The Epistle to the Hebrews

*B 24? 700

GIFT OF
JANE K.SATHER

a

|
90) }
14 | |

N -~ e| im)

DEE ROAR EC BELO AOI AD IT PATA,
Ke

Of > J Cy y Jb #is\\

: g SS Y Ne,

. . A LE s re

: : ZY;

5 Z i
SS = — YI’ Ypy7-— “Wd
i ee => = =x A yet
} OZ Aim)
t } Ny Gh tm
\ | 4 ANN Ay}
yy Bt Ne oii

ft HiN i
f Wi AYPEN}

\ < Se)
See |
poe saan ee el =t}
= j

*

ae

INE ORCC

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

https://archive.org/details/epistletohebrewsOOnairrich :

CAMBRIDGE GREEK TESTAMENT
FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

GENERAL Epiror: R. ST JOHN PARRY, D.D.,

FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE

THE EPSTLE TO THE

HEBREWS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
LONDON : FETTER LANE, E.C. 4

NEW YORK : THE MACMILLAN CO.

BOMBAY

CALCUTTA | MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltn.

MADRAS

TORONTO THE MACMILLAN CO. OF
CANADA, Lrp.

TOKYO : MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THE EPISTLE’ TO THE

HEBREWS

Edited by

A. NAIRNE, D.D.
Fellow and Dean of Jesus College, Cambridge

WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

Cambridge
at the University Press

1022

kn ye Sa) ae
: ete Mince Be”
oz ab Z ; ; ay 4 " ‘ aN SS i A’ a a !
, ; ‘ s+ J ay
‘ 5 i a te 4 J -
ae ‘:

id fa ‘ >
z Wel .
- 's *, \
Set EE he Arye y
‘ tae i Ate. on
-% i ny Bs E
eS ae A Bs :
fo . Fe : * . y t; Arh ¥ 4 ; E
‘ » . . Pv) - _ rv . 2 LG at a es us
baw ak ow anor | ae, Tree ¥ ad ae meee | es :
oghind ma weataDo meaty to wees ioeeillse |
pin 7 en s ‘ Nenichae’ ti . * | ¥ Bee pe Nee phat) Sake
. o ’ . . 4 \

i + r ‘
: ve m .)
' ng ay
» 7 ’ iy \
sre > . ’ pi
i , } +, ris A _-
ee” ped P : Fs
j } at Ta rat
- f ~ “ ’ 7 ,
1 tu te yt? . > > Pap Ae the
‘ ‘ i - oe ee tee ay ig
i f iT 4 = : it sh He
t/ 48 J =) ‘ 5.» 4 ‘ ‘me: ee
y Te ; PEN ee
pte | aa
i 7 ; , i
i cn
1 1A
muy {
“a;
: ' 4
Ways ' iy ,
Lae Te “4a $
? 2 : S
1 ad 4 Fy
= oe at
; . ; ‘ . ; ‘ \ A %
j .
bd
: : Fm 8 rt j
F Bf Ne 2 * ; 4
: bt wh, &
= 1") By r cas ,
a | ;
a = 3 ’
é -
¢ 4 . .
5 i a 8
ts \ Ns <
3
; ‘
f :
"® . r ‘ ‘
4 ‘ 7 é \ ?
.
’ , ;
fi }
Vie ht
‘ oe
> , ¥
y
" 7 ; ;
wel : ‘
’ a
;
A eT a
1 . ‘ 25 Pate): e v
re kg Pal i ‘ 1 et 1 lee
Ld = “2 ' + ral i o6 Ae Se 4 ie he Sa a
+ : ° ) u 4 " , " A : 4 4 ty
yi
ef
i
ve 7 Ps.
4
~ *4
i
\
=H

PREFACE
BY THE GENERAL EDITOR.

HE General Editor does not hold himself respon-

sible, except in the most general sense, for the
statements, opinions, and interpretations contained in
the several volumes of this Series. He believes that
the value of the Introduction and the Commentary
in each case is largely dependent on the Editor being
free as to his treatment of the questions which arise,
provided that that treatment is in harmony with the
character and scope of the Series. He has. therefore
contented himself with offering criticisms, urging the
consideration of alternative interpretations, and the
like; and as a rule he has left the adoption of these
suggestions to the discretion of the Editor.

The Greek Text adopted in this Series is that of
Dr Westcott and Dr Hort with the omission of the
marginal readings. For permission to use this Text
the thanks of the Syndics of the Cambridge University
Press and of the General Editor are due to Messrs
Macmillan & Co. |

Trinity CoLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
July, 1917.

ML 7Oo223'7

PREFACE.

THANK the Delegates of the Clarendon Press for
kind permission to use and quote from Dr Souter’s
edition of the Revisers’ Text of the Greek Testament,
and Dr Souter himself for concurring in this permission
and for other generous aid: Messrs T. and T. Clark,
publishers of The Epistle of Priesthood, for allowing me
with their wonted courtesy to extract the “ Rhetorical
Paraphrase” which had been already printed in that
book: the Master of Selwyn College and the Editor of
the Church Quarterly Review for free use of an article
in that Review: the Fathers of the Society of S. John
the Evangelist for placing certain numbers of the
Cowley Evangelist at my disposal: Mr G. M. Edwards
for criticism and advice especially in questions of
Greek scholarship: and Dr St John Parry, the Editor |
of the series in which this commentary appears, to
whose patience judgement and learning I am deeply
indebted. Nor is it impertinent, I hope, to express
gratitude to all who have been concerned with the
printing of this book: under the difficult conditions of
a troubled time they have persisted in the endeavour to
shape it according to their scholarly tradition.

A. N.
July, 1917.

Pi arin? tf Pwr otto

CONTENTS

PAGE
INTRODUCTION... one até pean eve Ses ix
I. Plan and analysis of the epistle ... on ix

II. History of the reception, criticism and inter-
pretation of the epistle ... ‘ab re xix
III. The theology of the epistle ... i ne Ixxi
IV. The text of the epistle ae tes we. CXXXVIii
V. The style of the epistle mys a svg cxlv
THe Greek Text... wt me “a ae sve 1
Notes na awe ‘ii see A aye “tt 24
INDEX OF CONTENTS ee ee anv ons va 135

HEBREWS b

\ cs a:
. x ne J : : «
' ne ‘ ie weal :
~ 2 Lee, a. By i Pees ty, cS 2
b TaN re ‘ | payin’ eT
CT we. Gaeta
Ake ay : rh Rear tea"
vi Sa) a c :
‘ : i a Cee
chy On? mL Nes +, *
y wires e.) bh ape ae }
RLESIR LE AVS & ¢
A) : " one a rae)! ” i takt ; ’ at Ls;
wee ls Lycee a ny. bep
LSet ek wee AA et a bee? ih a
x ; rT, ‘ eee 2 i f
é : i= A
: ee)
ta a rat az
ee e “7 yea
'

: ~ tes :
wn pale & wee iM sh

ss i ee - ‘ot
iy dé te Riek a Te ni aay 4) nt ede a 4M oy!
Bae ee. RECS TAC OMEN TM iooah aa, eh eee
RR. Atri ae dicoMeonial igh
hit) TRAE) edd A ca al al ee ‘ea i.
ope hs NaS Rog e aH Ne oE5, SP ol fom

Beak setae ae apeldiahie gash

vy. ita we ae
Sa i + ha amasarar 8 Paes, ewes
eA fee |
‘ gs } ver yy
‘ aye

; 4
ths
; ' Dk
mie 0s
A ea)
< jus’ ae BANE hoe
: r{ i is CU evita at ts
— bi Get Pere tk bee eae
OO eRe) aes 1
£ ‘i ee ‘ 7 ite
Sal 2 Amie
4 4
‘
F

INTRODUCTION

I
PLAN AND ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE

THE aim of this division of the Introduction is to set forth as
plainly as possible the argument and intention of the epistle.
For this purpose three summaries are given: (1) an outline
sketch of the plan, (2) an enlargement of this in detailed
analysis, (3) a very brief rhetorical paraphrase. All three are
coloured by the view adopted in this commentary of the circum-
stances out of which the epistle arose. Their proper place
would be at the end of the critical and theological enquiries
which recommend that view. But it may make for clearness
if the results are shortly stated first.

PRELUDE

The epistle is a Adyos mapaxAnoews (xiii. 22): to what does
it exhort? To right conduct in an approaching crisis in which
the readers must choose whether or no they will be faithful to
their Lord. Such faithfulness must rest on a right conception
of the Person and work of Christ. Hence Doctrine is ifer-
woven with Exhortation. But i—x. 18 is mainly doctrinal,
x. 19—xili. mainly practical; though xi. is intermediate, since
faith partakes of both doctrine and practice, and is the affection
which makes argument convincing. The author would hardly
claim to have absolutely proved his doctrine by logical process,
but he knows that the proof will be completed for his friends
of they will trust their Lord and follow Him where He is leading
them now.

The crisis will include persecution, abandonment of ancient
forms of ritual, of ties of friendship, even of what seem to be the

: b2

x INTRODUCTION

claims of honour, and if the right choice is made will result in
actual entrance upon the complete Christian state, i.e. entrance
into the very presence of God.

Hence it must be shewn that Christ has passed through
suffering and death, and, according to the analogy of the ancient
ritual, has opened the way to the presence of God, i.e. that He
is the one true Priest who through death has offered the eternal
sacrifice of life; and withal His Person must be displayed in
such a light as to win affection and be a proper object of devoted
faith.

All this is summed up in the concluding Collect, xiii. 20, 21.

[If we may suppose the epistle written from a Jewish
Christian in Italy to his friends (a family rather than a church)
in Palestine, just before the breaking out of the Jewish war
with Rome, its significance would seem to be particularly clear.
But even though this must be considered unproven, still it will
be necessary to recognise as its background an approaching crisis
of a very severe character in which the readers will be obliged
to make a brave and painful choice.]

Analysis is rendered difficult by the compression of the
writer’s thought—the style is severe rather than rhetorical ;
by our want of familiarity with the pre-supposed habits of his
readers’ minds, which compels a certain amount of filling in;
and by his method of interweaving the divisions of his subject,
allowing no visible articulations. The larger divisions are:
ii—iv. Preparatory; v.—x. 18, Priesthood, subdivided into
v.—vii. the High Priest, viiii—x. 18, the Sacrifice; x. 19—xzii.
Exhortation, subdivided into two parts by xi., on Faith, which
clinches the preceding argument and introduces the final Ex-
hortation.

All through the idea rules that Jesus is the Forerunner.
He has entered the presence of God, the heavenly sanctuary ;
the readers of the epistle have not yet followed Him thither—
the crisis, their choice, must first be passed: but they are in an
increasingly close relationship to Him as they follow the argu-
ment of the epistle. This is made vivid by three illustrations :
the ship, vi. 19, 20; the race-course, xii. 1, 2; the sacrifice outside
the camp, xiii. 1O—16. 3

The ancient Hebrew idea of sacrifice must be kept in mind,

PLAN AND ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE xi

i.e. that the blood sprinkled was a symbol, not of death, but of
life set free by death and thus presented to God.

The quotations from the Old Testament are not made arbi-
trarily, but according to the principle that those who were talled
Christs (ypiords, anointed) in the Old Testament, whether kings,
prophets, priests, or even the people of Israel as a whole, were
really Christs, or ix THE Curist ; they represented God to man
and man to God. The eternal Son, whom the faithful call THE
CurRist or CHRIST (as a proper name), took as His inheritance
and fulfilled all that was adumbrated in them.

SKETCH

I—IV.—Preparatory to the main theme.

ii—ii. 4, The Son’s inheritance as declared in Old
Testament references to Israel’s king and
people and to the world’s Creator,

ii. 5—18, and as displayed in the glorified humiliation
of the earthly life of Jesus.

iiii—iv. The unity of man with God through the Christ,
whose office Jesus the Son of God has in-
herited, fulfilling its inherent high-priestly
efficacy by His ascension after suffering.

V—X 18.—Doctrinal theme: the Eternal High Priest.
V—VII, The Priest: VIII—X 18, His Sacrifice.

v. 1—10. The Christ-priest satisfies the conditions of
priesthood by His sympathy in suffering
and by His appointment according to the
order of Melchizedek.

v. 11—vi. 20. Argument broken by warning and encourage-
ment, but brought in again by reference in
vi. 20 to this order of Melchizedek,
vii. which signifies the Priesthood of eternal life.
viii. Its sacrifice belongs to the promised New
Covenant :
ix. is offered once for all in the heavenly sanctuary,
and by a true outpouring of blood has been
effectual for remission of sins :

xii INTRODUCTION

x. 1—18. effectual indeed for absolute perfecting of wor-
shippers, since it is the personal offering of
that free will which is the meeting-point of
spiritual -beings.

X 19—XIII.—Exhortation to use the Entrance, thus
inaugurated by the High Priest, in the one way-——
like His own—which is at this very time appointed.

x. 19—39. Therefore enter the sanctuary after Jesus, not
shrinking from His own painful way. You
will not, for yours is the life of faith :

xi. the reality of which is proved by history.
xii. Endure therefore, even though heaven as well
as earth is to be shaken:

xiii. 1—17. actually overtaking the Forerunner in what
seems on earth to be His ignominious posi-
tion outside the camp.

18—25. That you may do just this, the writer (who
has done it) prays.

ANALYSIS
I—IV.

i. 1—4. God has spoken in one who is a Son, heir of
all: who being eternal and divine has
become man, offered sacrifice for sins, and
ascended to the right hand of God, taking
His inheritance :

5—14. which is Manhood joined to Godhead ; not
the state of the angels, for He has inherited
all that was said in the Old Testament of
anointed men and of God in manifestation.

ii. 1—4. Parenthetic exhortation, in which the author
shews that he speaks of Him whom the
faithful call The Lord.

5—9. The Manhood—its glory in humiliation—is
displayed by comparison of the promise of
glory for man and the actual life of Jesus
on earth.

PLAN AND ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE xiii

10—18. This was the fitting way for their Brother (Old
Testament name inherited) to set men free
from fear of death, and so by triumph over
death and by sympathy to become their
High Priest.

iii. 1—5. This manhood, however, is not merely that of
one man among many, as even Moses was,
but corresponds to and fulfils the manhood
of the anointed representatives of the ancient
people (who were called sons by God) ; as
Christ He is head of the whole house and
one with its Founder :

6. which house consists of the faithful.

iii. 7—iv. 14, Exhortation to such faithfulness, which ex-
hortation leads through the quotation from
Ps. xcv. to the explanation of three prin-
ciples in understanding the Old Testament:

(a) iii. 7—iv. 2. much is there said which has never been
satisfied till these later days ;

(8) iv. 3—10, the description of heavenly things such
as the Rest of God gives the reality
, which earthly things suggest ;

(y) iv. 11—13. sincerity of conscience is necessary for
the right reading of God’s Word.

iv. 1416. Into this Rest of God Jesus of the Old Testa-
ment did not lead the people, but Jesus the
Son of God has passed into it, and stands
therefore confessed the true High Priest:
since the function of the high priest is to
provide access to God for the people whom
he represents, and Jesus has already been
shewn to be the true representative of man.
The section ends with exhortation : “ Let us
draw near.”

xiv
VV EE
v. 1—4
5—6.
7—10.
v. 11—vi. 3.
vi. 13—20.

INTRODUCTION

V—X 18.

As every high priest must be sympathetic
and duly appointed :

so the Christ: for the Christ of the Old Tes-
tament, the King of Israel, was divinely
addressed not only as Son, but also as Priest
for ever after the order of Melchizedek :

and the Son of God, who inherited these Old
Testament appellations, sufficiently mani-
fested His sympathy by the process of His
suffering.

Rebuke; vi. 4—8, Warning; 9--12, En-
couragement, followed by

declaration of the assurance afforded by God’s

promise, and of the earnest of its fulfilment
in Jesus’ entrance within the veil.

[{Hustration: ship outside harbour; anchor touching
ground ; Captain already ashore. |

vit. 1—3.

4—10.

11—14.

15—19.

20—22.
23—25.
26— 28.

Melchizedek a representation (as sketched in
the Old Testament) of the eternal High
Priest, the Son of God:

a greater priest than Aaron :
such as our Lord has exactly shewn Himself
to be,

inasmuch as, being sprung from another tribe
than Aaron’ 8, namely the royal tribe of
Judah,

having filled up the ancient sketch by the
power of an indissoluble life,

and having been appointed by the oath of God,

He ever liveth to make priestly intercession.

This conclusion is confirmed by our sense of

fitness: just such a High Priest were we
needing.

PLAN AND ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE xv

VITI—X 18.

viii. 1—132.
xy 1h
6—10.
11—14.
16—~17.
18—2Zz.
23—28.

x. 1—4,
5—10.
11—14.
15—18.

After repeating the chief point of the preceding
argument—that we have a High Priest who
has entered heaven itself and God’s actual
presence (1, 2), the author goes on to con-
sider that He must offer a true heavenly
sacrifice (3—6), and points out that a new
and real Covenant had been promised, the
Covenant in fact of which the true High
Priest is Mediator (7—12), and that this
implies the disappearance of the Old in the
New (13): ;

Description of the old ritual, which

provided no real access to God’s presence,
and was to last only till a time of refor-
mation.

Description of the new ritual of the true
Sanctuary, Victim, and Priest, in which
eternal redemption and cleansing of con-
science has been provided.

And as the old ritual, according to the ancient
idea of a Covenant,

involved death by representation :

so does the new ritual involve suffering,
but through suffering the manifestation of
abiding life.

The old rule of ritual has a shadow of hope,
and repeats a memorial of sins:

but Jesus Christ, the sacrificing Priest who
has passed through earthly life to heavenly,
has made a real offering, in which we have
been really consecrated, for it is the offering
of Himself made of His own free will,

and needing no repetition, for it is complete ;

and hence the prophetic promise has been
fulfilled ; remission of sins has taken place ;
the only barrier is removed.

xvi
x. 19—225.
26—31.
32—34,
: 35—39.
> Oe eo
3.
4—39.
40.
xii. 1—3.

INTRODUCTION

ye me he ug

Enter then by the way, fresh-slain yet living,
the painful way of the flesh of Jesus Christ,
into the true sanctuary, not forsaking the
appointed methods of worship; the con-
solations of worship and fellowship are real
to those who recognise the unseen power
which is carrying on the succession of events
to the appointed Day.

For so it is indeed; we know the truth of
things, and there is no other religion to take
the place of ours ; we dare not despise it.

Nor will you: your former constancy must be
renewed. |

The Day is at hand: He comes, as the ancient
warning says; surely the ancient Faith is
ours,

And that there is such a power as Faith is

proved

by our own intelligent observation of the course
of history,

and by the witness borne to our forefathers,
who ever looked into the unseen and chose
the braver course,

and now wait for us to realise with them the
promise they trusted.

And they, witnesses themselves to faith’s

reality and power, are watching us as we
strip for our contest.

[Illustration : a race-course ; the readers of the epistle
are stripping to run ; at the end of the course they
can see Jesus who has run the race before them,
and whom, as they run, they will approach. |

4—13.

Endure chastisement as being yourselves sons:
shrink not even from extreme suffering.

14—17. Live at peace with all if you can; but do not, for

the sake of peace, impair your consecration, as
Esau, for the sake of ease, sold his birthright.

PLAN AND ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE xvii

18—29. For the coming crisis is supreme: at Sinai

Israel could not endure God’s voice; but
then matters were transacted in the shadowy
sphere of earth, now for good or ill you
touch the heavenly city : even what seem
heavenly realities are to be shaken now,
but in the very endurance of this terror we
are receiving a Kingdom which cannot be
shaken : for this let us with grateful hearts
do our priestly service to God who purifies
by fire.

xiii. 1—3. Exhortation to love of the brethren: 4, honour

of marriage ; 5—6, contentment :

7—16. holding fast to the traditional order of the

bye

society of the faithful by remembering their
deceased rulers (7); celebrating the un-
changing sacrifice of Jesus Christ, to whom
they can actually draw near [here the zlus-
tration from the old sacrificial ritual passes
from illustration into fact] by going out of
the ancient camp and joining in that real,
heavenly sacrifice, which from the view of
it presented now on earth appears less as
a sacrifice than as the offscouring of a
sacrifice ; :

and by obeying their present rulers.

18—19. Exhortation to prayer for the writer, followed

20—21.

22—25,

by

his prayer for them: that they may be

enabled by God who creates peace in the
midst of tumult to make the right choice
in the approaching crisis,—even as the
writer himself has already made his choice,
and henceforth acquiesces in the divine
purpose—through Jesus the exalted Christ,
who passed in an exercise of His will, which
is our pattern, through death to the glory
of His High Priesthood.

Farewell and greetings.

XVili INTRODUCTION

RHETORICAL PARAPHRASE

Son of God, Christ: who is He whom we thus name and who
has inherited such great titles from Israel’s heroes ?

One who seems far lowlier than they. But His glory
was revealed in humiliation, and His humiliation was the
means of His high-priestly sympathy with men. °

For He shared their trials that, priest-like, He might
bring them to God.

Think of Him as High Priest and you will never give Him up.
Hold fast to Him in your approaching trial and you will
know what His priestly salvation really is.

As High Priest: but not in the mechanical line of
Aaron. That shadowy ordinance is fading ineffectually
away before our eyes. Rather as High Priest in that
eternal line of world-wide ancestry and living growth which
the Psalmist symbolically named “after the order of Mel-
chizedek.”

Jesus, our Lord, standing on the Godward side of all
men, and sacrificing His life for love of men, is the evident
fulfiller of all that line of loving priestly life which has
been throughout all history the visible sacrament of God-
head on earth. |

Believe then that He as High Priest has opened the way for you
to the presence of God.

The visible shame of Calvary was the sacrament of His
entrance into the sanctuary of God’s presence on our behalf.
It remains for us to make the sacrament our own and to
follow Him.

Remember your courage in former trials. Imitate the
courageous faith of your forefathers. Follow Jesus your
acknowledged Lord in the course He has run before you—
do that hard duty which is now specially set before you.

Break old ties. Go forth to Him outside the camp.
Enter the city of God. | |

Following Jesus you shall be united with the Christ.

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE xix

II

HISTORY OF THE RECEPTION, CRITICISM AND
INTERPRETATION OF THE EPISTLE

§1. At Alexandria a tradition of Pauline authorship was criticised
by scholars in the second century, but by the fourth century
it prevailed and spread over the East: Clement, Origen,
Athanasius.

Eusebius in the sixth book of his Ecclesiastical History de-
scribes the attitude of the early Church in Alexandria towards
the epistle to the Hebrews. It seems to have been accepted as
S. Paul’s ; but the acceptance was criticised. Eusebius quotes
from the Hypotyposeis of Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) as
follows : #5n dé, @s 6 paxapios eheye mpecBuvrepos, érel 6 KUptos
amdoToAos @v TOU mavToKpdTopos ameotdAn mpods “EBpaious, dia
petpiornra 6 Ilatdos as ay eis ra €Ovn amectradpévos, ovK eyypape
éauvrov “E8paiwv amdctoXov did Te THY mpods Tov KUpLoy TYysnv, dia
Te TO €K mEpLovcias Kai Tois ‘EBpaiows émicrédAew, €Ov@v knpvka byta
kat amdacrodkov-—“ Paul, as the blessed presbyter used to say, did
not put his name, as apostle, to this letter, since the Lord,
the apostle of Almighty God, had been sent as apostle to the
Hebrews. It was a matter of reverence, and because this letter
lay outside his commission as apostle to the Gentiles” (H. £.
vi. 14). From H. £. v. 11, v1. 13, it is reasonable to suppose
that “the blessed presbyter” was Pantaenus, Clement’s pre-
decessor in the Catechetical School of Alexandria. He used to
explain in this way the difficulty presented by the abrupt
opening of the epistle, and the absence of the author’s name
and title throughout. The explanation was repeated by later
writers in cruder language. Pantaenus put it in a careful,
scholarly fashion, combining and interpreting iii. 1 (xatavoy-
gare Tov amdaToXov Kal dpxtepéa Tis Gjodoylas Hav ‘Incovy) with
ii. 3 f. and (which is important) those many other allusions in
the epistle to the same idea. As Pantaenus put it, in harmony
with his interpretation of the whole letter, the explanation
was by no means trivial; it deepened the significance of many
passages.

xX INTRODUCTION

But there were other difficulties to be faced; and one, the
peculiar style, was felt by Clement. Eusebius in the same
chapter and still referring to the Hypotyposeis writes: kcal rip
mpos “EB8paious d€ erioroAny TavaAov pev civa noi, yeypapba b€
‘EBpaious “EBpaixy povy, Aoveay d€ didoripws adriy pebepunved-
cavra exOovvat Tois “"EAAnow. dOev tov adrov xpera etpicxerOa
KaTa THv éppnveiavy TavTns TE THs emioToAns Kal TOV mpdEeav.
pn mpoyeypapba de ro IavAos amdartodos, cixdras: ‘EBpaiots yap
gnow €moréd\X\ov mpodAnu eiAnpoot kar avtov Kat Uromrevovow
avrov, auveT@s madvu ovK €v apxn améotpeev avtovs TO dvopa
Geis. We cannot be sure whether Eusebius’ gnai, “he says,”
means that these are Clement’s very words or only the general
sense of them. Nor is it clear whether Clement is giving his
own private judgement or the common opinion of his school.
There is not much significance in his habit of quoting from the
Greek epistle as Paul’s; that would be convenient, and if he
held that it was so closely related to Paul he need have had no
scruple about doing so. It should be noticed how daringly
Pantaenus’ explanation of the suppressed name and title is
altered. After saying that Paul wrote in Hebrew and Luke
translated, whence comes the likeness in style to Acts, Clement
goes on to explain that Paul kept back his name because the
Hebrews were prejudiced against him, and so “very cleverly he
did not repel them at first start by putting his name.” The
év apx7, “at first start,” makes us think of a converse piece of
modern criticism in Wrede’s Das literarisch Ritsel des Hebréer-
briefs, who, denying Pauline authorship, thinks the conclusion a
later addition by some one who wished to pass the epistle off as
a letter of Paul’s. Did Clement mean that the readers would
perceive who was writing to them when they reached those
intimate and affectionate messages? Probably not. Clement
does not appear to have gone beneath the surface in his criticism
and perhaps never felt how near he came to impugning the good
faith of S. Paul. *

Pantaenus criticised simply, yet profoundly ; Clement slightly. °
His successor Origen has the sure touch, far sight, and caution
of a real scholar, but is characteristically himself in the way
he uses his scholarship; like Pantaenus, he is carried by
his reverence near to the heart of the problem. Eusebius has

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE xxi

preserved two fragments from his Homilies on the Epistle (H. £.
VI. 25): wept rns mpds ‘EBpaiovs émicroAns év tais eis avriy
Gpidias radra SvadapBdver- dre 6 xapaxryp tis AéEews THs mpos
‘EBpaious émvyeypappévys emiorodys ovK exer TO ev Ady@ iSiwreKdv
TOU admoord\ov, Sporoynoavtos éavtdv idiarnv civar TO Adya,
rouréot. TH Ppdcet, adda €otiv n éemiotoAH cuvOece THs AéEEws
‘EdAnvixorépa, was 6 €miotapevos Kpivew hpacewv Siahopas dpodo-
ynoa dv. madw Te av ort Ta vonpara THs emioToAns Oavpaord
€or, kal ov Sevtepa Tav amooToAKOv Gpodoyoupéevav ypaupdrev,
kal rovro dv cuppjcat eivar ddnOés was 6 mpocéxov TH dvayvace
TH aTooTONKy. rourows we” erepa emihéper A€yov: eyw Oe
drodavopevos elroy. Gy te Ta pev vonpara Tod amoaToAoV ecTir,
n S€ hpaows Kal 7 ovvOeots aropynpovetdoavrTos Tivos Ta atrogTo-
Aikd, Kal @omepel axoALoypapjcavtos ra eipnuéva bd Tov d-
Saokddov. €t Tis ovv exkAnoia exes ravTnv Tv émicToAnY ws
TlavAov, airy evdoxipeirm Kal éml rovr@: ov yap eiky of dpxaio.
dvdpes ws TlavAov avriy mapadedaxacr. ris 5é€ 6 ypaas rihy
émistoAnv, TO pev aAnOes Oeds oidev: H Se eis Huas POdcaca
ivropia br6 Tivev pev eyovT@v Ot. KAnpns 6 yevopevos émiaxoros
‘Popaiwy eypape tiv émiorodny, bd tiev 8é Sri Aovkas 6
ypawas TO evayyéduov kai ras mpdfes. The precise meaning of
some phrases here is disputed, but the general sense may be
shewn in a paraphrasing translation. ‘In his sermons on the
epistle to the Hebrews Origen thus discusses its authorship and
authority. He says that every one capable of distinguishing styles
would acknowledge Hebrews to be quite different from the style
of S. Paul. S. Paul was as he told the Corinthians (2 Cor. xi. 6)
‘rude in speech,’ and Hebrews is what may be called good
Greek. On the other hand, anyone who read 8. Paul’s epistles
diligently would agree that the theology of this truly wonderful
epistle is on the same high canonical level as S. Paul’s.” He
adds that “if I were to declare my own opinion I should say
that the theology is S. Paul’s, but the actual composition of
the letter has been entrusted to some one who took notes, like a
pupil at his master’s lectures, of S. Paul’s ideas and then wrote
them out in his own way. So then if a church like ours at
Alexandria holds the epistle to be S. Paul’s, let it not be blamed,
even though it connects the document more closely with the
apostle than I do: for it really was (as I have just shewn)

XXxil INTRODUCTION

with reason that an elder generation has handed down the letter
as simply ‘Paul’s.’ But to speak accurately, S. Paul did not
write the letter himself: who did, God only knows, though
critical enquiry, so far as it has gone as yet, has suggested
Clement, the friend of S. Paul who afterwards became bishop of
Rome, or Luke the writer of the Gospel and the Acts, as in some
sense the writer of Hebrews.”

Origen repeats 6 ypawas, ¢ypayev, 6 ypawas, in different
senses because he is not sure that his predecessors did not mean
more than he did by the word. He witnesses to a tradition
of Pauline authorship in the Alexandrian Church without
denying or affirming that it may be found in some other
churches. He recognises a moderate antiquity for this tra-
dition. He is sure himself that the letter was not composed
by S. Paul, but he is also sure that it is worthy to be ranked
with S. Paul’s writings as a primary source of Christian
theology. That being so he is not much interested in the
question of authorship; a church may harmlessly quote the
letter as Paul’s, and he himself used to do so, as we learn from
his other writings. In all this he is near to modern criticism.
The difference is that he seems to recognise a closer connexion
with S. Paul than most modern critics would allow. Yet even
this is not absolutely clear. The word vonpara is vague; the
illustration, @omepel cyxorioypapncartos...i7d tod dWacKdrov,
seems to be drawn from the lecture room rather than from
the letter-writing clerk; and if so it is at least possible to
understand a general dependence on the apostle’s theology,
rather than a close following of his directions for this particular
letter. It is a sad loss that we cannot read his sermons on the
epistle in full; but, from their influence, which we dimly trace
in Catenae and later commentators, we may imagine that he
resembled his successors in this respect also, viz. that he thought
more of the broad doctrine of the epistle than of special
circumstances which called it forth and gave it a special
character of its own.

Alexandria then witnesses to a firm conviction of the
canonicity of Hebrews and of its great value; and to a vague
tradition of its Pauline authorship, which we only hear of
because the competent judges at Alexandria criticised it. On

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE Xxlil

the. other hand, Alexandria accounted for the later general
acceptance of the Pauline authorship; Origen’s acquiescence
in the habit of quoting the epistle loosely as 8. Paul’s en-
couraged its continuance, and it spread abroad. And yet
perhaps that encouragement was hardly needed. It was the
Alexandrian recognition of canonicity that influenced the future,
Origen was great enough to distinguish inspiration from re-
verence for an apostle’s name. Others were less bold. And
when the epistle stood firmly established in the Canon of the
Eastern Church Pauline authorship became a necessary in-
ference.

§2. There ts no primitive evidence for such a tradition in the
East generally: Irenaeus, Eusebius, Versions.

But this came later. Even in the Eastern Church there is
no evidence, outside Alexandria, for any early belief that the
epistle was written by S. Paul. Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons
in Gaul, but he was by birth a Greek of Asia Minor, and may
be considered a witness to the Eastern tradition of the second
century. If indeed the fragment published by Pfaff! were
genuine, we might suspect that Irenaeus did bring a tradition
of Pauline authorship with him from Asia Minor, though he
afterwards gave this up in deference to the authority of the West.
He is represented in this fragment as quoting Heb. xiii. 15,
“let us offer up a sacrifice of praise, that is the fruit of the
lips,” together with Rom. xii. 1, as being both exhortations of
S. Paul. It is generally supposed that the fragment is not
genuine. But if it were the inference would be uncertain. The
Greek runs as follows: xat.é TlatAos mapaxanei nuas mapaorjoa
Ta copata juav Ovoiav (@oav, dyiav, evapectov T@ Oe@, THY
hoyixyy Aarpeiav jyav. Kal madi" avapépopev Ovoiay aivécews
touréott Kxapmov xedéwv (see Bleek, § 28). The kai mddw,
“and again,” a loose conjunctive phrase tacking on a condensed
quotation illustrative of the quotation from Romans, need not
imply that the 6 IlavAos mwapaxadei governs both clauses. Far

1 Trenaet fragmenta anecdota, ed. Ch. M. Pfaff: Hag. Comit.
1715.

HEBREWS C

XXIV INTRODUCTION

less is it a distinct assertion that 8. Paul wrote the epistle to
the Hebrews ; that kind of popular quotation is allowed to
themselves by many of the ancient church writers, who speak
differently when they are to give a careful critical opinion.
If Irenaeus wrote the words and was understood to refer them
definitely to S. Paul, that would contradict what Photius cites
from Stephen Gobar, “a tritheist of the sixth century,” ér
‘Immddvros Kal Eipnvaios tiv mpos “EBpatovs émicrodjv TavAov
ovk exeivov eivai dao, unless indeed we fall back on the ex-
planation that Irenaeus had learned this denial, so displeasing
to Gobar as well as to Photius, in Gaul or Rome; an unlikely
explanation, since Photius tells us in another place that Hippo-
lytus learned this from Irenaeus. But we shall return to
Hippolytus presently when we come to the witness of Rome.
Eusebius (H. #. v. 26) uses language of Irenaeus which
points in the same direction. He speaks of a book of his
“in which he mentions the epistle to the Hebrews and the
so-called Wisdom of Solomon, making quotations from them.”
This is not very conclusive by itself, but it fits in with the rest
of the evidence which seems to prove with sufficient clearness
that neither in the East nor in the West did Irenaeus hold
the epistle to be S. Paul’s. Eusebius himself seems to accept
the new custom of reckoning it with the Pauline epistles. He
does so in the chapter in which he expressly declares what the
Canon of Scripture is, H. #. 111. 25; for he enters therein, after
the Gospels and Acts, “the epistles of Paul,” without con-
sidering it necessary to say how many there are, and he does
not name Hebrews, or any other epistle attributed to 8. Paul,
among the disputed books which he presently catalogues. But
in H. £. vi. 13 he does use this very term “disputed,” dvyrie-
youévev, of Hebrews together with the Wisdom of Solomon,
Sirach, Barnabas, Clement, and Jude, and he was of course
aware of the ancient objections. Moreover in H. £. 111. 37,
when he is writing about the epistle of Clement and his mind
is thereby brought to consider frankly the problem of author-
ship, he adopts as his own the Alexandrian mediating explana-
tion: Clement’s use of the epistle shews that it was not a new
work in his day ; hence it has been decided that it should be
included in the Pauline list; no doubt Paul communicated

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE XXV

with the Hebrews in his native language, Luke or Clement
(whose epistle resembles Hebrews in style) interpreted his
writing.

Such was the reputable opinion of an ecclesiastical scholar
just before the Council of Nicaea. At that Council Hebrews
was quoted as written by 8S. Paul, but no discussion of the Canon
of Scripture was held (Westcott, Canon, p. 480). It is however
from this period that Hebrews does definitely take its place
among the Pauline epistles. Athanasius, in his Festal Letter for
the year 367, may be held to have declared the settled opinion
of the Eastern Church. In this letter he gives a list of the
canonical Scriptures, in which, after Acts and the seven Catholic
epistles, he enumerates the fourteen epistles of S. Paul, placing
Hebrews between the two to the Thessalonians and the Pas-
torals; these are followed by Philemon, which concludes the
list. Possibly the form of expression “‘that”—not “ one ”—“ to
the Hebrews” was intended to stand as a memorial of super-
seded doubt.

The order is interesting. It is familiar to us to day because
Westcott and Hort have adopted it in their Greek Testament
from the great uncials 8 B and also A. The last, Codex Alex-
andrinus, was probably written in Alexandria. The home of
S and B is still disputed. Hort thought they came from Rome ;
Kenyon inclines to Egypt, but admits “fair evidence of a con-
nexion with the textual school of Caesarea, which does not
exclude an actual origin in Egypt, from which the school of
Caesarea took its rise!” Kirsopp Lake? says, “It is hard to
realize at first that there seems to be no evidence for this order,
with which we are so familiar, before the fourth century.
Probably it was part of the textual and critical revision which
the New Testament underwent, chiefly, but not exclusively, at
the hand of Alexandrian scholars, in the fourth century.” He
is writing of the arrangement of the Pauline epistles, properly
so called. What we, with our eyes fixed upon Hebrews, notice
is, that this epistle is thus removed from the position which
it elsewhere held among the early epistles*, and is placed after.

1 Textual Criticism of N.T., p. 84 f.
* The earlier Epistles of St Paul, p. 358.
% See Moffatt, Historical N.7., p. 110.

XXVi INTRODUCTION

all those addressed to churches. Here caution appears. If
popular Alexandrian usage was the source of the tradition of
Pauline authorship, Alexandria was also the place where that
tradition was restrained by scholarship. From Alexandria a
modified judgement about authorship, and a modified position
in the Pauline list, were promulgated to the Eastern Church.
The order of our English version, Hebrews last of all, comes to
us from the Vulgate. It is found in DEKL, and perhaps in the
mass of Greek cursives, but it is really Western, and reflects the
never quite forgotten objection to Pauline authorship in the
Latin Church,

The Syriac versions may be appealed to for the liturgical
practice of the Eastern Church of the Euphrates valley, of which
the metropolis was Edessa. But it is not easy to decide with
certainty whether this church read Hebrews in its earliest
worship. The Peshitta includes Hebrews among the Pauline
epistles. But for the gospels we know that the Peshitta is not
the primitive form of the version. For the rest of the New
Testament we have now no “Old Syriac” to check the Peshitta.
Since the Armenian version was made from the “Old Syriac,”
but revised from the Greek in the fifth century1, it too fails
to supply élear evidence about the early use of Hebrews in
Armenia. This however may be considered. The Armenian
version does include Hebrews now. If Hebrews preserves
vestiges of an Old Syriac base as the rest of the Pauline epistles
do in this version, we do get thereby satisfactory proof that the
“Old Syriac” contained this epistle.

What it certainly did not contain, any more than the
Egyptian versions did, was the Apocalypse. S. Jerome wrote
to Dardanus that whereas the use of the Latins (in his day) was
to exclude Hebrews, while the churches of the Greeks excluded
the Apocalypse, he followed the authority of the ancient writers
and accepted both as canonical. We will consider presently
what this testimony precisely signifies. Meanwhile it is enough
to note that he somewhat misunderstood the authority of the
ancient writers. Speaking roughly we might say that the earlier

1 Burkitt, quoting J. A. Robinson, Enc. Bibl., Text and Versions,
§ 36.

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE XXVii

evidence shows Hebrews received in the East and not in the
West, Apocalypse in the West not in the East; that is, each
was suspected in that region where it was probably composed.
But for Hebrews, at any rate, even this partial acceptance must
be qualified. Only at Alexandria in quite early times does
anything like a tradition of Pauline authorship appear, and at
Alexandria we only know it because it was criticised. Nor does
criticism cease in the East even when the “use” becomes fixed.
Euthalius (c. 460) still has to defend his “use” against the old
obstinate questionings, and it is interesting to find that one of
the arguments in his defence is drawn from the false reading in
x. 34, rois Seopois pov, “my bonds.” Satisfaction with the Pauline
claim grows up side by side with the textual and exegetical
blurring of the individual character of the epistle.

§ 3. In Africa Tertullian quotes the epistle as Barnabas’, and
approves it as excluding second repentance.

In the West meanwhile there is no hint of any one reading
Hebrews as S. Paul’s. Tertullian at the beginning of the third
century writes in the tract de Pudicitia, c. 20: “ Disciplina
igitur apostolorum proprie quidem instruit ac determinat prin-
cipaliter sanctitatis omnis erga templum dei antistitem, et
ubique de ecclesia eradicantem omne sacrilegium pudicitiae,
sine ulla restitutionis mentione. Volo autem ex redundantia
alicuius etiam comitis apostolorum testimonium superinducere,
idoneum confirmandi de proximo iure disciplinam magistrorum.
Extat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis auctori-
tatis viri, ut quem Paulus iuxta se constituerit in abstinentiae
tenore : ‘aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi
potestatem?’ Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae
illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum. Monens itaque discipulos, °
omissis omnibus initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere, nec
rursus fundamenta poenitentiae iacere ab operibus mortuorum :
‘impossibile est enim,’ inquit, ‘eos, qui semel illuminati sunt
et donum caeleste gustaverunt et participarunt spiritum sanctum
et verbum dei dulce gustaverunt, occidente iam aevo, cum
exciderint, rursus revocari in poenitentiam, refigentes cruci in
semet ipsos filium dei et dedecorantes ; terra enim, quae bibit

XXVili INTRODUCTION

saepius devenientem in se humorem, et peperit herbam aptam
his propter quos et colitur, benedictionem dei consequitur ;
proferens autem spinas reproba et maledictionis proxima cuius
finis in exustionem.’ Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit et cum apos-
tolis docuit, numquam moecho et fornicatori secundam poeni-
tentiam promissam ab apostolis norat.”

Here Tertullian names Barnabas as author. He seems to
have no doubt about this, but it is not therefore certain that he
witnesses to the African tradition. Zahn! supposes him to have
found the epistle so described in a ms. that came from some
Greek Church, and this is the more likely in that the rendering
he gives is very different from any form of the Old Latin known
to us, and appears to be his own. There is just one piece of
evidence for a real tradition behind Tertullian’s assertion: in
the list of New Testament writings preserved in Codex Claro-
montanus “ Barnabae epist.” seems to have meant Hebrews.
This would be more significant if, as Tischendorf thought, that
ms. had an African origin, but Souter now gives reasons for
tracing it to Sardinia» On the whole it seems probable that
there is no more value in the reference preserved by Tertullian
to Barnabas than in those of Alexandria to Clement or Luke.
Those were the guesses of a literary Church where style was
considered ; this was the guess of a simpler society which only
noticed the subject-matter and argued that the Levite of the
New Testament was likely to be the author of the epistle which
dealt with priesthood.

What Tertullian does prove is that he had no idea of the
epistle being S. Paul’s, and that he rather wishes than asserts
its canonical authority. He valued it highly, but only because
it is faithful to what he believed to have been the primitive
apostolic discipline of penitence. He read it and the rest of the
New Testament in what till lately would have been thought his
own masterful way: but, as will presently appear, one of the
latest editors of Hebrews agrees with him that “no second
repentance” is the actual doctrine of the epistle. The newest
rule of interpretation is the same as that of the African master
in the second century. |

1 Einleitung in das N.T. vit. 45.
2 Journal of Theological Studies, Jan. 1905.

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE xxix

§ 4. At Rome Clement quotes Hebrews in first century, but says
nothing about authorship. Close connexion of his epistle
with Hebrews throughout, and possible dependence of both
on Roman liturgical use. Clement generalises doctrine of
Hebrews.

But not the same as that of the earliest reader known to
us, Clement of Rome, the first doctor” of the Church, whose
motto was éxrev7s émeixeca, “intense moderation.” He puts no
straiter limits to repentance than our Lord does in the Gospels,
nor does it seem to occur to him that such limits are prescribed
in this epistle or in any other part of the New Testament.

For the present however our first business is with Clement
as witness to Rome’s early knowledge of the epistle, and in
particular Rome’s knowledge that S. Paul was not the author
of it.

The letter sent from the Roman Church to the Corinthian
Church, where quarrels had arisen concerning the ministry,
bears no writer's name. Early tradition tells us that it was
written by Clement, the third bishop of Rome after the
apostles, the successor, that is, of Linus and Cletus or Anen-
cletus, and that it was written at the end of the reign of
Domitian, about 95 a.p. This fits well with the indications of
date afforded by the document itself, which refers to an earlier
persecution (i.e. Nero’s) and to one which was raging or had but
just ceased when it was written. This date corresponds with
Clement’s position in the episcopal succession, and we may
safely accept both name and date, in spite of the critics—some
of them acute—who have placed the document either earlier
(in the reign of Nero) or later (in the reign of Trajan or of
Hadrian).

Clement, then, writing to Corinth about 95 a.p., shews,
among other things in his “very adequate letter,’ much
familiarity with the Septuagint; names S. Paul as having
written to the Corinthians ; “while expressions scattered up
and down his own letter recall the language of several of
S. Paul’s epistles belonging to different epochs and representing
different types in his literary career....The influence of 8S. Peter’s
First Epistle may be traced in more than one passage....Again

XXX INTRODUCTION

the writer shews himself conversant with the type of doctrine
and modes of expression characteristic of the Epistle of
S. James. Just as he co-ordinates the authority of S. Peter
and §S. Paul, as leaders of the Church, so in like manner he
combines the teaching of 8. Paul and S. James on the great
doctrines of salvation.” But also, “It is so largely interspersed
with thoughts and expressions from the Epistle to the Hebrews,
that many ancient writers attributed this Canonical epistle to
Clement}.”

