes
r » \

4 Path

a me
- @
a
4 +.
* iJ
. r
' ©
4 ‘
{
LP}
"
i
*
;
iV
1]
jis i
/

Moffatt, James. BS
Epistle to the Hebrews. 4OL
16
ve4O -

Pee tes

este

Se