In ch. 36 something more than interspersion of thoughts and
expressions is found. The whole passage must be quoted :

Avrn 9 680s, dyamnrol, év 7 evpopev TO GwTHpLOY Nuav “Incovy
Xpirrév Tov apxtepéa Tv mpoohopay Hpay, Tov mpoorarny kal
BonOdy ris doOeveias juav. ia rovTov areviowper eis Ta VY TaY
oipavev: Sid rovrou évorrpi(opeba riv Guwpov Kat breprarny ow
avtod: dua rovrov nvewyxOnoav jpav oi dpOadpoi tras Kapdias- dia
rovrov % aovveros Kal éoxorapévyn Sidvoia juav dvabddde eis Td
Oavpacrév avrov pas: dia rovrov nOéAnoev 6 Seaomdrns ths aBavadrov
yvooews Hpas yetoarba: Sc WN AdTayracma TAC MmeEfa-
AWCYNHC ayTOY TOCOYT@ MeizWN é€écTIN afféAWN Scw
Alapop@TEepOoN ONOMA KEKAHPONOMHKEN. Yyéypamrar yap
otras: ‘QO TTOIMN TOYC ArréAoyce aYTOY TINEYMATA Kal
Toye Aeltoyproye aytoY trypoc Aca. “Emi dé ro vid avrod
otras eitev 6 Seomdrns: Yidc moy el CY, €fa CHMEPON
rereNNHK& ce: alrHcal trap. émof, Kal AWCw col EONH
THN KAHPONOMI[AN COY, Kal THN KATACXECIN COY TA TIEPATA
tic rfc. Kai madw déyer rpos airév: KAOoy Ek AEZION Moy,
€we aN O0@ ToYc éxOpoyce COY YTTOTTIGAION T@N TIOAMN Coy.
Tives odv of €xOpoi; of patdot cal dvtiraccdpevoe TO OeAnpare
avurov.

Here we seem to recognise definite quotations from Heb. i.,
as the uncial type shews. The latter part of these quotations,
being ultimately from LXX, is introduced as scripture with
yéyparra, and Ps. ii. 7 is continued with the next verse. But
the verse from Ps. civ. ends, as in Hebrews, with mupis ddAdya
instead of mip pdéyor. Lightfoot notices that LXXa has mupos

1 Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part 1., S. Clement of Rome,
vol. 1. p. 95 f,

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE XXXi

greya, “which shows the reading in a transition state,” and
if the verse stood by itself in Clement it might be possible that
he merely used the same LXX text as the author of our epistle.
In the context that can hardly be, and the compression of és dv
k.7.A., with the variation in order, évoua cexAnpovopunkerv, makes
any explanation of the coincidence except actual quotation most
unlikely.

But there is more to be noticed than definite quotation.
The quotations are introduced by reminiscences. With avrn
n 606s, cf. Heb. x. 20 fv exaivioey nuiv 6d6v K.7.A. “Ayarntoi
agrees with Heb. vi. 9. ’Apyiepéa is the key word in Hebrews,
and mpoogopav is explained by Heb. v. 1, while Heb. v. 2
taken with Heb. iv. 15 f. explains rov mpoorarny kal BonOdv
tis agbeveias nuav. From Heb. iv. 14 we get the idea of ra
tn tov ovpavav, and from Heb. xii. 2 (agopavres cis...év Se&a
Te Tov Opovov Tov Oeod Kexdbixev) we get this again combined
with the idea of dreviowperv. With dyopov cf. Heb. ix. 14, and
with the idea of duapov kai treprdarny cf. Heb. vii. 26 (dcu0s,
dkakos...undrdrepos Tv ovpavayv yevduevos). Eis 7d Oavpaorov
avrod das corresponds with 1 Pet. ii. 9, but when we find this
immediately followed by rns dOavarov yooews nuas yevoarOa,
we cannot but recall Heb. vi. 4f., rods adwa& haricbévtas yevoa-
pévous te ths Swpeas THs émovpaviov kat perdyous yevnOévras
mvevpatos dyiov Kal Kaddv yevoapévous Beod phnua Svvapes Te
péAXovTos ai@vos.

This kind of reminiscence or coincidence pervades Clement’s
epistle. Here are some examples: Moses flying from Egypt,
iv.=Heb. xi. 27; we are in the same arena (oxdppart),
vii.=Heb. xii. 1; and this is followed by “wherefore let us
forsake idle and vain thoughts,” “let us fix our eyes on the
blood of Christ,” which is a generalising paraphrase of Heb. xii.
2; Moses called “faithful in all [God’s] house,” xvii. = Heb. iii. 2,
and Gepdrey xiliii., liii.=Heb. iii. 5; dvéuov oraOpoi cara Tov
idov Kapov thy Aevroupyiavy airSv ampookdmas émiredovow, XX.,
is perhaps independently natural in its context, but cf. Heb. i.
7, 14; evepyer@v...nuas rols mpoomedevydras Trois oiktippois avTou
dia Tov Kupiov nuev “Inood Xpiorod, xx., cf. Heb. vi. 18 ff. ; the
amrdotodor Of Heb. iii. 1, is, as it were, commented upon in xlii.,
oi amdaroAot Hiv evnyyeXoOnocav amd Tod Kupiov "Incod Xpioroi,

XXXli INTRODUCTION

"Inoovs 6 Xpirrds awd Tov Oeod eEeréupbn, cf. also Heb. ii. 3f.;
' the sacrifice of Isaac is dwelt upon in x., and many of the heroes
of faith enrolled in Heb. xi. are also celebrated by Clement. In
xvii., again, he speaks of those oiriwes év déppacw aiyeios Kal
pnr@rais mepteratnoay Kynpvocovres Thy Edevow Tov ypiaTod:
Aéyouev S€ “HAiay cai ’Edtoae ere S€ Kai “leCexinA, rovs mpodpyras:
mpos TovTois Kat Tovs pepaptupnpévous. €paprupnén peyddras
"ABpadp Kai pidos mpoonyopevOn rod Oeod x.7.X., & passage which
has unmistakable points of contact with Heb. xi.; in xliii. we
find the rod of Aaron that budded=Heb. ix. 4; in lvi. is a
compound quotation from Psalter and Proverbs which coincides
with Heb. xii. 6 in the words év yap dyamd...mapadéyera,

More fleeting recollections may perhaps be recognised in the
juxtaposition of mpddndov, érepoxdiveis and the durogeviay kat
evoéBecav of Lot (xi.), cf. Heb. vii. 14, x. 23, xiii. 2. The phrase
avykpacis tis €oTw é€v mao, in xxxvii., which seems to be
borrowed from Euripides, may have some connexion with py
ouvkekepaopévos, Heb. iv. 2; in each place the thought is of
union in one body, and it is worth noticing that in Hebrews ovx
apedncev precedes, in Clement kai ¢v rovros xpnows immediately
follows. Is the interesting paradox in xx., of odpavol...cadevd-
pevor ev eipnvy, at all connected with the application of Haggai’s
prophecy in Heb. xii. 26? The language of Hebrews is certainly
in favour of the reading Lightfoot adopts in i, eis rd adfecPa
pera Séovs kal auveidjoews Tov apiOpov Tav éxXexTav avTod"
ef. Heb. xii. 28, pera evAaBeias cai déovs (though déouvs, which
occurs nowhere else in N.T., has disappeared in the later text),
and for cuvednoews cf. Heb. ix. 9, 14, x. 2, 22, xiii. 18.

But in this last example, if there is verbal resemblance, there
is also difference. In Hebrews cuveidnois is not used in quite
this absolute manner. In like manner paprupotpa is common
to Hebrews and to Clement as almost a favourite word; but
while Clement approaches the idea of Hebrews, “canonised in
Scripture,” he has nothing of the development towards the idea
of “martyrdom” which we observe in Hebrews. So again he
uses apxnyds, but does not restrain it to Christ as in Hebrews :
he also uses jyyotpevor, Bacideia, but extends these terms to
secular powers. More important is his reference to the “elect”
in the passage just quoted, a Pauline thought common in

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE XXXlil

Clement, but almost if not quite absent from Hebrews. Still
more remarkable is his not infrequent reference, and in contexts
where there is reminiscence of Hebrews, to the Blood of Christ.
The sacrificial thought of Hebrews is not Clement’s ; he thinks
of the “precious blood,” the “ price”; see vii., already referred
to, “ Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand
how precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our
salvation it won for the whole world the grace of repentance.”
Already in this very earliest, almost contemporary use of
Hebrews, we find the process beginning which so quickly and
thoroughly developed: the particular presentation of doctrine
through the figures of priesthood and sacrifice was blurred, and
Hebrews was interpreted in general terms of N.T. theology ; its
peculiar language was treated as mere language, a metaphorical
way of repeating S. Paul. It is obvious that this would make
the acceptance of Pauline authorship more and more facile.
Not that this process is carried far by Clement. It was no part
of his design to interpret Hebrews ; he simply avails himself. of
its phrases and adapts its thoughts as he finds it convenient
so to do. Thus his own theme—the ecclesiastical ministry at
Corinth—leads him to touch, as Hebrews does, on the Levitical
ministry. In Hebrews that ministry affords an analogy, a
starting point, from which the author rises to the conception
of the true priesthood which is consummated in Christ; the
Levitical order he sets aside as a shadow. In later times the
Church’s ministry was compared with and, so to say, justified by
the Levitical priesthood as its type. Clement attaches himself
neither to the one view nor the other. Like Hebrews he refers
to the Levitical orders ; speaks, like Hebrews, of them as pictured
in the Scriptures, rather than as actually operating in Jerusalem ;
and. so, he too, though their functions had certainly been inter-
rupted when he wrote, speaks of them in the present tense
(xxxii., xl.). But all he is really concerned with is the Levitical
ministration as an example, among others, of good order kept.
The other point, the “sacrificial” Blood, is more important,
and must here be returned to. Clement says nothing about this
great subject. But he does refer more than once to the priests,
i.e. bishops and presbyters, of the Church and to our Lord the
High Priest, as offering sacrifice. But this sacrifice, or these

XXXiV INTRODUCTION

sacrifices, are the same as in Heb. xiii. 15 ff. ; they are not the same
as the one sacrifice mysteriously adumbrated in Heb. xiti. 1O—13,
and distinctly named in Heb. x. 14; perhaps the dépd re Kai
Ovaias of Heb. v. 1 may be taken as a middle term, borrowed
from the Old Testament, which connects the two. A like
connexion may be perceived in the ancient, especially the Greek,
liturgies. For there too special mention is made of the gifts
and offerings of the people, which seem to include their alms
as well as the bread and wine (originally contributed in large
quantity for the social feast, the Agapé) ; but, on the other hand,
these gifts and offerings are hallowed by association with the
supreme offering of Christ— Himself the offerer and the offering—
of which the whole liturgy is a dramatic re-presentation.

Of this idea there is in Clement no clear sign of consciousness.
It seems as though Clement’s language was partly moulded on
the very simple liturgy in which he was accustomed to worship,
while the profounder worship of later times was influenced by
that great thought of the epistle to the Hebrews which Clement,
in spite of his appreciation of the epistle, missed.

That Clement does owe much to the liturgical thought and
language of Rome must be considered certain. ‘ When the
closing chapters, which had disappeared with the loss of a leaf in
the Alexandrian manuscript, were again brought to light by the
discovery of fresh documents, we could not fail to be struck by
the liturgical character of this newly recovered portion. The
whole epistle may be said to lead up to the long prayer or litany,
if we may so call it, which forms a fit close to its lessons of
forbearance and love.” So Lightfoot writes, Clem. Rom. I. p. 382.
And he thus explains the fact: “There was at this time no
authoritative written liturgy in use in the Church of Rome, but
the prayers were modified at the discretion of the officiating
minister. Under the dictation of habit and experience however
these prayers were gradually assuming a fixed form. A more or
less definite order in the petitions, a greater or less constancy in
the individual expressions, are already perceptible. As the chief
pastor of the Roman Church would be the main instrument in
thus moulding the liturgy, the. prayers, without actually being
written down, would assume in his mind a fixity as time went on.
When therefore at the close of his epistle he asks his readers to

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE XXXV

fall down on their knees and lay down their jealousies and
disputes at the footstool of peace, his language naturally runs
into those antithetical forms and measured cadences which his
ministrations in the Church had rendered habitual with him
when dealing with such a subject.”

But Lightfoot continues that it is not only in the concluding
prayer that the liturgical character of Clement’s language asserts
itself.. This had been noticed even before the discovery of the
lost ending ; and Lightfoot himself fills five pages with parallels
between Clement’s language and thought on the one hand, and
on the other such phrases and ideas in the Greek liturgies
known to us as are so deeply interfused into their characteristic
structure that those phrases and ideas may fairly be considered
primitive!.

It is remarkable that a large proportion of those examples
can be more or less closely paralleled from Hebrews. With
mporé\Owpev ovv alto év davdrnte uyxis, dyvds Kal dusdvrovs
xeipas aipovtes mpds adrdv (xxix.) ch. mpooepyadpeOa pera ddnOwis
kapdias é€v mAnpodopia tis wiotews, pepavTicpévor Tas Kapdias amd
guvednoews movnpds Kal Aedovopévor TO Goya VdaTt Kabapa,
Heb. x. 22: with ‘Ayiou ody pepis tmdpxovtes moujowpev Ta TOU
dytacpod (xxx.) cf. Sudkere...Tdv dyiaopdv, ob ywpls ovdels OWera
tov xvpiov, Heb. xii. 14, and for the thought of pepis ef. ii. 11,
itl, 1, 14: with xodAnOdpev tH edAoyia avrov (xxxi.) cf. py
guvkekepacpévous TH miote Tois akovoacw, Heb. iv. 2: with
KaTavono@pev TO wav mAnOGos Tav dyyéAwv avrovd (xxxiv.) cf.
mpooeAnrAvOare...pupidow ayyéAov mavnyvpe, Heb. xii. 22, where
the context in each case, besides affording other points of verbal
contact, has very decided liturgical affinities. On this passage
Lightfoot continues thus: “He follows up this eucharistic
reference by a direct practical precept bearing on congregational
worship: ‘Let us then’—not less than the angels—‘ gathered
together (cuvayévres) in concord with a lively conscience (év
ovveonoe) cry unto Him fervently (ékrevds) as with one mouth,
that we may be found partakers of His great and glorious
promises,’ where almost every individual expression recalls the
liturgical forms—the oivaéis as the recognised designation of the

1 See Clem. Rom. 1. pp. 386—391.

eke INTRODUCTION

congregation gathered together for this purpose, the cuveidnors
which plays so prominent a part in the attitude of the worshipper,
the €xrevés which describes the intensity of the prayers offered.”
With cuvaydévres cf. un eyxaradeirovres tiv émisuvaywyhy éavrov,
Heb. x. 25; and note the five times repeated cuveidnois in
Heb. ix. 9, 14, x. 2, 22, xiii. 18. In each of these five places
cuveidnors is distinctly connected with ritual or prayer, and this
perhaps may tend to explain the subtle difference which: readers
cannot but feel between the meaning of the word in this
epistle and in 8S. Paul. With éxrevés there is indeed no verbal
parallel in Hebrews, but it is of a piece with the greater depth
continually shown by its author as compared with Clement that
we do find the idea of éxrevas emphatically expressed in the
description of the prayer of the Christ, Heb. v. 7—10.

We will not dwell on 6vcia aivéoews (xxxv.) and its parallel
in Heb. xiii. 15, nor on Clement’s equivalents to the edmovias cal
kowevias in the same context; nor on the light which airy 7
600s (xxxvi.), with Lightfoot’s comment, may be found to throw
on fv evexaivicey jyiv dddv...dia Tod KaTamwerdoparos KTA,
Heb. x. 20—a passage which has been influential in the Greek
liturgies. We will rather return to the consideration of the
fuller depth which the author of Hebrews reaches in his
quasi-liturgical ideas. In one sentence indeed Clement rather
surprises us by an unusually philosophical phrase: 30 rv
dévaov Tod Kéopou ovoracw dia Tov evepyoupéevav epayeporoinaas.
This is in his concluding prayer which has so striking a likeness
to the rehearsal of the act of creation in the anaphora of the
Greek liturgies; but it is noteworthy that just here he also
approaches the opening thought of the memorial of the heroes
of faith in Heb. xi. Perhaps it is just worth while to point to
a somewhat similar coincidence in 2 Clem. xiv. as compared with
Heb. xii. 23 (€xxAnoia mpwrordxav)—Qore, adeAdoi, rovodvres Td
O€Anpa Tov marpbs nuav Oeod eodpeba ex THs exKAnoias THS TpaTNS,
THS MVEVLATLKS, THS mpd HAiov Kal weAnvns extioperyns. “If the
First Epistle of Clement is the earliest foreshadowing of a
Christian liturgy, the so-called Second Epistle is the first
example of a Christian homily,” of the early second century,
delivered either at Rome (Harnack) or at Corinth (Lightfoot). In
each of these passages we find the author thinking more deeply

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE XXXVli

than usual; in each the language is linked with the exercise of
worship ; and in each there is coincidence with Hebrews.
However, returning to Clement’s true letter, ch. xxxvi., we do
find likeness and difference as compared with Hebrews upon
which we must dwell a little longer. If the reader will look back
to the quotation of this chapter on p. xxx, he will notice that it
begins by speaking of Jesus Christ as “the High Priest who
presents our offerings.” The significance of this for Clement is
thus summed up by Lightfoot: “Thus all human life, as truly
conceived, and as interpreted by the Church of Christ, is a great
eucharistic service. It is not difficult to see how this one idea
pervades all Clement’s thoughts. Indeed the proper under-
standing of the structure of the epistle is lost, if this key be
mislaid. Our true relation to God is a constant interchange—
God’s magnificent gifts realized by us, our reciprocal offerings,
however unworthy, presented to and accepted by Him. The
eucharistic service of the Church is the outward embodiment
and expression of this all-pervading lesson. The eucharistic
elements, the bread and wine—and, still more comprehensively,
‘the tithes and first fruits and other offerings in kind, which in
the early Church had a definite place amidst the eucharistic
offerings—are only a part of the great sacramental system. All
things spiritual and material, all things above and below, the
kingdom of nature and the kingdom of grace, fall within its
scope. Heaven and earth alike are full of God’s glory; and
shall they not be full of human thanksgiving also? This idea
underlies the earliest liturgical forms; it underlies, or rather it
absorbs, Clement’s conception. There is no narrow ritual and
no cramping dogma here. The conception is wide and compre-
hensive, as earth and sea and sky are wide and comprehensive.
It inspires, explains, justifies, vivifies, the sacramental principle.”
Any one who is familiar with Clement’s epistle will recognise
the precision of this language; the illustrations and similes are
not ornamental, they are in Clement’s own vein. But any one
who is familiar with the epistle to the Hebrews will feel that,
beautiful as this presentation is of the sacramental principle,
that in Hebrews is grander. It is concentrated and profound ;
it shews Calvary as the outward and visible sign of the sacrifice
offered in the real sanctuarv of heaven. Aud rovrov évorrpiCopeba

XXXVili INTRODUCTION

THY Guopov Kai vreprdatny dyv av’rov, wrote Clement. The idea
in evorrpi(dueGa fits Hebrews well; but it means more in
Hebrews. And this idea, as Hebrews deepens it, appears in
one prayer which is common to all the liturgies. It runs thus
in the Roman Mass: ‘“Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus:
iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui in sublime altare
tuum in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae: ut quotquot ex hac
altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus et sanguinem
sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur.”
There is a reason for choosing the Roman form for quotation.
The words which immediately precede this part of the prayer
contain a reference to Melchizedek as high-priest: “Supra quae
propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris: et accepta habere,
sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti abel,
et sacrificium patriarchae nostri abrahae: et quod tibi obtulit
summus sacerdos tuus melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium, im-
maculatam hostiam.” The liturgy of the Coptic Church refers
to the sacrifice of Melchizedek in connexion with the “ offering ”
of the incense after the lection from S. Paul, but the mention of
Melchizedek at this point and with this application seems to
belong to Rome alone, or to Rome and liturgies connected with
Rome},

A writer in the Nineteenth Century, Jan. 1913 (M. A. R. Tuker), -
elaborating Harnack’s suggestion that Prisca or Priscilla wrote
Hebrews, draws this conclusion: “The Roman origin of the
epistle indeed is enshrined in the Roman liturgy. In that
liturgy, and in no other, the priesthood of Melchizedek is in-
voked, and the words are those of the Epistle to the Hebrews—
summus sacerdos Melchisedech. Moreover, they are recorded in
the oldest reference to the Roman Canon, and must take their
place by the side of the ‘Amen’ of Justin as root-words of the
Liturgy.” Their antiquity is confirmed by their agreement with
the old Latin ; for summus sacerdos is not found in the Vulgate
of Hebrews, but it does occur at v. 10 in d.

But what if the phrase of the Canon should go back to a
use which, however oral and unfixed, is older than the epistle?

1 For Mozarabic or Gothic parallels, cf. Church Quarterly Review,
Jan. 1907, also Ap. 1906 for Melchizedek’s sacrifice in mosaics at
Ravenna,

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE XXXI1X

What if the author of Hebrews as well as Clement has been
influenced by the liturgical service at Rome in which they had
both worshipped? One almost wonders that, among the various
conjectures about the authorship, nothing has ever been said for
Clement’s predecessors Linus or Cletus. That of course would
be as fanciful as to find with Mr Field a close and continuous
relationship between the epistle and the later form of the Greek
liturgies!. Nothing indeed rises above the merest conjecture in
these observations. However, there is a certain liturgical flavour
in Hebrews which perhaps ought not to be wholly explained as
due to the influence of the Levitical analogy, and which makes
itself more distinctly felt when the liturgical character of Clement’s
theology is brought to bear in comparison. If but little more
than a fancy, it is perhaps worth considering whether further
examination might not raise the fancy at least to a possibility ;
that both these authors wrote from Rome; both draw consciously
or unconsciously some thoughts from the eucharistic service they
knew ; and their coincidences and differences tend to remind us
how one aspect of a mystery is visible to one mind, another
to another—so perhaps with the Christ of S. John and the
Synoptists.

However the fancy is not to be pressed; especially with
regard to Clement’s witness to Hebrews. Even if some of his
resemblances in word or thought might be due to a common
liturgical influence, enough would still remain to satisfy us that
he had read the epistle. Is it then clear that he knew it was
not S. Paul's? Taking Clement by himself we cannot say so.
It is not his way to name the authors he uses. He introduces
quotations from the Old Testament with “It is written,” or,
more often (in the style of Hebrews), “‘God saith,” “the scripture
saith,” ‘‘ He saith somewhere”: no writer of the New Testament
is canonical for him in the same degree as the Old. He once
refers to “the” letter of the blessed Paul the apostle (xlvii.),
but that means the epistle Paul wrote to the Corinthians whom
Clement himself is addressing; there was a special reason for
naming him in that one place. And in ch. v. Paul is named, and

1 The Apostolic Liturgy and the Epistle to the Hebrews, by John
Edward Field, Rivingtons, 1882.

HEBREWS d

xl INTRODUCTION

from what immediately follows we might infer that Clement
knew 2 Corinthians and possibly 2 Timothy, as his. But his
silence about the author of the passages he quotes from Hebrews
can prove but little more than his silence about 8. Peter or
S. James when he makes use of the teaching which comes to us
under their names.

$5. Clement's witness is continued by the Western denial of
Pauline authorship. Till fourth century Rome and the
West do not waver; Hippolytus, Muratorian Canon, Old
Latin Version. Then Jerome, Augustine, Hilary begin to
adopt Eastern acceptance of Paul as author; yet still witness
to contrary tradition of West, which was never wholly for-
gotten even in the Middle Ages: Dante; Erasmus, Estius.

But there is another consideration, in the light of which that
silence does appear more significant. Clement’s witness cannot
be separated from the general witness of the Church in the West,
which flows on from him as the starting point. That witness is
against the Pauline authorship; so obstinately against it that
we can hardly escape the conclusion that Rome knew S. Paul
had not written the epistle. Till the fourth century Tertullian
and Gregory of Elvira alone in the West make any reference
to it, and both of them attribute it to Barnabas. See Souter,
Text and Canon of the N.T., p. 177, where the allusion is to
the pseudo-Origen Tractatus, once attributed to Novatian.
Prof, Souter would now read “Gregory of Elvira” in place of
‘“‘Novatian.” Indeed the silence of Novatian is eloquent. If in
the middle of the third century, when he was pressing the
sterner discipline at Rome, there had been any idea of the
Pauline authorship in the Roman Church, he would surely have
appealed to Heb. vi. 4—6. But there is no reference to Hebrews
in either of Novatian’s extant books, nor is he anywhere said
to have made such reference.

And, going back to the end of the second century, we find
the Baallitie authorship eney denied at Rome. Eusebius,
HE, vi. 20, writes:

HrAOe Sé cis nyas cat Taiov Aoywwrdrov avdpds Siddoyos éri
‘Popns kata Zedhvpivoy mpos IpdxAov tis Kara Bpvyas aipéoems

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE xli

breppaxodvra Kexwnpévos, €v @ Tav Ou evaytias THY Tepl Tb GUVTadT-
Trew Kawas ypadas mpoméreidy Te Kai TOApav erioTopifwv THY Tov
fepod dmoordAov Sexarpidv povev eriotok@y pynmovever, THY mpds
‘EBpaiovs pr ocvvapiOunoas rais Aourais: émei kai eis Sedpo mapa
‘Popalov ticiv ov vopicerat TOU amooroAov TUyXaveLY.

Here we have a learned Roman, writing against the Mon-
tanists in the time of Zephyrinus, and denying that the epistle
to the Hebrews is one of 8. Paul’s epistles. He is checking the
licence of opponents in adducing new Scriptures, and seems to
illustrate his argument from this parallel novelty of attributing
Hebrews to the apostle. And Eusebius adds that this was
natural since even down to his own time there are some in the
Roman Church who do not allow this epistle to be Paul’s; that is,
Eusebius recognises that this “very learned man,’ was supported
by the tradition of his church in his plain denial.

But who is this “very learned man”? Eusebius calls him
Gaius, and it is possible that there was a Gaius who was a
Roman presbyter at that time; but it is certain no Gaius wrote
the dialogue of which Eusebius here speaks. He has however
mentioned immediately before Hippolytus “bishop of some see.”
Hippolytus did write that very dialogue and named the orthodox
interlocutor Gaius. It was Hippolytus the “presbyter” or
“venerable” bishop of the foreigners at the port of Rome who
denied Hebrews to S. Paul, as Stephen Gobar and Photius
distinctly say in later centuries.

The story of this remarkable person may be read in the
second volume of Lightfoot’s S. Clement of Rome, set off with
all the riches of scholarship and all the charm of romance. Two
points only need be touched here. “He linked together the
learning and traditions of the East, the original home of
Christianity, with the marvellous practical energy of the West,
the scene of his own life’s labours”: and he was probably the
author of the Muratorian Canon.

As to the first point. Hippolytus does not appear to have
ever been in the East himself, but Photius tells us he was a
pupil of Irenaeus, and his own frequent references to Irenaeus
prove that true. “Not only was he by far the most learned
man in the Western Church, but his spiritual and intellectual
ancestry was quite exceptional. Though he lived till within a

d 2

xlii INTRODUCTION

few years of the middle of the third century [c. 155—236 a.p.],
he could trace his pedigree back by only three steps, literary
as well as ministerial, to the life and teaching of the Saviour
Himself. Irenaeus, Polycarp, S. John—this was his direct
ancestry. No wonder if these facts secured to him exceptional
honour in his own generation.” And still, for our present
purpose, these facts are weighty. His testimony against the
Pauline authorship of Hebrews is more than ordinary. In the
face of the impression left upon us by Clement’s style of
quotation and the continuous evidence for a real tradition at
Rome, it would be perversely sceptical to conjecture that Hip-
polytus first started that tradition, receiving it from Irenaeus.
But his learning and his connexion with Irenaeus do imply that
he had good reason for confirming the Roman tradition, and that
the earliest tradition of the East was in agreement with it.
Hippolytus is further connected with the Eastern Church in
another direction. Origen was a hearer of his at Rome. That
was not needed to start Origen on his criticism of the Alexandrian
tradition, for Clement of Alexandria had already led the way.
But it may well be that Origen did learn something from
Hippolytus which might corroborate his own inferences from
the style. He might add “external” to “internal” evidence;
and whatever he might once have meant by that ambiguous
phrase, ris d€ 6 ypayas rhv émirroAnyv, TO pév aAnbes Beds oider,
it would be possible to give it the absolute significance which

would satisfy Hippolytus and Rome.

The Muratorian Canon is a document which contains a
mutilated list of the books of the New Testament. It was
“discovered and published by Muratori in 1740 from a Ms. in-
the Ambrosian Library at Milan...Muratori himself attributed
it to Gaius, the contemporary of Hippolytus, who flourished
under Zephyrinus....It is generally allowed that this catalogue
emanated from Rome, as indeed the mention of ‘the city’ im-
plies... The general opinion also is that the document was written
in Greek and that we possess only a not very skilful, though
literal, translation.” The whole of Lightfoot’s § 6, pp. 405—413,
should be read to appreciate his proof that Hippolytus wrote the
Canon in Greek iambics, and that it is in fact the work included
in the list of the saint’s writings which is engraved on the chair

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE xiii

of his third century statue, and is there called @da: ets wdaoas ras
ypapas. The Latin of the Canon may be found in its full and
very corrupt form in Westcott’s Canon of the New Testament,
App. C.1. The part that bears upon our enquiry shall however
be quoted here from the emended text which Westcott adds:

Epistulae autem Pauli, quae, a quo loco, vel qua ex causa
directae sint, uolentibus intellegere ipsae declarant. Primum om-
nium Corinthiis schisma haeresis interdicens, deinceps Galatis
circumcisionem, Romanis autem ordine scripturarum, sed et
principium earum esse Christum intimans, prolixius scripsit, de
quibus singulis necesse est a nobis disputari; cum ipse beatus
apostolus Paulus, sequens predecessoris sui Iohannis ordinem,
non nisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat ordine tali: ad
Corinthios prima, ad Ephesios secunda, ad Philippenses tertia,
ad Colossenses quarta, ad Galatas quinta, ad Thessalonicenses
sexta, ad Romanos septima. Uerum Corinthiis et Thessaloni-
censibus licet pro correptione iteretur, una tamen per omnem
orbem terrae ecclesia diffusa esse dinoscitur; et Johannes enim
in Apocalypsi, licet septem ecclesiis scribat, tamen omnibus
dicit. Uerum ad Philemonem unam et ad Titum unam, et ad
Timotheum duas pro affectu et dilectione; in honore tamen
ecclesiae catholicae in ordinatione ecclesiasticae disciplinae sanc-
tificatae sunt. Fertur etiam ad Laodicenses, alia ad Alexandrinos,
Pauli nomine finctae ad haeresim Marcionis, et alia plura quae
in catholicam ecclesiam recipi non potest: fel enim cum melle
misceri non congruit.

As must necessarily be the case if Hippolytus is the writer,
the testimony is clear to thirteen and only thirteen epistles of
Paul. Hebrews does not appear by name, and as the title “to
Hebrews” was known to Tertullian, and as Jerome says of
Hippolytus “quartam decimam, quae fertur ad Hebraeos, dicit
non eius esse,” de Vir. Ji/. 59, in which statement he seems to
be following what Eusebius had applied to Gaius, it is difficult
to suppose that “alia ad Alexandrinos” could mean Hebrews;
there is besides the possibility that Hebrews was mentioned by
its usual title in the lost conclusion of the ms. Yet the language

1 And Souter, Text and Canon, pp. 208—211, gives it in a cor-
rected form with textual notes.

xliv | INTRODUCTION

of Eusebius and Jerome is not decisive; to them this epistle had
long been simply “to Hebrews.” In the list of books interpolated
between Philemon and Hebrews in Codex Claromontanus it
seems to be this epistle which is entitled “Barnabas” without
note of destination. And “ad Alexandrinos” does fit curiously
the Alexandrine style and thought of the epistle. Nor does “ad
haeresim Marcionis” =mpds tiv aipeow, bearing upon etc., seem
an impossible description of a letter which appeals so much
to Old Testament testimonies and treats so deeply the real
manhood of the Lord. If the identification could be upheld it
would witness to a most remarkable attempt in early times to
appreciate the individual and original character of the epistle.
The readers who thus appreciated it would perhaps hardly be
the same as those who thought it “ Pauli nomine fincta.”

However that may be, the mention of Marcion’s name serves
to remind us here that the earliest list we have of S. Paul’s
epistles comes from Marcion, and Hebrews is not included
therein. As Marcion also omits the Pastorals, it may be best
to refer to this merely in passing. At the same time it must
be remarked that both omissions may be evidence of great
importance. It is becoming more and more clear that some of
Marcion’s “readings” are not, as those who wrote against him
supposed, wilful alterations of the text, but valuable evidence
for at least an early text. His list of the Pauline epistles is
conclusive evidence for the substantial truth of the Church’s
tradition of 8. Paul’s work and writings. And his omission of
Hebrews and the Pastorals may indicate that in 150 .p. these
two elements of the final New Testament Canon were still—
though it may be for very different reasons, and in different
degrees—excluded.

The document called the Mommsen Canon agrees with the
Muratorian in omitting Hebrews and limiting the Pauline epistles
to thirteen. This document was found by Theodor Mommsen
in the Phillipps Library at Cheltenham in 1885, and another
copy has been found since then at S. Gall. The Canon is
considered to be African, of date about 3604.pD. The Latin of
the New Testament part may be read in Souter, p. 212. It
adds, with a faint hint of doubt, 2 and 3 John and 2 Peter to
the New Testament of Cyprian the third century bishop of

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE xlv

Carthage; otherwise it agrees with him. This makes it almost
certain that in the earliest state of the Old Latin version Hebrews
was not included ; for that version arose in Africa where “ Latin
was the official language and the language of civilisation” while
at Rome “society from top to bottom was bilingual” and from
Paul to Hippolytus (56—230 a.p.) Christian literature was in
Greek.

Yet we possess an Old Latin translation of Hebrews. That
is true, but there is reason to suppose that it is either a late
made one, or at least one that was “picked up” at a com-
paratively late period and added to the other books. Westcott
says (Canon, p. 266) “The Claromontane text of the Epistle to
the Hebrews represents I believe more completely than any
other manuscript the simplest form of the Vetus Latina; but
from the very fact that the text of this Epistle exhibits more
marked peculiarities than are found in any of the Pauline Epistles,
it follows that it occupies a peculiar position.” And this becomes
even more evident when we find interpolated in the ms. between
the other Pauline epistles and Hebrews a list of New Testament
books with the number of lines filled by each—a “ stichometry”—
in which the epistles of S. Paul are enumerated without Hebrews.
At the end of the list Hermas, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter
are added ; and between the Catholic epistles and the Apocalypse
(of John) comes ‘‘ Barnabas,” which seems to mean what we call
“Hebrews,” the correspondence in stichometry pointing to that
identification. It seems clear that Codex Claromontanus was
mainly copied from an earlier Ms. which did not include Hebrews,
but when this copy was made it was desired that Hebrews should
be included. Dr Souter thinks that it was written in Sardinia
after the island had become part of the Byzantine empire in the
sixth century! If so, it might seem that even so late the Latin
Canon in Sardinia was enlarged in deference to Eastern custom.
The peculiar character of the Vulgate translation may be mainly
due to its being a revision of the Old Latin which already differed
so much from the Old Latin of the other epistles.

In the fourth century we do indeed find Western doctors, such
as Hilary and Ambrose, quoting the epistle freely as S. Paul’s.

1 JIS. Jan. 1905.

xlvi INTRODUCTION

Alford accounts for this very reasonably: “ About the middle of
the fourth century, we find the practice beginning in the Latin
Church, of quoting the Epistle as St Paul’s: but at first only
here and there, and not as if the opinion were the prevailing one.
Bleek traces the adoption of this view by the Latins to their
closer intercourse with the Greeks about this time owing to the
Arian controversy, which occasioned several of the Western
theologians to spend some time in the East, where the Epistle
was cited, at first by both parties, and always by the Catholics,
as undoubtedly St Paul’s. Add to this the study of the Greek
exegetical writers, and especially of Origen, and we shall have
adduced enough reasons to account for the gradual spread of the
idea of the Pauline authorship over the West.” Perhaps the
process was even simpler. ‘There is a considerable amount of
evidence for the epistle being widely known, whatever was
thought about its authorship, from the earliest times’. Good-
hearted students would come of their own accord to Origen’s
opinion that the theology of Hebrews was wonderful and by no
means inferior to the received canonical writings; then, as with
Origen himself, the step to quoting it as “the apostle’s” would
be easy.

But that being so the noteworthy point is the reluctance
of the Latin Church to go further. This may be illustrated at
two stages: first in what the two great scholars, Jerome and
Augustine, write when they deliberately consider the question ;
secondly in the scruples against breaking with the tradition
against Pauline authorship which persist to a late period.

Full and fair quotation for the mind of Jerome and Augustine
may be found in that treasury of learning which all subsequent
commentators have drawn upon, Bleek’s edition’, or in the
excellent adaptation of Bleek’s prolegomena which Alford has
made in the fourth volume of his Greek Testament. S. Jerome’s
“usual practice is, to cite the words of the epistle, and ascribe
them to St Paul.” His residence in the East made this the

1 See The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, by a Committee
of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, Clarendon Press, 1905,
and consider Cyprian’s language about the High-priesthood of Christ.

2 Der Brief an die Hebrier erléutert durch Einleitung, Ueber-
setzung und fortlaufenden Commentar. Berlin, 1828—1840.

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE xlvii

more natural. But it would not mean much in any one, and in
him it certainly did not mean that he would assert the Pauline
authorship when he gave a critical decision, such as the following :
“illud nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam quae inscribitur
ad Hebraeos, non solum ab ecclesiis Orientis, sed ab omnibus
retro ecclesiasticis Graeci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli
apostoli suscipi, licet plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis
arbitrentur: et nihil interesse cuius sit, cum ecclesiastici viri
sit, et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur” (ad Dardanum,
§ 3). By “plerique” Jerome probably meant “many” not
“most.” But in any case the general sense is clear; he had
learned to connect the epistle with S. Paul just so far as Origen
had done. When however he goes on to contrast “nos,” i.e.
himself and those like-minded, with ‘ Latinorum consuetudo,”
he confesses that all this is the “new learning.” The liturgical
use of the Latin Church was against him. The practice of the
Greek churches was in accord with ancient writers whom he
(and other well-read persons) considered more important. than
contemporary popular custom. The use of the Latins, he says,
receives not Hebrews, and the churches of the Greeks reject the
Apocalypse; each indulging unwarrantable licence, ‘ eadem
libertate.” So that what Jerome really witnesses to is an
indomitable Church tradition in the West against the Pauline
authorship and even the canonical authority of Hebrews: and
what he asserts is that this tradition is of late growth; the
voice of antiquity is for the canonical authority, and scholars
know that this, as well as the usurping tradition, can be ex-
plained by recognising that the epistle is derived, but not
directly, from S. Paul. In other words he has a fairly large
critical apparatus; reads its evidence with a partial misunder-
standing; and leaves to later generations an unmistakable proof
that even in his day the unsophisticated Western churchmen
held fast to the tradition of their fathers that this epistle did
not come from S. Paul.

S. Augustine’s feeling may be illustrated by one short quo-
tation from De civitate Dei, xvi. 22: ‘De quo in epistola, quae
inscribitur ad Hebraeos, quam plures apostoli Pauli esse dicunt,
quidam vero negant, multa et magna conscripta sunt.” He was
less particular as a scholar than Jerome, more philosophical as

xl vill INTRODUCTION

a churchman, and the mere question of authorship troubled
him slightly. Moreover there is evidence that in Africa in
his time such scruples were falling, perhaps more entirely than
elsewhere, into the background. Whereas in the third council
of Carthage, A.D. 398, Hebrews was distinguished from or among
the Pauline epistles—“ Pauli epistolae tredecim; eiusdem ad
Hebraeos una,” in the fifth council of Carthage, a.p. 419, this
carefulness had ceased—‘“‘epistolarum Pauli apostoli numero
quatuordecim!.” And from this period onward in West as in
East the fourteen epistles of 8, Paul are regularly recognised.

The distinction between the question of authorship and.
canonical authority is important; it may well account for the
considerable number of Western writers who cite Hebrews as
Paul’s from the middle of the fourth century onwards. Canonical
authority admitted, only scholars when directly dealing with the
question of authorship would separate this from the “corpus” of
Pauline epistles: many would use Paul’s name without scruple.
Others, like Hilary of Poitiers (WM 366), would cite the epistle,
but would take care not to name Paul in connexion with it.
That is the way most theologians treat it to day; but Souter
thinks “Hilary’s attitude is that of compromise. He was
deeply imbued with Eastern learning, and to him Hebrews was
a canonical book, but he knew the attitude of his Western
countrymen with regard to it.”

And that attitude altered very gradually. The ancient
Roman tradition was too deeply rooted to die out. Even Dante
in the De Monarchia (1. 8) distinguishes “ Paul” or “the
apostle” from the author of this epistle, introducing his one
citation from it anonymously—“Scriptum est enim ad Hebraeos :
Impossibile est sine fide placere Deo.” And when in the
sixteenth century the new learning gave fresh substance to the
old doubts, we find writers within the Roman Church frankly
reconsidering opinions which by that time had almost the pre-
scription of authority. Thus Estius writes in the opening
section of his Commentary that in former times catholic writers,
especially among the Latins, did not recognise this epistle as
canonical ; that Eusebius classes it among those scriptures

1 For 8. Augustine’s own progress in this respect, see Souter,
Text and Canon, p. 191.

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE xlix

which were controverted by many ; and “finally in our own day
Caietan at the beginning of his commentary throws doubt upon
its authority, and says that a point of faith cannot be deter-
mined from it alone. Then Luther simply rejects it, because,
he says, it annuls repentance. That is pretty nearly the
judgement of the Lutherans and the other sectaries of our time,
with the exception of Calvin and his followers, who are pleased
to receive it into the number of the Holy Scriptures, not so
much on the authority of the Church, as because they consider
that out of the doctrine of the epistle concerning the one
sacrifice of Christ, they can overthrow the sacrifice of the Mass
which the Catholic Church observes throughout the world.”
Estius himself holds, with others, who are indeed the old
Alexandrians, that the subject and its treatment were supplied
by S. Paul, but the composition was entrusted to another,
Clement of Rome perhaps, more likely the apostle’s companion
Luke. He refuses to allow that it is heresy to doubt that
S. Paul was the author. The decision of the Council of Trent,
by which the Epistle to the Hebrews is numbered among the
fourteen epistles of S. Paul, seems only to have settled the
question of its canonicity for him. Erasmus seems to promise
more absolute deference to authority : Si ecclesia certo definit
esse Pauli, captivo libens intellectum meum in obsequium fidei:
quod ad sensum meum attinet, non videtur illius esse ob causas
quas hic reticuisse praestiterit. Et si certo scirem non esse
Pauli, res indigna est digladiatione.” That was before the
council had spoken, and the fairest way of interpreting both
Erasmus and Estius is to suppose that on such a question the
decision of a council was never intended to be an absolute bar
to the exercise of criticism, however it might restrain promiscuous
publication of results or tentative results.

$6. And was revived at the Renascence; when also the special
doctrine of Hebrews, so long generalised, began to be re-
covered: Limborch and sacrifice, the Arminians.

With Erasmus a new era began in the study of the New
Testament. As these lines are being written it is just four hun-
dred years since Erasmus, publishing his Greek Testament,

] INTRODUCTION

opened the Gospels and the apostolic records in their ori-
ginal language to the world. That gave impulse to a move-
ment already begun. The joy of the secular renascence had
already been to recover the actual life and thought of Rome and
Hellas. A desidertwm for the real meaning of antiquity was
in men’s hearts, and it was in the hearts of Churchmen as well
as other scholars. Ad antiquitatem immo ad ultimam antiqui-
tatem was Lancelot Andrewes’ appeal in the seventeenth century.
And we recognise in the commentators of that time quite a
novel effort to discover what was the immediate and particular
sense of each of the apostolic writers.

Little of this had been attempted before. There is just
a trace of it in the New Testament. At the end of 2 Peter
some characteristics of the Pauline epistles are noticed. This
is worth mentioning here because it has been sometimes
thought that Hebrews is particularly alluded to, which seems
a strange fancy. But from apostolic times till the renascence
there was hardly any recognition of the individual character of
epistles. Ménégoz has a chapter! on the theological influence
of the epistle in the history of dogma. He confines his
attention to the main doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ, and
shows that though the peculiar language of the epistle was
repeated, its peculiar idea was never grasped.

In the period of the Fathers the epistle of Barnabas comes
nearest to it: the Jewish sacrifices are treated as types of the
sacrifice of Christ; Christ Himself is not represented as the
High Priest ; yet there are striking affinities with the doctrine
of Hebrews. Clement, in spite of his frequent quotation, and
though he gives Christ the name of High Priest in the sense
of head of the Church, never compares His death with the
Levitical sacrifices, but considers it rather as an expiation by
substitution. The same idea is admirably expressed in the
Epistle to Diognetus. S. Ignatius once, in Eph. i., speaks of
Christ offering Himself to God as an oblation and sacrifice for
us: “but he does not develop that thought, his preoccupations
were elsewhere.” For during the whole of this period theological
interest was in the Person of Christ. The Incarnation included

1 La théologie de lV’épitre aux Hébreux (Paris, 1894), ch. vit.

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE li

the whole of Christ’s work of salvation. And so far as His
death was considered separately as the means by which man
was rescued, it was thought of as a ransom—an idea natural
to those days of brigandage ; generally as a ransom paid to the
devil, sometimes as paid to God. And though the Fathers
(“apostolic” and later) adopt the term “sacrifice” from Hebrews,
they use it merely as a metaphor for “ransom”: “c’est le
triomphe de l’image au détriment de lidée.”

Anselm disengaged the notion of Redemption from Incar-
nation; with him “soteriology” began. This, Ménégoz con-
siders, was a return to biblical thought. But though Anselm’s
doctrine of “redemption by death” was biblical, his explanation
was not. He drew it from Teutonic law, medieval chivalry,
and the catholic system of penitence. “Satisfaction” instead
of “ransom” became the idea round which thought moved.
And this was continued by Aquinas, who however put Roman
law, with “satisfaction by punishment ”—hence the emphasis
on “substitution”—in place of Teutonic law, with its “satis-
faction by payment.” And still, as before, the terms of “ sacri-
fice” were adopted from Hebrews, and still they were used as
metaphors ; only now, throughout the middle ages, as metaphors
for “satisfaction.”

The reformers accepted this doctrine from the middle ages,
laying still more stress on “substitution,” but still applying
the sacrificial language of Hebrews in a merely metaphorical
way. Calvin however took up what Eusebius, Cyril of Jeru-
salem, Augustine, and Aquinas had said about the threefold
office of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, and for two
centuries the munus triplex Christi figured as an essential
heading in protestant theology.

Ménégoz notices the unusual position taken by Abelard in
the middle ages. He taught, and the doctrine is scriptural, that
man was to be reconciled to God rather than God to man. And
he developed this in his own way by declaring that the recon-
cilement is effected by the love that was revealed in the Saviour’s
death upon the cross; there is the moving power. Perhaps,
though Ménégoz does not, we may connect the line of thought
thus opened with what he says of the Arminians:

“However the theology of the epistle was to find in pro-

lil INTRODUCTION

testantism a little corner where it might fructify. The
Arminians, repelled alike by the orthodox theory of expiation
and by the superficial rationalism of the Socinians, sought an
interpretation of the death of Christ which might better re-
spond to their religious feeling....Curcellaeus laid stress upon
the intercession of Christ in the presence of the Father, and |
scarcely considered His death but as a condition of His resur-
rection and ascension. The Socinians too had already brought
that side of the redemptive activity of the Christ into pro-
minence, thus approaching the views of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. But it is Limborch, the great dogmatist of the
Arminians, who entered most resolutely into this order of ideas.
...In Limborch the notion of sacrifice obliges Christ to have
died for us, but not to have suffered our punishment. His
death is thus not a substitutive expiation but a sacrificial
offering, graciously accepted by Ged. And as Christ has not
only been the victim but is also the high priest for all eternity,
He continues to intercede in God’s presence for the sinners who
have recourse to His ministry. His sacrifice has thus a per-
manent value.”

Once or twice Limborch drops into the more conventional
mode as when he writes “poenam peccatis nostris commeritam
quasi in se transtulit.”. But Ménégoz (who notices that sentence)
has given a fair description of a commentary which deserves
rather special attention’, Limborch seriously attempts to
realise the individual character of the epistle, as indeed (what
Ménégoz hardly appreciates enough) commentators were all
doing now both in the Roman and the reformed churches ;
hence the curiosity about authorship, Luther’s conjecture that
Apollos was the author and so on. Limborch thought it was
written by one of the companions of S. Paul, who knew S. Paul’s
mind (e¢ guidem conscio Pauli) and drew upon his doctrine.
The author wrote in order to fortify Hebrew Christians in the
faith towards which, through fear of persecution, they were
growing disaffected. He meets the excuses they might ground
on the venerable prestige of the ancient Law. And he ends
his Prolegomena with this insistence on the distinctive value

1 Philippi a Limborch Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum et in
Epistolus ad Romanos et ad Hebracos, Roterodami, 1711.

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE liii

of Hebrews: ‘“ Adeo ut merito nobis summo in pretio habenda
sit, sine qua multa quae ad distinctam sacerdotii Christi
cognitionem spectant, ignoraremus.” It is always the contrast
rather than the likeness between the sacrifice of Christ and the
Levitical sacrifices that he draws out, thus avoiding a style of
interpretation which even in much later times has hindered the
right use of the epistle. And he approaches the idea of the
living power of the Blood of Christ which was not to be clearly
presented till Westcott wrote.

- His preface is significant, in which he lays down with no
little force the principles of historical interpretation as the
indispensable basis of all study, and in particular of the appli-
cation of prophecy. The same kind of thing may be found in
Calvin and in nearly all writers since Erasmus. In Calvin it
is expressed with the beautiful lucidity of a Frenchman who
is thoroughly master of a good Latin style. But in practice
Calvin too often allows his scholarly principles to be wrested
by party feeling. In Limborch we enjoy another atmosphere,
not so brilliant but larger, more free. And this is perhaps
what is chiefly to be remarked in the Arminian commentators
generally. The title “Arminian” seems to be applied to a
variety of theologians whose pedigree cannot always be traced
very obviously from Arminius. Grotius, Bull, Jeremy Taylor,
Hales, Chillingworth, Cudworth, Whichcote, and the rest of the
Cambridge Platonists, are classed with Arminians by Hallam,
and the bond of connexion can hardly be the original principles
of Arminius, Three characteristics however belong to them
all, They are remonstrants against a particular form of
Augustinian doctrine: F. D. Maurice might have said that they
appealed from Augustine against the Donatists to Augustine
against the Manichaeans. They stood for ante-Nicene Greek
theology. They were at home in learned churches where the
Humanities were cared for. In all these respects they have
a natural kinship with the epistle to the Hebrews, and
especially in the last. The Alexandrine Platonism of the
epistle, its good Greek style, its tender sympathy with the
very shadows of the old Law which it shews to be vanishing
away ; all this is in the broad sense of the term “ Arminian.”

liv INTRODUCTION

§7. The real manhood of Christ: already recognised
by Nestorius as characteristic of Hebrews.

So again is its interest in the whole of our Lord’s earthly
life, the frankness with which it recognises the limitations of
His manhood during “the days of His flesh.” And here we
must go back to the fifth century, and notice a writer of that
period who did remarkably appreciate this characteristic of
Hebrews. He was Nestorius. Dr Bethune Baker! shews
reason for believing that Nestorius was no “ Nestorian”; the
doctrine for which he was condemned was not his real doc-
trine. That conclusion needs to be checked by the criticism
of Dr Loofs?. But the orthodoxy of the sermon on the Epistle
to the Hebrews, of which Dr Bethune Baker gives a summary,
will hardly be disputed since, until 1905, it was attributed to
S. Chrysostom. Nestorius here interprets Hebrews in accord-
ance with the tradition of the school of Antioch; Antioch
“which early in the second century had had as its bishop the
Ignatius who had insisted with such passionate earnestness on
the reality of the human nature and experiences of Jesus,
who had made his appeal above all else to the actual facts
of the Gospel history—at Antioch the historical tradition
had never been allowed to fade....The theologians of Antioch
started from the manhood...laid stress on all the passages in
Scripture which seemed to emphasize the human consciousness
of the Lord...insisted on the recognition in His Person of a
genuine human element in virtue of which a genuine human
experience was possible. They did not for a moment call in
question, or fail to recognize, the equally genuine Divine
element, in virtue of which Divine experience and power was
His. They did not doubt that the historical Jesus Christ was
both God and man. They took their stand on history, on the
primitive record, on apostolic testimony and interpretation ”
(Bethune Baker, pp. 3 f.).

1 Nestorius and his teaching. Cambridge, 1908.
2 Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian Doctrine.

Cambridge, 1914,

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE lv

§ 8. Hellenistic philosophical colour: Carpzov’s illustrations
from Philo.

Thus did Nestorius in the fifth century reassert one of the
characteristics of this epistle, its msistence on the true man-
hood of our Lord. And thus, at the revival of learning, did
the. Arminians attempt to recover its particular doctrine of
sacrifice. A third peculiarity, its affinity with the philosophical
Judaism of Philo, was brought out in the eighteenth century by
J. B. Carpzov, who collected parallels from Philo for almost
every verse of the epistle?. Much has been done since his day
for the text of Philo, the better understanding of Philo’s philo-
sophy, and the true relationship of Hebrews to it, but Carpzov’s
book is still a storehouse of material. And it marks an epoch
in the exegesis of Hebrews. No one had treated the subject
with anything like this elaboration before. Henceforth it was
impossible to ignore the Hellenistic idiosyncrasy of author and
readers. They might be “ Hebrews,” but they were not
“Hebrews” in the narrower sense of Hebrew-speaking Jews.
They belonged at least to the liberal Judaism of S. Stephen,
probably to the philosophic Judaism of Apollos.

$9. Interest in special character of Hebrews provokes search for
suitable author: Luther's conjecture of Apollos, ete. Tradi-
tion only supports Barnabas (besides Paul) and the search
WS Vain.

That no doubt had already struck Luther when he conjec-
tured Apollos as the author. Possibly Luther, and the moderns
who have accepted his conjecture, read more into the few lines
in which Apollos is described (Acts xviii. 24 f.) than is really to
be found there. The conjecture is not supported by tradition.
Harnack’s idea that Priscilla was the authoress is a development
from Luther’s inference. Blass in the short preface to his
rythmical text? pays no attention to the philosophical colouring,

1 Sacrae exercitationes in S. Paulli epistolam ad Hebraeos ex
Philone Alexandrino. Helmstadii, 1750.
2 Brief an die Hebrier, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen. Halle,
1903.
”

HEBREWS é

lvi INTRODUCTION

and accepts the Barnabas tradition, because Barnabas as a
Levite would have been familiar with the cadences of the
Greek Psalter. Barnabas is the only name which can be con-
nected with anything like a real tradition. Scholarship is more
respectful to tradition of late. It is felt that there are few
fresh starts in thought; tradition generally lies behind, and
what seems to be tradition is at least to be respectfully examined.
That is the spirit of a book which has not yet been so carefully
criticised as it deserves!. Myr Edmundson thinks Hebrews was
written to Judaeo-Christians in Rome by Barnabas in 66 a.p.
S. Paul was still living ; had been released from his captivity ;
and at the close of the same year was himself in Rome, again in
prison and soon to die. 1 Peter had been already written and is
quoted in Hebrews. The Apocalypse was written three years
later, at the beginning of a.p. 70. Early in the same year,
A.D. 70, Clement, a younger brother of M. Arrecinus Clemens
and the same Clement as is named in Phil. iv., gave literary
expression to the message from the Church in Rome to the
Church in Corinth ; he was not yet the official head of the
Roman Church. That is a consistent view of our epistle and
the other epistles that are related to it. Without necessarily
adopting the whole of it, we may at least welcome the support
Mr Edmundson gives to the early date of Hebrews. That
judgement is hardly fashionable at present, but, as will presently
be shown, it does fit many important characteristics of the
epistle.

As for the author’s name, that search may as well be given
up. The Barnabas tradition only emerges for a moment or
two and is lost in darkness on either side. The other names
proposed, Luke, Clement, Apollos, Silas, Philip the deacon,
Aristion—one writer has even suggested S. Peter—are mere
conjectures; some of which are surely impossible. That there
should be one letter in the New Testament which was not
written by any person who happens to be mentioned in the
other books, is quite in accordance with the analogies of literary
history. It may be added, though not as an argument, that

1 The Church in Rome in the first Century, by George Edmundson.
Longmans, 1914.

©

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE ett

our interest in the apostolic Church and our reverence for
its rich inspiration would be increased hereby. The character,
education and to a large extent the circumstances of the author
may be gathered from the letter itself. The mere precision of 3
name would not illuminate the background very much.

§ 10. Destination more important, but precision difficult; not
Jerusalem. Rome proposed, and (improbably) Gentile
readers.

It is otherwise with the question of the destination. If we
could suppose that the epistle was addressed to the Church at
Jerusalem some time between the outbreak of the war with
Rome and the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, our interpretation of
the whole argument and of many difficult passages would be
confined to something like certainty. But it would be a con-
fining. Other passages would take on new difficulties. Much
is said about the tabernacle in Hebrews: there is not a line
which implies that either writer or recipients had ever seen
the temple. There may well have been Hellenistic Jews at
Jerusalem who read Greek and were accustomed to Alexandrine
terms of philosophy. But it is not at Jerusalem that we should
readily look for these, and it is certain that the epistle would
have been quite unsuited to the Church of Jerusalem as a whole.
J. J. Wetstein, in the edition of the Greek Testament which he
published at Amsterdam, 1751-2, was the first to argue for
Rome as the destination. Others, e.g. von Soden}, have com-
bined this view of the destination with the assertion that there
is nothing in the epistle to confirm the accuracy of the ancient
title [pds ‘EB8paiovs, and that there is much to prove it addressed
to Gentile Christians. This is, paradoxical though the state-
ment may sound, more agreeable to a superficial reading than
to a patient study of the epistle. The Judaic roots are there,
but they are not to be discovered in the mere obvious allusions
to Jewish ritual.

1 Hand-Commentar, Freiburg, 1899,

e2

lviil INTRODUCTION

§ 11. Modern criticism would supersede these enquiries by re-
garding Hebrews as a late treatise or sermon. So Moffatt,
whose view of doctrinal development may however be modified
by recognition of the “apocalyptic” origin of the Gospel:
Schweitzer ;

However all such disputes may seem to have been superseded
of late. Neither author nor destination matters much. Nor do
the Jewish or Gentile antecedents of the readers. The epistle
was written at a time when the Pauline controversy about the
Law was forgotten. There is no sharply cut background. It
is a doctrinal treatise, sermon-like; very interesting as a witness
to the comparatively early development of Christian dogma, but
scarcely in touch with the vigorous life of those primitive com-
munities who had lately been making Christian history. This
is how Moffatt describes it!:

“The author is to us a voice and no more. He left great
prose to some little clan of early Christians, but who he was,
and who they were, it is not possible with such materials as are
at our disposal to determine. No conjecture rises above the
level of plausibility. We cannot say that if the autor ad
Hebraeos had never lived or written, the course of early
Christianity would have been materially altered. He was not
a personality of Paul’s commanding genius. He did not make
history or mark any epoch. He did not even, like the anonymous
authors of Matthew’s Gospel and the Fourth Gospel, succeed in
stamping his writing on the mind of the early church at large.
But the later church was right in claiming a canonical position
for this unique specimen of Alexandrine thought playing upon
the primitive gospel, although the reasons upon which the claim
was based were generally erroneous.”

This might be almost styled great prose. It is, what
Dr Moffatt would rather care for, great scholarship; a deliberate
judgement based upon long thought and wide learning. Yet we
would set against it two passages from his earlier book*, The
first is a quotation from James Smetham’s Letters :

“Ts there a Christ? Is He the Heir of all things? Was
He made flesh? Did He offer the all-perfect sacrifice? Did

1 Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. T. & T.
Clark, 1911.

2 The Historical New Testament. T. & T. Clark, 2nd ed. 1901.

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE lix

He supersede the old order of priests? Is He the Mediator
of a new and better Covenant? What are the terms of that
Covenant? There are no questions like these....I am astonished
at the imperative tone of this Epistle, and the element of holy
scorn against those who refuse to go into these great questions
carefully.”

That points to one supreme characteristic of this epistle,
its intensity. Here are some lines from Dr Moffatt’s own pen
which reveal a certain bias determining the final direction of
other arguments; and it is possibly doubtful whether that
bias ought to be allowed so much weight as used to be generally
supposed :

“The alternative date [to a.p. 80 or later] is between 60
and 70 4.pD. This largely supported view takes the epistle as
implying the contemporary existence of the Jewish temple and
ritual, and as written in view of the religious dissolution which
(8/3) culminated in a.D. 70. The arguments in favour of this
date have been in part already met by implication, and in part
they depend upon a view of the development of early Christianity,
which would require many pages to exhibit.”

It is true that there is nothing in the epistle which neces-
sarily implies the contemporary existence of temple and ritual.
If the author contemplates the fall of Jerusalem as imminent,
this does not mean that he mainly connects the dissolution of
the Jewish religion with that catastrophe. His interest in the
war is of another kind, and the signs of his interest in that,.
or, possibly some other crisis of trial, run all through his
letter. But the point to be noticed is this. The view of the
development of early Christianity, in which Hebrews might
bear an early date, has been re-adjusted by that “apocalyptic”
reading of the primitive Gospel which was revived by Albert
Schweitzer ?. i

So far as affects the question before us here, the matter may
be summed up as follows. Theidea of what may be called liberal
theologians had long been that from an early Galilean faith in

1 In his Von Reimarus zu Wrede, Tiibingen, 1906. An English
translation with the title The Quest of the Historical Jesus was
published in 1910, and the best introduction to the subject is Dr
Burkitt's little book, The earliest sources for the life of Jesus, Constable,
1910,

Ix INTRODUCTION

Jesus as the Master,a Pauline, Johannine, and finally “catholic”
faith was gradually developed in the eternal and divine Son.
In such development Hebrews would come comparatively late.
There is nothing unworthy in such a view. Development of
the faith is the counterpart to revelation through the Holy
Spirit. But the difficulty was to find a link between Galilee and
S. Paul. To the apocalyptic view the link is plain. The back-
ground of the synoptic gospels is formed by those late Jewish
apocalypses of which Daniel and the Enoch literature are the
type. Our Lord entered upon His ministry in Galilee when a
world of thoughts about the coming Kingdom of God was every-
where astir. These thoughts were vague; spiritual hopes were
mingled with political; yet a great exalted spirit breathed every-
where. The kingdom would not be of this world; the Christ-
king might be in some sense divine. Our Lord accepted the
popular expectations. How far He acquiesced in their outward
form ; in what way He corrected and purified the idea; how He
came to the determination that by His own death the kingdom
must be brought in—these are the problems of the critical
historian. But criticism tends to this broad result. The
synoptic gospels, especially 8. Mark, are good historical docu-
ments as they stand; simple souls may rightly account for the
whole course of our Lord’s action by His implicit faith in the
Father’s guidance; the disciples believed that He was the des-
tined Christ who would one day come in divine glory with the
kingdom; that belief was interrupted by the crucifixion, but
was confirmed and deepened by the resurrection; and S. Paul’s
faith in Christ Jesus, the exalted Son of God, hidden for a while
in heaven, His original and eternal home, whence in the great
day He would come to gather quick and dead, was simply his
ancient Jewish faith completed by-his conviction that Jesus was
the Christ.

Nor was this profound theology revealed only to S. Paul.
It was the faith of the Church he entered after his conversion.
He directed it, perhaps restrained it within the lines of reason-
able truth. The tremendous spiritual impulse, which was the
main source of his inspiration, enabled him to bring what was
weak or uncertain to new and deeper expression. But though a
high Christology may develop its expression, it will always be

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE lxi

a return to primitive faith, and will never involve of necessity
long distance from memories of the past. There is development
of that kind in Hebrews. The first readers of this epistle
evidently had what we call an imperfect conception of the
Person of Christ. Their friend appeals to the primitive belief
in Christ as truly divine. He uses for his task of persuasion all
that has been thought, said or done before his days, by the
household at Jerusalem immediately after the crucifixion, by
S. Paul, by Hellenists like S. Stephen and Apollos. And now
he turns the ancient symbol of the Kingdom into new language
for his Alexandrine friends, just as Dr DuBose in his exposition
of this epistle, High Priesthood and Sacrifice, tries to turn its
phraseology “into current coin.” And he had two important
aids. The crisis of the times—perhaps it really was the storm
gathering over Jerusalem—was a sign that then was to be the
promised Day; in that shaking the Kingdom and the Christ
were coming. And the education of author and readers in
philosophy provided a set of terms in which this translation
of the primitive symbol might be shaped with peculiar fitness ;
for the pressing difficulty lay in “‘the scandal of the cross,” the
humiliation which characterised the Christian course, and which
could be shewn to run out into eternal glory by the philosophical
principle of sacramental significance in the realities of life.

§ 12. and by the now more generally recognised earliness of
“catholic” thought and practice: Baur, Lake, Bousset ;
Graeco-Roman influence on development.

Schweitzer’s two books—for he presently wrote another in
which he showed S. Paul to be thoroughly imbued with apoca-
lyptic Judaism—have, it seems, influenced English thought far
more than German. In Germany the old “liberal” theology
held on its way. The details of Baur’s criticism have long
been discredited. It is right that much of his principle should
still be recognised as true. His Church History’ is a stimulating
‘book that should still be read by all who really care to meditate
on the origins of creed and church. Very briefly his doctrine is

1 The Church History of the first three Centuries, Tiibingen, 1853,
English Translation, Williams and Norgate, 1878,

lxii INTRODUCTION

that “the fightings without and fears within” which S. Paul,
and doubtless many another of the early leaders, met patiently
and faithfully, vanished in a gradual reconciliation of half views.
Then, as the fit time came, the more complete idea of Christ’s
Person, of the Church, the Ministry, the Sacraments, descended,
explained all, and took possession. ‘“ Descended” is the right
word. The process came, as we should say, from God. The
suspicion with which Baur is regarded, arises from his refusal
to say just that. However, there is no need to speculate here as
to what Baur’s own opinions were about the Christian dogmas.
So far as it goes the doctrine here sketched can only encourage
us to more thoughtful reverence. But it begins in these days to
be clear that a simpler thread of popular faith was drawn out
continuously from the first, and that this popular faith was in
essentials far more like the fully-developed faith of the Church’s
worship than used to be supposed. On this point much in-
struction may be gained from Professor Kirsopp Lake’s book,
The earlier Epistles of St Paul. And again and again as we
pursue the enquiry we find that, while there is much truth in
Baur’s idea of Hebrews and other epistles belonging to a period of
“reconciliation,” there is no good reason for reserving that period
to a late date.

The most important of what we may venture to call the
successors of Baur is Dr Wilhelm Bousset, who argues! that it
was in worship that development of faith most largely took
place. This influence of ritual and of the emotion of common
worship was mainly due to the Church’s assimilation of Asiatic
Greek ideas. In Hebrews an almost extreme example of this
ritual spirit is displayed. To reach such a pitch of interest
time was needed, and Hebrews is therefore separated by a
considerable interval from S. Paul. Again it is evident, even
from this passing reference, how much Bousset stimulates
thought. Worship is still deepening—not of course without
some risk of perverting—faith. This recognition of the in-
fluence of worship implies a strong united Church feeling,
resting on continuous tradition, as the living soil in which new

1 Kyrios Christos ; Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den An-
fingen des Christenthums bis Irenaeus, Géttingen, 1913.

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE Ixiii

thoughts and enthusiasms grow into flower. The old crude idea
of a Paul or an auctor ad Hebraeos starting a fresh line of faith
is unnatural. But, with Bousset again, sober reflection on all
we know about these early days puts things in a different
proportion. There is more anxiety in our author’s mind about
his friends’ loyalty to Christ in some terrible crisis, than interest
in ritual. And the reasons for placing the epistle at a late date
are far weaker than those for recognising in it a new stage in the
expression of ancient truth.

§13. Transformation of this early “catholicism” in Windisch’s
representation of the ultra-dogmatic character of Hebrews.

But, distinct from these descendants of Baur, another school
of theologians has lately arisen in Germany. They might be called
—with perhaps an unfair touch of caricature—the Literalists.
Some of them have come to sacred literature from a previous
training in classical languages. They are abundantly, if not
broadly, erudite. They care little for the delicacies of language,
but press the plain meaning of passages. To this class belongs
Dr Windisch, author of a short book! full of matter, with freshly-
gathered quotations from Philo and from the literature of the
Graeco-Roman world. In fact, this handbook by itself supplies
pretty well all the material a reader might desire for inference
and discussion. The author of the epistle is left unnamed. He
was a Hellenistic Jew, with the same Greek background of
education as Philo, but less Greek in eharacter, more apoca-
lyptic. He still expects the future manifestation, therein
resembling with a difference S. John. The readers were a
community, mainly non-Jewish, which might be anywhere
except Jerusalem. The date 80 a.D. or rather later. The
author had nothing to do with the temple, but mediated Old
Testament ritual for Christians. He was nearer S. Paul than
any other New Testament writer, yet with many notable di-
vergences. He has something in common with the Synoptists,
whom Windisch (like Bousset) considers to represent, not quite
the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but the theological belief of

1 Der Hebréderbrief erkldrt von Lic. Dr Hans Windisch, Privat-
dozent an der Universitdt Leipzig. Tiibingen, 1913.

lxiv INTRODUCTION

the early Christian family concerning Him. Only this writer is
more infected with Hellenistic ideas, more influenced by the
Septuagint, than the Synoptists were. The main value of
his epistolary sermon is in its doctrine of the exalted Christ,
and especially in the particular aid which the author’s figurative
language about His high-priesthood produced (1) for the further
expression of the Church’s doctrine of redemption, (2) for the
Church’s adoption of the sacred, and especially the legal, books
of the Old Testament.

But Windisch would hardly approve of the word “figurative.”
Though to us the language is figurative, he would take it as far
more literally meant by the author himself. Windisch’s exegesis
is terse, crisp and full-learned. But it is as “hard” as a piece
of modern carving. He writes in that most recent style of
modern criticism which Reitzenstein and Norden use; to which
Kirsopp Lake is somewhat inclined; and which Bousset has
enriched with spiritual sympathy. This school is (against
Schweitzer) zealous for Graeco-Roman influence. But beside
that, it represents primitive Christianity as being from the first
what the Germans call “catholic,” i.e. advanced in cult and in
the doctrine of the Person of Christ, but advanced in a crude
and somewhat superstitious way.

A history of New Testament interpretation might be arranged
on a scheme adapted from Mr Reginald Blomfield’s words, “The
Renaissance—one of the recurring outbreaks of humanity against
the tyranny of another world!.” Here we find this “tyranny” again
coming in. So was it at the beginning with Docetism, soon met by
the Church’s protest. Then, according to Bousset, the “Kyrios
cult,” and the reaction witnessed to by Clement of Rome. So again
in the eighteenth century began the “outbreak of humanity” —
in which critics recovered the ancient doctrine of the real man-
hood of Christ, but at the same time read their modern notions
into that manhood. In England this culminated in the large
Johannine theology of F. D. Maurice. Then Schweitzer and the
eschatological school drew this out farther in their insistence on
the actually Jewish, Galilean manhood. And sothe “humanity”
itself led on to another inrush of “the other world” with the

1 Short History of Renaissance Architecture, p. 18,

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE Ixv

strange and stormy figure of the apocalyptic Christ. And now,
from another point of view, Windisch and this school find a
crude, ultra-scrupulous reverence in apostolic days. To Windisch
Hebrews has hardly any real sense of the days of the Lord’s
flesh, but centres on “The Heavenly Being, mythically con-
ceived.” This literalism appears in an extravagant form in a
note to v. 7—the flesh was laid aside in the ascension; our
Lord took with Him only the blood. And again, on x. 28 “the
Christian eschatology still knows the pitiless God of the Old
Testament and of Judaism.” The strong, learned excursus
will be dealt with later (11. § 20) in which he almost compels
assent to his thesis that “no second repentance” was the
primitive, essential dogma, weakened in later days.

In the proper sense of the terms, of course, both tempers
of the faith, “humanitas” and “other-worldliness,” belong to
Christianity. But the terms may be transferred to tempers
which are not genuinely Christian, The severely historical
critic will probably find that the mass of devout but unlearned
Christians in every age have tended, at least in language, to
insist on the “tyranny of the other world.” But he will also find
that the Church as a whole and in the long run, i.e. the Church
guided by the Spirit, has refused to be thus enslaved. And is
it not the mistake of commentators like Windisch that they
interpret the apostolic writers by the ruder language of the
people? The Church, in her true catholicity, has really had
the canonical writers on her side, and behind them our Lord
Himself.

Yet Windisch’s is a valuable commentary. If only for the
illustrative material, so skilfully selected from sources hardly
touched by earlier commentators, but recognised to day as highly
important for the elucidation of at least a large part of the New
Testament, it will be for years to come all but indispensable.
And the terse, business-like expression is admirable. What
Bengel’s Gnomon is for unction, Dr Windisch is in his dry com-
pression. His book has always been on the table at which these
pages were written.

Ixvi INTRODUCTION

§14. Some earlier German books: Bengel and text, Richm and
doctrine, Biesenthal and affinities with rabbinic type of
Judaism.

All students of the New Testament delight in Bengel’s holy
epigrams', Here is one example from Heb. xi. 40: “smpo-
BreWapévov, providente) Exquisitum verbum. Quae xnondum
videt fides, Devs providet, Gen. 22, 8, 14, Joh. 6, 6. Ex hac
provisione fluxit tota oeconomia temporum, et testimonium
DxI ad veteres.” But the Gnomon has a further interest in that
it is founded upon a comparatively pure text. Bengel had
already made an epoch in textual criticism by his edition of the
Greek Testament. He was the first to attempt classification
of authorities. nie

Bleek’s great commentary has already been mentioned. From
Riehm’s Lehrbegriff? later generations have drawn. They have
improved upon its conclusions. But it remains the most com-
plete and systematic exposition of the epistle in its relation to
Biblical theology.

And yet one other German book must be named, It is
incredible that 8. Paul should really be the author of Hebrews,
and Dr Biesenthal’s “retranslation” into Hebrew is not
retranslation but a clever exercise of his own scholarship.
Nevertheless his book is worth attention. He shews how much
in the epistle has parallels in Judaism on the rabbinic side.
Thus he warns us against too ready trust in inferences drawn
from the Graeco-Roman or Graeco-Asiatic literature which is
so much relied upon of late for the interpretation of the New
Testament. Even Hellenistic Judaism was Judaic, and a merely
Gentile origin for this epistle is all but impossible.

1D. Joh. Alberti Bengelii Gnomon Novi Testamenti, in quo ex
nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas
sensuum coelestium indicatur. It was first published in 1742.

2 Der Lehrbegriff des Hebréerbriefs, dargestellt und mit ver-
wandten Lehrbegriffen verglichen, von Lic. Eduard Karl Aug. Riehm,
Privatdocent in Heidelberg. Ludwigsburg, 1858-9.

3 Das Trostschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Hebréer, kritisch
wiederhergestellt und sprichlich archdologisch und biblisch-theologisch
erliutert, von Joh. H. R. Biesenthal, Dr Philos, et Theol., Leipzig,
1878,

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE lxvil

§15. Modern English commentators. Their fine scholarship:
Rendall. Their broad, practical elucidation of the theology
of the epistle: Davidson and Maurice distinguish type from
shadow ; Bruce discovers the imperfection of the readers’ faith,
and the authors conception of “ glory in humiliation” ; that
sacramental idea elaborated by DuBose, who also shows how
Christ re-enacts His sacrifice in men. Westcott’s explanation
of the Blood as indicating life enriched through death.

Of late however more help for the understanding of this
epistle has come from England and from America. English
theologians have generally been strong in that broad advantage
of a classical education which combines “humanity” with
grammar. for such a book as Hebrews that is a specially
desirable qualification in a commentator. Hence we have a
series of editions which are recommended by fine scholarship—
C. J. Vaughan, Macmillan 1891; Farrar, the very interesting pre-
decessor of this present book in the Cambridge Greek Testament
series ; Wickham in Methuen’s Westminster commentaries 1910,
a work of finished beauty ; and, philologically perhaps the best
of all, F. Rendall, Macmillan 1883.

Dr A. B, Davidson contributed a small edition of Hebrews
to Messrs T. and T, Clark’s Handbooks for Bible Classes, which
like all, even his most unpretending work, is firm, simple and
philosophical. His treatment of the theme “ Priesthood after
the order of Melchizedek” is particularly valuable. He, perhaps
for the first time, puts the Aaronic priesthood and the Levitical
sacrifices into their true proportionate place, as merely “shadow” ;
the author is not concerned with the comparative worth of the
old ritual, but with the absolute difference in kind of the eternal
priesthood which our Lord fulfilled. F. D. Maurice in his War-
burton Lectures for 1845-6, had wrestled with this problem,
recognising that Israelites had certainly enjoyed a real com-
munion with God; that nevertheless their institutions, so far
forth as these were institutions, lacked reality ; and that though
in Christ who is “a Son” reality has come, there must still be
some kind of institutions in the Christian Church if this reality
is not to fade away again into a vague cloudland. He solves the

Ixvili INTRODUCTION

problem in the last lecture by distinguishing the “ figurative ”
from the “sacramental.” But he does not present his solution
quite clearly. As in so much of his published work, the deep
significance of these lectures comes home most effectually to
those who have also learned to understand him from his letters
and conversations. Two sayings of his throw much light on
certain seeming inconsistencies in the epistle itself: “To me
it is the pleasantest thing possible to have intercourse with men.
But for shadows I have no respect at all,” and “My paradox
about form being more spiritual than spirit,” Zife, 1. p. 299,
I. p. 311.

In 1891 Dr William Milligan gave in his Baird Lecture! an
eloquent defence and exposition of the truth, so insisted upon
in Hebrews, that the doctrine of the living and exalted Christ
is the indispensable complement of faith in His atoning death.
A good companion to this book, as a real aid to a hearty
appreciation of the epistle, would be the lately published
Letters of Richard Meux Benson (Mowbray), which are indeed
this Epistle of the Ascension translated into modern life.
Dr William Milligan’s son, Dr George Milligan, published in
1899 The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with a critical
introduction (T. and T. Clark), a very useful book. Dr Moffatt’s
chapter on Hebrews in The Literature of the New Testament has
been already mentioned. The commentary which he is to
contribute to Messrs T. and T. Clark’s Znternational Critical
Commentaries is eagerly expected. Meanwhile the small edition by
Professor A. S. Peake in The Century Bible holds a distinguished
place among recent commentaries. His brief introduction is
commendably sober in conjecture as to author, date and des-
tination. Yet he leans towards an early date, and is convinced
that “in the argument as a whole we find decisive proof that
the readers were Jewish Christians in peril of falling back into
Judaism.”

In a notable book? Dr Bruce brings the point out clearly,
that the readers of the epistle had not attained to more than

1 The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord. Macmillan.
2 The Epistle to the Hebrews, the first apology for Christianity ;
an exegetical study. T,. & T. Clark, 1899.

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE Ixix

an imperfect apprehension of the faith of the Church, and that
this “first apology for Christianity” was designed to set the full
and generally accepted faith before them. More important still
is his insistence on the teaching of the epistle about our Lord’s
true manhood with all its limitations, especially in what he says
in his fourth chapter about our Lord’s glory being in, rather than
after, His humiliation ; the exaltation was latent in the humilia-
tion. This opens the way to recognition of that sacramental
principle which, sketched in Hebrews, was afterwards elaborated
in the Fourth Gospel, and which perhaps alone conserves the
reality, without confusion, of both the Godhead and the Manhood
of the Redeemer.

What is meant by the sacramental principle of the Manhood
is even more clearly brought out by Dr William Porcher DuBose
in High Priesthood and Sacrifice; an exposition of the Epistle to
the Hebrews’. This is the third part of the tetralogy in which
he interprets the four main varieties of New Testament teaching ;
the others are 7’he Gospel in the Gospels, The Gospel according
to Saint Paul, and The Reason of Life (S. John). Few books
prove more conclusively than these that loyalty to the complete
catholic faith is no hindrance to frank originality but the most
wholesome stimulus. A few quotations will best shew the line
of argument :

“ According to the Epistle to the Hebrews the place and part
of Jesus Christ in the world is an eternal and universal one....
He is at once God in creation and creation in God ; equally God
in man and man in God....That with which Christianity identifies
Jesus Christ eternally and essentially and inseparably is not only
God but creation and ourselves.”

“It is, however, only one part of this universal process
that is traced for us by this Epistle....The cosmical bearing or
significance of the Incarnation is dropped, and attention is con-
centrated upon the act or process by which God and man become
one in Jesus Christ....Not how our Lord was Son as God, but

how He became Son as man, is the subject of this whole Epistle
to the Hebrews.”

“There is nothing said or implied of an act performed or of
a becoming accomplished, apart from or instead of us. He is
the expression to us of what we have to accomplish and become,
and of the divine power and way of our accomplishing it....He

1 Longmans, 1908,

Ixx INTRODUCTION

does not save from having to do it all; He helps and enables to
do it all. It was bound to be so, it could not be otherwise,
because in the divine intention and meaning and nature of the
thing, the accomplishing holiness and achieving or attaining life
is just that which makes and constitutes us personal spirits, or
spiritual persons.”

This is theological rather than historical treatment. Dr
DuBose is not concerned with the environment of the author
and his first readers, or with the influence of Philonic philosophy
on the author’s mode of expression, and so on. He deals with
the great truths’ themselves which mattered to the author and
to the other writers of the New Testament and still matter to
all readers of the New Testament at all times. It may be that
he misses in consequence some of the peculiar characteristics of
Hebrews. If so the deficiency may be made good from other
books. The compensating advantage of the treatment he has
chosen is this. He, perhaps better than any other commentator,
has reached through the figures of the author’s language to the
realities which the figures are too apt to conceal from modern
eyes. The following passage may suffice to indicate a principle
which governs the whole exposition:

* And let us remember that our Author’s method, while it is
both, is yet more a definition of all past expressions of high
priesthood by its antitype and fulfilment in Christ, than a
definition of this latter by the inadequate types of it that had
preceded. The method, in a word, is based upon the principle
that beginnings are better explained by ends than ends by
beginnings. The divine truth of Jesus Christ and His work
in humanity too far transcends any or all visible human pre-
intimations or prophecies of itself to be expressed within the
finite limits of their meaning. But the precedent high priesthood,
seen now in the light of its divine fulfilment, is seen to go along
with it in accord so far as it can.”

But the greatest of modern commentaries is Westcott’s!.
The Greek text itself is the best that has ever been printed of
this epistle separately. The select apparatus criticus is easy to
use, and the Introduction contains an admirable section on Mss.
and versions. Then the skilfully chosen quotations from the

1 The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Greek text with notes and essays.
Macmillan, ist ed. 1889,

HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE xxi

Fathers are most instructive. Each tells, coming in appropriately.
And the continuity of exegetical tradition is thus displayed, a
tradition which justifies the belief that the author’s meaning is
always likely to be deeper than our own quick judgement would
suppose. At the end of the Preface there are valuable remarks
on the chief patristic commentaries, with terse indications of
their several characteristics. Here, as often in this pregnant
work, the student is pointed to a line of enquiry which may
attract his diligence or ambition, as in this note on Origen:
“Of his xviii Homilies and Books (réyor) on the Epistle only
meagre fragments remain; but it is not unlikely that many of
his thoughts have been incorporated by other writers. An
investigation into the sources of the Latin Commentaries is
greatly to be desired.” Of Westcott’s own interpretations this
may perhaps be said without impertinence. The longer they
are dwelt upon the more right they are apt to prove themselves.
What may seem at first too subtle turns out to be sympathetic
with the author’s habit of thought, and when the reader disagrees
with some passage he is likely to find on further meditation
that his own idea has been included and transcended in West-
cott’s more complete perception. The eminent service however
which Dr Westcott has rendered to the study of Hebrews is
this. He has carried out what (as we saw above) the Arminians
attempted, viz. the true explanation of the sacrificial language ;
sacrifice is offering, not loss, and “blood” in the phraseology of
sacrifice means life not death, though in supreme sacrifice it
does mean life enriched by death.

III
THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE

§1. Hebrews was addressed to a little group of Hellenistic-Jewish
friends: is a real letter; calling upon them to do a hard duty
in a dangerous time, viz. to be loyal to Jesus Christ whom they
worship, but as yet imperfectly, and to break with Judaism.

The particular form which theology takes in any treatise is
determined by the purpose of the writer. That purpose depends
HEBREWS i

lxxii INTRODUCTION

upon the occasion of writing. Hence it is necessary to make up
our minds, as far as possible, about the date, circumstances and
destination of Hebrews, before attempting to study the charac-
teristics of its theology. We have seen how the tendency of the
latest criticism is to give up the search for the author’s name,
and the name of the place to which he sent his epistle. There
has also been a reaction against the ancient tradition that the
readers had come from Judaism to Christianity. But that
reaction has passed into another phase; the question, Were the
readers Jewish or Gentile? is no longer considered important,
since the epistle belongs to so late a time that this distinction
had already become almost obsolete in the Church. For Hebrews
is generally considered a late treatise, more like a sermon than
a letter. Some trouble of the day had indeed in part called it
forth. But that impulse is a secondary matter; the dogmatic
interest is the main thing. Yet on the whole Rome is preferred
as destination. And in this connexion it is worth while perhaps
to mention an inscription which has been discovered there.
A certain Salome is described on her tombstone as the daughter
of Gadia who was rarjp cuvaywyns Ai8péov. Zahn who draws
attention to this! shews that it has little real bearing on the
criticism of Hebrews, but he does press the significance of
éericvvaywyn (Heb. x. 25), and decides from that and various
other indications that the letter was addressed to a household
community, a part of the larger church in Rome. Whether in
Rome or not may be doubtful. But this idea of the small com-
munity is winning acceptance and is probably right. Moffatt’s
vaguer phrase “a little clan” is best. It is hardly likely that a
letter so polished, so full of technical philosophic language, and
so coloured with actual philosophic thought, should have been
written to any mixed assembly, however small. We had better
conclude that the author wrote to a group of friends who, like
himself, had received an Alexandrine education.

And if so, it must surely have been a Jewish-Alexandrine
education. The title “To Hebrews” may have been but an
early inference from the contents. That inference may have
been drawn from the same misunderstanding as has long

1 EHinleitung in das Neue Testament, 1, p. 48, cf. 11. pp. 113, 119f.,
154, 1st ed.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE \xxii

prevailed, and of late has prejudiced the enquiry in a contrary
direction. For, strictly taken, ‘‘ Hebrews” means Hebrew-speak-
ing Jews, and that—we can all see now—is just what the readers
of this epistle were not. But they may have been Hellenists,
may have never seen the temple, and yet the case may be
strong for considering them to have been by birth and training
Hellenistic Jews. And the case is strong. The argument of the
epistle as a whole would have much meaning for Christians who
had been Jews, little for others. Much of its difficulty for us
Westerns to day arises from its taking for granted Jewish
principles of sacrifice which Gentiles even then would not be
familiar with. And there is a personal note. The Jewish ritual
and priesthood are indeed spoken of as a mere shadow ; they are
not to the author the “types” which Christ “fulfilled.” But
Jewish “ Christship” is such a real type. And even the ritual
is given up with a pang ; and if the ancient priesthood was but
a shadow, the good priests whom author and friends had known
were very far from shadowy. Start from ch. v. and see if this
be not true ; then read through the whole letter and see whether
the impression be not confirmed.

For surely it is a letter, not a sermon. Though like 1 John
it begins without a salutation, there is no need to suppose that
no definite address was prefixed. Indeed, when once the view
here proposed is accepted, it becomes tempting to fancy that
mpos ‘EBpaiouvs was originally at the head of the roll, a playful
subtlety, like v, 12, xiii. 22, meaning “To you whom after all
I will call Hebrews indeed.” And it is a letter called forth by
some very urgent occasion. The exhortations and warnings with
which it is punctuated have echoes in almost every verse. The
writer is throughout urging his friends to face some particular
and hard duty, and in his final blessing, xiii. 20, 21, he prays
that they may be enabled to make the right choice and do the
duty. The ancient text with its antithesis of “you” and “us”
makes this clear. The later text, conventionalised for church
reading, obscures this; one of several instances which explain
the tendency, so often recurring, to allow the remarkable interest
of the epistle’s intellectual theology to obscure the practical
appeal to the will which was the supreme interest of the
author,

f2

lixiv INTRODUCTION

For his theology is developed as reinforcement to his appeal.
Once Jews of the broader Hellenistic party, his friends had
become Christians but Christians of a most imperfect kind.
They had joined the Christian Church because it offered that
“reformation” of Judaism for which they had been looking,
but they had not apprehended the deepest significance of this
reformation. Jesus of Nazareth was indeed to them the Christ,
but they had not understood all that the Church believed to be
involved in that recognition. They had not properly appreciated
the mystery of His Person, or of the salvation which had been
wrought through His death, or of His “indissoluble life” and
His exalted state and continued authority and power to aid.
And now some great trial was at hand which would test their
allegiance. And in face of this they were in doubt. Was it,
they were asking, worth while to hold to this reformed religion
when there was very strong reason for returning to the maha
faith of their fathers? See especially v. 11—vi. 8.

The strong reason was above all bound up with honour:
Holding fast to Jesus as Christ might very likely bring loss
of property, imprisonment, even death; see x. 32—39, xii. 4,
But that was not the great difficulty. The “sin” which their
friend fears they may commit is a specious one; there is an
amatn about it, something that may confuse the real issue; as
yet they have not done the wrong, but it is already an influence
working all about them subtle in associations, clinging to them
like a garment ; one strong effort of will is needed to break free,
and if that effort is not made the catastrophe will be irreparable.
See ii. 13, vi. 4—6, x. 10, 23, 26—31, xii. 1. But these references
are inadequate by themselves. There is hardly a paragraph in
the letter but illustrates the situation we are imagining, and it
is the letter as a whole, read with this idea in mind, which
justifies our imagination. So read, it culminates at last in the
appeal of xiii. 13 to go forth to Jesus outside the ancient “camp”
of Israel, bearing His shame. The meaning must surely be
that the hour has come when the followers of Jesus the true
Christ must break with traditional Judaism. The earliest
apostolic community had not done so. The apostles had fre-
quented the temple, observing the Jewish hours of prayer (Acts
iii. 1), and S. Paul’s marked reverence for the mother Church at

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE \xxv

Jerusalem had been of a piece with his claim that in standing
for Jesus the living Christ he was faithful to the hope of the
fathers (Acts xxvi. 5—7). But now that old alliance must be
interrupted.

-§ 2. The occasion may be the outbreak of the war
with Rome:

To take that bold step, and to take it just at a time when
it would be shameful, as it seemed, to take it, was the hard duty
to which this letter urges the little band of thoughtful Jewish
Christians, its readers. What then was the occasion? Why
was this to be done, and what made the doing so particularly
difficult? All becomes plain if the letter was written about
A.D. 65 or 66 when the zeal of a party had become a national
spirit of self-sacrifice, and the enthusiasm of the zealots
had involved a whole people in war against Rome. “It was
Florus,” writes Josephus, “ who compelled us to undertake war
with Rome, seeing as we did that it would be better to perish
as a nation than by partial and repeated persecution. The
beginning of the war was in the second year of the pro-
curatorship of Florus, the twelfth of Nero’s reign,” i.e. A.D.
66 (Antig. xx. 11).

How moving the appeal would be to all Jews, in Palestine
especially, but in all places too whence it was possible for Jews
to travel to Palestine, and rally round the national standard,
and fight for hearth and home, laying aside all party differences
and uniting in the ancient, hallowed battle-cry, ‘The Lorp our
God, the Lorp, one!” (cf. Deut. vi. 4, Heb. xiii. 8). And to none
would it come with more force than to these “ philosophic
liberals,” who had toyed with speculative hopes of a reformed
creed, and were now summoned to play the man, and throw
themselves into the stream of life in its intensity and simplicity.
They were fairly well to do (vi. 10, x. 34, xiii. 5), and wherever
situated, could make the journey to Palestine. They seem to
have never been quite at home in the community of Christians
they had joined (x. 25, xiii. 17); no doubt early apocalyptic
Christianity was a rude environment for these intellectual
people. They are inclined to weary themselves no more with

}xxvi INTRODUCTION

niceties of creed ; they will return to the simplicity of the faith
of their childhood, which is at least enough for men of honour.
See v. 11—14, and notice the emphasis throughout the epistle on
such words as xaAdv, kpeirrov.

§ 3. when the patriotic appeal, so attractive to these imperfect
disciples, was contrary to the faith of Christ.

They were however making a double mistake. The Jewish
rising was not the pure patriotism they imagined, and the
Christian faith was more than a reformed Judaism.

The Jewish rising was not pure patriotism. These Christian
Jews were confronted with the very choice which had been
offered to our Lord when He called for the tribute money and
gave His decision, ‘‘ Render unto Caesar.” That was no clever
shelving of the question; it was a decision which cost Him life.
It was a, practical summing up of all He taught about the
kingdom of God. That kingdom was not to be the political
triumph of Judaism, but the universal victory of that true
religion which had been especially entrusted to the Jews;
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” The
quotation in Heb. x. 30, “Vengeance is mine,” may have been
suggested by Rom. xii. 19, but it has a more concentrated
purpose in Hebrews. When this epistle was written, the problem
was set for the first time which has so often been forced upon
the Church again, how to apply the peaceful doctrine of the
Sermon on the Mount to national politics. The solution was
perhaps more simple then than it has been on some later
occasions, but it was not absolutely simple. The case for the
patriots must have seemed very strong. Looking back now, we
can see that the author was right every way. Josephus’ history
of the war shews the evil passions that tainted the spirit of the
heroically fighting Jews. The issue of the struggle might appear
but one more of the frequent examples of might triamphing
and yet not being right; but the subsequent development of
Rabbinism goes near to prove that the fight was not for the
truth, but for a narrow sectarian religion. And yet even now
we may confuse cause and effect, and then these things were
hidden from the passionate actors in the tragedy.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE xxvii

The author of the epistle saw the right way clearly. This—
for those who accept the view here proposed of its occasion—is
one proof of his inspiration. But true inspiration bears analysis,
and we may further explain his insight by adding that he saw
the way because he had a real apprehension of the life, work and
Person of the Lord. He understood the supreme and final worth
of the salvation wrought through Him, and knew that even
the purest claims of patriotism could not outweigh devotion to
the new faith; no such conflicting duty could be real duty;
to merge the perfect work of Christ in Judaism could not be
right, and on no other terms might Jewish patriotism be satis-
fied. To his friends he could put this in an elementary manner:
You have given allegiance to the Lord Jesus as the Christ; no
other plea of honour can set you free from that allegiance. That
plain preliminary appeal runs through the epistle.

§ 4. Therefore the author would deepen their faith by using
the analogy of priesthood to explain the Person and the
work of Christ.

He also knew that, if he could lift the faith of these friends
of his to the level of his own, they would find in the Lord
Jesus Christ such strength as would enable them to make the
hard choice. Hence his letter consists of an intellectual argu-
ment mingling with an emotional appeal, And the argument
takes this form: Think of Him as a priest and I can make you
understand. If it be asked why he threw his reasoning into that
form, no certain answer can be given. No doubt the letter, like
most letters, is the continuation of earlier conversations ; the
subject had been discussed before and this illustration had been
used. Philo had used it. in his theologising about the Word of
God. It may be that Philo himself had not been read by these
people. But, if not Philo, the masters of Philo had been theirs,
and the divine High-priest was a conception that might very
naturally have arisen from their Alexandrine education. But it
may be there is no need to search so curiously. Christ the
High-priest is an idea so frequent in the earliest Christian
literature that it can hardly have been derived from this, long
disputed, epistle. The germs of the idea are already to be found

xxviii INTRODUCTION

in two books of the New Testament which in other respects
have affinities with Hebrews, viz. 1 Peter and the Apocalypse,
but which, again, can hardly have drawn upon Hebrews. The
instinet, inference, or possibly tradition of the Church may well
be right, not in making the Levitical Law the main interest of
the epistle, but at least in recognising in that Law a natural
analogy for the instruction of Christians who had been brought
up under it. That the analogy is not evidently used in any
other book of the New Testament, and that the two books, just
mentioned, which do approach such use are specially connected
with Jewish Christianity (cf. 1 Pet. i. 1), shows that it is not
quite reasonable to say that all Christians, Jewish and Gentile
alike, knew the Old Testament well, and might as easily have
welcomed the same analogy.

§ 5. He does this on the lines of atonement, mediation, approach |
_ to God. The Jewish ritual affords a starting point for the
discovery of a truer type.

But this need not be laboured. Let us pass on to consider
how the analogy of priesthood is applied. The whole work of
priesthood may be summed up in four phrases from the epistle,
iAdoxerOa, €& avOpomav, ta mpds Tov Gedv, 6dds. The priest
“makes atonement” for sins. He does this because he is a
mediator, a man “taken from among men,” yet standing “on
the Godward side” of men. Thus he opens a ‘‘way” by which
men cleansed from sin may enter the presence of God. See
ii. 17 f., v. lf, x. 19—22. This is all part of a series of pictorial
terms derived from the Levitical ritual, which forms the starting
point for the analogy. But, before we go further, it is necessary
to state plainly that nothing more than this is derived from the
Levitical ritual. After all the Levitical priest actually effected
none of these things. Nor could they ever be effected by the
institutional means he used however far developed. If the work
of Christ is conceived as a development or fulfilling of some-
thing thus begun, the argument of the epistle becomes un-
satisfactory. It could never convince any one who had not
already accepted the reality of the salvation brought by Him;
and even to such believers it would only be an illustration,

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE 1\xxix

helping them to formulate their belief in a special manner.
But the epistle reiterates the author’s repudiation of that
purpose. He says these ancient rites were merely ‘‘shadow,”
and the contrast drawn between the “shadow” and “the actual
type or symbol,” airjy rv ecikdva, x. 1, shews that in choosing
the term “shadow” he did not mean to lay stress on its close
connexion with the “reality” that cast its shadow before
itself, but on the quite unsubstantial fleeting nature of these
mechanical (memompévev, xii. 27), temporary phases of ritual.
The Levitical Law, like the Philonic philosophy, gave the
author a vocabulary, and started him with an analogy. But
he soon passes from analogy to a much more serious kind of
reasoning. When he uses an image from the old ritual he
never elaborates it fully, nor cares to get the correspondence
exact. Forgetting this, we soon meet with difficulties; first
with slight ones, as when the author is thought to be detected
in some antiquarian inaccuracy ; then with great ones, when
we force our Lord’s spiritual state into a material mould, and
dispute as to when His priesthood began, or the precise relation
of His intercession to His sacrifice, or enquire what the altar
(xiii. 10) or the sanctuary stands for.

§ 6. But first he shews our Lord to be the heir of
Christship and Sonship:

The epistle opens with a poet’s vision of all which is after-
wards to be discovered to the readers. The author stands as it
were by the throne of God, and sees the light streaming from
His invisible glory ; impressing itself as with a seal on certain
eminences in Israel’s history ; then taking definite human form
in One who inherits the name of Christ and Son from those
Christ-kings ; then this divine Person makes purification of
sins, and returns with His achieved inheritance to the exalted
throne from which He proceeded, and which He now shares as
King and Priest. The readers will have little doubt from the
first who is meant. In ii. 3 a passing reference to “the Lord”
would remove any doubt they might have felt. The rest of
chapter ii. gives another view of the work of salvation, this time
from earth, as it was wrought by Jesus in His humiliation ;

Ixxx INTRODUCTION

and in ili. 1—6 the two lines are brought together, and Jesus is
declared to be the Christ who as Christ is Son of God, and as
the fulfiller of all the imperfect Christship of the past, is Son of
God in the supreme sense.

So far, more has been said about our Lord’s Christship than
His priesthood, and this idea is never dropped throughout the
epistle. But already the priesthood has been implied in xa6a-
ptopov tromodpevos, 1. 3, and expressly mentioned in ii. 17.
Herein we perceive the novelty and the conservatism of the
writer’s design. He would interpret the old tradition, of ‘‘ Jesus
is the Christ,” in new terms, “Jesus is our High-priest.” The
tradition was quite primitive. It was first expressed as the
Christian creed by S. Peter when he said, in the region of
Caesarea, “'Thou art the Christ.” It was re-affirmed, after the
shock of the crucifixion, by 8. Paul with the development which
that trial to the faith rendered necessary. Thus in Rom. i. 2 ff.
he wrote: “The gospel of God, which he promised afore by his
prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, who was
born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was
declared ”—or “ defined ”—“ to be the Son of God with power
according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the
dead.”

§ 7. yet inheriting through the humiliation of real
manhood.

This great confession or profession—éyodoyia—as our author
would call it, is fully adopted by him. But he retouches it,
deepening some lines, the witness of the Old Testament, and
(as S. Paul himself did in Colossians) the pre-existence of the
divine Son; and modifying one line, since he thinks of the
Lord’s “raising” rather as “ascension” than ‘ resurrection.”
But in particular he develops the “born of the seed of David
according to the flesh.” That is an assertion of the hereditary
honour of our Lord’s manhood. It is asserted in Hebrews also,
once in plain terms, vii. 14, and throughout the epistle wherever
the Christship is treated of. But for the most part our author
lays the stress on another aspect of our Lord’s manhood, that
which 8S. Paul spoke about to the Philippians, ii. 5—11, His
humiliation. We can see the reason for this. |

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE | \xxxi

The readers of the epistle, with their imperfect apprehension
of the Lord’s Godhead, were especially interested in His earthly
ministry, “the days of his flesh,” v.'7. If S. Paul’s epistles were
the first fruits of the Church’s literature, the synoptic Gospels
followed them, and we may infer that at about the time when
Hebrews was written the thoughts of the brethren were being
widely turned to the memories of Jesus of Nazareth. With us
too a like revival of interest in the gospel story has taken place,
and we know what one of the results has been; the limitations
of the Lord’s manhood have for a while almost daunted faith.
This is a recurring illustration of what S. Paul says the Jews
especially felt in his day, “the scandal of the cross,” 1 Cor. i.
23. And it is evident that the friends of this author felt it
painfully. |

And herein is one of the causes of his choosing the analogy
of priesthood. In his first mention of the priesthood he insists
on real manhood being an indispensable qualification : “ Where-
fore it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest
in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins
of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being
tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted,” ii. 17 f.
He goes on to meet the difficulty full and square. He insists
with all his power that our Lord is really “a man”—not merely
the representative of man. When speaking of His earthly
ministry, he reiterates the human name “Jesus.” In speaking
of His exalted state, he adds “Christ,” or in some other way
marks the difference. But he allows no infringement even thus
on the very manhood. Even on earth the Lord was Christ,
v. 5 ff, and in (or beyond) the heavens He is still ‘“ Jesus,”
iv. 14, xii. 23; ‘Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, yea,
and for ever!” is his cry, xiii. 8. And he insists on the
limitations of His manhood in uncompromising language.
“Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things
which he suffered ” ; ;\He was ‘‘made perfect” only at the last,
and only after He was made perfect did He “ become the suthor
of eternal salvation,” v. 8f. He was indeed “ without sin,” but
as His making perfect was quite parallel to the making perfect
of other “just men,” xii. 23, so His liability to sin was in all

’

Ixxxii INTRODUCTION

reality like theirs ; “For we have not a high priest that cannot
be touched with the feeling of our infirmities ; but one that hath
been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,”
iv, 15. -And in vii. 27 the natural meaning is that our Lord did
once for all and effectually just that which the Levitical priests
did often and ineffectually, i.e. offered sacrifice “first for his own
sins, and then for the sins of the people.” This would indeed
be what S. Paul also meant in 2 Cor. v. 21, “ Him who knew no
sin God made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become
the righteousness of God in him.” But the phrasing in Hebrews
is very bold ; if it is rather careless than studied, such. careless-
ness is none the less significant.

In no way will the author suffer the real manhood, and
therefore the real humiliation, of the Lord to be explained
away. From chapter ii. it might appear that the Arian
‘tendency had already shown itself. Some were inclined to look
upon our Lord as neither quite God nor quite man, but an
angelic Being. He rejects that by shewing that such Beings
are on an entirely different line. According to a quotation
he makes from Ps. civ. (Heb. i. 7) the angels are not persons in
the sense that God and man are persons. They are what we
should call “ elemental forces.” This was an idea which found
favour in later Judaism, and has been adopted by Origen and
by later theologians of undoubted orthodoxy. Something like
it appears in the Apocalypse, and it is evident from Heb. xii. 22
that it is not irreverent. The irreverence lies ina mean estimate
of nature. Seen from the throne of God the lightning and the
wind would be, as the Old Testament habitually describes them,
angels,

But the epistle merely glances at all that speculation. The
author is only concerned with the truth pertinent to his
purpose, that the problem of our Lord’s Person cannot be
solved, or shelved, by fancying Him a mingled creature, neither
God nor man. He is both; and only in frank recognition of
His manhood will His Godhead be apprehended. Accordingly
at ii. 5, after a final dismissal of the angelic theory, the argu-
ment proceeds to a vivid picture of the man Jesus fulfilling the
destiny of manhood, as it was described in the eighth Psalm.
The general sense of that psalm is that man for all his feebleness

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE \xxxiii

has been exalted by God to high dominion, and the author of
Hebrews says that though as yet this exaltation has not been
seen in the case of other men, we do see Jesus thus glorified.
But he chooses for the picture of this “crowning with honour
and glory” so unexpected a moment that many commentators
prefer to do violence to his Greek rather than admit what
nevertheless he plainly states, viz. that the supreme moment
of humiliation before the Lord died was the supreme moment
of His glory on earth. If as is possible he had the passage in
Philippians, ii. 5—11, in mind, he has deliberately substituted
“slory in humiliation” for S. Paul’s “glory after humiliation.”
In like manner the “joy set before him,” xii. 2, is parallel to
“the contest set before us” in the preceding verse, and means
the joy that the Lord experienced in His endurance of shameful
death. Glory in humiliation, Godhead discovered in manhood,
death on the cross the entry as High-priest into the very
presence of God with eternal salvation found for men; this
is the series of inward and outward, eternal and visible, per-
fection through limitation, that runs through the epistle: see
especially x. 19 f., where the flesh of the Lord Jesus is the way
He inaugurated into the sanctuary, and xiii. 12, where the
crucifixion which to outward appearance was like the off- .
scouring of a sacrifice—the execution as it seemed of a criminal
—was the priestly entrance of the Saviour of men into the
presence of the Father.

§ 8. In this reality of the Lords manhood the sacramental
principle appears which governs the whole epistle. The wide
meaning of Sacrament in early theology: a sign partaking
of the reality symbolised. So in Christ true Godhead is
involved in true manhood; a doctrine opportune for these
Alexandrine readers.

This is the sacramental principle. The word Sacrament has
been used in a very sacred but somewhat narrowed sense of late.
In the early Church it was applied to all visible symbols of the
eternal which were not mere signs, but partook of the reality
which they symbolised. If it be objected that this is a perverse
usage of the word in modern times, appeal may be made to the
fine essay on “Sacraments” in Luz Mundi by Francis Paget,

lxxxiv INTRODUCTION

late Bishop of Oxford, who shews how the two ritual sacraments
of Baptism and Holy Communion, ordained by our Lord, were
fitted for His purpose because they were not to be arbitrary
observances, but a particular application of that unity and
interfusion of the visible and the eternal with which God has
ennobled the whole of His creation. The author of this epistle
would agree with that. There can be little doubt that in his
day the two sacraments were closely bound up with the whole
church life. In vi. 4, x. 32 (deriadévres), and not improbably
in x. 22, he refers to Baptism, and it may be that the epistle
is coloured throughout by the phraseology and thought of the
eucharistic service. Yet he gives no direct teaching on these
rites, whereas the larger sacramental idea pervades his letter.
Thus he accepts and transfigures the scandal of the cross. Thus
he restates the mystery of Christ’s Person, shewing how the ,
limitations of His environment, and—a favourite phrase—His
“suffering” were the most fitting means for the interpenetration
of His Godhead into earthly life. And thus, as we shall see,
the doctrine of His High-priesthood becomes, in the really
close reasoning of the epistle, far more than an analogy; it
is an application of the sacramental principle of the unity of
all life.

But before we consider that three remarks must be made.

First, sacraments are not fancies which merely stimulate
thought, as when we say, “This clear sky makes. me think of
heaven.” They are moral realities, as when an officer’s courage
evokes a like courage in his men; for there the appeal is from
a visible act to the eternal divine quality of self-sacrifice which
has been implanted in manhood. And it is more than an
appeal ; it is the setting free of an invisible spiritual power—we
call it by an appropriate metaphor, “influence ”—which over-
leaps the boundaries of matter, and joins the very souls of men
in one; and moreover lifts them into a higher sphere of energy
where physical death is made of no account. So in hig doctrine
of Christ's Person and saving work, our author concentrates
attention on His perfect goodness—His earthly life was a
manifestation in this quality above all of eternal life; and on
His offering being of His own blood, His very self, consciously
and willingly offered, while in chapter x. (the heart of the

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE \xxxv

epistle) he all but lays aside the sacrificial figures and founds
the whole in “will.”

Secondly, this may be thought to prove too much. For if
all this be true, where is the difference between our Lord and
other men? The whole creation is sacramental; all men’s lives
may be effective symbols of the eternal; how then is He
unique? It may be answered that “unique” is not a happily
chosen term to describe our Lord’s position. Not only in this
epistle, but throughout the New Testament the Godhead of
Christ is represented as uniting Him with men and so carrying
men with Him into God. In the end, says 8. Paul, God shall
be all in all, 1 Cor. xv. 28. In 2 Pet. i. 4 the promise is that
men may become partakers of the divine nature. “ As he is so
are we also in this world,” says S. John, and, “ We know that,
if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him ; for we shall see
him even as he is,” 1 John iv. 17, iii. 2. And in Heb. i, 2 the
whole significance of the phrase would be spoilt if the article
were added to év vig: all men are sons of God, not Christ alone.

And yet that év vio, “one who is a Son,” does not put Him
on a level with other sons. In Him, and in Him alone, the
divine Sonship was always apparent. There is a Christian ideal
which we keep in view but never consistently attain. Because
His disciples perceived that He‘did always live at the level of
that ideal, they recognised in Him the light and source of all
life that is life indeed. Hence the primitive confession of His
Christhood, and the later definition of His Godhead. And yet
again that later definition was the discovery, or recovery, of
some still deeper truth which again and again has proved itself
a necessary truth for those who recognise the wonder and mystery
of life—of all mortal life running up into eternities. There are
these mysteries about and within us, and, as churchmen think,
nothing can give them sense and consistency except the centering
them in that supreme mystery of Christ’s Person which is ex-
pressed in the sublime language of the Creed, “ Light of light,
very God of very God...who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven ”—all this manifested to us in One who
lived as a man among men on earth. This does not separate
Him from us. It brings Him closer than ever, for though there is
something here which passes our understanding, it is nevertheless

Ixxxvi INTRODUCTION

the indispensable presupposition to all our understanding of
ourselves and our surroundings. And accordingly the author
of Hebrews begins his epistle by setting forth this truth more
expressly than any writer had done before. He sets it forth ;
then leaves it. The rest of the epistle treats of the Lord Jesus
in the days of His flesh, and of the exalted state which followed.
The mode of treatment makes it seem at times that Jesus wins
through suffering to Godhead. But that is the view as seen
from earth ; that is the sacramental figure. The actual truth of
this “‘ perfection” is more recondite, more universally of moment.
And the declaration of the Church’s tradition in the introductory
verses guards and gives reason to the whole complexity of the
freely handled idea.

And thirdly, this sacramental principle was one which the
readers could readily accept. For it is a principle which the
Alexandrine philosophy had learned from Plato. S. Paul, always
quick to take up words and thoughts which he could put to
effective use in his teaching, every now and then adopts the
sacramental phraseology, but it was not congenial to him.
Philologically considered, “sacramental” and “ mystical” are the
same word, and in our English Prayer Book “mystical” does
mean just “sacramental.” But “mystical” has of late taken
a& more particular signification which is almost antithetical to
that of “sacramental,” implying the inward union of the mind
with eternity, a union not mediated by outward things. And in
that sense S. Paul is mystical by nature, not sacramental. It is
a remarkable coincidence—but see John xiv. 26, xvi. 13—that
this Alexandrine thinker, with his vivid style of picture-language,
should be writing to Alexandrine Platonists, who needed in-
struction concerning the Person of Christ, at a time when the
interest in our Lord’s earthly life was being newly roused. The
coincidence produced this first sketch of the application of the
sacramental principle to the elucidation of the gospel story.
Later, the evangelist of the fourth Gospel would use the same
principle with childlike simplicity and still more profound
thoughtfulness in that narrative of the life of Jesus Christ which
displays, more splendidly yet quietly than any other writing,
Godhead interpenetrating manhood in His Person, and from
Him as from a source transfiguring the life of men everywhere.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE \xxxvii

§ 9. Christ the High-priest is mediator “on the Godward side,”
consummating the eternal priesthood which runs through
nature and history.

Now we come to the main thought. of the epistle, the High-
priesthood of Christ. The idea itself, and the language in which
it is elaborated, is derived from the high-priesthood of Aaron
as described in the books of the Law. The Book, not .the
contemporary usage at Jerusalem, is the source; the Tabernacle,
not the Temple, is the illustration. And the ritual of the Day
of Atonement is especially employed. That was a service in
which the high priest took the great part, not the other priests.
When the epistle was written the distinction in Greek between
dpxtepevs and iepevs was not carefully observed, and we must not
too hastily read subtle significances into the author’s application
of this title to our Lord ; His “ priesthood” in the wide sense is
the great point, and in Ps. cx., from which the phrase “priest
after the order of Melchizedek” is taken, the word is simply
iepevs. Nevertheless the author’s habit is to make the most of
what is peculiar and striking in words, and it is reasonable to
suppose that when he styled our Lord “ High Priest,” he did
mean to emphasize His eminence in a priesthood which all men
shared. It is a title which expresses, symbolically, what we
have just now been considering, viz. that our Lord, though He
lived on earth as a man among other men, was the first to attain
“perfection” of manhood, and so became the representative of
all men in the presence of God.

For that, according to the epistle, is the essence of priesthood.
It is ra mpos tov Oedv, ii. 17, v. 1.. In Ex. iv. 16 the Lord
promises Moses that Aaron shall be his spokesman ; od dé aire
éon Ta mpos Tov Gedy, “and thou shalt be to him on the Godward
side.” That is the excellent translation which has been proposed
for these words in Hebrews. “On the Godward side”: George
Herbert wrote “ Man is the world’s High priest,” and again

“To this life things of sense
Make their pretence:
In the other Angels have a right by birth:
Man ties them both alone, |

And makes them one,
With the one hand touching heaven, with the other earth.”

HEBREWS g

Ixxxvili INTRODUCTION

The whole of that poem, “ Man’s medley,” might be quoted
in illustration of some of the deepest thoughts of this epistle.
This verse has obvious affinities with chapter ii. The idea
recurs in other applications. Thus the Messianic quotations in
chapter i. point to the Christ-kings of Israel standing on the
Godward side of the nation, and the nation on the Godward side
of the world. The heirship of the Son to all that has been
created through Him, i. 2, and the phrase 80 év ra mdvra kati
d? od ra mdvra, li. 10, indicate that growth of nature up to God
which we term evolution, and in the quotation from Ps. cii., in
i. 10—12, there is a hint of the same Godward-drawing vitality
in changing and perishing things which persists throughout
their mutability. So again in xi. 3 the ideal is of the successive
ages of history being linked together by an influence, not
material, which ever works on the Godward side, and in spite of
much appearance to the contrary, still leads mankind upward
and onward in steady course. The heroes of faith, who are
celebrated one after the other in the rest of that chapter, stand
in just this Godward relation to their several generations. The
divine movement of history goes on, till at last (verses 39 f.) the
priestly, Godward-drawing responsibility is found to rest upon
the readers of the epistle, whose duty done or failed in will
affect the perfecting of all their predecessors. We can of course
see the same thing going on still, a father standing on the
Godward side of his family, one who sacrifices life for a cause
standing on the Godward side of his contemporaries, a parish
priest standing on the Godward side of his parish, and so indeed
each person who does his duty in that state to which it pleases
God to call him. We might term all this “natural priesthood.”
The writer of Hebrews would prefer “eternal priesthood,” for it
is in work like this that “the other world,” 7 oixoupévn 7 pér-
Aovea (ii. 5), breaks in; in this the sacramental quality of life
is perceptible.

THE THEOLOGY OF THH EPISTLE | \xxxix

§ 10. The author names the eternal and really typical priesthood
after Melchizedek, as the artificial shadowy priesthood had
been named after Aaron. |

He does however distinguish this priesthood by another term,
which no doubt seemed appropriate enough to his Alexandrine
friends, but which obscures his meaning tous. He calls it priest-
hood “after the order of Melchizedek.” We see from Philo how
the Jewish philosophers of Alexandria had used the mysterious
story of Melchizedek to illustrate their doctrine of the Word of
God, a doctrine which is often near akin to the idea sketched in
the last paragraph. We who have not been brought up in the
Alexandrine schools have to make an effort in taking their point
of view. And our author has not made that effort easier by his
too scholastic treatment of the subject in chapter vii. This is
the most Philonic in form of all his writing. And yet the dry,
half logical, half fanciful, argument is punctuated by a few great
phrases which outweigh much tediousness, and upon which if
we fix our attention, we shall not miss his real meaning. What
he says is in effect this. The Levitical priesthvod is but a ritual
institution. All such wear out and pass away. There is no seed
in them which grows to perfection. And to day we see this
institution proving ineffectual (dodevés cai dvaedés, vii. 18).
Is it to make way for another ordinance of like kind ?

No, a better hope (vii. 19) has arisen. In the life and death
and victory over death, in the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we
hope that the Godward-drawing influence which the Levitical
institution represented by ecclesiastical symbolism (xara vépov
évtoAns oapxivns), but which has always been a real working
power in the whole world, has reached its destined perfection.
This influence has been due to a divine life, always in the world,
indissoluble amid all changes and chances ; and in Jesus Christ,
who died for men and yet lives, we believe that we recognise the
source and the complete manifestation of that life (xara ddvapuy
Cwns dkaradvrov, vii. 16). He has fulfilled the typical priesthood,
and His priesthood, by which we really come to God (&’ jjs
eyyiCopev T@ Oe@, Vil. 19), shall never pass away as institutional
ordinances do (dmapdBarov €xet tiv iepwovrny, vil. 24). “ He is

g 2

xe INTRODUCTION

able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God
through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for
them,” vii. 25.

The institutional priesthood, which merely stimulated thought
and emotion (cf. x. 3), is named after a person in the sacred record
of Israel’s history. The high priest of this artificial order is
Aaron. The High Priest of the other, real and living order is
Jesus Christ. But cannot a name be found in the same sacred
story which may stand as a type of Him, representing all the
imperfect efforts of true priesthood which He inspired and has
now carried out to their inherent perfection (dpopotopévos ra
vid Tov Geod, vii. 3)? Will not “ Melchizedek ” serve this purpose ?
That personage in the dawn of history appears exercising a
priest-king’s function, outside the limits of the chosen people,
dominating our great ancestor Abraham, and described in
mysterious language which suggests eternity of life, vii. 2 f.
Here surely is the world-wide, unending priesthood we are
seeking. The choice of this name might seem unimportant, but
it gains importance when we find a psalmist taking up the name
and the idea long afterwards in a psalm which not only testifies
to the inextinguishable aspiration of God’s people towards the
consummation of this effectual priesthood, but also pictures so
remarkably the glory of our ascended Lord. “Thou art a priest
for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” he says; and “Sit thou
on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool,”
vii. 15, 21, viii. 1, cf. i: 13, v. 6, xii. 2.

S11. But another element in true priesthood is atonement, which
in Hebrews is oftener represented as cleansing.

In some such terms as these our author might translate his
Alexandrine reasoning were he confronted with his modern
readers. But he would have to confess that his phrase “after
the order of Melchizedek” does not cover all he has to say about
the priesthood that was consummated by Jesus Christ. There
is nothing about “propitiation,” “atonement,” in the story of
Melchizedek. How did our High Priest win that forgiveness of
sins which was needed by sinful men if they were really to enter
the holy presence of God? This question is answered in the

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE | xci

three following chapters, viii.—x. In these we have the ex-
position of that other key-word, iAdcxeo@a, ii. 17.

That verb is found elsewhere in the New Testament only
once, and there in the sincere, but as yet imperfect prayer of
a beginner in the faith, Luke xviii. 13. The reason for this
infrequency is not hard to guess. In pagan religion, and in
popular misunderstandings of Judaism and Christianity before
and since, men have conceived of “ propitiation” as the changing
of God’s mind from hostility to favour. No such idea is
admitted in the New Testament. Man is reconciled to God,
Rom. v. 10, 2 Cor. v. 18ff.; only in a sense which requires
explanation can we say in the language of the second “ Article
of Religion” that Christ died “to reconcile His Father to us”!;
even of the Old Testament the consistent teaching is, “I have
loved thee with an everlasting love,” Jer. xxxi. 3, “I will heal
their backsliding, I will love them freely,” Hos. xiv. 4. The
“wrath” of God, in either Testament, is not contrary to His
love, but His love itself burning its way against opposition.
The same feeling about AdoxeoOa appears in 8. Paul in the one
place where he uses the kindred term ftaornpiov, Rom. iii. 25.
He guards the true idea by adding dia rys wiorews. Another
kindred word is itacpos, twice used by S. John, 1 John ii. 2,
iv. 10, and not elsewhere in the New Testament. And this is
noticeable. For it is one of the connecting links between
Hebrews and the Johannine writings, which stand in the same
line as Ezekiel and the priestly writings of the Old Testament.
In all these books healing is provided for those who feel the
stain rather than the chain of sin. So Ezekiel, for all his
insistence upon sacrifices, shows what he recognised as the
permanent underlying significance of sacrifices, in such a passage
as xxxvi. 25f.: “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and
ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your
idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and
a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the
stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of
flesh.” Compare with that Heb. ix. 13f., “For if the blood of

1 See note on ‘*The idea of Reconciliation or Atonement” in
Sanday and Headlam’s Romans, pp. 129 f.

xcli INTRODUCTION

goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that
have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh : how
much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal
Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” And
here we meet with that other word, caapitew, which the author
prefers to iAdoxerOa. His habit is to translate “ propitiation ”
in terms of “cleansing.”

$12. This cleansing is through the Blood, which is life given by
God to re-create life. Leviticus: the suffering Servant of the
Lord. . :

Both terms however are priestly. And this is especially
evident when we observe how the cleansing is effected. It is
by “blood.” Here is a form of speech which would seem very
strange to us if we were not so accustomed to read of the Blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament that we have
become somewhat dulled in our apprehension of the startling
figure—vwOpoi yeyovapev tais axoaits (Heb. v. 11). Indeed we
hardly recognise anything of the nature of figure here. Our
Lord’s death involved bloodshed ; that violent bloodshedding
was the price of our salvation. But that idea, though glanced
at elsewhere in the New Testament, never enters this epistle.
The bloodshedding in Hebrews, aiwarex yvoia, ix, 22, is the blood-
sprinkling of a sacrifice, and to understand—what to a Christian
educated in Judaism would have been as familiar as the doctrine
of sacraments is to those brought up in the church Catechism—
we must turn to Lev. xvii. 10f.:

“ And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of
the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner
of blood; I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood,
and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the
flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar
to make atonement for your lives: for it is the blood that maketh
atonement by reason of the life.”

In the. Hebrew, as R.V. margin shews, one and the same
word stands throughout for “soul” or “life.” The sense is
obscured by varying the translation. The main point is that

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE xciii —

life atones for life. Indeed we might say “life cleanses life,”
For the Hebrew ritual term, although in other connexions it
means “cover,” is very likely akin in this connexion to a similar
word in Babylonian ritual which does mean “cleanse!” And
in any case the essential idea is deeper than any ritual metaphor.
It is that in sacrifice a life offered to God renews man’s spoiled
and broken life, re-unites it with the life of God, carries it to its
destined perfection in God.

This is true even of the Levitical theology. For the theology
of this passage is a conscious, an inspired transformation of an
older, crude religion, The older base is a mere taboo against °
eating blood. That taboo is taken into the Mosaic law to stay
there for a while till it passes away with the rest of the “shadow.”
But it is also developed into a truth about God which is to last
as long as time. “Atonement” is God’s grace; cf. ii. 9: He
himself, so far from having to “be propitiated,” provides means
for reconciling His alienated children to himself. And He finds
these means in the mystery of life, and through life brings new
life to the dead. Life is appointed by Him to re-create life.
Contrast this “life-blood...given upon the altar” for renewal
of life with what Aeschylus says of life-blood spilt upon the
ground: dvdpds & émedav aiy’ dvaordon Kovis Gra€ Oavovros
ovtis €or avdoraois, Hum. 647f.; cf. 1 Sam. xiv. 33 f., 2 Sam.
xiv. 14.

How far, even in the Levitical conception, is this mere figure ?
So far as it was expressed by the use of the blood of victims it
was of course mere figure. The life of bulls and goats could
never be anything but external to the offerer. Unless atonement
or salvation could be wrought for men entirely by an act outside
themselves, these sacrifices were merely fictions. And such they
were; the Levitical ritual was a shadow. But whenever the
principle was transferred from the ritual sacrifices to deeds in
which men willingly offered themselves to God’s will—to be used
by Him in life or death just as He called them to be used—then
it did become possible for one man’s life to re-create the life
of others. And even in Old Testament history we find this
happening. Very imperfectly some of the kings of Judah did

1 See Encyclopaedia Biblica, art, ‘‘ Ritual,” § 8.

aniv . —{NTRODUCTION

this. More perfectly the great prophets did it, especially
Jeremiah. Above all that person, celebrated in Is. liii. as the
Servant of the Lord, by whose suffering and death the peoples
were converted and saved, did this. He may have been a
historical personage, or he may have been a lyric type, the
expression of an inspired prophetic poet’s imagination. At any
rate his (w1) dxaradvuros was a supreme illustration of the Levitical
theology “life re-creating life,” and from apostolic times onward
he stands as the forerunner of our Lord, the real “type” which
could be really fulfilled in Him. We in the twentieth century
can hardly avoid the presumptuous fancy that the epistle to the
Hebrews would be easier for us to understand if the author had
called our Lord’s High-priesthood “ priesthood after the order of
the suffering Servant ” instead of “after the order of Melchizedek.”

§ 13. The Blood of Christ is His life enriched by death,
through which He appeared before God on our behalf.

For as we read on and enter upon the profounder chapters
viii.—x., it becomes clear that our Lord’s “ priesthood” reaches
its essence in His “sacrifice,” and His sacrifice is through His
death. It is not His death, simply. The sacrifice is what He
offered, and that was His life. But He could only offer it by
dying. Yet again it was not through death, simply. The series
of words concerning “suffering” are as frequent as those which
concern death. The phrase in the Litany, “‘ By thy cross and
passion,” is in strict accord with the theology of Hebrews. A
sacrifice, an offering, is, from the very nature of such words,
made at one definite time, once for all. But this is a matter that
overpasses the lexicographical precision of single words. This
most real offering was a moral action, a personal action with
influence from persons to persons, Christ, God, men. And
therefore it was bound up with the development of character—
“Christ learned obedience by the things which he suffered ; and
having been made perfect, he became etc.,” v. 8. There was a
moment when the sacrifice was offered, and there was a moment
when Christ was hailed as High Priest, v.10. But to press this
very far is to make our interpretation servile to the figurative
letter. The “becoming,” first of Christ then of “those that

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE XCV

obey ” Him, is as important in the argument of the epistle as is
that other point—which nevertheless is exceedingly important—
that in Christ’s action, as in man’s, and especially as it was
in that of the first readers, there came one supreme moment,
up to which all the past led, and upon which all the future
turned.

And that was the moment of His death. If, instructed by
the Levitical theology, we were to substitute “life” for “ blood”
in all those passages of the epistle where the blood of Christ is
named, much vivid truth would-be recovered for ears blunted by
convention. But something too would be lost. In Levitical
ritual the death of the victim was not the sacrifice, but the
indispensable preliminary ; for except by the victim’s death, its
blood (which was its life) could not be set free for sacrificial
“pouring” or “sprinkling.” And, taught here by the ritual as
before by the Levitical theology, we amend our substitution, and
by the “blood of Christ” understand His “life set free and
enriched by death.” We should probably come near the practical
sense of the epistle if we said this life enriched by death was
what Christ offered. But the epistle does not quite say that.
Following the analogy of the Levitical ritual, the author speaks
of His entering the true sanctuary ‘‘through his own blood,”
dia rov idiov aivaros, ix. 12, and sanctifying the people “through
his own blood,” xiii. 12, and of God bringing Him from the dead
‘‘in the blood of the eternal covenant,” év aipwars duabnkns aiwviov,
xiii. 20, and of our entering the true sanctuary ‘‘in the blood of
Jesus,” €v T@ aipare Incod, x. 19. As Aaron entered the sanctuary
év aivatt dddorpio, the sacrificial blood being but the instrument
by which, or the sphere in which, the offering—itself a mystery
not defined—was made, so also Christ. But His offering is
defined. The simplest word possible is employed. He offered
éavrov, “ himself,” ix. 14. Comparison with x. 34, xii. 3, shews
how high a value the author set on this colourless word. It is
as though he checked his picturesque style when he tried to
touch the very heart of things. So in the same clause, ix. 14,
he abandons even the sacred imagery of the blood, and substitutes
the sublime phrase 6:a rvevparos aiwviov, which might be feebly
paraphrased “through the spiritual virtue of the divine holiness
of life.” And in ix, 24 Christ enters the true sanctuary simply

xovi INTRODUCTION

to “appear before the presence of God on our behalf”: even the
offering of “himself” is left unmentioned: in profoundest, naked,
truth there is no gift of any kind which God requires. _ :

§14. The significance of death for Christ and for all
men: it is the perfecting of life.

But all this is but an example of the translation of symbolic
into “real” language which, from the very constitution of all
language, it is impossible to carry out successfully ; yet which
must be attempted by those who would grapple closely with the
mind of this most symbolising writer, and which from time to
time he essays himself. Omitting further details of this kind,
let us pass on to consider why he should assign so effective a
value to the suffering of death, Alexander Ewing, Bishop of
Argyll and the Isles, wrote to Erskine of Linlathen, “The
outward sufferings of Christ were, so to speak, the accidents of
His mission....But I do not know that the dying of Christ affects
me more than the fact does, that ‘He’ was acquainted with grief ;
for in this fact, Christ being what He is, we have expressed to us
the Divine sympathy with our sorrows in a way which leaves
nothing to be wished for!” There is much harmony with the
epistle in this, but not complete harmony. The author would
hardly agree that the sufferings were but accidents of Christ’s
mission ; he would say that we have to deal with sin as well as
with sorrow ; and he would insist that Christ’s actual death was
all important. And in that insistence he would be in agreement
with S. Paul and S. Peter and with our Lord himself; for though
it is by no means plain that our Lord started upon His ministry
with a plan of salvation which included sufferings and death—
in that sense these might be described as “accidents of His
mission”—it is plain that when S. Peter confessed Him to be
the Christ, He did receive or had received, by what we may
perhaps call the inspiration of His incarnation, assurance of the
Father’s will that by His death He should bring the promised
kingdom of Heaven. Is there. here some mystery, hidden in
that complete and universal nature of things which none but

1 Memoir, p. 371. Isbister, 1887.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE xcvii

God can gather into view? It may be that such confession of
our limits is the necessary prelude to all discussion of this
matter. “We drop our plummet into the depth, but the line
attached to it is too short, and it does not touch the bottom.
The awful processes of the Divine Mind we cannot fathom1.”
Yet we can go some way towards gaining light from the nature
of things even as we behold them. In what follows here
Dr DuBose’s chapter on “ Human Destiny through Death” in
his High Priesthood and Sacrifice has given much help.

Death may be considered as an evil, but also as a good.
S. Paul generally speaks of physical death as an evil of the same
kind as disease seems to be considered in the Gospels. In
1 Cor. xv. 24—27 he says death is “the last enemy that shall be
abolished.” But in Heb. ii. 14 f., a passage which looks as though
it were in a manner based upon the passage in Corinthians, it is
not death but “the fear of death,” and the “bondage” due to
that fear, which is represented as the evil. If it be objected
that the devil is here said to be the lord of death, answer may be
made in a fine sentence from Dr DuBose, which lovers of the Old
Testament will be quick to understand; “The devil himself is
the supreme evil only as he overcomes us ; overcome by us, he
is the supreme means of grace.” What the author of Hebrews
here lays stress upon is our Lord’s use of death as the means of
His victory. And that fits well with the heroic view in ii. 9 of
Jesus crowned with glory and honour for the suffering of death.
The general idea of death in this epistle is not as an evil disease
of mortal.men, but as the great means of fulfilling their destiny.

And that is what our Lord thought. “Whosoever would
save his life shall lose it ; and whosoever shall lose his life for
my sake and the gospel’s shall save it,” Mark viii. 35 and parallels.
No doubt He meant to include in this losing of life that “death
to sin,” or to the old self, of which S. Paul so often speaks. But
when we remember what He said about the travail pangs of the
Kingdom, Mat. xxiv. 8, Mar. xiii. 8, it is certain that He was also
thinking of the death of the body. And indeed it is hardly
possible that there can be any thorough dying to the old self

1 Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 94, Note on ‘‘ The Death of
Christ considered as a Sacrifice.”

XCVili_ INTRODUCTION

unless it includes willingness to face physical death if God so call
aman. That was indeed 8. Paul’s mind too, and for himself
he did not always think of death as an evil, whatever he may
have said in some turns of his theological arguments; see
Phil. i. 21—26, and cf. Acts xx. 24,

The paradox, if it be a paradox, is indeed dissolved in the
light of ordinary life. In quiet times death may appear as the
unfortunate cutting short of pleasure or usefulness, the disease
of mortal nature, the penalty of man’s sinful condition. But
at other times death for a man’s country, for a cause, for “ Christ’s
sake and the. gospel” can well be looked upon as divinely destined
completion, reAciwois, of a man’s life, soul, self, his mepiroinats
Wvyxjs. It was in a time of severe trial that it was said of the
righteous man: “ Being made perfect in a little while he fulfilled
long years” Wisdom iv. 13. “Trial,” “temptation,” re:pacpds,
generally bears this intense signification in the New Testament.
Probably it does in the Lord’s Prayer, and “ Lead us not into
temptation” ought to be interpreted by the standard of the
cross “where,”—so sang Dr Watts in the same spirit as the
Book of Wisdom—“ where the young Prince of Glory died.” If
we are not quite wrong in the setting we have decided upon for
Hebrews, ze:paopuds bears the intense meaning there, and readers
who might soon be “resisting unto blood” themselves would be
the more apt to appreciate the pregnant issues of a heroic death.

Now transpose the key. Still remembering how great and
hopeful a crown of life is a heroic death, think not of heroism
but of the perfecting of all the “goodness” of our Lord Jesus
in His death. ‘Then these words of Dr DuBose will seem
grounded in reverent reason: ‘The death of Jesus Christ was
no mere incident or accident of His human career. It was the
essential thing in it, as what it means for us all is the essential
thing in human life and destiny,” for “the mystery of man is
the mystery of death, and the mystery of death is the mystery
of man; each is interpretative and explanatory of the other.”

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE xcix

§ 15. Third element in Christ's priesthood, approach to God.
By the way He went and is men too must go: He re-enacts
achievement in them.

“What it means for us all” is the forgiveness of sin, that
is the cleansing and cleansing away of sin, and in consequence
our unimpeded access to the presence of God. “ Having there-
fore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the
blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new
and living way through the veil, that is to say, the way of his
flesh ; and having a great priest over the house of God; let us
draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our body washed
with pure water,” x. 19—22. Here is our fourth key-word, 6dds.
And, according to the translation here adopted and justified
in the note on the passage, this way is the way of our Lord’s
flesh, i.e. we men must in our own lives re-enact, or have re-
enacted in us, that “perfecting” which our Lord went through
in His earthly life. |

Now it may be that again in this connexion we ought to bear
in mind the limits of our faculty for reasoning things out. It
may be that there are phrases in the epistle which hint at
depths beyond the reach of our plummet. And of course all
the thoughts of the epistle are, as Origen recognised, ‘‘ wonder-
ful,” outrunning our thought. Still it is evident that on the
whole the author does mean us to believe that our sin is
forgiven and the entrance is opened for us by an act of God in
Christ which He enables us to make our own. The salvation is
not worked upon us from outside as by a ritual ordinance. It is
worked by inward moral connexion, as by a person influencing
persons. The divine “way” is not a higher thing than influence.
If it were it would be indeed beyond our understanding, but
it would be also, as far as we can in any manner conceive,
incapable of producing any effect upon us worthy of a personal,
or, as the epistle puts it, of the living God. Christ enables men
to be “perfected” when they pass along the way He made His
own in His flesh. Only the perfection, the Godhead which,
from the point of view taken in the epistle after the opening

e INTRODUCTION

verses have removed the possibility of misconstruction, He
attained, has raised His “influence” to such a pitch that this
way may be represented not as “ His own” but as “ Himself”:
“for we are become partakers of the Christ, if we hold fast the
beginning of our confidence firm unto the end,” iii. 14. And
with regard to that preliminary of perfection, the forgiveness of
sin, a like process may be recognised. Sin is forgiven in being
cleansed away. ‘Cleansed away” is part of the ritual imagery,
and the author applies that imagery very boldly in vii. 27 ; see
p. lxxxii above. Changing the metaphor—all language is but
more or less metaphorical—and ignoring the details of ritual cor-
respondence, we may suppose him to mean, not merely that our
Lord bore our sins, but that He, as much as we, had to “over-
come” sin, being as He was “tempted in all points like as we
are.” The result of that overcoming and its effect for His
“brethren” has been set forth so well by Dr DuBose that it
would only be darkening counsel to seek for other words:

*“T do not know how better to express the truth of the
matter than to say, in what seems to me to be the explicit
teaching of our Epistle, and of the New Testament generally,
that our Lord’s whole relation to sin in our behalf was identical
with our own up to the point of His unique and exceptional
personal action with reference to it. Left to our nature and
ourselves it overcomes and slays all us; through God in Him He
overcame and slew it. He did it not by His own will and power
as man, but as man through an absolute dependence upon God.
And He made both the omnipotent grace of God upon which
He depended, and His own absolute dependence upon it, His
perfect faith, available for us in our salvation. He re-enacts
in us the victory over sin and death which was first enacted in
Himself.”

That is what the epistle would seem to mean by the phrase
in ix. 12, aiwviay Aitpwcww etpapevos, “Christ through his own
blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption.”

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE Cl

§ 16. This interaction of men with God is illustrated by the
doctrine of the Covenant which the author developes from
Jeremiah. His affinity with Jeremiah in respect of forgive-
ness, national crisis, freedom from religious bondage.

That this interaction of man with God through Christ in
the work of salvation is according to the mind of the epistle
appears in its treatment of the Covenant in chapter viii., and
of the Will in chapter x. The Covenant forms the transition
from “priesthood” to the “priestly sacrifice” (ix.), and the
passage about God’s Will sums up the whole of the previous
argument, and leads on to the appeal (x. 19 ff.) with which the
final, practical section of the epistle begins.

The word by which the LXX translates the Hebrew Berith,
d.abynxn, means in Greek generally, though not always, a testa-
mentary disposition rather than a covenant ; and it is possible
that this meaning has to some extent bhanied the author’s
phraseology in ix. 15—17. It is not however necessary to
resort to that explanation of the passage, since the sacrifices
with which God’s covenants with His people were inaugurated,
from Sinai to the Last Supper, sufficiently account for all that
is there said. Some are of opinion that the choice of d:aOnxn
instead of ovv@nxn in the LXX was meant to vindicate the
peculiar character of the divine covenant, as originating from
God and not as a merely mutual agreement between equals.
That character of course it has, in accordance with the prin-
ciple which underlies not this epistle only, but the whole
New Testament and Old Testament also; the principle so
forcibly enunciated by S. Paul in Rom. viii. 12, “So then,
brethren, we are debtors,” but quite as plainly in Ex. xx. 2f,
“Tam the Lorp thy God, which brought thee out of the land
of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none
other gods before me.” Nevertheless though not “merely”
mutual, the divine covenant is a covenant, and mutual relations
are its essence. In the quotation made by our author from
Jer. xxxil. 31—34 this mutuality is emphasised by his use of
the Greek instead of the Hebrew Bible. Where the Hebrew
said “ Which my covenant they brake, although I was an

cli INTRODUCTION

husband to them, saith the Lorp,” his quotation from the
LXX has “For they continued not in my covenant, and I re-
garded them not.” No one who interprets the details of Holy
Scripture by the whole will suppose this to mean that God
changed from love to indifference, but it does illustrate the
principle we have been examining, viz. that salvation is an act
of God on man as well as for him, and that the very nature of
God and man makes it impossible for God’s forgiveness, though
God unceasingly forgives, to operate except when men answer
personally to His personal influence.

And it is clear that our author meant to bring the “Cove-
nant” to bear on his doctrine of forgiveness especially. That
was one reason why he chose to quote from Jeremiah rather
than from any other part of the Old Testament. For Jeremiah’s
oracle ends emphatically with forgiveness (Heb. viii. 12), and it
is just those words in the quotation which are repeated in x. 17,
at the end of the paragraph on “the Will.” But there were
other reasons also for the choice. One was, we may suppose,
that the occasion of Jeremiah’s utterance was so like the
occasion of this letter. Jeremiah spoke when Jerusalem was
about to fall before Nebuchadnezzar ; this letter was probably
written when the war with Rome was breaking out which was
to end in the calamity of a.p. 70. Then again Jeremiah spoke
of a “new” covenant, and it was the renewal of the ancient
covenant which our Lord inaugurated in His Blood at the Last
Supper ; see especially Luke xxii. 20. One chief reason against
laying stress on the coincidences of Heb. ix. 15—17 with the
language of testamentary law is that the governing thought
which underlies the whole is not Roman law, but Christ’s
fulfilling of Israel’s covenant hope on the night in which He
was betrayed and the day on which He died.

But above all, because it is the idea which pervades and
vivifies all the rest, Jeremiah’s words are chosen as expressing
that ascent from shadow to reality. which is the doctrinal theme
of this epistle, as it was the special revelation committed to
Jeremiah. Both authors wrote at a crisis when the institu-
tional form of religion was being broken up. To those whom
they addressed this might well seem the end of religion itself.
In the narrower sense of the word religion—scrupulous reverence

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE | ciii

=-it was almost an end. But with the loss of outward bonds
to God, Jeremiah saw the vision of a real union of the heart
between Israel and God. And to some extent his vision was
realised ; as in the Psalter of the post-exilic Jewish Church.
Yet on another side the increasing domination of the Law made
the later Jewish Church more institutionally scrupulous than
before. And when Hebrews was written not only did the war
with Rome threaten an abolition of these institutional bonds,
but the larger spirit of Judaism itself was fretting to be free
from them. The author, being a real churchman, would assure
his friends, who as yet are so imperfect churchmen, that in
Jesus Christ the whole difficulty is more than overcome. Quite
freed from all the hamper of artificial religion, which is worn
out and passing away, they may enjoy real forgiveness and enter
really into the presence of God. The New Covenant of the
heart is now being realised. Only it is a covenant. There
must be an answer to the movement of God. And for these
friends of his the answer must be given in the courageous
acceptance of a dangerous duty, a painful dissociation from
venerable traditions and ancestral friendships.

That practical appeal continually breaks in. It lends an
ominous undertone to many phrases which have primarily a
theological purpose. Thus ix. 22, “And apart from shedding
of blood there is no remission,” must be interpreted not only
in the light of the doctrine of sacrifice generally, or of Christ’s
sacrifice eminently, but also of that sacrifice which was then
being demanded from the readers, and is darkly foreshadowed
in xii. 4, “Ye have not yet resisted unto blood.” These men
could not refuse to join the revolutionary standard without
incurring the murderous resentment of their compatriots, All
the more honourable was their willingness to listen to so
academically reasoned a persuasion as their master sends them.
If in his time of trial Jeremiah lifted some Judaeans from
religion to heart-religion, this letter lifts its readers from religion
to theology. ‘“‘Theology,’” wrote Forbes Robinson, “is the
thing and ‘Religion’ is not, I think, nearly such a fine word.
Theology is the Learning, Knowing, Studying God!.” Hebrews,

1 Letters to his Friends, by Forbes Robinson, p. 67.
HEBREWS h

Civ INTRODUCTION

a letter to men who may soon be martyrs, testifies more than
any other book of the New Testament to the moral force of
good theology.

§17. This thought of interaction is carried further
wn the doctrine of the Will:

The mutual, personal significance of the Covenant is de-
veloped in x. 1—18 into the still intenser theology of the Will.
. A short passage concerning the old sacrifices introduces this.
The obvious purpose is to contrast the fictional value of a
brute’s blood with the real value of a person’s willing act. But
what has just been said about “ undertones” applies here too.
After all there was something not altogether unreal in these
fictional sacrifices. They “called to mind”; they moved the
heart. By the mere “doing” of these sacrifices nothing would
ever be produced like in kind to the sacrifice of Christ. Yet the
offerers wanted to become like Christ ; good priests led priestly
lives and helped Israelites to become like Christ; they, as well
as the writer of this epistle, could deduce Christlike teaching
from their sacrificial system. Another quotation from Mr
Forbes Robinson well expresses this quasi-typical relationship
‘of the Jewish sacrificial law. “It dimly hints (as sacrificial law
in other nations does) at the fact that the ground of the universe
is self-sacrifice—that the ground of all human, whether —
or national, life is a filial sacrifice.”

The Psalms however touch the reality which the Law “dimly
hints.” And from a psalm the author takes words which he
could place quite appropriately into the mouth of our Lord as
He entered upon His ministry, a ministry which overpassed the
artificial bounds of Judaism and was to transform the whole
world (x. 5). “I come,” He said, “to do thy will, O God.” The
ritual imagery is for a moment dropped. The argument winds
inward to the soul of truth. Christ did God’s will. There was
His sacrifice. That sacrifice becomes real for us when we make
it our own by doing God’s will as He did. Yet the two efforts,
His and ours, even before they coincide, are not separate. For
here is the secret power of influence again. Once He had
perfectly done God’s will, it became more possible for us to

THK THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE cv

attempt the same, at last possible for us to succeed. That
secret power is deep in the constitution of the ordered universe,
the “cosmos.” For in the cosmos there is but one real will,
namely God’s. Self will, or feeble will, in men is but their
refusal of absolutely free will. For absolute freedom is security
in God from all the obligations of shifting slaveries (cf. ii. 15).
If, leaving what we fancy to be our private wills, we enter God’s
will, we are borne irresistibly on therein, “consecrated” to
perfect activity ; and this entry into God’s will has been opened
for us by the sacrifice of Christ. He having learned obedience
by suffering, at last, at the moment of His final obedience, lost
and found His will perfectly in God’s. That uniquely perfect
consecration of a man’s will to: God, one perfected Son’s: to
the Father of all, has had supreme influence; it has, so to
say, righted the tottering destiny of man. From that moment
the ideal of perfect consecration has been brought again
within the range of men’s practical aim. Yet, since that aim
is practical, they must submit to the discipline of sale
wor king it out.

$18. which in this epistle is concentrated upon the one act of
wil, first wrought by Christ in dying, now to be mathe
_ their own in the particular duty of the readers.

-Thus perhaps we may paraphrase the carefully distinguished
tenses, 7yacpévor eopev (with the supplement d:a tis mpoodopas
.. epama€, Cf. vil. 27, ix. 12, 26, 28), rereAcim@xev. rovs dytaCopévous;
With the idea, here suggested, of that last, present. participle
compare mov in the final blessing, xiii. 20f. That may be
taken to imply that, whereas the writer prays for his ‘friends
that they may do their one hard duty and so enter the will of
God, he himself has already made that entry, and would have God
carry on his gradual sanctification. A like thought of gradual
sanctification may be involved in the two participles of ii. 11,
0.te ayidfov kal of dyiafopevor, and again in the present tense
of eivepyopueda eis THY Karamavow of iv. 3 as contrasted with the
immediately following: aorist of wiorevoavres, “we who made
the initial entry. into God’s will when. we embraced the faith
of the Church are continually pressing deeper into the peace of

h2

cvi INTRODUCTION

that will.” For the two chapters on the Rest of God contain
a preliminary sketch of the doctrine of God’s will ;. cf. ii., iii.
with x., and (as illustrative parallel) Dante’s “E la sua volontate
é nostra pace” with 8. Augustine’s “ Quia fecisti nos ad te, et
inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te.”

Yet it must remain doubtful whether this thought of gradual
sanctification is in harmony with the mind of this epistle;
whether these present tenses are not more properly interpreted,
in this epistle, of the one great conversion of will, repeated in
all those who from time to time are brought into the allegiance
of Christ. For, true though the other thought is generally, in
this epistle the stress is almost entirely on the one decisive act.
The one moment of Christ’s offering His sacrifice, the one sin
which may prove irreparable, the one brave act of duty which
the readers are called to perform: these are the eminent ideas,
and the last of them explains why. This epistle was written
with one special purpose, to induce certain waverers to become
by one decisive act whole-hearted followers of Christ, and this
purpose moulds the whole shape of its theology.

Thus S. Paul’s doctrine of the faithful being “in Christ” is
known to our author, but is not much dwelt upon in the epistle.
It would naturally be known to him, for 8. Paul, who made it
so vital and profound, did not discover it, but with the whole
of the primitive Church inherited it from Judaism. “The
Christ of the Lorp” had been to early Israel the king who
represented the nation. Sometimes it was used as a title for
the nation itself. So this author uses it, of course with a
widening of the original application, in his quotation from
Ps. lxxxix. 50 f. in xi. 26. In the later Jewish Church “The
Christ” was recognised as a person, the King of the expected
kingdom of Heaven, but the idea of inclusive representation
was preserved. There was no Christ apart from his people,
and, as in Dan. vii, he could be considered as almost em-
bodying in himself “the saints of the Most High” who were
to “possess the kingdom for ever.” This conception of the
Christ including all the faithful, “the Christ that is to be,”
was grandly developed by S. Paul in the Epistle to the
Ephesians}. In Hebrews it appears more nearly in its Jewish

1 See the Commentary and the Exposition by the Dean of Wells.

THE THEOLOGY OF VHE EPISTLE | wyii

simplicity, as in iii. 14, “For we are become partakers of the
Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto
the end.” Here we have the “in Christ” doctrine, but it is
coupled with an “if,” and that “if” is just what prevents the
writer from developing it further. He had to concentrate all
his might on the preliminary task of urging his friends to make
the doctrine their own by loyalty to Jesus Christ,—a particular
act of loyalty to the definitely envisaged person of the Lord.
S. Paul, even in our author’s place, might have preferred to
say, “Believe that you are in Christ and you will be able to
do this hard duty.” Our author found it better to say, “ Follow
Christ loyally, do this duty, and you will know what it is to
share with Him the peace of God.”

His way may seem a lower way than S. Paul’s. But it
ought not to be so understood. His trust in the all-embracing
will of God, and in the already perfected sacrifice of Christ,
allows him to lay this emphasis on duty. Though he urges his
friends to make their effort, he is aware of all that is being
divinely done for them; their effort will not be the initial
impulse in the whole complex purpose of God for their salva-
tion. And he knew his friends, and knew what arguments would
best prevail with them. They were men of fine and romantic
honour and the appeal to loyalty would come home to them.
Their conception of the mystery of Christ’s Person was im-
perfect, and they could not understand properly what ‘‘in
Christ” implied. Their interest in His earthly life, and the
imaginative form which, if the epistle was congenial to them,
thought seems to have generally taken in their minds, all this
was good reason for pressing the romantic, imaginative, sacra-
mental idea of following Christ, rather than the mystical idea
of union in Christ.

§ 19. And such concentration was natural in the crisis which
the author recognised as a “coming” of Christ.

And there was yet another peculiarity in their circum-
stances which made them apt to be “followers” of Christ as
“captain” (cf. ii. 10, xii. 2), In the troubles of these times He
was “coming,” and He was coming to call His soldiers after

evil | INTRODUCTION

Him. That is a picture which is repeatedly presented in the
Apocalypse. If the Apocalypse and Hebrews be not both
connected with the revolt against Rome, it is at least evident
that they are both connected with some crisis of like character.
In the eschatological discourse of our Lord which ‘precedes -the
Passion in each of the synoptic Gospels, it is difficult to. avoid
recognising a premonition of the fall of Jerusalem mingling
with the prophecy of the final “coming” of the Son of :man.
Nor is it unreasonable to suppose that our Lord and other
observers of the signs of the times foresaw such a conclusion to
the increasing zeal of the patriots. In S. Luke’s version of the
discourse it seems plain that a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem
is followed and completed by a prediction of the great Advent.
That advent filled the horizon of the early Church. Had one
of its members been asked, What is the Christian hope? he
would have answered without hesitation, The coming of our
Lord as Christ. And that is the hope which fills this epistle.
But it is no longer a hope for the quite near future ; as it was
when S. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, but not when he wrote
to the Ephesians. In Hebrews, as in Ephesians, a vista opens
into a long future for the Church. Writer and readers: are
breaking with a past which is dear to them, but regret is
transformed into a vigorous outlook upon a new world (cf. ryv
oikoupévny thy péddovear, ii. 5). When once the mreipacpos is
over, youth will be renewed under the banner of Jesus Christ
(cf. xii. 24, Ssa@nxns véas peoirn). And to the writer, as to
S. Luke, the revelation has occurred, that “the advent” is a
mystery with many senses. Whatever the great final “coming”
may be, Christ can come at another time and in another way ;
and in the then imminent crisis he believed that Christ was
really coming. That seems the evident meaning of x. 25,
“ .,exhorting one another, and so much the more, as ye see
the day drawing nigh.” In the atmosphere of this thought
we catch undertones—such as we have already observed to be
natural to our author—in i. 6, “when he again bringeth in the
firstborn into the world,” or even ix. 28, ‘‘so Christ also, having
been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a
second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto
salvation.” :

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE cix

§ 20. This crisis explains the three passages in which
repentance seems to be limited.

A crisis was at hand. In that crisis Christ was coming ;
it was, so to say, the first stage in the realisation of all that the
traditional hope of His advent meant. The crisis would bring
the readers of the epistle face to face with a definite choice
between loyalty to Him and apostasy. The choice was of
infinite importance ; its effects would reach into the sphere of
eternal realities ; if they made the wrong choice it. was more
than uncertain whether they would ever find opportunity for
correcting it. Take no thought for doubtful morrows but do
your duty to day, is the burden of the letter. And this con-
centrated anxiety of the writer for his friends explains those
three remarkable passages, vi. 4—8, x. 26—31, xii. 16f, in
which he might seem to be denying the possibility of repeated
repentance. If the letter were a general treatise of theology,
laying down general rules for all Christians of all times, it
would be natural to interpret his words in that manner. The
special occasion of this, not treatise but letter, makes all the
difference.

Nevertheless ‘no second repentance” has been. understood
at different times to be his teaching (cf. Intr. II. §§ 3, 13
pp. xxvii f., lxiii ff). Tertullian so understood him. So does.
his latest commentator Dr Windisch, whose detached note on
“The denial of the second repentance” is a valuable summary of
material for forming a judgement on the question. He argues
that the rigour of Hebrews was a logical development of the
original principle of the Church. This principle was inherited
from the Old Testament. The Law had allowed no forgiveness
for any but sins “of ignorance”; see eg. Num. xv. 28—31.
Ezekiel implies the same in his chapter, xviii., on the wicked
man turning away from his wickedness and finding life. This
inherited principle had been intensified by the eschatology from
which the gospel started; when the Kingdom, into which the
Christian was called; was immediately expected, there was no
‘‘ lace for repentance ” after the one absolute repentance which

constituted his entry into the Kingdom. S. Paul implicitly,

ie 7 INTRODUCTION

and without perhaps conscious reflexion on the problem, held
the same doctrine. That is evident from 2 Cor. vii. 10, “For
godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation not to be re-
pented of—perdvo.av cis owrnpiavy ayerapéAnrov—but the sorrow
of the world worketh death.” And though it cannot be said
that this austere rule was universal in the primitive Church, we
do find it again in 1 John v. 16f., “If any man see his brother
sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him
life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto.
death: not concerning this do I say that he should make
request. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not
unto death.” This precept is probably connected with the
passages in Hebrews, and with our Lord’s word about the sin
against the Holy Ghost. In fact the proclamation of forgive-
ness for all the world through the death of Christ involved
constancy as an inherent condition. A second repentance for
those who fell away from the new life thus given was impossible,
except by some special command from God Himself. Such
special command, for a certain limited period, was declared in
the Apocalypse (ii. 5, 16, 21f., ili. 3, 15—19; cf. xiv. 6f.), and
ten years later in the Shepherd of Hermas. Yet even this was
but a particular indulgence, a second repentance, not a re-
pentance that might be repeated yet again. On the other hand
the epistle of Clement of Rome witnesses to a milder doctrine
which was accepted in a large part of the early Church, and
which became presently the general rule. The Fathers explain
away the rigour of Hebrews by interpreting its language as
denying second baptism but not repeated repentance.

It would not be fair to decide for or against Dr Windisch
from this free sketch of his argument. Yet what we have
described as his hard literalism (cf. p. lxiv f.) is evident. In the
notes on Heb. vi. 4 ff. reasons will be found for supposing
that the question of “second repentance” is not raised by this
passage at all. The readers had been wondering whether they
had not better go back to the simplicity of their ancestral
Jewish faith and find a good practical “ repentance” in so doing.
Their friend tells them that this would be in the nature of
things impossible, since to do this would be to dishonour the
allegiance they have already given to Jesus as Christ. Plain

THE THHOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE cxi

honour demands faithfulness to Him. No complicated doubts
about other claims of honour can annul that claim. How is
it conceivable then that a new and better life can be attained in
a continued state of base apostasy? A quotation Dr Windisch
makes from Philo—ditferent though his application of Philo’s
thought ip-—may be used to describe the situation: 6 yap
nahiaae ep’ ois Hpaprev airovpevos ovx ouTws é€oTi kaxodaipov,
dor év © xpdv@ madadav adiknudrev aireirar hvow Erepa Kawwo-
TOpeEly, de spec. leg. 1. 193, p. 240.

This explanation of Heb. vi. 4 ff. will hardly win assent
from those who recognise no connexion between the epistle
and the Jewish revolt. But if any other severe crisis be taken
as the occasion of writing, it will be easy to understand all the
three passages on repentance in a different sense from Dr
Windisch. The author is not enunciating a rule of church
discipline. He is impressing the extreme peril of the situation
upon his own friends. Nothing, he urges, can be compared
with the gravity of this choice before you. The wrong choice
will be a grievous sin. It is the one sin in all the world for you,
and this choice is your one great chance. The time is perilous.
In the coming disturbances you may die, or you may be in-
volved in an inextricable tangle of evil. You will certainly not
have another chance of Christian nobility like this ; it may well
prove that, this neglected, you may never find the opportunity
again of salvation through Christ whom you now dishonour!,

1 As these lines are being written a parallel is offered in the
Archbishop of Canterbury’s sermon in Westminster Abbey, Sunday
Oct. 1, 1916—the opening message of the National Mission of
Repentance and Hope: ‘‘It seems to me almost certain that if this
opportunity goes by unused, it can never, never come again. Wait
till six months after the war is over, and the new start, possible now,
will be unattainable. At present all is tense and keen ; the spirit of
sacrifice, the spirit of readiness to offer ourselves and what we love,
is ‘in the air.’” Times, Oct, 2, 1916.

exli INTRODUCTION

$21. Repentance is based upon the sacrifice offered once jor
all, which nevertheless must be repeated in each disciple.

In the prayer, xiii. 20f., with which the author concludes,
the sacramental correspondence is recapitulated between the
trial and the one decisive victory of the Lord Jesus in His
earthly life, and the trial through which the readers are going
and the one decisive duty they have to do. And the sacrificial
aspect of the yictory is presented in the phrase év aiyare
diabnxns aiwviov. This preoccupation with the need of one
decisive act of will on the part of his friends. may have been
part of the impulse which led the writer to select the analogy
of priesthood for his fresh exposition of the traditional doctrine
of Christ’s Person and work. For a sacrifice is an offering.
The essential, generous work of a priest is to offer gifts, v. 1.
It is involved in the very idea of a gift, an offering, a sacrifice,
that it should be given “once for all.” If it could be repeated
that would mean that something had been kept back in the first
giving. So far then as the analogy goes there could be but one
sacrifice of Christ, offered once for all. And there is more than
the truth of analogy in this. There is the emotional truth that
this sacrifice, being what it was, the dreadful crucifixion, cannot
be thought of as repeated, ix..26, and even the prolongation of
it, as it were (dvacravpotvras, vi. 6), by men’s continued or
repeated unfaithfulness would be a horrible thing. And there
is the satisfaction of our need for full assurance of full free
pardon ; the sacrifice is “full, perfect and sufficient,” x. 14,
ix. 14. Hence the greatest stress is laid in the epistle on this
offering once for all. There is no repetition; nor can the
sacrifice be styled “eternal,” since such an epithet might, by
confusion between its temporal and moral senses, lead to mis-
understanding. In ix. 14 8d: rvedparos aiwviov could not be
changed into eis rov aiéva without ambiguity, nor into eis rd
Sunvexes without inaccuracy.

Nevertheless something is implied in 8a mvevparos aiwviouv
which obliges us to consider rather more carefully what we
mean when we assert that the sacrifice of Christ is neither
repeated nor continuous. The argument from the nature of a
gift or offering becomes fallacious as soon as the offering is

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE | exiii

pictured in the mind materially and the material picture
allowed .to direct our moral apprehension of the truth. If we
think of Christ’s sacrifice. as it was sacramentally worked out
on earth, it culminates in the moment. of His death. If we
insist on the ritual imagery, that moment is alone the moment
of sacrifice. But if we let the ritual imagery go and think of
what Christ did for our salvation in His earthly course, it seems
highly artificial to separate His teaching, obedience, faith and
suffering from His death, as though the ministry were merely
moral, the death alone effectual. For what is ““merely moral” ?
_ And how does “moral” differ from “ spiritual”? And how can
a single act be cut away from the whole process of character ?
In like manner we may imagine Christ’s heavenly work be-
ginning at the moment of His death, now pictured as His
entrance into the presence of God. At that moment He
“ offers,” and the offering is completed. But just as to S. Paul
He who was once crucified abides for evermore the crucified one
(€oravpwpévos), So we may think of the High Priest abiding for
ever in the state of “one who has offered.” That is to say in
modern phrase, “He pleads the sacrifice” ; in the words of the
epistle, ‘He ever liveth to make intercession for us.” But how
difficult it is to explain what we mean by the intercession or the
pleading as distinct from the offering. We try to do so, and
fail. The suspicion will occur to us that we are trying to do an
impossible thing, viz. to express what is spiritually real as a
whole, in the analytic language of “‘appearance.” So it is when
we ask, Was there a beginning of time? Is there a boundary
to space ? and (must we not add 2?) “ When did our Lord become
High Priest?” In ii. 17 the present tense of AdoxeoOai is
much to be noticed. There, at any rate, though a ritual term
is employed and Christ’s work is conceived as “ propitiation”
rather than “salvation,” it is not Fe Sacer ng as an instan-
taneous process. |
Of that word however Dr DuBose writes thus: “The use of
the present tense, instead of the aorist, expresses the fact that
Christ’s single, and once for all completed, act of (on the part
of humanity) self-reconciliation or at-one-ment with God, is
continuously being re-enacted in and by us, as we by His en-
abling grace and aid are enduring temptation and attaining

CXiv INTRODUCTION

victory, are dying His death and rising into His life.” That
may appear too subtle an exegesis of the isolated word. But
the more the epistle is studied as a whole, the more reasonable,
after all, will it prove. As S. Paul, using the figure of birth,
writes to the Galatians as though Christ should be born again
in them, Gal. iv. 19, so this author, using the figure of priest-
hood, writes to his friends as though they were in their own
persons to offer the sacrifice of Christ again; notice especially
xiii. 12f. The parallel is the closer because the Galatians, like
these readers, were already Christians but needed to make a
fresh definite choice of action if they were to be fully Christian.
“My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ
be formed in you,” is exactly like “Since Jesus suffered sacri-
ficially without the gate, let us go forth unto him without the
camp, bearing his reproach.” How far the author of Hebrews
was influenced in the conduct of his analogy from priesthood by
the eucharistic service of the Church is a doubtful, if it is even
a proper question. But in the eucharistic service of the Church
in England there is a striking illustration of this idea of the
repeating of the one completed sacrifice in the persons of the
worshippers. In the prayer of consecration memorial and
dramatic representation is made of the “full, perfect, and
sufficient sacrifice,” as it was first prefigured by the Saviour
himself at the Last Supper; in the following prayer that
sacrifice is re-enacted in the words “And here we offer and |
present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies to
be a reasonable holy and lively sacrifice unto thee.” In this
prayer it is made clear, as in the epistle, that the re-enacting
depends on the preceding completion. It might be suspected
that the separation of the second prayer from the first, with
which it was originally combined, is an instance of that bondage
to the analogy and that inopportunely logical analysis which
has unnecessarily multiplied. the theological problems of the
epistle,

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE — cxv

§ 22. And though, after that initial re-enacting of the one sacri-
fice, S. Paul, 8. John and Hebrews uphold the ideal of
sinlessness, they acknowledge means for the renewal of the
faithful if they do sin.

The truth might be put in this way. Though, on the one
hand, the epistle represents Christ’s priesthood as culminating
in the one sacrifice, and concentrates its exhortation on the one
duty of the readers, yet on the other hand, Christ’s priesthood
as a whole is its theme, and it was recognised as a canonical
scripture in virtue of its universal appeal. So regarded, the
narrower view of its doctrine of repentance appears impossible.
How can that view be thought consistent with vii. 24f.? “ But
he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchange-
able. Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them
that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to ©
make intercession for them.” The words are as wide as those
of our Lord, “‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy
laden, and I will give you rest...and him that cometh to me
I will in no wise cast out,” Matt. xi. 28, John vi. 37. Neither in
this epistle, nor elsewhere in the New Testament, is the rule
of ecclesiastical discipline provided. All still moves in the
region of ideals. And the difficulty is not in the stern denial
of repentance but in the unattainable (as it seems to us) hope of
perfection.

S. Paul takes for granted that Christians have really risen
to a new life in Christ and are really free from sin. His
converts did sin, and he deals with their sins as he is inspired
to deal with them severally, cf. 1 Cor. v.4f. with 1 Cor. vii. 6, 25.
He goes so far as to deliver an unrepentant member of the
Church “unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,” 1 Cor. v. 5.
And as soon as an obstinate sinner does repent he rejoices in
his restoration, 2 Cor. ii. 5 ff. In this case extreme measures
appear to have been taken which were not generally necessary.
The main point is that in S. Paul’s epistles we see Christians
guilty of sins, and yet the apostle abates nothing of his ideal of
perfect holiness. He is not laying down a rule, but undauntedly

cxvi | INTRODUCTION

insisting on the true life with its immense hopefulness. In the
first epistle of S. John the same ideal is insisted upon. By
this time the ardour of first conversion is no longer universal in
the Church and a twofold difficulty is arising. Commonplace
sins are frequent, and since these are inconsistent with the
ideal, some are inclined to maintain that such faults are not
actual sins. §S. John answers that they are, and that whenever
a man commits them he falls out of the new life into which he
has been born: yet through the blood of Jesus he may recover
the perfect holiness. And there is no need for Christians to
sin; his letter is written that they may not sin. If they will
but be true to the power of the new birth they will not
sin: 1 John i. 7—10, ii. 1, iii. 4—6, v. 18. But, secondly;
Christians are sometimes guilty of such sin that it is plain
they intend to persist in it, so plain that there would be in-
sincerity in praying for them. To this 8. John does not answer
“You must not pray for them,” but very guardedly, “There is.
a sin unto death : not concerning this do I say that one should
make request.” He recognises the real difficulty, and insists
upon sincerity in intercession. Whether there would be ~—
limit to his own intercession he does not say.

Hebrews stands in a manner outside this line of develop-
ment because of the very special circumstances which called it
forth. But in the important matter of the ideal the author
is entirely at one with 8. Paul and S. John. There is no
faltering in his hope. Christ’s redemption (ix. 12), salvation
(i. 14), kingdom (xii. 28), sacrifice, all mean that Christians like
Christ ‘are to be perfect. If we ask in astonishment whether
it is really to be supposed possible that a man should go through
his whole earthly life without any sin, we are indeed involved in
a difficulty, for our Lord did nothing less than that. But it is
not the interesting practical question. Our Lord did indeed ’no
less than that, but He did so much more. His progress ending
in perfection ; His being: ywpis Seaprine and learning obedience
till at last He was xeyopicpévos amd tov dpaptodav (iv. 15,
vii. 26; cf. ix. 28) ; this.is the great pattern. There is the same:
ponds ; He is one with men yet supreme among them, in this’
matter of sinlessness as in the whole mystery of His Person,
Yet that does not make the union unreal. The unreality comes

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE | exvii

in from our reasoning by negatives. It is transmuted when we
act upon the bold hope. One who strove manfully for right and
conquered sins one by one in himself, would obviously be nearer
to the perfect goodness of Christ, than one who committed no
“sin” and lived a useless ignoble life.

§ 23. Ts this re-enacting of Christ’s sacrifice accomplished in the
death of self-will, or is bodily death the ultimate necessity ¢
In the apostolic age this question would not seem im-
portant.

Or we may put it thus: our perfection is the ideal which
we go through life to realise; * but the Lord Jesus, as man,
achieved that ideal: i. 8f., x. 9f., 14. Does the epistle. promise
that we may in this life realise the ideal? In 1 John iii. 2f. the
realisation seems to wait till the great Advent. ‘‘ Beloved, now
are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we
shall be. We know that if he shall be manifested, we shall be
like him ; for we shall see him as he is. And every one that
hath this hope set on him purifieth himself even as he is pure.”
S. John substitutes “manifestation,” or the showing of One
already present but invisible, for “advent,” mapovoia, as of One
coming from another place ; but no doubt he has the great final
manifestation in view!. With this we may compare Heb. ix. 28.
But in xii. 23 another thought appears. In the heavenly Jeru-
salem there are already “the spirits of just men made perfect.”
Mr F. Field wrote of this?: “To avoid ambiguity a slight
change is necessary ; namely ‘to the spirits of just men who
have been made perfect.’ It is the just men, not the spirits, that
are made perfect, and that not in the future state, but here
on earth, where alone they can be subject to those trials and
conflicts, by the patient endurance of which they are pre-
pared for a higher state of being.” He quotes examples of

1 See Dr Brooke’s note on the passage in the International
Critical Commentary, and especially p. xxi of his Introduction. :

2 Otium Norvicense (Pars tertia, Notes on selected passages of N.T.,
1881; second edition published by Cambridge University Press in
1899 with title Notes on Translation of the New Testament).

CXViil INTRODUCTION

misunderstanding of the English version. One from Archbishop
Sumner’s Exposition on Ephesians will here suffice: “The in-
heritance of the purchased possession when ‘the spirits of just
men’ will be ‘made perfect,’ no longer clouded by the pains
and anxieties which attend a fallen state.” Sumner is cer-
tainly wrong and Field right. Yet there was possibly some-
thing in the author’s mind which he has missed. There is
in the epistle, combined with the idea of progressive disci-
pline and progressive. salvation, that other line of thought
in which stress is laid on the decisive, culminating moment.
It would seem that death, as the crowning act of life, is con-
sidered to be the moment of a man’s perfecting. At death, or
through death, the ideal is realised. This is well put by a
writer in the Cowley Evangelist, April 1895 (reprinted July
1914) : |

‘‘Our Lord is leading all who are following the movements
of His Holy Spirit to the true balance of their De Some He
deals with more strenuously and rapidly by giving them early
opportunities of embracing His will, when to do so means to
embrace what is hard for flesh and blood ; but sooner or later,
if life is here at all prolonged, there must come the occasion
when the will either surrenders itself afresh to Him in some
time of great trial, or sinks back upon itself, only too soon to
energize in movements of rebellion against the Divine will. It
is by such ways that He reveals to men that they cannot ‘live
by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth out of the
mouth of God.’ They are led a step nearer to the perception
of what it is to be nourished by God’s very life in the abeyance
of allelse. And all are being led to this attitude who rightly
are preparing for the end, for this abeyance is a marked
characteristic of death, and will be, to such as are prepared
to receive it, the blessing which accompanies death’s chastening
discipline.”

Almost every sentence in this quotation illustrates some
point in the practical or the doctrinal exhortations of the
epistle. And it indicates a right answer to a question which
will have already occurred to any one who reads these notes,
viz. Is the sacrifice in which we re-enact the sacrifice of Christ
effected by bodily death only or also by the death of our self-
will? §S. Paul would surely say that it is certainly by the death
of our self-will ; ‘‘I have been crucified with Christ ; yet I live ;

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE cxix

and yet no longer I but Christ liveth in me: and that life which
I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the
Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me,” Gal. ii. 20.
The same answer, implied by the whole of this epistle, becomes
explicit in xi. 17, where the change from the aorist of LXX to
the perfect mpocevnvoxev of the quotation seems designed to
show the reality, and the abiding reality, of the sacrifice of
Isaac. Isaac was not slain, but he was truly sacrificed, and that
sacrifice has become the type of the consecrated life of the Israel
of God, and of every losing and finding of man’s will in the will
of God which shall have been consummated since.

Indeed the question would have been less insistent to the
New Testament writers than it is to us. To them the great
day for each believer was “the day” of Christ’s advent or
manifestation, not the day of death. And to them the life that
is hid with Christ in God was so absolutely the only real life,
that death was quite naturally contemplated as one act,
however decisive, in the unbroken life, already being lived,
of eternity. Whether that decisive act came through the
“chastening discipline” of physical death, or of some earlier
hour of supreme renunciation, was hardly a distinction to be
dwelt upon. Perhaps in quiet times it would seem the one,
in times of persecution and martyrdom the other. And, if our
hypothesis be accepted, Hebrews was written at a time when
martyrdom threatened. Hence in Hebrews the solemn thought
of—what we should call—literal death is never far from the
surface. That kind of death is chiefly glorified in this epistle;
it is the longed-for “ perfecting.” Cf, § 14, p. xevii f.

Yet it should also be noticed that in xi. 39 f. the Old
Testament saints, celebrated in the whole preceding chapter,
are said either to have waited for their perfecting till the times
of Christ ; or to be still waiting, in at least partial dependence
on the faithfulness of the then “militant” generation, as con-
tributing to their perfection. With the former explanation it
might seem apposite to compare 1 Pet. i. 18 ff. Yet that
is an imperfect parallel, since the heroes of Hebrews are very
different from the spirits, once disobedient, in prison. And
the picture which immediately follows in Heb. xii. 1 ff, of the
contest to be endured by Christ’s followers on earth and

HEBREWS 1

Cxx INTRODUCTION

witnessed to by these heroes in their state of waiting, lends
probability to the latter. The inconsistency vanishes if, as the
arrangement of clauses in xii. 22 ff. also indicates, “the spirits
of just men made perfect” are the deceased members, the
pausantes of the Christian Church.

§ 24. In Hebrews, as in Apocalypse, special interest in the
blessed dead is shewn. The general doctrine of N.T. on
this subject.

Or perhaps Christian: martyrs in particular. Among other
points of contact between Hebrews and the Apocalypse is their
common interest in the blessed dead. Between the writing of
1 Cor. xv. and of these two books something has happened
which has multiplied, or is multiplying, the number of deceased
Christians. And there are four passages in the Apocalypse
which throw light on the language of Hebrews:

“(1) vi. 9—12, the vision of ‘the souls’ under the altar, the
martyred prophets of the Old Covenant, who were
to wait till the complement of the martyrs of the
New had come in. For as Heb. xi. 40 says, ‘they
apart from us’ cannot ‘be made perfect.’ These are
clothed in white raiment and are, I imagine, merged
in those who keep coming out of the great tribu-
lation, also arrayed in white robes in vil. 13 ff, to
be shepherded by the Lamb.

“(2) Look next at xiv. 13. ‘Blessed are the dead that die
in the Lord from this time forth. Yea, saith the
Spirit, may they rest from their toiling, for their
works follow with them.’ This rest is not in-
activity. Their powers trained by their earthly
activities are from henceforth to find full scope
without friction.

“(3) When we pass on to xix. 14, we are given a vision of
the armies that are in heaven riding on white
horses, clothed in the vesture of the Bride of the
Lamb, going out to fight under their Captain
Christ.

“(4) Then in xx. 4 we come back once more to the
Christian: martyrs, who have been faithful in their
witness, and who live and reign with Christ during
the mystic Millennium of the chaining of Satan.
This we are told is ‘the first Resurrection.’”

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE exxi

These paragraphs are quoted from an article in the Church
Quarterly Review, April 1916, by Dr J. O. F. Murray, on “The
Empty Tomb, the Resurrection Body and the Intermediate
State.” From this article, with the author’s permission, some
further extracts shall be made!.

“The Resurrection of Christ is the manifestation of a force
in the Universe, which, because it has been seen in operation in
one instance, may be trusted to work universally....But the
working of the Resurrection power, which had been manifested
in the raising of Christ as the first-fruits, was not to be seen in
operation again until ‘the Appearing,’ and then only in the case
of Christians....An intermediate state is implied, not only in
the doctrine of the descent into Hades, but also in the dating
of the Resurrection on the third day.”

“The fact seems to be that ‘ Resurrection,’ like ‘ Death’ and
‘Life, is a term of manifold significance, and admits of many
stages and degrees....The questions of practical importance for
us are two...(1) Where do we stand with regard to the ‘ Ap-
pearing’ which St. Paul expected in his own generation? And
(2) to what extent are we here and now contributing to the
evolution of our spiritual bodies, building up ‘the habitation,
the building from God, made without hands, eternal in the
heavens,’ which we are to inhabit hereafter ?”

Here, with regard to the first point, Dr Murray calls atten-
tion to the four passages in the Apocalypse to which we referred
above. He proceeds thus:

“The sequence of events implied [in those four passages] *
seems to me remarkably parallel in general outline to the
scheme laid down by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv. And I am prepared
to take as my working hypothesis the view that we are living
now in this ‘ Millennium’: that we are or may be, in proportion
to our faith, here and now citizens of the New Jerusalem, and
that, again in proportion to our faith, it is true for us that
‘there is no more death’; that in fact our Lord’s promises are
strictly true: ‘Whosoever loseth his life for my sake finds it,’
not after an indefinite period, but immediately [and so S. John
vili. 51, xi. 26]. Such believers have part in the first Resurrection.
What further fulness of life may lie before them at the second
Resurrection when the whole race reaches its consummation

1 Cf. also ‘‘ The Ascension and Whitsunday,” by Father R. M.
Benson, reprinted from ‘‘ The Life beyond the grave,” in The Cowley
Evangelist, May 1915, especially pp. 108—112.

a2

pea INTRODUCTION

and each member of it is uplifted by the energy of the whole
who can say ?...Meanwhile they are in life not in death, and
their life is not ‘disembodied.’ The souls are clothed, not naked.
For them Christ has come again.”

With regard to the second point: “ What conception can we
form of the nature of our spiritual bodies? To what extent are
we here and now contributing to their evolution ?,” Dr Murray
finds :

“that, in 1 Cor. xv. 42, St. Paul must mean ‘this life in
corruptible flesh in the body of our humiliation is the sowing
time, the harvest will come under the transformed conditions
of the body of our glory.’ Certainly according to the best
text he calls us expressly to begin at once to wear (xv. 49)
‘the image of the heavenly,’ an expression that corresponds
closely to his injunction to us in Col, iii. 5 ‘to mortify our
members that are upon earth...stripping off the old man with
his ways of action, and clothing ourselves with the new after
the image of Him that created Him,’ further defined as ‘com-
passion, kindness, humility, meekness,’ and so forth. In other
words, personal character is the most practical form under
which we can conceive of our spiritual body.”

“And we may conceive of the condition of the rest of the
dead, ‘who lived not’ and have no part in the first Resurrection,
not as ‘disembodied,’ but as in various stages of imperfect,
arrested or perverted, spiritual development, without as yet the
organs by which they can enter into relation with the life that
is life indeed. Such a view would, I think, be in harmony with

“such indications as the New Testament gives us. There does
not seem to be anything in the New Testament to justify the
view, which has no doubt coloured all our Christian thinking
for centuries, that ‘soul and body meet again’ at the Resur-
rection.”

Dr Murray, though referring oftenest to 8S. Paul, attempts
here to form a view that shall be harmonious with the New
Testament as a whole. And according to this view Hebrews
appears consistent in itself and with the other apostolic writings.
If in ix. 27 judgement seems to follow immediately upon death,
that judgement is xpiows, a distinguishing, such as Dr Murray
recognises between those who have and those who have not part
in the first Resurrection, The xpiparos aiwviov of vi. 2 might
be thought to stand in contrast, with this as “final judgement,”
and if so the juxtaposition of dvacrdcews vexpav might seem.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE cxxiii

after all to imply that, for that final judgement, “soul and body
meet again.” But the reference here is probably to Jewish
rather than to Christian doctrine; dvacrdcews is at any rate
used in no more confined a sense here than in xpeirrovos dvaord-
gews, Xi, 35; and two considerations make it improbable that
the author thought of the blessed dead as obliged to wait till
a ‘last day” for the receiving of the spiritual body. One is
the phrase in xii. 23, rvevpaor dixaiv rereAeropévwv: the other
is his silence concerning our Lord’s resurrection ‘fon the third
day.”

§ 25. Application of general doctrine to Hebrews: “ spirits”
are not “ disembodied.”

As for the first of these, the phrase in xii, 23 expresses
“perfection.” If there is anything in the epistle which corre-
sponds to the partaking in the first resurrection it must be
recognised here. But the word mvevuao. might seem to con-
tradict this. Surely not ; it is our presupposition, disproved by
Dr Murray’s careful analysis of the evidence, that in the New
Testament “‘intermediate” means “disembodied,” which makes
us fancy this. This use of “spirit” for all that is essential in
man is found in the Old Testament. In Dan. iii. 86 (LXX)
‘‘spirits and souls of the righteous,” Sirach xxxi. 14, and other
places, it is joined with a following genitive ; but in Sirach xxxix.
28, 2 Macc. iii. 24 (according to Codex A) it stands absolutely.
It is a natural development of the expression “living soul” for
a creature endowed with animal life, and S. Paul has given it
the utmost dignity by his antithesis in 1 Cor. xv. 45, “The first
man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a
life-giving spirit.” Since Wvy7 represents the unseen natural
life, in distinction from its vehicle the visible body, and since
again mvedua represents the more inward, more essential divine
life in man, as distinguished from its mortal vehicle, rveiyua is
especially used of men in their “freedom from the burden of
the flesh.” So 8. Paul in 1 Cor. v. 5 would deliver the guilty
man unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit
may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; cf. 1 Pet. iv. 6.
In 1 Thess. v. 23 he writes more precisely : “The God of peace

CXXiV INTRODUCTION

sanctify you wholly ; and may your spirit and soul and body be
preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” That is more characteristic, for S. Paul is distinguished
among New Testament writers by his almost scientific interest
in psychological analysis. Our author is more concerned with
essence than with entirety, and prefers to sum man up as a
spirit, or as “truly himself,” x. 34. Nor does he, like S. Paul,
oppose “flesh” to “body” as base to noble; our Lord’s
earthly ministry is, in this epistle, “the days of his flesh”;
and, in almost the same sense, the readers are bidden remem-
ber them that are evil entreated as being themselves also “in
the body.”

§ 26. The author’s silence about our Lord’s rising on the third
day 1s not inconsistent with the tradition of the Church.

In like manner we read in x. 10 of “the offering of the body
of Jesus Christ” and in x. 19 of “the way of his flesh.” Both
phrases describe His earthly, visible passion. Neither would
be natural to this author when speaking of Christ ascended.
Nor is there a word in the epistle about His resurrection in the
body, on the third day. All is foreshortened, so to speak. At
the moment of dying on the cross the Lord enters as High
Priest into the heavenly sanctuary.

He enters as being then, and not till then, “made perfect.”
Helped as we have been by Dr Murray to clear the mind from
servility to figures of speech, we shall not suspect that the
author imagined the ascended Lord as lacking any of that
complete manhood which is guarded by the doctrine of the
resurrection of His body. And therefore, as we said above,
this peculiar presentation of the Lord’s victory over death
guarantees a no less complete significance for the “ spirits ”
of just men made perfect.

Whatever may be thought about the date of the three
synoptic Gospels, S. Paul shews that the resurrection on the
third day was included in the earliest tradition of the Church.
Our epistle is the only book of the New Testament which could
be quoted to suggest that this tradition was not held by the
whole Church. And it is far more natural to suppose that the

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE cxxv

silence of our author is due to the special direction he wished
to give to his argument. His analogy of the high priesthood
leads him to lay stress on the “indissoluble life,” and on our
Lord’s entering the sanctuary of the presence of God at the
moment of His death. According to his sacramental view of
things, the inward and outward offering of sacrifice are neces-
sarily simultaneous. They are in fact’one; for the sacramental
idea is not an idea of succession in two worlds, but of time and
eternity, heaven and earth, being “inveterately convolved.”

And he was quite at liberty to lay the stress thus. For
there is no contradiction of the general tradition. The “as-
cension” was but the last of our Lord’s appearances after His
death ; S. Paul, who claimed to have seen Him also, would deny
that it was the last. The resting of His body in the tomb till
the third day may imply that, for our Lord Himself, there
were, as Dr Murray puts it, “stages” of resurrection. But the
immediate “bringing again of the great shepherd from the
dead” (xiii. 20) was itself dvdoracis ; our substitution of ‘‘re-
surrection,” “rising again,” for dvdoraois, “rising up,” has
produced an unconscious prejudice in our mind. And yet we
may perhaps find in this author’s liberty some encouragement
to hope that those who, like him, nourish faith more readily by
meditation on the invisible indissoluble life than by appeal to
the visible historical evidences for the resurrection, are not
condemned by the apostolic discipline. Only it must also be
remembered that these perhaps more philosophic thinkers have
to a great extent been secured in their liberty by the trouble-
some controversial labour of the historians, as our author and
his friends were secured by the simpler faith of the Church
around them.

§ 27. The communion of saints is presupposed in this epistle:
but the readers are not yet in full enjoyment of that com-
munion,

One further question must be answered before leaving this
part of the subject: what does this epistle teach about the
communion of saints, the intercourse between those who are
still in their earthly pilgrimage and those who have entered

CXXV1 INTRODUCTION

into rest? That most comfortable doctrine is established more
firmly by 8S. Paul with his assurance that all the faithful live
one united life “in Christ”; and by S. John in all that per-
vading faith of his in the life eternal which is summed up in
the words he records of the Lord to Martha (John xi. 23 ff.),
to whom, when she had expressed belief in resurrection “at the
last day,” He answered, “I am the resurrection and the life.”
In Heb. xii. 22, “Ye are come unto mount Zion, etc.,” falls
a little short of that. And, as in other places, the reason is
that, until the readers make their venture of faith, they have
but come near, they have not entered by the living way, x. 19 ff.
And in xii. 1 the “encompassing cloud” is a cloud of “ wit-
nesses,” not of fellow saints in full communion. Yet it is
implied in xi. 40 that these witnesses are waiting in eager
expectation of that full communion. It might be said that
the epistle takes throughout for granted that belief in and
enjoyment of the communion of saints which was already part
of the fuller faith of Judaism, cf. Isa. lili. 10, 2 Macc. xv. 14,
and that it holds out to its readers, as part of the great peace
now to be grasped by them, the perfect enjoyment of such
communion as was the acknowledged heritage of the Christian
Church. |

§ 28. Hebrews and the Old Testament: quotations are
reasonably developed from the original sense.

This thought however brings us to the last division of our
enquiry. What is the relation of this epistle to the Old
Testament in general, and to that Alexandrian complement of
the Palestinian canon in particular which touches on so many
sides the Alexandrine or Philonic philosophy?

Few characteristics of the apostolic writers are more striking
than the respect they had for the authority of the Jewish Bible.
They appeal to it continually. They quote it continually, almost
learnedly ; yet not quite with the fashionable learning of their
day. They appreciate the deeper meaning of its words, its in-
spiration in fact. But they take a reverent view of inspiration
and abstain far more than was usual with their contemporaries
in Judaism, and their successors in the Christian Church, from

THE THEOLOGY OF THH EPISTLE cxxvii

forced interpretations, and unnatural Messianic applications.
No doubt this was due to our Lord’s influence who appears at
the beginning of S. Luke’s Gospel as a studious, but still more
as a thoughtful boy, and who always reached so surely to the
heart of all the Old Testament passages He dealt with in His:
ministry. Yet there are exceptions to this sobriety in the New
Testament, as in Gal. iii. 16 where S. Paul argues rabbinically
from the singular number of “seed.” And, as might be expected
in an author of finer education, the writer to the Hebrews is
distinguished by his peculiarly reasonable use of the Old
Testament.

This has been denied. It was once asserted by some one
that, having opened his epistle with a magnificent assertion of
our Lord’s divinity, the author goes on to prove it by applying
a number of passages from the Old Testament to Him, none of
which were meant of Him at all. But that is just what he does
not do. He does not attempt to prove our Lord’s divinity in
this place; he leaves proof to spring by degrees from the analogy
which fills the epistle. What he uses the Old Testament for
here is to show that He who came forth from God inherited the
name of “Son” from those who of old, in the actual history of
Israel, were entitled “Christ” or the “anointed of the Lord.”
And a like reverence for the original significance of the ancient
words in their historical environment runs through the epistle.
The quotation from Ps. viii. in Heb. ii. would have no point if the
original reference to “mankind” were not recognised. The “to
day” in the quotation from Ps. xcv. in Heb. iii., iv. gains its force
from having been a summons in “David’s” time to enter into
the rest of God which was a repetition of an earlier opportunity.
And throughout the epistle the real history of Israel is the main
type, or the vehicle of the prophetic Spirit which revealed the
ever-growing manifestation of the Christ through the Christ-
bearing nation},

1 See Hort’s note on 1 Pet. i. 11 in his Commentary, The First
Epistle of St Peter i. 1—ii. 17, the Greek Text with Introductory
Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes, Macmillan, 1898,

CXXVlil INTRODUCTION

§ 29. In Hebrews the Holy Spirit is chiefly thought of as
the inspirer of Scripture:

This prophetic Spirit is noticeable: The Spirit of God, as a
mighty all but personal influence, is prominent in the Old
Testament. It becomes, as revelation proceeds, the Spirit of
Messiah. And on this line of developing faith “the Spirit of
Jesus” (Acts xvi. 7), and “the Holy Spirit” as one of a Trinity
of divine Persons (2 Cor. xiii. 13), attracted the reverence of the
early Church. In Hebrews that line is not followed out. The
Spirit as the giver of the new life is not distinctly endowed with
a personality in this epistle. In that connexion the article is
never prefixed: see ii. 4, vi. 4, and x. 29 where the exception is
merely grammatical and depends upon the following genitive
with article. This impersonal manner of expression enables the
author to fill his phrase in ix. 14, dia mvevparos aiwviov, with a
pregnancy of thought which may perhaps be better appreciated
in this present day than at any period since the epistle was
written. But in the three places where the Holy Spirit is repre-
sented as inspiring the sacred books of Israel the article is added,
iii. 7, ix. 8, x. 15. To this book-student the most distinctly
personal manifestation of the Spirit of God was as the inspirer
of the prophetic word'. And here again the affinfty, with no less
marked differences, of Hebrews with the Apocalypse (xix. 10),
and with that other book which falls into the same group, 1 Peter
(i. 11), may be observed.

§ 30. with whom, as it were, the author converses.

This manifestation is indeed “personal” in the most popular
sense of the term. In one word it might be said that this
writer reads the sacred books as though he were “conversing”
with their ultimate author, the Holy Spirit of God. That is
what he defends in the paragraph, iv. 12 f., in which he says
the word of God is living and penetrates the conscience. The
“word of God” here is doubtless wider than the written word.

1 See on this subject Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testa-
ment. Macmillan.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE cxxix

But it is wider because even the written word is wider than
itself. There is for him no such thing as a merely written word.
The word has been written. It was written at various times,
by several men, whose circumstances contributed to the pro-
ducing of their particular expressions of the mind of God. He
is too good a Platonist, or sacramentalist, to slight these limi-
tations which are the means of access to the inner life. But the
inner life, the living One who speaks by these means, is the
object of his affection; and since He still speaks in the new
events of history and later movement of men’s hearts and intel-
lects, all these must be included in “the word” which still
interprets itself to the believer in its ever-deepening and pene-
trating life. Hence the author’s bold selection, as of Ps. civ. 4
to show the angels are wind and fire, though in other places they,
are otherwise figured in the Old Testament; or correction, as in
xi. 27, where he denies that Moses “feared,” in harmony with
Moses’ character as described by the whole story, but in con-
tradiction to the particular verse referred to. Hence above all,
that deepening and refining of “the lesson of the beginning of
the Christ” (vi. 1) which does discover wonderful germs of the
Gospel consummation in the Messianic origins of the oracles
of God (v. 12), notably in the Old Testament treatment of the
mystery of Melchizedek.

§ 31. This treatment of 0.T. has likeness to Philo, but
is really different from his “allegories.”

But in this last instance it may be said we have overshot
the mark. If S. Paul was rabbinic in some of his old-fashioned
arguments, this author is Philonic in his subtleties about Mel-
chizedek. This objection has been noticed above in § 10, and
need not be more closely examined here. It may however be
remarked that nothing would better serve to illustrate the
likeness and unlikeness of our author to Philo than a perusal
of the whole passage about Melchizedek in Philo, Legum Alle-
goriarum iii. 79 ff., pp. 102 ff. The likeness is not altogether
superficial, for Philo had a beautiful mind, and to the author of
Hebrews the Philonic philosophy was a real preparation for
the Gospel. But Philo is diffuse and fanciful. The very title

CXXX INTRODUCTION

of his commentary on the Law—*“ Allegories”—-indicates the
gulf between him and the epistle. Philo wanders far and
wide in allegory; he employs facts as arbitrary symbols to
illustrate his own ideas. The author of this epistle is led
sacramentally through the historical facts of Israel’s past and
the earthly life of Jesus Christ to firm eternal truths which can
be tested by faith (Heb. xi. 1)4

Philo was born about B.c. 20, studied and taught at Alex-
andria, was versed in Greek literature, and spent a great part of
his life in harmonising Greek philosophy, as he understood it,
with the Jewish faith. The fruits of this effort are preserved in
his chief work, the long allegorising commentary on the Law of
Moses. The date of his death is not known. :

Following Dr Caird, we may briefly say that the three main
points in Philo’s philosophy are these :

(1) God is absolute being and as such cannot be known
or reached; He can only be described by negatives. Philo
“carries back the finite to the infinite, but cannot think of the
infinite as manifested in the finite.”

(2) Yet in some way God must reach man and man God.
Hence there must be mediation. Philo finds mediation in the
Word of God; which in the Old Testament meant God’s
uttered command, His direct action, but had already been taken
by the Stoics to express “the rational principle immanent in
man and in the universe.” And to describe this mediating Word
Philo employs a wealth of analogies and figures. His Word seems

1 For Philo’s life and works the reader may be referred to the
article ‘‘Philo’’ in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Volume,
by James Drummond, to Dr Bigg’s Bampton Lectures, The Christian
Platonists of Alexandria, new edition, Clarendon Press, 1915, to the
two lectures on ‘‘ The transition from Stoicism to Neo-platonism ”
and ‘*The philosophy and theology of Philo,” in Dr E. Caird’s
Gifford Lectures, The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philoso-
phers, Maclehose, 1904, and to Bréhier, Les idées philosophiques et
religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie, Paris, 1908. The first critical
edition of Philo’s works was by Thomas Mangey, Canon of Durham,
London, 1742. Later editions preserve his pagination in the margin,
and references to these page-numbers are generally given in quota-
tion. The best modern text is Cohn’s (Ed. minor, Berlin 1886— _).

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE exxxi

at times to be almost a person. It is really the principle of
all the activities that are involved in the connexion of man
with God.

(3) Man is a soul defiled by a body. He is indeed dwelt
in by the Word and can return to God. But to do so he must
escape from all that is himself. He must escape by losing his
will in the divine will; not realise true manhood by losing and
finding his will in the divine will.

It is evident that there is a certain amount of correspond-
ence in these ideas with the thoughts of our epistle, though the
epistle would seem to correct Philo at least as much as it takes
from him. In language there is the same kind of cautious or
doubtful correspondence. From many pages of Philo a few
characteristic words used in Hebrews may be gleaned, and these
mount up to a considerable sum as the process is continued.
It is in Philo’s abundant imagery of the Word that coincidences,
culled and brought together, are most striking. The Logos,
writes Dr Bigg, is the Impress of the mind of God, His Son, the
Archetypal Seal, the Great Pattern according to which all is
made. He is the Divider, in so far as he differentiates, and
makes each thing what it is. He is the Heavenly Man, the
Prophet of the Most High. “For his atoning function Philo
found a fitting symbol ready to hand in the High Priest....
The true High Priest is sinless; if he needs to make an
offering and utter prayer for himself, it is only because he
participates in the guilt of the people whom he represents....He
is Melchisedech, priest of the Most High God, King of Salem,
that is of peace, who met Abraham returning from his victory
over the four kings, and refreshed him with the mystic Bread
and Wine.”

Again however we notice that the coincidences are not
always agreements. The main point in the representation of
Melchizedek is not the same in Hebrews asin Philo. The fol-
lowing words which Philo puts into the mouth of the Logos
would be utterly repudiated by the author of the epistle, as
false if applied to our Lord, and meaningless in any other
connexion: “I stand between the Lord and you, I who am
neither uncreated like God nor created like you, but a mean
between the two extremes, a hostage to either side.” And

exxxli INTRODUCTION

Dr Bigg rightly observes that in much of his discourse Philo
is but translating the hymn of the praise of wisdom, in the
Alexandrine Book of Wisdom, into scientific terminology—of
that wisdom which is “the brightness of the everlasting light,
the unspotted mirror of the Power of God, the image of His
Goodness”; see Wisd. vii. 22 ff.

§ 32. Hebrews is broadly Alexandrine rather than Philonic,
sacramental rather than philosophic.

Here there is a really close parallel with Heb. i. 3, and while
it is doubtful whether our author had read Philo, we may be
pretty certain he had read the Book of Wisdom. It was part of
that larger Greek Bible which was used by the Alexandrian
Jews, and which included most of what we call the Apocrypha.
The “Canon” was still somewhat vague even in Palestine. In
Alexandria it was no doubt vaguer, and we need not curiously
enquire what degree of authority was recognised in these addi-
tional books. It suffices to remember that this author knew
them and that one of them was a favourite of his. That one
was 2 Maccabees, largely drawn upon in Heb. xi. and continually
suggesting turns of language in the epistle.

But 2 Maccabees is not a book of philosophy. There is a
tinge of Alexandrine philosophy in it. So there is indeed in
very many parts of the LXX version; see for instance Gen. i. 2
7 S€ yn hv aoparos Kai adxaracKevaoros, and notice the influence of
this phrase in Heb. xi. 1 ff., and frequently in Philo. A thought-
ful man who had received an Alexandrine education would not
necessarily be a philosopher, but he would have looked through
the window of philosophy and have become aware of that view
of things which is ignored by the so-called “plain” man, or
the man of “common sense,” or the “materialist.” He would
also have acquired a number of more or less philosophical terms
with which to express his deeper thoughts more readily.

That was the kind of scholarship possessed by the author of
Hebrews. He was indeed more of an artist than a philosopher.
So far from aiming strenuously at “pure thought” he frankly
delighted himself with the expression of thought in visual
images. That is part of what we have termed his “‘sacramental”

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE cxxxiii

temperament. And the sacramental temper is in many respects
the antithesis of the philosophical. Yet in one important point
it coincides with right philosophy. It abhors “dualism.” It
would extend the scientific fact that all physical life is one,
into the reasonable assurance of faith that all life is one, that
the natural is also divine. Professor Burnet! speaks of “the
fateful doctrine of two worlds,” and shews that Plato never
made that separation.

But it was that “fateful doctrine” which gave Philo so much
trouble. He tried to overcome it by his mediatory Powers. He
was hampered by his heritage of language. Much of what he writes
about the “intelligible world” etc. is too conventional. He employs
terms which the ancient Greeks had invented for their search
after “reality,” in his different search after the answer to the
question, How can God act as a person? But the writer to the
Hebrews troubles little about either of those problems. He
takes for granted that God does act as a person, and asks (in his
picturesque manner), How can we enter into the presence of God?
And he accepts the answer of the whole Christian Church:
We can do so through our Lord Jesus Christ, who, obedient to
God’s love for men, died to effect this. But he wrote his epistle
because some friends needed further explanation of this answer.
The Church in “its earliest days had been content with the very
simple explanation that our Lord would shortly come as Christ
with the Kingdom of God, and then His people would go to God
with Him. S. Paul said, Yes, and even here and now our life is hid
with Him in God through the Spirit. Our author says, Christ
is coming now in the crisis of these troubled times. That was
a practical not a speculative assurance. He, with the rest of the
Church, still expects the “final” coming. But that was for a
“morrow” of which there was no need to “take thought” then,
“while the summons was going forth, To day.” What mattered
then was the faithful following of the “Captain” who was being
“brought again into the world.”

‘Nevertheless, as a thoughtful man writing to thoughtful
men, he attempts to discover a general principle which will

1 Greek Philosophy, Thales to Plato, pp. 90, 345. Macmillan,
1914.

CXXXiV INTRODUCTION

bring harmony into such ideas of extended, successive comings”
and their results. Our Lord, 8. Luke records, had already said
“The kingdom of God is within you,” or “in your midst”
(xvii. 21). And, according to the record of 8S. John, He had
taught much about His continual presence with His disciples.
This author says, The kingdom, or the new world, or the coming
age, or the promised good things of God, or the inner sanctuary
of His presence—call the mystery what you will—has been
brought within reach of all when Christ died. These realities
are here and now. They, invisible and eternal, are not sepa-
rated from the visible things of this practical and responsible
life of ours on earth. It is through these practical trials, duties,
and affections that we deepen and intensify life till it is recog-
nised as what it really is, the life that is life indeed. Thus we
go to heaven when we pray, iv. 16. And you now, my friends,
will find Jesus, and enter the sabbath rest of God, and know the
vital significance of the Church’s dogma concerning the Person
of Christ and His strength being yours, if you will recognise
“the way of His flesh” in the trial before you, and do your hard
duty, and pass onward and inward with Him to God.

It is a “new world” not “another world” that Platonists
seek, and Christians believe is their own to use. Only-—at least
so our author would put it—we have it but as*we use it, and
while the various persons who make up the Church linger,
hesitate, or press on, a seeming inconsistency remains. We see
Jesus crowned with glory and honour for the suffering of death,
but we do not yet see all His disciples so ready to die (ii. 8 f.).
We know Him to be exalted and apart from sin (vil. 26, ix. 28),
but only one by one, as each makes the one sacrifice in his own
sphere of love, do we attain to His security and propagate it in
the visible world.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE cxxxv

§ 33. Thus “faith” in this epistle is trust intensified by hope
and love. The author expresses the idea with some Platonic

sympathy, but mainly rests upon the Church’s doctrine of
Christ. |

To take that bold step man needs an impulse. That im-
pulse is, according to our author, faith, Lightfoot has given
in his commentary on Galatians! a complete analysis of the
meaning of “faith” in the Old Testament, the various New
Testament writers, the Alexandrine and rabbinic schools: see
his notes on “The words denoting ‘Faith’” and “The faith
of Abraham.” On that aspect of the subject it must here
suffice to say: that in the Old Testament faith is mainly trust
in God ; that this primary notion persists in all the New Testa-
ment writers, but is rendered deeper and more complex by
being involved with the leading passion of their particular
theology ; thus S. Paul’s faith is bound up with the “love” of
Christ which sprang from his conversion; 8. John’s with that
“knowledge” of God and of His Son, which is reinforced by
‘intellectual meditation, but is mainly (as in Hosea) personal
and intuitional.

In Hebrews faith is coloured by an atmosphere of “hope,”
and appears as a spiritual force impelling men to endure and
persevere and strive towards a holiness, a peace and a know-
ledge not yet realised. Whether it is innate in all men, it did
not form part of the author’s plan to discuss. He certainly
regards it as having been implanted by God in all the men
with whom his epistle directly deals, viz. the children of Israel
and the Christian Church. He might, if he had chosen to adopt
Platonic language, have said that faith was a form of the in-
dwelling Word. But he prefers to put it in the opposite way,
as though faith were an embracing potency in the sphere of
which men live (x. 39). So faith is a bond of union between
the ancient Church of Israel and Israel’s heir the Christian
community (iv. 2). Thus, from the beginning, faith was con-
nected with hope ; for the Church of Israel lived on “‘ promises,”
iv. 1, vi. 12, 15, 17, vii. 6, viii. 6, ix. 15, x. 36, xi. 9, 13, 1'7, 33, 39.

1 Macmillan, original edition, 1865.
HEBREWS k

CXXXV1 INTRODUCTION

And so, when the great chapter xi, on faith is reached, the
author introduces it by one of his terse proverbial sayings, in
which he indicates the relation of faith to hope. It is the
substance of things hoped for, the test of things not seen. This
certainly implies that the things which may rightly be hoped for
are already in being, but the stress is on “time” rather than
“reality” ; faith presses onwards, to the “not yet.” Cf. Rom. viii.
24 (a passage which may have helped to shape this verse), r7
yap €Amids eo@Onpev- edmis dé Breropevn ovk Eotw Amis, 6 yap
Bréreu tis eAmicer;

A practical application of the verse will perhaps help to the
understanding of our author’s mind. Suppose a nation at war.
If all points more and more certainly to victory the period of
hope is. drawing to a close. Hope has to do with things not yet
seen, and flourishes in dark days. But it will flourish in dark
days, if faith is there to give it substance, to “uphold” it. Such
faith must obviously be faith in God who alone upholds things
worthy to be hoped for. And so faith is a test of these as yet
unseen but hoped for things. What then may this nation
rightly hope for? Victory? No, that is on the knees of God,
who designs that which is truly best for each party in the strife.
Peace? Yes, but not necessarily outward peace, only the peace ©
of God which makes for His righteousness among men. Apply
the test of faith and one by one all temporal greed and private
judgements about what is best for the world are stripped away.
The patriotic will is not annihilated, but it is transformed into
perfect union with the will of God. The test is severe, but the
gold from which it purges away the dross is an inalienable
possession. A nation which rejoiced in such a purified hope
would conquer the world with God, though it lost what seemed
its all. And it would enjoy peace in the midst of violence, and
fight indomitably while convinced God bade it fight, for it would
be free from all fear and all anxiety ; “qui fortis est idem est
fidens,” Cicero, 7'usc. iii. 14 (quoted by Lightfoot).

There is plainly a good deal of the Pauline ‘‘love” in this
author’s faith also. It was lack of loving loyalty which caused
Israel’s tragic failure of faith, iii. 16 ff. And the personal note
is distinctly heard throughout chapter xi.; Moses endured as
seeing “ Him,” not “it,” which was invisible, xi. 27. It is this

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE | cxxxvii

personal note which forbids our exaggerating the debt of this
epistle to the Alexandrine philosophy. ‘That philosophy en-
larged the vocabulary of the author. It also served the intel-
lectual interest which was strong in him, and which enabled
him to intervene very weightily in the perplexed trial his
friends had to face. But that trial was too real to allow him
in any intellectual trifling. Alexandria had been refurbishing
old-fashioned instruments of speculation. Philo followed the
fashion. His earnestness made him break away again and
again from the method he had imposed upon himself. But the
method hampered him. There is much tediousness, much con-
fusion in his writings. His main achievement was that “he
first gave utterance to both of the two great requirements of the
religious consciousness, the need for rising from the finite and
relative to the Absolute, and the need of seeing the Absolute as
manifested in the finite and relative; although he could find
no other reconciliation of these two needs except externally to
subordinate the latter to the former” (Caird). The writer to
the Hebrews knew something of this “great problem of his
time,” and of the manner in which educated men were ap-
proaching it. This gives his letter a peculiar sympathy which
may well have won its first readers and is still appreciated by
its more academic readers in these days. But his main interest
was in the sufficing truth which he had found enshrined in the
Christian Church, and in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ,
loyalty to whom was the tradition of the Church. That made
him simple, independent, original. So far as he did touch
philosophy he went back, unconsciously, from Alexandrine
Platonism to Plato himself. But he only touched that kind
of philosophy so far as it suited his more concentrated purpose.
He was convinced that in Jesus Christ the riddle of the universe
was solved as far as needs be. Much more was he convinced
that in Him the difficulty of living a noble and beautiful life
was overcome. And out of that conviction he sent this
“treatise of encouragement” to some much-loved and sorely-
tried friends.

£2?

CXXXVIlii LNT RODUCTION

IV

THE TEXT OF THE EPISTLE

§ 1. The number of mss. available for textual criticism has
increased so much of late that the notation in Gregory’s eighth
edition of Tischendorf’s Greek Testament is no longer satis-
factory. Two new classifications have been proposed; an
ingenious but difficult system by von Soden, and a simple
modification of Gregory’s lists. Gregory’s new notation is used
in Dr Souter’s Greek Testament (Wovwm Testamentum G'raece.
Textui a Retractatoribus Anglis adhibito brevem adnotationem
eriticam subiectt Alexander Souter. Clarendon Press, 1910), and
will be adopted in this commentary.

Dr Souter’s edition, small in bulk and in cost, is invaluable.
Nowhere else is the lately discovered material so conveniently
brought together and digested. The critical notes give but a
selection of various readings and of authorities. Such a selection,
wisely made, is just what is wanted by ordinary students. The
following lists, and the critical notes, in this commentary are
founded upon Dr Souter’s work. Only those mss., Versions and
Fathers that are quoted in the notes are included, but three
early fragments of the epistle may be here mentioned as in-
teresting.

p'? is a single verse, Heb. i. 1, written in the margin of a
letter from a Roman Christian. It was published by Grenfell
and Hunt, Amherst papyri, part 1 (1900) no. 3b. (ce. iii. or iv.).

pS Heb. ix. 12—19 is part of a leaf from a papyrus book
(c.iv.); published by Hunt, Oxyrhynchus papyri, part vi11 (1911)
no. 1078.

A fragmentary ms. of the Pauline epistles was brought to
America in 1907 by Mr Charles L. Freer. It is an uncial of
the sixth century, and has, like 8 and B, Hebrews following
2 Thessalonians: see H. A. Saunders in Zhe American Journal
of Archaeology, March 1908, and The Biblical World (Chicago),
Febr. 1908, and E. J. Goodspeed, Introduction to The Epistle to
the Hebrews (The Bible for Home and School), New York, 1908.
The text of this Ms. is not yet published.

THE TEXT OF THE EPISTLE © cxxxix

The New Testament used to be divided into four parts ;
Evangelium, Actus (with Catholic epistles), Paulus, Revelatio.
The initials e a p r shew how many of these parts are included in
a papyrus, vellum or paper codex, or version.

PAPYRUS
p'3 (cent. iv.) Heb. ii, 14d—v. 5; x. 8—xi. 13, 28—xii. 17 (London).

UNCIALS

N (c. iv.)e apr: Sinaiticus (Petrograd, Leipzig).

X* = the first writing, where the first or a later scribe has
afterwards corrected it: so also in A BC D H ete.

X* &> etc. = correctors of the codex.

A (c. v.)e apr (wanting in parts): Alexandrinus (London).
A** A? Arr = correctors.

B (c. iv.) e a p (Heb. ix. 14—xiii. 25, 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem.
wanting): Vaticanus (Rome).
B? Bs = correctors.

C (c. v.)e a pr (fragments): (Paris).
C** C2 etc. = correctors.

D (c. vi.) p (some lines wanting): Claromontanus, a Graeco-
Latin ms. (Paris).
D>» De D? Derr = correctors.

H (c. vi.) p (mutilated): (Athos, Kiev, Moscow, Petrograd, Paris,
Turin).
H is a copy of the edition of epp. Paul, which Euthalius

put forth: wid. wmfra.

K (c. ix.) a p (Acts and part of Paul are wanting) : (Moscow).

L (c. ix.) a p (Acts i. 1—vili. 9 are wanting): (Rome).

M (c. ix.) p (fragments): (London, Hamburg).

P (c. ix.) a p r (mutilated): (Petrograd), wid. Euthal. infra.

MINUSCULES

The following minuscule mss., dating from the ninth (33) to
the fourteenth centuries, are quoted in the notes
5, 6, 33, 104, 241, 263, 326, 424, 436, 442, 456, 1908, 1912.
w = codices plerique.

exl INTRODUCTION

ANCIENT VERSIONS

# = consensus of # (vt) and & (vg).

ik (vt) (c. ii. (?)—iii.—iv.). The Old Latin (e a p r) = consensus
of all or most of the codices which appear to represent this
version or versions,

# (vt*) = the Latin of D.
#L (vt™) = fragments (c. vi.) (Munich).

iL (vg) (c. iv.) = Jerome’s “ vulgate,” recension of the Old Latin:
eapr.

= (vg) (c. v.) = the Peshitta Syriac: e a p.

> (hl) (c. vii.) = the Harklean Syriac, a version made by Thomas
of Harkel, strangely “Western” in text, and having addi-
tional readings of like character entered in margin, S (hl™8),
hl (™es): eapr.

(pal) (c. vi.) =fragments of a Palestinian Syriac version:
eapr.

[@ (sah) (c. iii—iv.)=the Sahidic version of Upper Egypt,
sometimes called Thebaic: ea pr: only fragments of this
version are known for Hebrews. ]

€ (boh) = the Bohairic version of Lower Egypt, sometimes called
Memphitic: e a p (r). The original version was probably
without the Apocalypse. Its date is disputed. Most critics
used to assign it to c. lli.—iv., some now prefer c. vi.—vii.

@ (c. v.?) =the Armenian version: e a pr.

€tf (c. v.—vii.) = the Aethiopic version: e a p r.

FATHERS

The following Fathers are quoted in the critical notes. In
the other notes Clem. or Clement=Clemens Romanus bishop of
Rome (c. i.).

The full names of the Latin writers are printed in italics.
Amb. =Ambrosius bishop of Milan (c. iv.).

Ambst. =‘ Ambrosiaster, a writer once confounded with Ambrose
whose name may have been Isaac (e. iv.).
Aphr. =Aphraates, wrote in Syriac (c. iv.).

THE TEXT OF THE EPISTLE exli

Chr. =Johannes Chrysostomus patriarch of Constantinople
(c. iv. —v.).

Clem. =Clemens Alexandrinus (c. ii.—iii.).

Cosm. =Cosmas Indicopleustes of Alexandria (c. vi.).

Cyr. Hier.=Cyrillus bishop of Jerusalem (ce. iv.).

Did. = Didymus of Alexandria (c. iv.).

Eus. = Eusebius bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (ce. iii.—iv.).

Euthal. =Euthalius (6 aivvyparwdns) editor of epp. Paul., vid.
supra H (c. iv.—v.?).

Euthal.°4- = P (vid. supra) to which codex notes from Euthalius
are added by a hand of the fourteenth century.

Fulg.§ =Fulgentius African bishop (¢. v.—vi.).

Greg.-Nyss.=Gregorius bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia (c. iv.).

Isid.-Pel. = Isidorus of Pelusium in Egypt (c. v.).

Lucif. = Zucifer bishop of Calaris (Cagliari) (c. iv.).

Orig. = Origenes of Alexandria (c. iii.).

Ps.-Serap.=a writer whose work was wrongly attributed to
Serapion an Egyptian bishop of the fourth century.

Tert. = Tertullianus of Carthage (c. ii.—iii.).

§2. The text used in the Cambridge Greek Testament for
Schools is Westcott and Hort’s. No one can properly appreciate
the value of this text without reading the Introduction (by
Dr Hort) which followed, as a second volume, the publication of
their Vew Testament in Greek in 1881. But if not the full
Introduction, at least the simplified summary must be studied,
which is printed at the end of the Greek text both in the larger
and smaller editions. It is impossible to cut the shortened
argument still shorter, and all that will be attempted here is to
indicate the conclusions in such brief fashion as may promote
intelligent analysis of the critical notes in this commentary.

Westcott and Hort aimed at establishing a securer method
than that of private judgement or rules of thumb, To say, This
reading gives the harder, but the better sense, is an example of
private judgement. To count authorities on either side, or to
prefer the older mss., or to choose the shorter reading, are rules
of thumb. What is wanted is to discover the genealogy of Mss.,
so that a dull person may recognise as certainly as a clever one
that such and such a combination indicates the true line of

exlii INTRODUCTION

transmission ; such and such another combination indicates one
of the corrupted lines.

Genealogical discovery does start indeed from private judge-
ment. The character of a Ms. is tentatively settled by the
preponderance of readings on the character of which we form
an opinion from what we know of the author’s mind and the
habits of scribes. But this preliminary judgement is superseded
by degrees, as the relations of Ms. to ms. begin to emerge. At
last the mss. fall into groups which represent lines of transmission.
And it is no longer private judgement when, contemplated on a
wide area, these groups prove their real affinity by the well
marked character of the texts they reveal.

Thus the so-called “'Textus receptus,” derived from Erasmus,
commonly priited in England till Westcott and Hort’s edition
appeared, and followed in our A.V., is supported by the mass of
authorities from the fourth century onwards. It is a smooth,
full, commonplace text, and arose from a deliberate “ recension ”
and amalgamation of earlier diverse texts.

Neglecting then the mass of mss. etc. which conspire to
perpetuate this comparatively late form of text, we find two
other forms which were already current at least as early as the
third century, but which had already diverged from the true line
of descent.

One of these is called the “ Western” text. It represents the
bold, free manner in which people in general might quote from
books of which the sacred precision of each several word is not
yet recognised. The primary documents for this text in Hebrews
are D # (vt), the Old Latin Fathers, and the Greek Ante-
Nicene Fathers, those of Alexandria partially excepted. With
these will often be ranged 104, either & or B (not both together),
the Syriac, Armenian, Aethiopic versions.

The other is more attractive at first sight. But close observa-
tion shows its character to be scholarly, thoughtful correction of
errors or seeming errors. This is called the “ Alexandrian,”
and in Hebrews is found in & A C P, 5, 33, 1908, € (boh),
Alexandrian Fathers, and sometimes @ or & (vg).

But where is the true line of transmission? Clearly in those
readings which, being of the ancient class, are neither “ Western ”
nor ‘ Alexandrian” in their attestation. If any group of author-

THE TEXT OF THE EPISTLE exlili

ities habitually stand for a third set of readings, that group has
the genuine ancestry. Such a group in Hebrews is 8 B A C P
33, 424**, With these will often be ranged € (boh) and
S (pal). |

It will be noticed that these groups overlap. It must be so,
since the genealogy of Mss. is extremely complicated. They are
not simply copied one from another. In copying from one Ms.
readings are brought in from another. These may have been
already written in the margin of the ms. to be copied, or they
may lurk in the scribe’s memory, and so on. This is the
complication called “mixture.” It can only be met by recogni-
tion of the overlapping of groups, while yet the core of each
group remains perceptible.

And if the student will be at the pains to master Hort’s
close-knit argument ; or if, shirking that, he will be content to
trust Hort, he may hold fast to a simple clue through these
perplexities, and prove its worth for himself by experience.
Hort does not say that & and B, especially B, are to be always
trusted because their readings on the whole are good. But he
does show how the agreement of 8 and B assures us of the right
- genealogical line. Each of them from time to time sides with
large aberrant groups. But B, standing nearly by itself, is
always worthy of at least respectful attention.

Unfortunately it is in epp. Paul. that B oftenest gets into
bad company: in this division of the New Testament it has a
considerable “ Western” admixture. And in Hebrews B fails us
at ix. 14, From the middle of the word xadapei it is mutilated
to the end of the epistle. The loss is however made up in some
degree by the fragmentary p®. That papyrus gives a text very
like B. Or is it rather “ Alexandrian”? <A definite answer to
that guaere will be welcome. For in one or two places »!8 offers
a reading so attractive as to rouse suspicion that it is too clever ;
see iv. 4, v. 4, xi. 2.

§3. The text published by Westcott and Hort is generally
accepted as the working basis for all study of the New Testament.
But its details are sometimes questioned. Our R.V. for instance
represents the ancient text as against the “Textus receptus,”
but it differs in many places from Westcott and Hort. The
serious questions are these. Have Westcott and Hort really

exliv INTRODUCTION

succeeded in superseding private judgement by. proved genealogy ?
Is not the “ Western” text more true, as it certainly is more
wide-spread, and probably more ancient than they knew? And
is not their “‘ neutral” text merely a variety of the “ Alexandrian” ?

These are the burning questions in textual criticism, and
these must be borne in mind while the student considers and
reconsiders the groups in. Hebrews. The peculiar delicacy of
language in this epistle renders the last question specially in-
teresting. On the other hand it must be remembered that the
Old Latin version, elsewhere so important a witness for the
“Western” text, is represented in Hebrews almost solely by
the Latin column of D, and this differs rudely from the rest of
the Latin in this codex. It agrees with the quotations of Lucifer
of Cagliari yet is perhaps no real “Old Latin,” as a whole, but a
translation picked up at the end of the fourth century.

These problems are fairly and lucidly discussed in Kenyon’s
Handbook, an excellent guide to the whole subject, complete,
scholarly, urbane. The same author’s Palaeography of Greek
Papyri (Clarendon Press, 1899) is a very delightful book.
Souter’s Text and Canon of the New Testament (Duckworth,
1913) is popular and simple, but full of rare learning which no -
one but its author could impart. Gregory’s Canon and Text of
the New Testament (T. and T. Clark, 1907) is the outcome of
vast experience and is written in a very entertaining manner.
Kirsopp Lake’s Text of the New Testament (Rivingtons, 1911) is
a small and excellent book. Burkitt’s article on “Text and
Versions” in Encyclopaedia Biblica vol. tv. is of great importance.
The section on the Text in Westcott’s Introduction to his
commentary on Hebrews should be carefully studied. The
second volume of von Soden’s Greek Testament, containing the
text of the whole with elaborate textual notes, was published at
Gottingen in 1913. The text with short apparatus and a brief
explanatory preface was also published, a moderate sized volume,
in the same year. Kenyon discusses von Soden’s principles of
criticism in the last chapter of his Handbook. Westcott and
Hort’s text is impugned at length and with some violence by
Mr H. C. Hoskier in Codex B and its allies, a Study and an
Indictment, 2 vols., Quaritch, 1914. Those who would learn
more about the Fathers should read Swete’s Patristic Study,

THK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE exlv

Longmans, 1902. Familiarity with 8. Jerome’s Vulgate is an
inestimable advantage to the student of the Greek Testament.
A good text of the Vulgate has been put within reach of the
slenderest purse by Dr H. J. White in his (complete) Lditio
Minor of Wordsworth and White’s Novum Testamentum Latine,
Clarendon Press, 1911. Dr White wrote the masterly article
on the Vulgate in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible vol. Iv.,
an article which fills the same place for this generation as
Westcott’s in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible did for a former
generation.

Vv

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE
§ 1. Character of N.T. Greek.

Origen said that anyone who knew Greek must see that
S. Paul did not write this epistle. The difference of style and
language is indeed conspicuous. S. Paul, probably bilingual from
early years, used Greek fluently but roughly; it is impossible,
for instance, to press the delicate distinctions of classical Greek
into his prepositions. He dictated his letters and they are
conversational, by no means bookish. Notice in Ephesians
how he thrice begins a prayer, but twice runs off into further
development of his subject before completing the prayer in
iii. 14—21; and contrast Heb. xiii. 20f. Of late, the study of
inscriptions, papyri etc. has enabled us to understand more
precisely what this Greek of S. Paul is. It is the “common
Greek” in which, since the conquests of Alexander, men of
various nations could talk or write to one another throughout the
civilised world. Yet this common Greek was also adapted, with
more or less art, to literary purposes, and in N.T. generally we
find a particular adaptation which, with variety within itself,
still stands apart from the other Greek writings of the period.
It is more simple; the sentences are short; it has a pleasing
air of sincerity. One reason for this marked character is the
influence of the LXX.

exlvi INTRODUCTION

These writers were affected by the somewhat rude but
vigorous and really noble effort of the translators of the Greek
Bible to express holy thoughts worthily, yet in the language
of the people. They repeated the effort ; having new and still
greater truths to tell. Thus a fresh development in vernacular
literature arose which might be compared with Bunyan’s English
in the Pilgrim’s Progress—the language of everyday life broken
in to the grammatical terseness of book-form by the unconscious
art of men inspired with an unworldly message.

Yet this N.T. Greek shews variety. The Apocalypse comes
nearest to the rude ungrammatical Greek of some papyri; it is
written by a foreigner who has not really mastered the idiom.
In S. John’s Gospel and Epistles we perhaps recognise a foreigner
again who has learned to meet his difficulties by a style of
extreme simplicity. S. Matthew and S. Mark are Hellenistic
Bible Christians writing as they had heard the story told,
yet pruning their words. S. Luke is different; a trained writer
whose natural style appears in the latter part of Acts. In the
first twelve chapters and in the Gospel he passes sympatheti-
cally into the more rustic style of his authorities, and in the
four opening verses of the Gospel he shews that he can match
the dignity of the rhetorical schools. In 2 Peter and Jude a
like attempt is made but less admirably. With 8. Luke how-
ever 1 Peter and James may be classed as examples of more or
less literary Greek ; and, supreme in this kind, stands Hebrews.

§ 2. The Greek of Hebrews, classical but not artificial:
use of LXX.

This is but a rough classification, nor are we concerned here
with critical questions about authorship; the names quoted may
be taken for symbols rather than persons if any prefer to do so.
As a first test of what has been said the student may refer to
the lists of words at the end of Grimm and Thayer’s Lexicon
of the N.T But it is not enough to count the mere number
of words peculiar to each writer. The kind of words is the
important point. In Hebrews we are at once struck by what
may be termed the distinguished character of the vocabulary.
Then by its classical purity; of 157 words peculiar to this epistle,

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE exlvil

115 are current in early Greek. On the other hand when we
turn from lists to the epistle itself we see that there is no
affectation about this; later words or LXX words are employed
where suitable. Yet there is a certain fastidiousness, as in the
substitution of dvacravpée for the incorrect oravpée vi. 6. So in
vii. after using iepariay in a reference to O.T. the author passes
to his own more secular phraseology with iepwovvn; and in ix. 2
he writes 7 mpdeots rav aprov, avoiding the Hebraic oi dpra
tis mpobéoews. Yet he does not despise that Hebraic genitive
when it contributes to a desired emphasis, as in ix. 5 XepouBelv
ddEns; he even imitates it (as indeed Greek quite allows) in
such a phrase as xapmér eipnyixov...duxatoovvns xii. 11. That is
but one instance of a frequent exercise of skill in his use of LXX.
Not only does he interweave quotations, modifying them, to
bring out fuller meaning, as in x. 37 éri yap puKxpdv dcov door,
6 épxdpevos née x.t.X., Cf. ii. 9, iv. 7, x. 10, xii. 26; but he will
adopt a rude Hebraic use of the prep. év, and by careful context
fill it with significance, as in i. 1 f. ev +r. mpodnrais...év vid,
x. 10 é€v 6 OeAnuari, xiii. 20 f. where notice how év aivari and
év npiv explain one another. To make the most of prepositions
was a delight to him, see ix. 26 do...éml...eis...dua, ix. 28, xii. 7
eis mawdciav Uropévere, and the ambiguous or rather pregnant
éx Oavarov v. 7. Other examples of masterly conveyance from
LXX are émiAapBavera ii. 16, ra mpds rov Gedy ii. 17, v. 1—
a compendium of the sacerdotal theology of the epistle, and
the allusive, associative use of the title: “Christ” which is
continually developed—see e.g. ili. 6, v. 5, xi. 26, xiii. 21.

§ 3. Tenses.

In other books of N.T. it is dangerous to press the signifi-
cance of tenses; in Hebrews it is hard to do so too much.
Notice the aor. inf. xiii. 20 followed by the pres. part.; the
combination in ii. 18 €v 6 yap wérovOev airos retpacbeis, Svvara.
rois metpatopevas BonOnaa, with which cf. the presents in vii. 25,
and the jnyacpévot...dyrafouévovs x. 10, 14; the pres. part. in
xi. 17 weipat¢opevos= “being sorely tried all the time,” and the
perf. mpooevnvoxey (modification of LXX)=“he hath offered
and the sacrifice still stands.” Perfects abound, never without

exlvili INTRODUCTION

proper meaning. Thus the repeatedly quoted éxd@ucev becomes
at xii. 2 cexaOucev. In xi. 28 remoinxey 76 macyxa interrupts the
series of aorists because the Passover is an institution still
observed. Sometimes a perfect and often a present is due to
the’ author’s habit of referring to what stands written in books
or pictured in history, ii. 9 rov...nAarr@pévov Br€ropev "Inoodr...
éorepavapévov, Vii. 3 adapowwpévos TH vig Tod Geo, and so
probably ix. 6—-10 rovrov...caterxevacpévor...dua mavros eigiagwv
oi iepeis x.7.X., where the ritual of the tabernacle rather than
contemporary worship seems to be described, cf. viii. 4f
It may be remarked that the emphatic use of perfects is another
example of judicious adaptation from LXX language ; see i. 13
for quotation of a LXX compound perf. écopa reroidas, and
ef. e.g. Is. lx. 15 dca 1d yeyevnoOai ce eyxaradeherppéevny Kai
peptonuéevnv. For a very precise use of perf. inf. see xi. 3 eis r6
p)...yeyovevat.

That is also an example of the inf. with article and prepo-
sition, common in later Greek, and handled by this author with
freedom, e.g. in ii. 15 dua wavrés rod (pv. His use of év in such
phrases, ii. 8, iii. 12 ev r@ amoornva, shews how far he is from
affecting classicism: for this construction, in which the inf.
seems to admit a temporal sense, is hardly true to the genius of
the older language. Another laudable concession:to contempo-
rary usage is the Latinising 6 rpocevéyxy, Vill. 3.

§ 4. Participles.

Participles are used with nicety, terseness, and sometimes
bold freedom. Notice the interwoven series in i. 3f., v. 7—10,
vi. 4—6, the terseness of paxpoOupnoas éméruxev vi. 15, drag
kexabapicpévous X. 2, yervnbeis expvBn xi. 23, and the extension
of formal grammar in vi. 10 évedei~acOe...dtaxovnoavres xai d.a-
kovouvtes, and the practical elegance of noun-phrase varied by
part. in xiil. 17 va pera yxapas rovTo modow Kai pn oTevdforTes.

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE exlix

§ 5. Article.

The article is added or omitted so as to get the utmost from
the words; i. 2 év vid, ix. 14 dca mrvevparos aiwviov, vi. 7 yi
yap 7 move, Vi. 18 (though here the text is perhaps uncertain)
év ois aduvatov Wevcacba Gedy, xil. 7 @s viois buly mpoodépera
6 Oeds* tis yap vids dv od madever maryp; see also xi. 16, and
the scarce translatable deds (av. Its omission in passages of
poetical elevation is effective, and reminds us of the tragedians,
xi. 33 ff, xii. 22—24. The construction with a neuter adj. or
part. to represent an abstract or collective is well introduced in
vi. 17 rd dperdberov ris BovAjjs avrov, Vil. 18 dia TO avTns avdeves
kal avodedés, xii. 13 a py rd xoddov extpar7. The rules for
omitting art. in compound phrases are observed; ds ov dmav-
yaopa ths Sdéns is predicative i. 3, els amoAvTpwow Tav emi TH
mparn Suabnkn mapaBdcewr, ix. 15, has a preposition. We are there-
fore inclined to suspect some deliberate purpose in the technical
irregularity of dwadry ris apaprias iii. 13; it is probably meant to
throw emphasis on the particular sin which the readers were in
danger of committing, cf. xii. 1 ryv edaepioratov apapriay.

§ 6. Order of words.

In ix. 1 there is a double predicate, the second expressed as
usual by the position of the article, the first merely by the order
ele pev ovv Kal 7) mpwoTn Sikatmpara Aarpeias TO TE Gytov KoopLKdV:
so in vi. 5 caddv yevoapévovs Oeod phua Suvdpes te péAdovTos
aiavos, cf. ix. 17, 24, xi. 26, and the compound predicate in
x. 34 ywwewokovtes €xev Eavtovs Kpeiooova Urapéw Kal pévovear.
Again and again the sense is brought out by the order of the
words, e.g. the emphatic "Incody dividing the clauses in ii. 9,
cf. vi. 20, xiii. 20. Sometimes an emphatic word is postponed
to the end of the clause, as in vil. 4 6 dexdrny “ABpaap Saxev
éx Tav akpoOwiar 6 marpiapxns, ix. 28 €« Sevrépov xwpis dpaprias
6pOnoera Tois adrov dzmexdexopévors eis cwTnpiay with which cf.
the final rjv dopadecav Lukei. 4. This is especially to be noticed
with genitives, as in x. 20, rotr’ €or ris capKds adrod (where
see note), ix. 15, xii. 11. In xi. 1 gor stands emphatically at
the beginning of the sentence. Words connected in syntax are

cl INTRODUCTION

elegantly separated, as in Plato, iv. 8 ot« dv mepi dAns édadet
pera Tavta nuépas, il. 17, iv. 11, x. 2. In ix. 11, rév yevopévor
ayadav did..., the idiomatic nicety has. been misunderstood by
copyists and translators, as too has the rhetorical rives in iii. 16.

§ 7. Elaboration and simplicity: no vain rhetoric.

Long, skilfully woven periods are not uncommon, e.g. i. 1—4,
vi. 1—6; yet compared with Philo or Josephus these are plain,
with the indifference to shew that a great subject breeds. The
antitheses too with which the epistle abounds are of such a kind
that they illustrate a certain mystery of all good language, viz.
that the understanding seems to require precisely the same
artistic form as will satisfy the ear. Thus in xi. 1, éAmifopéver
imootacis mpayydatav ~edeyxos ov BAerouévav, neither of the
balanced clauses could be dispensed with. A difference in this
respect may be observed between the parallelisms of the author
and the more formal parallelisms of the O.T. poetry which he
quotes. The same happy coincidence of sound and sense may
be observed in many of the long, swiftly-scanned perfect forms
which fit so well into their place in the sentence; e.g. kexAnpovd-
pen KEV dvopa 1, 4, T eptkekaduppevnv m avTobev xpvoi ix. 4—notice
the metrical assonance with tmepava de airns XepovPeiv in the
next verse. A like good taste restrains the use of resonant. com-
pounds, pic arrodocia, éyxaradeimovres, xetporoinra, 6pkwpogia etc.
These are characteristic of the epistle; yet they are sparingly
admitted. Contrast the profusion in 2 Peter and Jude, or even
in so pleasing a writer as Clement of Rome. And quite as
characteristic is the effect produced by very simple words—xai,
exo, dv, dvr@v, Aadéw, pévw etc.—and quiet phrases like vi. 3, cai
TOUTO ToLNGopev eavrep ETiTpEeTN 6 Oeds.

Such simplicity is particularly effective when it comes by
way of contrast, as pévew after wapayévew vii. 23f. This kind
of distinction between similar words may also be illustrated by
mpddndov, karddnAov in the same chapter (14f.). It is one of the
author’s habits to press the philological value of words in this
way; so (rightly or wrongly) rpéogaroy x. 20, and generally
rededo and its cognates; so again éx@oBos...évtpopos Xxil. 21.
This naturally lends itself to his love of antithesis, but finer

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE cli

examples of that figure are to be seen in sentences like xi. 38,
dv ovx jv Gkos 6 xdopos émi épnuiais mavepevor x.7.A., or in
gnomic utterances like guadev ad’ dv érabev riv iraxony V. 8,
or 6 re yap ayiafwy Kai of dyaCopevor €€ Evds ravres ii. 11.

At vii. 4 there is a sudden touch of conversational audacity—
mnrixos. This might be recondite art, as might the meéosis in
xii. 17 advouredes yap bpuiy rovro, or the ironic use of ris at x. 25,
Ka0as eOos tiir, cf. ii. 6, iii. 4, 12f., iv. 11, xii. 15 f., xiii. 2; and
indeed this kind of thing is frequent in Philo. But Philonic
mannerisms were natural to the author, and (we may suppose)
to his readers, and it is more respectful to take it as easy,
intimate writing. Deissmann will not allow the epistle to be
a letter in the true sense of the word, and Wrede considered
ch, xiii. a letter-like addition to an original treatise, intended
to make people think that S. Paul was the author. But ch. xiii.
must surely seem to a sympathetic reader a most natural con-
clusion. The author himself allows that the earlier chapters
are rather like a treatise (see xiii. 22 note), yet even in them
intimacy sometimes intrudes; see especially the all but play-
fulness of v. 11—13, the reminiscences in vi. 10, x. 32ff., and
the touching sympathy of ryv cvveidnow jpav ix. 14, where the
v.1. tyay (though fairly attested) only shews how soon and how
generally such personal notes fell on deaf ears. It may be that
the irregular grammar of vii. 1, x. 1, is epistolary carelessness;
so too the ambiguity of expression in i. 6, iv. 7, 13 (6 Adyos
repeated), v. 12 (ruva or riva), vi. 2, xii. 17, xii. 22 pupudow
ayyéXov [,] mavnyvper; though the last instance should warn us
against supposing that what is ambiguous to us was therefore
ambiguous to native and contemporary readers. However that
may be, it is certain that careful study of this epistle corrects
the first impression of artificial rhetoric. Notice the truly Greek
naturalness of the return to the accusative in dyaydvra ii. 10;
and the wakefulness against growing tedious in chs, iv. and v.,
where the too argumentative page is enlightened suddenly by
dpa arodeirerat caBBaricpos x.T.rA. iv. 9; the vivid personal dva-
réra\kev 6 kuptos nuay Vil. 14, and the great arresting phrases at
vii. 16, 25.

HEBREWS L

elii INTRODUCTION

§ 8. Particles and Conjunctions,

He uses particles and conjunctions more freely and skilfully
than any other New Testament writer. For illustration take
these references: ot yap 6) mov ii. 16, xal...pev...d€ li. 5 f.,
x. 11 f., xal...dé ix. 21, dypis of ili. 13, xaimep with part. v. 8,
vii. 5, xii. 17, «cairo. with part. or perhaps rather introducing
new sentence iv. 3 (see note), cal ydp xii. 29, xiii, 22 (see note),
dpa iv. 9, & vi. 1, x. 5, ef peév ovy vii. 11, viii. 4, cf. ix. 1,
eira xii. 9, éore introducing clause xiii. 6, rowvvy xiii. 18. Con-
nexion by relatives, és, wept ov, oiriwes, dev, dzrov, is frequent.
The parenthetic, ovra qoBepdv jv ro havragspevoy xii. 21, is
a good device for heightening the imaginative effect of the
passage. Variety is gained by expressing comparisons by
mapa, antithetic balance by xa’ dcov, rocovTe...d09, i. 4,
ix. 27, x. 25. In x. 33 rodtro pév...rodro dé is used in good
Greek sense ; sO is ws é2os eimeiv (limiting the bold statement)
in vii. 9. One of the simplicities of the author’s diction is his
frequent introduction of sentences by a plain xai—to. be dis-
tinguished from the emphatic xai which qualifies the opening
word of a sentence introduced by some other particle: contrast
ix. 21 with ix. 22, also the remarkable xi. 17. Perhaps it would
be fanciful to recognise the onward pressing hopefulness of the
epistle in this habit, as a sanguine temperament is sometimes
discovered by an upward tending script. Yet see how a kai
of this kind appends xi. 39f. to the roll of by-gone heroisms,
and notice the restless desidertwm of the three last verses as
contrasted with the resting places in the history which were
marked by the firm words woédw xi. 16, and eipnyns xi. 31.
Sometimes attention is called by an abrupt start, without
connecting particle ; thus ome péxpis aiparos xii. 4, cf. iii. 12,
viii. 13, x. 8, 23, 28 f., 31, the repeated miore: in xi., xil. 14, and
often in xiii, Sometimes the author binds together a chain of
nouns and phrases with «ai and ré, vi. 4f.; but again, as though
weary of such precision, he pours forth additional ones rapidly
and disconnected, xi. 37f. At xiii. 8 Incotds éxyOés Kai onpepov
k.T.. (see note) is a battle cry, not a statement, in accordance
with the purpose of the epistle, which is to “witness” for the
faith, not to develop it.

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE cliii

The author has been wrongfully accused of mistreating d7a@s
in 11. 9 (see note). Another case of doubtful Greek may be worth
a few remarks. No New Testament writer keeps the classical
rule about od and ju) with participles ; their rough and ready rule ©
is, “with participle always py.” However they do use ov some-
times (see Blass, § 75, 5); as this author does, evidently with
intention, in xi. 35. But, besides that, he preserves something
of the older feeling for py. Notice first his idiomatic émei py
tore ioxver ix. 17 (where see note); then the pz with part. in
iv. 2, 15, vii. 3, 6, ix. 9, xi. 8, 18, 27. In most instances there
is reason for px) in the syntax of the sentence, or we can dis-
cern at least a partial appropriateness in the py: sometimes it
might be translated “though...not,” or “not that.” Contrast
xi. 1, mpaypdrav ereyxos ov BAeropuévwv, where px would greatly
weaken the thought, with xi. 27, py poBndecis rov Ovpor rod
Baciéos =“ not that, do not say that he feared”; cf. 1 Pet. i. 8,
dv ovx iddvres ayarGre, eis bv aprt py dpavres micrevovres Se ayah-
Aare, “‘ where,” however, Blass holds, “it is artificial to wish to
draw a distinction between the two negatives.”

§ 9. Picturesqueness.

Of the author’s picturesque manner of thinking something
has been said in another section. These characteristics may
be noted here. Personification in xii. 4 and again in 5, also in
24, Yet in each case what is characteristic is the delicacy of
the figure; the phrase just falls short of personification, cf. x. 23
the “confession” wavering; it is the unconscious liveliness of
an ever picturing mind. And in the two instances from ch. xii.,
of voices in Scripture and in the mystery symbolised by “blood,”
there is something akin to the idea which runs through the
epistle of the Spirit of God speaking in books, history and ritual.
Pictures are again and again presented to the mind’s eye; see
the opening verses i. 1—4, xi. 13—16 the “pilgrim fathers,”
Sometimes these pictures are, not indistinct, but hard to
interpret. They take form, dissolve, and form themselves
afresh, as we ponder on their meaning; so iv. 12f. and xiii. 7
the release of departed “leaders” from the coil of business, or
their martyrdom. Mystery of a deeper kind is suggested in

12

cliv INTRODUCTION

such passages as xii. 18 with its undefined participles ynAado-
pév@ kal Kexavpév@ mupi; mark the gdavra{ouevoy immediately
afterwards, which comes in as a curious and peculiar word
' that lets you into the spirit of the whole design. The converse
of this appears in sentences where difficult thought is condensed
into luminous phrases and made “clear” by being carried into
a higher region of imagination. Instances.are ii. 14 rdv rd
Kparos €xyovta tov Oavarov, Vi. 5 Suvdpers te péedAdAovTos aidvos,
Vii. 16 od Kard vduov évtoAns capkivns...dd\Ad Kara Sivapw Cwns
dxatanvrov, and vii. 25 mdvrore (dv eis Td evruyxdavew bmép a’rar,
where the peculiar quality of this epistle may be discerned by
comparison with the less tangible phrase of Rom. viii. 27, xara
Oedv evrvyxaves [Td mvedpal brép dyiov. Cf. also ix. 14, xi. 1, 3,
27, xii. 27. There is something of the same nature, though here
imagination more nearly approaches metaphor, in x. 20; worth
special reference however on account of the rotr’ gor, which,
perhaps always, in this epistle introduces a more profound
second thought. :
Then there is the imagination of sympathy, as in the pic-
tures of the divine humiliation ii. 8 f., v. 7 ff; of the unhappy
“sinners against their own selves” xii. 3, cf. ywpis olkrippov
x. 28; the silly, halting “multitude” xii, 13; the wakeful
leaders xiii. 17; and the recollection in v. 1 ff. of good priests
the author and his friends have known. In xi. 21 kai mpoce-
Kuynoev emt TO dkpov ths paBdou avrod, which we are apt to feel
an otiose addition, is probably a pathetic detail in the description
of the aged patriarch. It is generally safe to let the picturesque
emerge from our author’s language. Consider how the visual
image simplifies discussion of irdéortaots, reAevdw, ovveidnors, and
in their context, kara riorw xi. 13, peoirn xii. 24; and how it
adds to the value of such rememberable phrases as the “cloud of
witnesses,” “land of promise,” “city that hath the foundations.”

§ 10. Artistic arrangement.

The late Dean of Lincoln, Dr Wickham, says in his edition:
“Tt is, in a sense beyond any other epistle in the New Testa-
ment, an artistic whole. It is a letter, but at the same time
it is an impassioned treatise or piece of oratory, having a single

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE clv

purpose, ardently felt, clearly conceived, never lost to sight.
The whole argument is in view from the beginning, whether in
the purely argumentative passages, or in those which are in
form hortatory ; we are constantly meeting phrases which are
to be taken up again, and to have their full meaning given to
them later on. The plan itself develops. While the figures
to some extent change and take fresh colour, there is growing
through all, in trait on trait, the picture which the writer
designs to leave before his readers’ minds.” This is admirably
put, and we shall also listen respectfully to von Soden!, who
finds in the arrangement an exact observance of the rules of
the masters of rhetoric; i. 1—iv. 13 is the mpooiwov mpos ev-
votav With establishment of the mpd0ecis, iv. 14—vi. 20 dunynors
mpos miOavdrnra, Vil. 1—x. 18 amddecEts mpds wetOa, x. 19—xiii.
21 ésridoyos, with the practical challenge that all has been
leading to.

Undoubtedly there is art, much art, in the composition.
If the divisions marked by von Soden do not appear at once
clear cut before us, that only shews good art concealing art.
In all his transitions the author hides the juncture ; notice for
instance how “angels” is repeated, ii. 5, as a catch-word to link
the new subject of ii. 5—18 to the former. But notice also how
delicately this is done; the thought of the angels itself over-
laps into the new subject, and is just touched once more near
the end, ii. 16; yet it is no master thought in this section, the
angels, as it were, slowly fade; except for the smooth advance
of the argument they need not really have been mentioned again
after i.14. To us this artistic manner is apt to cause a kind
of suspicion; it seems “artificial”; we think of the author’s
own depreciation of the things that are transitory because they
are “made up,” os mezompéevor, xii. 27. And indeed his style
and manner are, as with many another earnest advocate of
eternal truth, transitory. They belong, like the technical
vocabulary of Alexandrine philosophy which he employs, to
the time and to the little circle of himself and his friends.
But that means that they were natural to him and them. He
has a purpose ardently felt, nothing less than to prepare some

1 Hand-Commentar, p. 11. Freiburg, 1899.

elvi INTRODUCTION

dear friends for possible or probable martyrdom. They, like
himself, live in a world of books. That explains his choice of
language, and makes his purpose the more courageous, Com-
pare the eloquent defence of S. Stephen, another “man of
words” who passed from words to martyrdom with no sense
of incongruity, though probably with especial difficulty ; and see
how sympathetically S. Luke, himself like-minded, describes
both his educated oratory and his masculine resolution. It
need hardly be added that both S. Luke and our author look
beyond these things—-dgopayres xii. 1—to the vision of the
martyr’s captain and upholder, enthroned—or standing—at the
right hand of God. |

§1l. A.V. and RV.

Translations into modern English, such as Weymouth’s or
The Twentieth Century New Testament, are less acceptable for
Hebrews than for other parts of N.T. Moffatt’s earlier trans-
lation in his Historical New Testament (T. and T. Clark) does
preserve something of the peculiar flavour of this epistle. Yet
how thin is his rendering of xi. 1: “ Now faith is to be confident
of what we hope for, to be convinced of what we do not see.”
Hardly indeed may A.V. be surpassed in that verse: “Now
faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of: things
not seen.” The half philosophical, half picturesque phraseology _
of the original is just caught there, and the marginal note on
“ substance”—“ Or, ground, or confidence”—goes as far as it
ought to go in concession to the weaker brethren. The R.V.,
it must be confessed, attenuates the sense: “ Now faith is the
assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen,”
and in the margin for “the assurance” “Or, the giving substance
to,” for “proving” “Or, ¢est.” Other, but slight, misrenderings
in R.V. are vii. 9 “‘so to say” for as eros eimeiv, x. 33 “‘ partly...
partly” for rodro pév...rovro dé, xiii. 8 where the insertion of
“7s” weakens the proclamation, which in A.V. sounds forth
bravely.

In Hebrews A.V. is particularly good, not merely as a piece
of English, but as an equivalent of the uncommon Greek style.
The advantage of reading in R.V. is not so immediately obvious

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE eii

as in §. Paul’s epistles, perhaps even less so when the proper
test of reading aloud is applied. Yet to the theologian, however
simple, who does not read to delight his ear but to assure his
anxious heart, the satisfaction of R.V. is presently discovered.
There is first the inestimable advantage of the pure text. At
the outset R.V. strikes the note of hope with “at the end of
these days” instead of “in these last days”; then of breadth
with “when he had made purification of sins” instead of “when
he had by himself purged our sins.” It does matter whether
Christ came as a high priest of good things to come, or, R.V,
margin, of good things that have with His death already come,
ix. 11; whether we ought to “consider him that endured such
contradiction of sinners against himself,” or rather “him that
hath endured such gainsaying of sinners against themselves,”
xii. 3.

Nor is the scrupulous attention of R.V. to this perf. part.,
dropepevnxdra, pedantry. As in ii. 18 and many another place
the author encourages us here by the belief that our Saviour’s
pains on earth are still in Him a ground of sympathy with us.
If all the many corrections of tenses in R.V. are not so evidently
practical in their bearing, more and more are found to be so by
the student who broods over his book. Or take the article.
Is there no theological beauty in “the city which hath the
foundations” xi. 10, “‘the city which is to come” xiii. 14, or in
the answer of xi. 14 to xi. 9, “‘a sojourner in the land of promise,
as in a land not his own....For they that say such things make
it manifest that they are seeking after a country of their own” ?
In xii. 2 “endured the cross, despising shame,” is perhaps
wrong; the Greek has the art. with neither noun, and A.V.
reproduces the aphorism more forcibly by adding it to both.
But in xii. 14 “Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctifi-
cation without which no man shall see the Lord,” R.V. has
faithfully preferred an obscurity, which at least startles the
conscience, to the smooth inaccuracy, which so easily passes
through the mind as a truism, of A.V. _

In that verse “no man” is a right translation. But in iii. 3,
x. 12 A.V. speaks of our Lord as “this man” without justifi-
cation in the Greek. This confuses the important doctrine of
the real manhood which the epistle illustrates continually, but

elviil INTRODUCTION

never in such crude fashion. It dwells too on His “compassion”
or “sympathy,” but perpioradeiv, v. 2, is different, in some ways
more than that, and R.V. “bear gently with” is admirable.
A.V. however has “can reasonably bear with” in its margin, and
the margin deserves attention in both versions—in R.V. it is as
valuable as the text; it is very wrong to print either without
their marginal notes. If the theology of Hebrews does add
anything to the theology of the rest of the N.T., it is more
than worth while to render its peculiar theological phraseology
with particularity. That is attempted far more thoroughly in
R.V. than in A.V. In i. 14 “ministering spirits sent forth to
minister” misses the conversion of ritual idealism into practi-
cal service which R.V. expresses by “to do service.” ‘To make
reconciliation,” ii. 17, is Pauline; “to make propitiation” = fAd-
oxeovOa. “Consecrated,” vii. 28, confuses reherd@ with ayid¢o ; the
margin has “Gr. perfected,” but R.V. rightly puts this into the
text. In x. 23 “faith” for “hope” is a sheer mistake, possibly
a printer’s error. In xi. 2, 39 “obtained a good report” is quite
misleading. R.V. “had witness borne to them” sounds less
plain English but indicates the connexion with the other pas-
sages where paprupeioOa or cognates are used with more or less
approach to the idea of “martyrdom.” In xii. 2 the dominant
note of redecdw is again echoed in reActwrnv. A.V. “Author and
finisher” has the influence of custom upon us. But the echo is
important, and “finisher” may even suggest an untrue thought if
we connect it with the popular interpretation of 1 Cor. xiii. 13.
R.V. “Author and perfecter,” with the marginal alternative
“captain” for “author,” carries us far deeper into the writer’s mind.
In xi. 13 A.V. has “These all died in faith, not having received
the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded
of them, and embraced them,” a false reading and a wrong
translation. How beautiful is R.V. “having seen them and
greeted them from afar.” This is an example of that vivid
picturesqueness which really belongs to the epistle and which,
reverently preserved, may impress the writer’s earnest purpose
upon more generations of readers than the sweetest compen-
sations in another.idiom. So in x. 27 “fierceness of fire” R.V. is
better than “fiery indignation.” It might seem wanton to alter
“Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE clix

away,” viii. 13, into “But that which is becoming old and waxeth
aged is nigh unto vanishing away.” But the transposition of
“old” knits, as in the Greek memadaioxev...rd dé madaovpevor,
this verse to the preceding. The compound phrase “is becoming
old” shows that this is no mere proverbial appendage (which
might well be introduced by “Now”), but the observation of
a particular and startling process already going on before the
eyes of the writer and his friends. And the “nigh unto” is one
of the solemn notes characteristic of the epistle; cf. vi. 8
addéxios kai Kardpas éyyvs, X. 25 éyyifovcay tiv nuépav, and—an
answeling phrase in the harmony—emwecaywy Kpeittovos edmidos
de’ ns eyyiCopev To Gee, vii. 19. If this epistle really is a challenge,
sounding out of an actual crisis when some great perilous change
was “nigh,” all this correction was worth making. It is how-
ever a pity that those who worked so carefully here should have
obscured their purpose by rendering reAevrav, xi. 22, into “when
his end was nigh.”

§ 12. Lythm.

It would be out of place in these notes to consider the
objection commonly made against R.V., viz. that its rythm is
inferior, if this consideration did not help us to a more precise
appreciation of the Greek rythm of the epistle. But it does.
Whereas A.V. preserves the more formal Latin tradition in its
grand but slightly varied cadences, R.V. approaches more nearly
the freedom of the Greek. No doubt the main care of the
Revisers was for exact translation and sometimes for restoring
the author’s meaning by attention to the order of his words.
But the result unconsciously attained is, fairly often, a nearer
agreement with the principle laid down by Aristotle, Rhet. iii. 8,
that in prose there should be rythm but no metre, and that
the rythm should not be too precise.

Hebrews certainly has rythm. Blass published an edition in
which he shewed a metrical correspondence of clauses through-
out, the beginning or ending of one answering to another near
it, and nota single one failing to come into the system. He
actually makes out these correspondences, but is obliged to intro-
duce a certain number of impossible readings for the purpose.
It would appear that the careful Greek rhetoricians really did

elx INTRODUCTION

compose in this manner. But we may suspect that the author of
Hebrews was after all not one of them. Indeed his tendency to
let words run into fragments of verse forbids our recognising him
as either a very careful or a quite first-rate master of rythm.
His variety is great. To classify his cadences is a baffling task.
Finely measured yet changeful sound pervades whole sentences.
Nevertheless his variety is infected by a certain monotony of
“the metrical,” here and there.

Yet the verse-metre to which he is inclined is the iambic.
Isocrates had like inclination and Aristotle says of that metre,
that in the speech of everyday life people are apt to drop into it;
which seems to provide some excuse for both writers.

Aristotle gives another hint for our guidance when he recom-
mends the paeon as a measure to be used in prose. The paeon
is a long syllable followed by three short ones, or three short
syllables followed bya long. So in the opening verse, rodupepas
kal toAutporas; and, if we extend its use by breaking the long
into two shorts, the next phrase continues in the same measure,
mada 6 Oeds, for of course a is short before the following vowel.
But if this phrase be taken, not by itself, but in its context with
the whole sentence, the last syllable of eds is lengthened by
“position”: thus monotony is avoided, and we already have
a suggestion of the many ways in which the author will an
this favourite element of rythm.

But another metrical equivalent of the paeon is the biletip
(—~-), and this is in Demosthenes “his favourite foot throughout
the sentence.” And in the epistle cretics will be found to play
an important part. The student may count the cretics in the
four opening verses; then take less rhetorical passages and
notice how the dailies diminish in number; then observe cretics
giving the “Ciceronian” character to the close of sentences,
i.e. a cretic followed by a trochaic series ; yet not with Ciceronian
regularity—the modification -~~-— is for instance common. He
will also notice how often the offending iambic combinations may
be better read as measures governed by a cretic, e.g. xii. 18, cal
kexaupév@ Tupi, is notably iambic only when isolated; in its con-
text it breaks agreeably what would otherwise have been too long
a series of cretics, \nkabopév@ kal Kkexavpév@ tmupl Kal yvdP@ kal
Cope Kat OvédAp.

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE elxi

However, in spite of Aristotle and the other ancient critics,
this analysis into feet is rather misleading. Walter Headlam
once wrote, “I never could understand lyric metres cut up into
feet: the key to understanding them is to regard them as built
up from phrases, or as you would say in music ‘figures.’” That
is very applicable to prose; and another point to be observed is
the manner in which these “figures” are linked together. In
lyric metres Headlam shewed! that one rhythm or “figure” does
not simply succeed another, but is linked with it, the last notes
of the one forming at the same time the first notes of the new
tune (as it were). Something of this kind may be observed in
the passage just quoted, xii. 18; and continually. There indeed
is a difference. Lyrics, as Headlam read them, are subtle and
flexible in metre, but they have their conventionally repeated
measures ; the transitions occur only at certain points. In good
prose there should be no convention like rhyme or metre; the
transition should be continuous, like the living curve of a bough.
As time went on artificiality gained on prose, and even of
Isocrates Plutarch could say that he went on fitting and com-
pacting antithetic and parallel phrases and answering cadences,
smoothing away his periods almost with chisels, till he waxed
aged (éynpace)*. In this respect, as in its language generally,
Hebrews is a return towards the earlier simplicity; the precision
of the schools has in the fellowship of the Church been reinforced
by the racy idiom of daily life.

But this is all rather technical. Ordinary readers will be
content to dwell upon the indisputable beauty of the opening
verses, or such haunting cadences as iv. 16 tva AdBwpev édeos
Kal xdpiv evpapev eis eUxarpov BonOevay, Vili. 13 ev ro héyew
Kawny mweradaiaxey tiv mpaTny, TO Sé madaovpevov Kal ynpdoKov
éyyds adbavopod. And notice again how sound combines with
sense. This epistle often if not always illustrates Landor’s
aphorism: “Natural sequences and right subordination of
thoughts, and that just proportion of numbers in the sentences

1 Greek Lyric Metre, Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxtt. pp.
209—227.

2 de gloria Athen. ch. 8, quoted by A. C. Clark, Fontes prosae
numerosae, p. 8.

elxii INTRODUCTION

which follows a strong conception, are the constituents of true
harmony.” The ‘ numbers,” it will be found, depend on quantity
not stress of syllables. Notice at ix. 11, after the pause ...uéypu
katpod dSwopbaaews émixeiveva, the rush of short syllables with
which the new hope is introduced—Xprords dé rapayevdpevos
apxtepeds THv yevouévov ayabdy diad..., and, on the other hand,
the stately entrance of the finale at xii. 1—rovyapovv Kai jpeis...
where the brief trochaic opening is quite appropriate.

It is trochaic because «cai is short before the initial vowel of
jpeis. This collocation is not seldom admitted, and with good
effect; cf. d0 of cai éroince tovs aidvas, i. 2. Except for such
effects, hiatus is avoided.

In the last quotation the final v of ésoinvev may be observed.
This final », which before consonants is in this epistle as usual
as in the rest of N.T., is so managed as to contribute to good
rythm ; see the variety in i. 2 eddAnoer jpiv...€Onkev kAnpovopor...
éroincev rovs ai@vas, or the additional emphasis given to the
initial éorw xi. 1, while the omission in mvevpacu dixaiwv rere-
Aewpévov xii. 23 seems in turn to satisfy the ear.

§ 13. Aids to study of language.

The style is so important a feature of this epistle that very
much more than one section of a brief introduction would be
required for anything like complete treatment of the subject.
The philosophical vocabulary would allow long and careful
examination. Then it would run out into consideration of the
author’s obligations to many other kinds of literature, especially
what we now call the Classics. Enough has perhaps been said
to start the student on enquiries of his own. A few books may
be named from which he may find help.

The literature of the papyri and other documents of tes A
Greek, so necessary for the study of other parts of N.T.,ds not
much needed here. Milligan}, or Witkowski’, or Deissmann?
will shew however that the author’s literary taste has by no

1 Selections from the Greek Papyrt, Camb. Univ. Press.

2 Epistulae Privatae Graecae, Teubner.

3 Light from the Ancient East ici L. R. M. Strachan), Hodder
and Stoughton.

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE e]xili

means prevented his using in due measure the ordinary language
of his day. Here is a list of words and phrases from Milligan
which illustrate the epistle :

emidevEdto p. 3, cf. vi. 17; ed yap to& p. 6, cf. xii. 17;
mapayevéoOa p. 7, cf. ix. 11; Aevrovpynoa p. 13; Kexomeopéevar,
Siadvdpevor p. 14; 8c’ dAiwv (sic) p. 14, ef. xiii. 22; edAaBecav p. 15;
kpareiv p. 18, cf. ii. 14; puavOdow p. 18; dmodceAvpévoy p. 23,
cf, xili. 23; twép=with regard to, p. 24; xarackevdto p. 30;
karaprif(o p. 31; tev dazo p. 52, cf. xiii. 243 dmroxarecrdbn p. 53 ;
catnpa p.54; xpnuatioor p. 69, ypnuarifoua p. 112; yerpomounrovs
p. 70; 7d mapor p. 74, cf. xii. 11; évyvara, éyyvor p. 87, cf. vii. 22 ;
nyovpévors iepéwy p. 88, 108, 6 nyotpevos tod orparnyod p. 35,
cf. xiii. 7, 17; mepiapeOnva p. 89, cf. xii. 1; dre pe émaidevoas
Kad@s p. 91, cf. xii. 5 ff; wapapéva, éavtovs p. 96; edtoéBera p. 99,
evoeBns p. 116; od py p. 103; vadpevera p. 106, cf. v.11; aiwvior
p- 110; émcxadov p. 111, cf. xi. 16; eyevoduny with gen. p. 116;
ayarnt@ adeApo ev Kupio p. 117; miorevouev, plural of one
person, p. 125, cf. xiii. 18, 21; ra@v duapridv xabdpoeas p. 126;
TnALKavTnv P. 129; 6 Geds 6 ayios 6 adnOiwwos p. 131; edyapioTa=
pray, p. 132.

On the other hand the ordinary tools of everyday Greek
scholarship, Liddell and Scott and (if within reach) Stephanus’
Thesaurus, and Goodwin’s Moods and Tenses, will prove more
necessary than might at first seem likely. And with these
should be mentioned Rutherford’s little First Greek Syntaz,
Macmillan, 1891. Few books reveal so vividly—what is parti-
cularly important in studying a late, classicising, though not
always Atticising, but always a natural writer—the essential
genius of the language. The preface to the same great master’s
Romans translated, Macmillan, 1900, is worth reading as an
introduction to the really profitable lines of enquiry into the
difference between S. Paul’s Greek and this epistle.

There is a new edition, or revision, of Blass’ Grammar by
Debrunner!, of which Dr Moulton writes “On first sight I should
say that the new editor is a better qualified guide than his
master for the purpose of this book. Blass was a supremely
great classical scholar who could help the student of the Kouw7

1 Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gottingen, 1913.

elxiv INTRODUCTION

with all manner of valuable hints from antiquity ; but he almost
inevitably kept to the last something of the foreigner’s air of
superiority on Hellenistic soil.” That delightful portrait affords
excuse for the frequent reference to the old edition in this com-
mentary; for Hebrews the idiosyncrasy of Blass, the classical
scholar, is still inspiring. Moreover German books are not easily
got just now, and we have the advantage of Mr Thackeray’s
excellent translation of the second edition of the original. book}.
A very big book in English by Dr A. T. Robertson? may also be
mentioned.

Another book by Blass? is extremely interesting, and to some
extent certainly true. Moulton’s own Grammar of N.T. Greek,
vol. 1, T. and T. Clark, 1906,—still unfortunately a fragment—
must always be used. Herwerden’s Lexicon Graecum supple-
torium et dialecticum is sometimes required for the later words.
And there is a wealth of entertaining and instructive material in
Jannaris*,

The Septuagint should be read in the smaller Cambridge
edition®, This edition represents the text of the ancient ss.
faithfully. Their varieties of reading need to be observed by
any one who really wishes to understand the influence of the
LXX on the epistle. And, as in Westcott and Hort, it is a
great thing to enjoy the original spelling: the appendix added to
each vol. iva yun re ad dAnrat”—will serve those well who care to
pursue that line of study further. So will H. St J. Thackeray’s
Grammar®—another fragment, but rich in present gratification

1 Grammar of N.T. Greek, Macmillan, ed. 2, 1905.

2 Grammar of the Greek N.T., in the light of historical research.
New York, 1914.

3 Brief an die Hebrier, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen. Halle,
1903.

4 Historical Greek Grammar chiefly of the Attic Dialect as written.
and spoken from classical antiquity down to the present time. Mac-
millan, 1897.

5 The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, edited:
for the Syndics of the University Press by Henry Barclay Swete,.
3 vols. : |

6 A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, vol. 1, Introduction,
Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge, 1909.

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE clxv

as well as promise. And Swete’s Jntroduction to the Old Testament
in Greek, Camb. 1900, of which there is a new edition now revised
and enlarged by Mr Ottley, should be read again and again.
No one has done more than Dr Swete to help students of N.T.
to regain the point of view of the first readers of the Greek
Testament. He writes (p. 435), ‘Mediaeval Europe knew the
Old Testament almost exclusively through Jerome’s Latin, as
the Ancient Church had known it through the LXX. When at
length the long reign of the Vulgate in Western Europe was
broken by the forces of the Renaissance and the Reformation,
the attention of scholars was once more drawn to that which
purported to be the original text of the Old Testament”—jris
mapaBodn «is Tov Katpov Tov eveotnxdra. The Concordance to
the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of the Old Testament
by Hatch and Redpath, Oxford, is all but indispensable. If
however access to this i8 difficult, sufficient aid for everyday
study may be found in Thayer’s Lexicon’. When Dr Sanday
reviewed this Lexicon on its publication in 1886, he called it
a Liddell and Scott for the New Testament, and the comparison
is as apt now as it was then. Grimm and Thayer like Liddell
and Scott are no longer on the top of the tide; but, like L. andS.,
they are wise and practical guides to plain men who do not
greatly feel, and to instructed men who know whence to supply,
the deficiencies due to later discovery. It is hardly necessary to
mention Bruder’s Concordance. Little work of any kind can be
done in N.T. without it. The new Concordance of Geden and
Moulton is founded on the revised and better text of N.T., but
Bruder’s old-fashioned text is easily controlled, and the spacious
arrangement of the page is a real advantage.

1 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, being Grimm’s
Wilkes’ Clavis Novi Testamenti translated revised and enlarged, by
Joseph Henry Thayer, T. and T. Clark.

* iin @ ofl |
rey Qh Re RAGE ad, cial
fill, veda gaperepta |: syeil A NS ai
Beh, Atel Pguyra | dyinridh, ‘dria 3.

RT hb a8. Sreasepeits |

Se eg srae®,: fy pat .

solange &5
fine Mis cud pan HONE
aides 2 tueavanstea’’, ia fh i
ai secon ngs “sep wal Cs,

pare aes Ai be an SD, sia ys

a lng att { is “Tamas i sng he re ab . :
yebarh. att meth. Taceacaant i Fe ut pate ‘ os. Tiset

Sh fotinr onl, Suita: Ot, selaouild ne, pth pe fools F Feild bawoivet on
dpoalsag? feats uh hat.) aurigdag’l wah gala apt ae, rey bite g LA
UetiietS acted royal baw. sore), misDicote dt tab VIER F188 A 5

gfe DD « i aolit tort obi sii j ie (pe cals, tt) 2waEe ano! Ona 3809 ake be
drives date cee: Ate yf 24, -sobdp. lips, Bas bina 1

Pinireen Lapa y cus 9 otek, Qeut faduaat
Cmh. 6 TRACI PA Lite rit eh: ify seeparenb sada) au gu
a ae facia! ite te iter stil. nctaghagy
hue, peck) “Tee sumbabryoeg wal ay i, pat if HOMEY
gut +A. aad FT a1 sottad be a 'tivals ey auld "poo" hobsadl

fl any

ene i: tied fettehy inal teedeea hina: wld eat bonobebe st. Lins ws kai

Senet ot eke wget hbathes Frond pay ir
<a sa¥i? thee ea shir iby rie cu Me
fap hes

ie

Pe

mal dns: fovibyea ae et, ere fa ®

: i= Ss -2
¥ kk A, adel a Bis oes "

“ : : ab “~ 5
otis 4 rT nye 5 ae ie Rabid ak
Sih ee

Mie me Tyas & oe 4 a

TPO EBPAIOYS

1 1TIOATMEPOS KAI IIOATTPOMOS rara
e @ \ / a Zz b a / 92? ’
o Geos AaANoas Tols TaTpdow év Tots TpodHtats *ér
€oXaTOU TOV HuEep@v ToUTwY éAdANCEV Hyiv ev Via, dV
EOnxev KAnpovomov tavrwv, dv ov Kal éroinoey Tovs
aid@vas: %ds av atavyacpa tis SoEns Kal yapaxtip
THs VrocTdcews avTov, hépwv TE TA TATA TO Patt
THs Suvdpews avTod, KaSapiopov TOV GuapTL@V ToLN-
, 2p > A a 4 > ¢e A
odpevos EKABICEN EN AEZIA THS pmeyadwovrns év Uynrois,
*rocovT@ KpElTTwV yevomevos TOV ayyéAov baw Siado-
P@TEPOY Tap aUvTOvS KEeKANPOVOUNKEY Svopa. STive
yap elrrév more TOV ayyéXov
cy 2 ’ os .§ ’
Yidc Moy €i CY, 6a CHMEPON FEFENNHKA CE,
Kal Wad.
"Ee ‘ Pl > n > , ‘ > A PJ >
fa ECOMAl AYTG IC TATEPA, KAI AYTOC ECTAI MO! EiCc
YION;
6° be / > 4 A. 4 > \
Orav d€ Tad Eloaydyn TOV TPWTOTOKOY Els THY
oLKoupevny, Aéryer
Kai TPOCKYNHCAT@CAN AYT@ TIANTEC ArreAol GE0Y.
a \ \ ea ee ,
KQL TPOS EV TOUS aryyeXouS AéyeL
‘O TIOIMN ToYe ArréAOyC aYTOY TINEYMaTa,
KAl TOYC A€lTOYproyc aYTOY Typdc PAdra’
mpos S€ Tov viov
HEBREWS A

2 TPO EBPAIOY2 [1 8

‘OQ peice coy 6 Gedc €ic TON aidNa [TOY ai@noc],
Kal n PaBAoc THS eY@YTHTOC PaBAoc TAc BaciAelac
avTov.
9GrATTHCAC AIKAIOCYNHN Kal @MICHCAC ANOMIAN*
Ald TOYTO €ypIceéN ce O GEdc, 6 BEdC Coy, EAAION
APAAAIACEWC TIAPA TOYC METOYOYC coy’
Wat
ZY KaT apydc, Kyple, THN FAN €BemeAi@cac,
Kal Epra T@N YEIPON COY EICIN O1 OYPANOI"
ll > \ > n ‘ \ ’ .?
AYTO! ATIOAOYNTAI, CY AE AIAMENEIC
KAl TIANTEC WC IMATION MAAdIWOHCONTAI,
2kal GCel TIEPIBOAAION EAIZEIC: AYTOYC,
@s ipatvov Kal dAAAPHCONTAI"
‘ c > \ Ey) , ?
cy Aé 6 ayrdc El, Kal TA ETH COY OYK EKAEIVOYCIN:
Berods Ttiva O€ TOV ayyéNov elpnnen ‘Wore
KA®oy €K AcZION MOY
Ewc AN O@ TOYC EXOpoyc COY YNOMOAION T@N TIOA@N
COY ;
14.2 i 4 Fu \ 4 > 5 ‘
ovyl mavtes eioly NevTOUpyLKa TvEevpaTa eis SiaKoVviav
aTrooTeANOpeva Sia TOvs méAAOVTAS KANPOVOLELY THTN-
plav; 2 1Aca rodto Set reptccorépws mpocéyewy
Has Tols akovoUeiow, Hh ToTe Tapapy@pev. Et yap
6 &v ayyéA@v DAaANOeis AOyos éeyéveTo BéBatos, Kat
a / \ \ 4 bY
Taca twapdBacis Kal wapakon édaBev évdixov picO-
5 / 3 nm e a b / Q , b /
atrodociay, ®ra@s iets ExhevEoucda THrALKAUTNS ApmEdn-
/ / ? \ n lad \
cavTes cwTnpias, HTLs, apynv NaBodoa Aareicar dia
Tov Kuplov, Ud TOY akovadvTwr eis Huas €BeBawOn,
“cuvertpapTupoovTes Tov Qeod onpetots Te Kab Tépacw
Kal Troukiias Suvapeow Kal vevpatos ayiouv peepegeenty
Kata Thy avTov Oérnour ;
50d yap ayyérow tbrérakey THY oiKovpévny THY

2 16] TPOZ EBPAIOY= © 3

pédAXoveay, Tepi Hs Nadodpev: SScepaptipato Sé mov
Tis Aéyov
Ti €ctIN ANOpwrtoc STI MIMNHCKH aYTOY,
H yidc ANOpwtroy GTI ETICKETITH AYTON ;
THAATTWCAC AYTON Bpayy TI Trap’ arréAoyc,
AdZH Kal TIMH écTepaNwcac ayTON,
[kal KATECTHCAC AYTON €TTl TA Epra T@N YEIP@N coy, |
STIANTA YTIETAZAC YTIOKAT@ TON TIOAM@N ayTOY’
éy T® yap yrotdzai [adtT@] Ta TANTA ovdév aAdfKev
avT@® avuTotaxtov. vov b€ ovTw opopuev ad’Toe Ta
TIANTA YToTeTarMeNa’ ®Tdv Sé Bpayy TI Tap ArréAoye
HAATTWMENON BA<Tromev “Inocody dia TO wadOnya Tod
Gavdtov AdzZH Kal TIMH ECTE@ANWMENON, OTT@S YapLTe
a ;
Ocod wirép mavrTos yevontar Oavdrov. ”Empemev yap
avT@, St dv ta TavTa Kal de ob} Ta TavTaA, TONKOVS
/ aA
viods eis Sdfav ayayovta Tov apynyov Ths cwTnpias
avtav Sia Tabnpdtwv Tedecdoa. “6 Te yap ayiatov
\ ewe , b] e.' % / HW ae ¢ >
kai ol aytaopevos €& Evds mdvtes* Su Hv aitiay ovK
éTaroxuveTat ddAEAMOYC avTodvs Kadelv, *réyov
2 a ee, ’ a > PPR sr
AttarreA@ TO ONOMA COY TOIC AAEAMOIC MOY,
€N MECW EKKAHCIAC YMNHCO) Ce’
Beal mado |
"Era €comal treTo1ldac em ayTd
\ A
Kal TAXLV
*|Aoy éra@ Kal TA Talia & MOl EAWKEN 6 EOC.
Merel odv TA TAIAIA KEeKOLV@VnKEY alwaTtos Kal capKds,
Kal avTos tapaTAnciws petécyey TOV adTar, iva dia
tod Oavdtov KaTapyjon Tov TO Kpdtos éyovtTa TOU
Gavatov, TtovT éote tov SidBorov, Kal amadrrdén
aA 54 f 4 PS \ \ A a 54
rovtous, dco Po8w Oavdrov dia Travtos Tod Env Evoyxor
jnaoav Sovreias. ov yap 8) mou ayyéXov émidayBa-
A2

4 TPOS EBPAIOYS [2 16

veTal, GANA cTepMatoc “ABpadm ériAamBaneTal. 1” 60en
Oherrev KATA TavTa TOIC dd(EAHOIC oporwOHvar, iva
éXenuov yévnta. Kal motos apytepeds TA Tpos TOV
eon, eis TO tAdoKxeoOar Tas dpapTtias Tod Aaod: Bev
© yap wérovOev avTos Tepac Geis, Sivarat Tois TEeLpa-
Youévors BonOjoat.

3S "Oder, aderdoi &yvot, KAnoews éTrovpaviou péTO-
Yol, KaTaVOnoaTE Tov aToaTOAOY Kal apxLepéa THs
Oporoylas Hnuav ‘Incody, *MIcTON 6yTa TO TrovjoavTt
avtov ws Kat Moycric én [GAw] TH Olk@ aytof. 2 7Aet-
ovos yap ovTos S0&ns trapa Mavony 7€iwrat Kal’ boop
mrelova Tiny yet TOD olKOV O KaTacKEVdoas avTOV*
4oras yap eixos KaTacKevaletar bd Tivos, 0 O€ TavTa
katacKkevacas Beds. FKai Mwyctic perv tictéc én 6AW
T@ O1KW aYTOY @s GEPATION Els apTUpLoV TOY AaANON-
couevwv, “Xpicros dé ws vids él TON OIKON aYTOY’ oD
olxos éopev nets, Cav THY Tappyoiay Kal TO KavYnwa
Ths éAmidos [péxpt tédXous BeBaiav] Katdoyoper.
"Awd, Kab@s Eyer TO Veda TO GryLov

ZHMEPON EAN TAC MwWNAC aYTOY AKOYCHTE,

8mH CKAHPYNHTE TAC KapAlac YMON @C EN T@ TrApa-

THKPACMOD,
KATA THN HMEPAN TOY TIEIPACMOY EN TH EPHMw,
%o¥ ETTEipacaN O1 TIATEPEC YM@N EN AOKIMACIA
Kal €ElSON TA Epra MOY TECCEPAKONTA €TH*
10820 TIpocwySica TH FENed TAYTH
Kal eiTton “Ael TAAN@NTAl TH KapAia’
AYTOI Aé OYK EfFN@CAN TAC OAOYC MOY’
Mg>c amoca EN TH OprH MOY
Ei eiceAeYCoNnTal €iC THN KATATIAYCIN MOY’

12 BXérrere, adeAhol, 4) ToTE EcTat Ev TIL DuadY KapdLa

47] TIPO EBPAIOYS 5

a
Tovnpa amiotias év T@ aTroaThvat ato Oeod CarTos,
Barra Tapakadeite éEavTovs Kal” Exdotnv Huépar,
BA @ / ’ a 7 \ *
axplts ov TO ZHMEPON KANEITAL, va fh) CKAHPYNOH TLS
é& iuav ardtn ths dpaptias: Mpéroyor yap Tod
XplaeToD yeyovamer, EdvTrEep THY apYHY THs Droctacews
/ / / 4 152 a /
méxpt Térouvs BeBaiav catdcyopev. Yév To réyer Oar
ZHmepon EAN THC Montic ayToY AKkOYCcHTE,
MH cKAHpYNHTE TAC KapAiac YM@N WC éN TH TIApa-
TIIKPACMQ).
16,-/ \ 2 / ’ a ae /
TIVES YAP AKOVTAVTES TIAPETTIIKPANAN; GAN Ov TavTeEs
ot é&eNOovtes && Aiydarrov dia Mavoéws; Mriow Sé
TIPOCWYGICEN TECCEPAKONTA ETH; OU! TOis awapTHaacLY,
OV TA KMAd Ertecen EN TH EpHmMwW; 1Sricuy SE @MOCEN MH
eiceAEYCECOAl CIC THN KATATIAYCIN AYTOY € p47) TOlS a7reL-
Oncacw; “xal Bréropev OTe ovK HOduvYNnOnaGaY EICEABEIN
dc amuotiav, 4 !hoBnOapev odv pn rote Kata-
NELTTOmevNS ETraryyeAlas eciceAMEIN E€IC THN KATATIAYCIN
ayToyY Sox Tus €& twav botepynKévars *Kal yap éopev
> / / > a > > > > /
evnyyertopévor Kaldtrep KaKéEivol, AAN ovK whedAnoev
O AOYOs THs akons exeivous, pi) TUVKEKEpAaTMéVOUS TH
, a by , 8c ’ \ > H
miates Tos akovoaci. *Eicepydmeda yap eic [THN]
KATATIAYCIN Ob mreaTevaarTes, KaD@S elpnKEV
‘Qc amoca €n TH dprH moy
Ei eiceAeYCONTal €IC THN KATATTAYCIN MOY,
KA(TOL TON EPPWN ard KataBoArHs Koopou yevnbértwr,
47 t \ A e 50 e \ t
elpnkev yap tov mept THs EBdSouns ovUTwS Kal kate-
TIAYCEN 6 BE0C EN TH Hepa TH EBAOMH ATI TIANT@N TON
EprwNn ayToy, "Kal év TovT@ maddy Ei eEiceAeyconTal eic
THN KATOTIAYCIN MOY. %é7rel OV ATrOAELTTETAL TLVAS EICEA-
QEIN €iC avTyY, Kal of mpoTepov evayyedtoOEvTEs ovK
EICAAOON Ot amrelOeav, "drwy Tia opiter iépar,

6 TPOZ EBPAIOY2 [4 7

:
Zrmepon, ev Aaveid Aéyov peta TocodTov ypovor,
Kaas Tpoetpnrat,

ZHMEPON €dN TAC MwWNAC aYTOY AkoyCHTe,

MH CKAHPYNHTE TAC KAPAIAC YMON*

Sei yap avtovs ‘Incots Katémavoer, ovx dv mept dddNS
éXarer peta TadTa nuépas. %dpa atroNeitretar caBBa-
Tigp#0S TO AAW TOD Oeod: 06 yap EiceAOWN Eic THN
KATATIAYCIN AYTOY Kal AUTOS KATETIAYCEN ATIO TON Epra@ON
ayToY @omep 4m6 TON Ldlwv 6 bedc. "4 Zrovdacwper
ovv eiceAGEIN ic exelyny THN KaTATIayCIN, Wa ph év TO
avT@ Tis UTrodelypaTte TéoN THs atreOeias. VZav yap
0 AOyos ToD Oeod Kal evepyns Kal TowwTepos rép
Tacav waxatpav SiocTomov Kat SuKvovmevos Aypr mepio-
pod wWuyijs Kal mvevpatos, dpuav Te Kalb puedor, Kal
KpitiKos évOupnoewv Kai évvoidv Kapdiass Beal ov«
tor Krlow adarhs évdriov adrod, mdvra 88 yupva
kal Tetpayndiopéva Tois OPOarpois avdTod, mpos dv
nutvy Oo Aovos. "Eyovtes otv apytepéa péyav
SueAnAvOdTa Tovs ovpavors, Inaody tov vidov Tod Beod,
KpaT@pev THs oporoylass Mov yap &xouev apytepéa pt)
Suvduevov cvvTabjoat tais acbeveiats tov, memet-
pacuévoy Sé kata wavTa Kal’ opowwrnra ywpls duap-
tias. ‘“rpocepyoucha ody peta wrappnotas TH Opdv@
THS XaptTos, iva NaBwpev Edeos Kal ydpw eipwper eis
evxatpov Bonbecar.

5 1Ilds yap apytepeds €& avOpdrav NapPave-
pevos wep avOporav Kxabictatar Ta mpos Tov Oedr,
iva mpoodépn Sapa [te] Kal Ovoias brép dpaprior,
2 wetplomrabeiy Suvapevos Tois ayvoovo. Kal TAAVwpE-
vous €méel Kat avTOS Tepixetras acOévear, * Kal dv’ adrHY
deiner, KaOw@s Tepl ToD Aaod, ovTwS Kal Tepl éavTOd

6 3] TIPO EBPAIOYS 7

mpoohépew mept dwaptiav. ‘kal ovx éavT@ TLS Nap-
/ \ / > \ UA e \ A A

Bave. tiv TiysHnv, GAAa KaXrovpevos Ud Tod Geod,

@ , \ af / 50 ° \ ¢ \ >
Kaloorep Kal “Aapov. itws Kal 0 xpiaTos ovx
éautov édoEacev yevnOfvar apxsepéa, GAN O AaAHoAaS
pos avTov

C2 2 ’ '

Yidc moy él Cy, €fa CHMEPON FEFENNHKA Ce"
6 Aa Yo ES /
Kal@s Kal ev ETED@ EEL

ZY lepeyc cic TON AINA KATA THN TAZIN MeAyicedex.
70s év Tails uépats THS CapKos avTod, Senoas TE Kal
ixeTnpias mpos Tov Suvapevov awlew avTov éx Oavarou
MeTa Kpavyhs ioxupads Kat Saxpvwv tpocevéyxas Kal
> \ ? \ an > / 8 / Ey er
eloakovcbels amd THs evrAaBeias, Sxaitep wy vids,
éuabev ad av érabev thv btraKxonv, *xal TerecwOels
éyéveTo Taow Tois UTaKovoVoLY avT@ alTLos cooTHpiac
aimnioy, 2° apocayopevOels Uo TOU Geo6 BAXipENS KATA
THN TAZIN Menniceadi

1TTepi o8 movvs nuiv Oo Adyos Kal SucepmnvevTos
Névyesv, €rrel vwOpol yeyovate tais axoais: “Kal yap
opeirovTes elvat SidacKador Siva Tov yYpovov, Tari
ypeiav éxete Tov iddoxe twas Tid TA oTOLXElA Tis
adpxs Tov Royiwy tod Oeod, Kai yeyovate ypelav
éyovTes yahaxTos, ov atepeds Tpodis. “ads yap o

BA

peTéeyov yadaxtos Areipos Ndyou Sixacoovvns, vATLOS
yap éotwv 4rerelwv Sé éoti 4 oteped tpody, Tav Sid
tiv ew ta aicOntypia yeyupvacpéva éxovT@V pds
Sudxpicwv Kadod Te Kal Kakod. GC 1Avo adévtes tov
THS apxAs ToD xpicTov Rodyov éml THY TeXELOTHTA
pepwpyeba, pr) madi Oepédvov KataBarropevor pera-
volas amo vexpov épywv, Kal miotews él Oedr,
2 A PY PS \ > Oé , a >
Barticpav Sidayny émidéceds Te yeipev, ava-
oTdcews Vvexpov Kat Kpipatos aiwviov. %Kal TodTo

8 TPOS EBPAIOY= [6 3

Touoouev eavrrep émitpémyn oO Beds. * AdvvaTov yap
Tovs amrak hwrticbévtas yevoapévous Te THs Swpeds TIS
émoupaviov Kal peToxous yevnBévtas mvevpatos ayiouv
5xal Kadov yevoapévous Oeod phya Suvapers te pér-
AovTos aidvos, *xkal TapaTrecovTas, Taw avaxawitew
eis peTavolay, avactavpodvTas éavTois Tov vidv Tod
Ocod Kai wapaderypativovtas. "TA yap 7 wiovca Tov
ér auTns épxyomevoy moAdNaKis veTov, Kal TiKTOVTA
BOTANHN evOeTov Exeivors Su ods Kal yewpyeitas, meTa-
AapBaver evroyias amd Tov Oeod: S8éxhépoyca Se
AKANOAC KAl TPIBOAOYC abdKtmos Kal KaTApac éyys, HS
TO TENOS Els KAVELD. *TlerreiopeOa Sé rrepi tuor,
ayarntol, Ta Kpeiocova Kal éyopweva owrTnpias, et Kal
oUTw@s Aadodpev* Mod yap adixos Oo Oeds émirabécbar
ToD épyou tuav Kai THs aydrns hs évedeiEacbe eis TO
dvopna avTov, Staxovncavtes Tois ayiots Kal SvaKo-
voovtes. “MémiOvupotpev Sé Exactovy vuav tHv avTny
évdeixvucbat omovdnv mpos Hv wAnpodhopiay Tis
Ermidos aype TéXous, Viva pn vaOpol yévynoOe, wrnral
dé tav da twictews Kal paxpoOvptas KAnpovopovyTar
Tas érayyerias. Te yap ABpaap érayyerdmevos
0 eds, érel Kat ovdevds eiyev peilovos dpuocat, DSMOCEN
Ka® éayToY, MAéywv Ei mHN eyAora@Nn eYAorHca ce Kai
TTAHOYNWN TAHOYN@ cet Peal otTws paxpobvyncas
érétuyey THs érayyerias. MavOpwiros yap Kata Tod
peiCovos opvvovat, Kal madons avTois avTiNoyias Tépas
eis BeBaiwow o épxos: “év & meptocdtepov Bovdo-
pevos 0 Oeds érridetEas Tois KANpOVOmoLs THs emayyedtas
To apetadbetov ths BovAns avTod euecitevoev OpKg,
iva dua S00 mpayyatov apetabérar, év ois advvaTor
Wwevcac0ar Oeov, icyvpav mapdkrAnow exwpev ot

¥ 12} TPOZ EBPAIOY2 9

/ . A na / >; ') ‘ 19 e\
KaTabuyovtTes KpaThoat THS mpokerperns édidos* Ay
> aykupav éxouev THS Wuxis, aopary te kal BeBaiav
kal ciCepYOMENHN €IC TO ECWTEPON TOY KATATTETACMATOC,
90 45 Gin sh Cc. a LS aye) @ ¥ A \

Srrov mpddpomos vrép nuav etonAOev “Incods, KaTA
THN TAZIN MeAyicedck apyvepeds ryevomevos Eic TON AINA.
7 10dt0s yap o Medyicedék, Bacideyc ZaAHm, iepeyc
TOY Ocof TOY YyicTOY, 6 CYNANTHCac *ABpadm YrrocTpeé-
Monti ATO TAC KOTIAC TON BaciA€@N Kal EYAOPHCAC AYTON,
2@ Kal ACKATHN A110 TIANTWN Emépscev “ABpadm, mp@Tov
\ e , B \ A 4 4 \
bev épunvevouevos Bacireds Accatocvyns érevta é
kat Bacideyc Zaddm, 6 éotuv Baowrevs Eipnyns, *ama-
Twp, GUNTwp, ayEvEeaXoyNTOS, MATE APYXHV Huepav pHTeE
Cons Tédos Exwv, APwpotwpévos Sé TH vid Tov Deod,
peeves iepeyc els TO Sunveés. *@ewpeire 5é myXiKos
oUTOS @ AEKATHN "ABpadm EAWKEN Ex TOV aKpoOwwiwr oO
matpidpyns. °
, 4 > \ » > an \
tiav AapBdvovtes evToAnv Exovow atrodexatoiy Tov
Nady KATA TOV VOMOV, TOUT EaTLY TOvS adEeAXHods avTar,
kaltep e&eXnrAvOoTas ex Ths oogvos “ABpadu: °%o be
‘, lA > b] a / > ,
by yeveaXoyoupevos €& avTav Sedexatwoxey ABpadp,
Kal Tov éyovta Tas émaryyedias eYAOrHKEN. 7ywpis dé
4 > 4 \ + e \ a 4 >
TAONS AVTLAOYLAS TO ENATTOV UTO TOU KPELTTOVOS EVAO-
yetrat. fxai ode pev AeKdTac atroOvycKorTes avOpwrrot
NapBdvovow, éxet 5é waptupovpevos Srv FH. %Kal ws
ros eirretv, 8 "ABpadp Kai Aeveis o dexdtas ap-
, 5 5 4 10 ¥ \ > a ? Fae A \
Bavov Sedexatorat, ere yap ev TH dopvi tod TaTpos
nv OTE CYNHNTHCEN ayT@ Medyicedék. 1 Ee pev odv
/ : \ A nA e , Ss € \ \
reretwars Sia THs Aevertexns iepwovvns Av, 0 Naos yap
er avTis vevomobérntar, tis ert ypela KATA THN TAZIN
Meayicedék Erepov aviotac as iepéa Kal ov KATA THN TAZIN
"A \ / Q@ 12 QA J \ n e /
apav AéyeoOar ; @petaTienévns yap Ths lepwovvns

srue \ > ~ tn As fa Neue
Kat Ol fEV EK TOV VIWMV Aevei THY LEepa-

10 MPO= EBPAIOYS [7 12

é& avdykns Kal vououv petddecis yiverar. Bed dv
yap Aéyerar tadta gurjijs érépas petécynxer, ad js
> / a 4
ovdels mrpocéaoynkev TO Ovovactnpip: ‘apodnrov yap
dtu €& “lovda avarétadkev 0 KvpLos Hudr, eis tv dud
mepi lepéwy ovdev Mavors édddnoev. Kal repic-
coTepoy éTt KaTadnrov eat, €¢ KATA THN OpoLdTnTa
Medyicedék aviotatas iepeyc &repos, ds ov Kata vomov
b] a i / > \ \ / A
EVTOANS Tapkivns yeyovey adda KaTa Svvamw Lwns
axatanutov, waptupeitas yap Stu ZY iepeyc eic TON
aIONA KATA THN TAZIN Medyicedéx. abérnaos pév yap
ylivetat mpoayovons évToAns bia TO avTHs aaOeves Kal
> s. 19 52 \ > / Sela : \
avadenes, ““oudev yap €TEAELMOEV O VOMOS, ETTELDAywy?
@ A a
5é xpeitrovos édmidos, 5.’ Hs éyyifouev TO Oecd. Kat
xa?’ bcov ov xwpls opKwpocias, (ol pwev yap yopls
opkwpocias eiaiv lepets yeyovotes, o 5é peta opKo-
/ \ a / \ > / 7 t
pocias ova Tov A€yovTos mpos avTov "“QQYuocen Kypioc,
' . “% > a
Kal OY METAMEAHOHCETAI, ZY lepeyc ElC TON AI@NA,) “@xaTa
a /
TocovTo Kai KpeitTovos SiabyKnns yéyovev eyyvos *In-
a 23 \ 3 \ V4 rd > / e a \
covs. Kai of pév mreiovés etow yeyovotes lepets dua
S Die ae s Be EE Sag a Ga ay
TO Gavatw K@dveo0at Tapapevely* “Oo O€ OLA TO péevELy
GUTOV cic TON AIBNA AmrapdBaTov exer THY lepwovvny:
5 60ev kal cwlew eis TO mavtedés Sbvatas TOvs mpoc-
epxouévous os avtod TH Oe@, mdvToTe Cav Eis TO
évtuyxavew wmép avTav. *6TovodTos yap Hiv
[cal] emrpemrev apytepeds, datos, akakos, apiayTos, Keyo-
a an / A
piopévos amo TOV aGwapTwrA@y, Kat windoTEpos Ta
A /
ovpavav yevouevos* *ds odk exer Kal’ tpépay avayKny,
domep of dpxvepets, mpoTEpoy Virép THY WWlwy duapTLav
Oucias avadépew, Eresta TOV TOD aod: (ToOvTO yap
> / > / e \ > / ~ 98 e / \
érroinoey éhamak éavtov avevéyxas:) "0 vomos yap
avOpwtrovs Kabiotnow apxiepels Exovtas acdévecar,

810] MPO EBPAIOYS 11

O AOyos Sé THs OpKwpocias THs peTa TOV vopor iON,
EIC TON AIMNA TeTEAEL@mEVOD.
8 ‘'Kegdanrasov 8é él tots Aeyouévoss, Tovovrov
éyowev apytepéa, Os exdOicen EN AczZIA TOD Opovou Tis
peyarwovvns év Tois ovpavols, *tav dyiwv AevToupyds
kal TAc cKHNAC THs GAnOovis, Hin éTTHZEN 6 KYPIOC, OvK
avOpwios. ras yap apytepeds eis TO mpoodhéperv
Sapa te Kai Ouvoias Kabiotatas’ b0ev avayKaiov éxew
TL Kab TovTOv & mpocevéyKn. ‘ei wev odv Hw él ys,
ovd dv nv iepeds, dvTwv Tdv TpocdepdvT@V KaTa Vvomov
Ta Sdpa> *(oitwes brodeiypate Kal oxida NaTpEevovaw
TOV érrovpaviar, Kabas kexpnudtictar Mavons wédXov
émiteneiy THY oKxnvynv, “Opa yap, pnotv, Toiiceic TANTA
KATA TON TYTION TON AelyOeéNTA col EN TH Opel) Svbv Se
Siahopwrépas téruxev AecToupytas, dom Kal KpeiTtTOVES
éativ SiaOjnns pecityns, Aris éml Kpeittoow émaryye-
Alats vevowolérntar. ‘ei yap TpwTn éxelvn Hv
dpewrros, ovx ay Sevtépas é€nteito romos: Sueudho-
pevos yap adrods réyer
‘lAoy Hmépat epyontai, Aéret Kypioc,
Kal CYNTEAEC@ €TTl TON OIKON “IcpaHA Kal ém) TON
OIKON *loY¥Aa AIAOHKHN KAINHN,
®oY KATA THN AIAOHKHN HN €TIOIHCA TOIC TIATPACIN
AYT@N
EN HMépa éTtlAaBomenoy Moy TAC yelpdc aYT@N é2a-
rarein aytoye ék rac Airynroy,
GTI aYTOI OYK ENEMEINAN EN TH AIAOHKH MOY,
Kara HMEAHCA aYT@N, Aérel Kypioc.

106t1 aYTH H AlA@HKH HN AlAeHcomMal TH O1K@ “IcpaHA
META TAC HMEPAC EkEINAC, Aérel Ky¥pioc,

AIAOYC NOMOYC MOY €EIC THN AIANOIAN AYTON,

12 TPO2 EBPAIOY2 . [sue

Kal ETT] KAPAIAC AYT@N ETTITPAYO ayYTOYC,
Kal ECOMAl AYTOIC Elc MEON
Kal AYTO! ECONTAI MO! EIC AAON.
Ilkal OY MH AIAAZWCIN EKACTOC TON TIOAITHN aYTOY
Kal EKACTOC TON AAEADON aYTOY, AETWN [NOI TON
KYPION,
OTI TIANTEC EIAHCOYCIN ME
ATIO MIKPOY EWC MEPAADY AYTON.
12 ¢ o a > ’ ee:
dt1 TAewc EcoMal TAIC AAIKIAIC AYTON,
Kal T@N AMAPTION AYTON OY MH MNHCOO) ETI.
Béy r@ Néyetv Kann Teradaiwxey THY mpwTny, TO 5é
Tanraovpevov Kal ynpdoKoy éyyvs apavicpod.

9 ‘1EHixe péev odv [Kal] ) tpe@Tn dikaropatra da-
Tpelas TO Te GyLoV KooMLKOV. *oKNVN yap KaTEecKEVAdTOn
e / > e «a / a ff A 2 / .
TP@TH EV 7 TE AVYVia Kal H TpdTrela Kal 7H TpODECLS

a ELA v4 / “A ie \ de \ » /
TOV ApTav, HTIs Aéyerar “Ayias ®weTa Sé TO SevTEpoY
/ \ ¢€ / ¢/ € / 4
KaTaTéeTag ua oKnvn n Aeyouevyn “Ayia Aryiwv, *ypv-
cody éyovoa Oupatyptoy Kal THY KLB@TOV THs SvaOHKnS
Teptkexaduppevnvy twavtTobev ypvoiw, év % oTdpvos
a \ / . ee! ety b \ "e
ypuvcn Eyovoa TO pavva Kal 7 pdBdos Aapwv 7 Bdac-
THTATA Kal at TAAKES THS SLaOHKNS, >bTEpdvw SE avTIS
XepouBeiv Sons KxatacKkidfovta TO iAkacTHpLov’ TeEpl
e > 54 ca) / \ / 6T 4 be e/
OV OVK ExT VoV A€YELY KATA Epos. OUTwY O€ OUTMS
KaTecKEevacpevov, eis pev THY TPeTHVY oKNVHVY Sia
TavTOS elolacw ot lepeis TAS NaTpElas émuiTENODYTES,
Teis d€ THY Sevtépay Arak Tod éviavTod povos o apyte-
pevs, ov yopis aipatos, 0 mpoodpéper bmép EavToOd Kal

a a a /
SrovTo SnAOUVYTOS TOU TvEU-

TOV TOU NaOU ayvonuaTMw?,
a fal a /

patos Tov aylov, unto TwehavepOobar THY TOV ayiov
a a , v4

odov éTL THS TMPeTNS oKHVYAS ExovoNns oTacL, *NTLS

\ > \ \ \ > / ai A 5 an ,
mTapaBoXn evs TOV KALpOV TOV EVeaTHKOTA, KAU HV OWpa TE

9 22] TPO2 EBPAIOY2 13

\ @ / | , \ Py uA \ io
Kat Ovoiat mpoadépovtat pu) Suvdpevat KaTa ouvelonow
a \ 4 10 / RU / \
TeAEL@oaL TOY AaTpEevorTa, povoy éTi BewpaciW Kal
/ a 7 \
Tomac Kat Stadhdpois BamTicpots, Sucatopata capKos
Méype Katpov dSiopPacews émriKeimeva. 11 X pio-
\ \ A Ag > aA
TOs 5€ Trapayevomevos ApYLEepeds TOV yevouevwv ayalov
\ aA 5 an
dua THs pelCovos Kal TeXELoTépas oKNVAS OV KELpo-
/ a) 4 a / > \ >
TounTov, TOUT oT ov TavTNS THS KTicews, ovdSEe du
~ an , vd
aipatos Tpdyov Kal pooxav dia O€ Tov idtov aimaTos,
> an 3 / > \ vA > , 7 e /
elonrGev éepamak eis TA ayia, aiwviav NUTPwoLY EvUpa-
fevos, +
Py / € / \ / e / \
apanews pavtifovea Tovs Kexowwwpéevous ayidles pos
\ nA x /
THY THS capKos KalapoTtnra,
TOU YpLoTod, Os Sia TvEevpaTos aiwviov éavTOY TpooN-

3 b \ \ i 4 \ 4 \ d0

el yap TO aiua Tpdyov Kal Tavpwv Kal oTrobds

TOoo@ MaAXOV TO alua
Dp bu

veyKkev duwpov TO Oe@, KaBapted THY cuVEidnow Huov
> \ a) 4 > \ 4 a a 1K \
aTO VEeKp@V Epywv els TO NaTpevery Dew CavTt. ai
n an /
da TodTO SiaOHnKns Kaivhs peaitns éotiv, dws Oavarov
yevomévou eis aTrOAUTpwaLY TaV emi TH TPeTH SiaOHnKy
/ \ bd / / e /
TapaBacewy THY éTayyediav AaBwow ot KEKXAnpEVOL

6 Ocrov yap diaOnKn, Oavatov

A ,
THS ai@viov KANpovopias.
a / ,
avaykn dépecOar Tod diabepévov: “diaOnKn yap émt
a / > \ \ / ? ve e ~ e
vexpots BeBaia, éwet wn ToTe toxyver OTE EH O Sua-
/ 18° Oe ¢ / \ ~ b]
Oépevos. Odev ovd5é » mpaTn Ywpis aiuatos évKe-
kaivotat' ™rarnOeions yap macns évTOAHS KaTa TOV
4 ¢ \ M / \ a a \ \ Z A
vowov uTO0 Mavoéws twavtl TO Aa®@, NaB@V TO aipa TOV
n /
pocxov Kal TOY Tpaywv peTa VOaTOS Kal épiov KoKKi-
\ ¢€ / > / \ / \ / \
vou Kal tocwTouv avTo Te TO BLBXiov Kal TavTa Tov
a e a ,
Aaov épavticev, *réywv Toto TO alma TAC AIAOHKHC
e ' c a c ’
Hc ENETEIAATO TIPOC YMAdC 6 GEdc"
\ \ / \ 4 a / a vA
dé kal TavtTa Ta oKEvn THS ELTOUPYias TO aiuaTe
omoiws épavticev. Kai ayeddv ev aipate mavTa
/ e
Kkabapiferat KaTa TOV vomoV, Kal Ywpls aiwaTEeKYValas

\
Kal THY oKNYHY

14 TPOZ EBPAIOY= [9 22

> f A
ov yivetat adeos. 3° AvayKn ovv Ta pev Uro0-
/ A a a
deiypata tdv év tois ovpavois tovTous Kabapifec Oar,
ees | \ ee. f /
avta O€ Ta éroupdyia Kpeitroo. Ouvcias Tapa Tavras.
> \ > / an
*ov yap eis xetporrointa eiohrOev fyta Xprorés, avte-
a “9 ra) a ? ? ) See: \ 5) f an
TUTa TOV adknOivav, GX eis avTov TOY ovpavoV, vov
€ d An al : <a a @ ae \ e a 95 10
phavicOjvat TO TpocwTH TOD Deod brép Huav: ov
U , f ud
iva qodrdaKis mpoogépy éavtov, Borep 6 apxrepeds
> / > So” b] P) \ b] id >
eloepKeTaL Els TA Ayla KaT éviauTOV év aipatt addo-
/ a a
Tpi@, *éret er adTov ToAAaKs Tabely aro KaTAaBOANS
4 é \ be vA > \ / a 27 >
Kogpou: vuvi d¢ anak éri cuvTedeia TOV ai@vwr Eis
/ lal A fal
abernow THs adpaptias diva THs Ovoias adTod Twepave-
27 \ Q er oe n 27 , ef
peta. Kal Kal ocov atroketat Tots avOpw@mos dak
a \ \ a
atroGavetv, wera 5€ TovTO Kplots, =otTws Kal 6 yptoTos,
amak mpocevexGels eis TO TOAAGN ANENELKEIN AMAPTIAC,
/ \ a
éx Sevtépov xopis dapuaptias opOynoetat tots adtov
aTeKdexXopmevors Els TwTNpIaV.
\ \ e P
10 ‘iXkiav yap éywy 6 vopos THY pedAdOVTOV
a \ n
ayalav, ovK avTiv THY EeiKdva TOV TpayLaToV, KaT
A a a
éyiavTov Tals avtais Ovoiais as mpocdépovow eis TO
/
Sinvexes ovdétrote Svvavtat Tovs mpocepyopévous Te-
nr = 2 > \ > x > 7 / PS) \
Nermoat* *érrel ovK av éravcavTo Tpocdepopmevat, Oia
TO pndepiay éxyew ETL cuveidnow apapTiav Tovs da-
/ / fa / 32 > 5) -) a
tTpevovtas ama&é KxexaSapicpevous; *adr €v avtais
avapvnots apapti@v Kat éviavtov, *advvatoy yap
alwa taipwv Kal tpaywv adaipeiy apaptias. Aco
eloEpYOmEvos Els TOV KOTpOY DéryeL
Oycian Kal TIPOCHOPAN OYK HOEAHCAC, COMA AE KATHP-

TiC) MOI"
SGAOKAYT@MATA KAl TEP] AMAPTIAC OYK EYAOKHCAC.
TTdOTE EITION ‘lAoy Hkw, EN KEdadidl BIBAloy ré=

rpamtat epi emo,

10 23] MPO2 EBPAIOY2 15

TOY TrOlAcal, 6 OEdc, TO BEAHMA COY.
Savwtepov Néyov Ste — Oyciac kai TPOCHopac Kal dAo-
KAYTQMATA KAI TEP] AMAPTIAC OYK HOEAHCAC OYAE EYADKHCAC,
aitives KaTA Vowov TpocpépovTat, *TOTE elpneev “lAoY
HK@® TOY ToIical TO OEAHMA COY* avalped TO TPO@TOV
iva TO Sevtepov otnon. Mév GB GedHmati Hylacpévos
éopev Sua THs TIpocHopdc TOD cammatoc “Iycod Xpiotod
épdrak. “Kai mas pev iepeds Eotnxev cal? juépav
ANevTouvpy@v Kal Tas avTas TOAAdKIsS Tpochépav Ov-
cias, aitives ovdérote SvivavTat Tepierciv dpaptias.
2obTos O€ wlav UTEp GuapTLaV TmpocevéyKas Ouciar Eis
TO Sinverés EKAOICEN EN AEZIA TOY GEO¥, }rd Aoutrov éxde-
NOmevos Ewc TEODCIN O1 EXOPOl aYTOY YTIOTIOAION TON
TIOAMN ayTOY, “wea yap mpoopopa TeTEdelwKev Eis TO
dinvekés Tovs ayvalomévous. 1 Maprupet 5€ hiv Kat
TO Tvedua TO Aytov, weTa yap TO eipnKévar

1GAYTH H AlAOHKH HN AlAOHCOMal mTpds avTOvS

META TAC HMépac ékeinac, Aérel Kypioc,

AIAOYC NOMOYC MOY ETI KAPAIAC. AYTON,

KAl €ITl THN AIANOIAN AYTON €TTITpAya eyToYc,—
Kal T@N AMAPTION AYTO@N Kal TON ANOMION AaYT@N
OY MH MNHCOHCOMal ETI" 18S7rou 5é aheois TOUTwY, OVKETL
Mpoopopa wept aduaptias.

19” Kyovtes ovv, aderhot, Tappnotav eis THY eloodoy
Tov ayiov év TO aipate ‘Incod, iy évexaincev Hutv
o00v mpochatoyv Kail Cacav Oia TOD KaTaTrEeTdopmaTos,
TOUT éoTiy THS TapKos avTod, **Kal lepéa MECAN ETTI TON
OIKON TOY OE0f, “apocepywopela peta adANOWHs Kapdias
év TAnpohopia triaTews, pepavTiapévot TAS Kapdlas ATO
cuveoyncews Tovnpas Kal hedovopévor TO THpa DdaTe

3

kalap@e *xatéyoper THY Omoroyiay THs €ATridos aKLVh,

16 TPO2 EBPAIOYS [10 23

TioTOs yap Oo émayyerNdpuevos* **xal KaTavommev AAXz-
Nous eis Tapo~vopov aydmrns Kal Karov épyov, » p17)
_€yKkaTaneitrovtes THY émicuvaywynv éavTav, Kalas
Gos Ticiv, AANA TapaKanodytes, Kal ToToUT@ MaAXov
dom Brérete éyyiGovoay THv Huépar. 26° Kxouva tas
yap dwapTavovTov Hua META TO AaBeEly THY éTiyvwoL
THs adnOeias, ovKETL TrEPL GuapTL@Y aTroXeiTETaL Oucia,
7 boBepa Sé Tus Exdox7) Kpicews Kal Trypdc ZAAoc écOieIN
éANOVTOS TOYC YrrenanTioyc. ™*abernaas Tis vomoV
Mauveéws ywpis oiktupu@v ET AYCIN A TPICIN MAPTYCIN
AT0ONHcKEl’ adam SoKxeire yelpovos aEtwOnoeTaL TLMLO-
pias 6 Tov vidv Tod Oeod KataTratHaas, Kal TO aima TAC
AIAGHKHC KoLVOY Hynodmevos ev @ HYytdoOn, Kai TO
Tvedpa THS xXapiTos évuBpicas. *oidapmev yap Tov
ei7rovta >Emol €KAIKHCIC, €F@ ANTATOAWCO* Kal WdaALY
Kpinel Kypioc TON AaON aYTOF. 31 hoBepov To éumrecetv
eis xetpas Oeod FavTos. 82’ A vaptpunoKer Oe 5é Tas
TpoTepov Hpépas, ev ais poticOévtes TorAHY AOAnoW
ttepetvate TaOnudtov, *rodTo pev overdiapots TE Kal
Oriveow Ocatpifouevor, TodTO Sé Kowwvol TAY OvTWS
dvactpepouéevav yevnbévtess *xab yap tots Seopiors
cuverrabncate, Kal THY apTayny TOV UTAPXOVTOV VUaV
peta yapas mpocedéEacde, yuvooKovtes EXE EavToOvs
Kpelcoova Urapéw Kal pévoveav. Mn amoBadnte
ody THY Tappyoiay bmov, Hts exer peydAnv pio GaTo-
Sociav, *imrowovns yap éxete ypelav iva To OéXnpa Tod
Geod tromoavtes Koplonabe THv éTrayyeniav*

31ér_ yap MIKPON OCON OCON,

o épydmenoc Hzel Kal OY XPONicel’
385 Aé Aikaidc [Moy] ék TMicTewc ZHceETAl,
Kal €dN YTIOCTEIAHTAl, OYK EYAOKEI H YYYH MOY EN AYTO.

11 12] TPO EBPAIOY2 17

8Awels O€ ovK eamev YTIOCTOAAC eis amwAELAaVY, AANA
TicTewc eis tTepitoinow Wwuyijs.
ll Eotw 8 wiotis CArilopévwov troctacis,
4 - > / 2 > 4 \
Tpaypyatwv éheyyos ov Bretrouévav: *év ravTn yap
éuaptupnOncay oi mpecBurepor. 3Tlicres voodmev
katnpticbat Tovs aidvas phuate Oeod, eis TO pr) éx
f \ / / 4 / ¢
paivowevwv TO BreETropevov yeyovévat. *Iliores mwrei-
ova Ovoiav “ABerX trapa Kaiv mpoonveyxev to Oe@, bv
As €uaptupynOn eivar Sixasos, paptupovytos émi Toic
Awpoic ayTo¥ ToY Geof, Kal Od.’ avtis amoBavev ért
Aare?. lores ‘Evoy petetéOn trod pr) ideivy Odva-
Tov, Kab OYY HYPICKeTO AIdTI METEOHKEN AaYTON 6 OEdc"
m™po yap THs pmeTabécews pepapTipnrar eYapecTHKENal
TO EH, “ywpls 5é mictews AdvvaTOY EYapectical, ruc-
Tevoa, yap Set Tov mpocepyopuevov [TH] Bed Ste
éotw Kal Tois ex€nTovow avTov proOarrodoTns yiverat.
"IIiores ypnuaticbels Node rept trav pndér@ Brero-
/ > \ 4 \ > /
pévov evrAaBnOeis katecxevacev KiBwrov eis cwTnplay
Tov olxov avtov, d¢ As Karéxpivev Tov Kdcpov, Kal
Ths Kata tiotw Sixavocvyns éyévero KXnNpovopmos.
SII lores Kadrovpevos “ABpadw tanxovaev éZENOEIN eis
ToTrov Ov *pedrev AapBdver eis KANpovopiay, ‘Kal
Ion 1, ee lA a 9TTZ
EZHAVEN PM ETLOTAMEVOS TOU EPYETAL. loTel TIAap-
Ly > A A > / ¢ b] / >
WKHCEN €1S YNVY THS ETrayyehas WS adXoOTpiaV, EV
oKnvais Katoumnoas peta “laadk Kal “laxoB trav oup-
/ A 3 / a % tal ‘ 10 > dé
KANpovoLwV THS éTayyedias THs auvTyns: “éEedexero
yap THv Tovs Oepediovs Exovoay TorW, Hs TeXViTNS
Kai Snusovpyos 6 Oeds. “UIiores nai avty Zdppa
Sivamw eis KataBornv oméppatos éhaBev Kal rapa
Kalipov HALKLaS, rel TLOTOV Hynoato TOV émayyEtAd-
P 125 \ \ > ] e \ > 40 \ “
jwevov to: Kab ab evos éyevvnPnoav, Kal tadra
HEBREWS B

18 IPOS EBPAIOYS [11 12

VEVEKPWpPLEVOV, KAOC TA ACTPA TOY OYPANOy Te AGEL
Kal WC H AMMOC H TIApA TO YelAOC TAC @addccHC H ANd-
' BK \ , b] ‘O ® 4
PIOMHTOC. ata twiatw améGavoy ovTo. wavTEs,
\ / \ b / > \ 4 Q > \
bn) Koma dmevoe TAs emrayyedias, GAAA TOppwOEV adTas
idovtTes Kal doTracduevol, Kal OmoXoynoavTes STL ZENOI
KAl TIAPETIAHMO! elouy émti TAc Ac’ Mot yap rovadTa
AéyovTes euhavilovow Ste watpiba éemulnrovow. “Kat
b \ > / bd] / A Rais 4 2g-/ 3 x
et pev éxeivns éuvnuovevoy ad ns é&éBnoar, eiyov av
Kaipov avaxaprrat: *ydv dé Kpeitrovos opéyovtat, TOUT’
Esty émrovpaviov. 610 ovK ématcyvveTaL avToUs Oo
Geds Oeds errixareicbat avTa@v, nToiwacey yap avTois
TONY. 11TIiores mpocendnoyen “ABpadm TON ‘Icadk
TIEIPAZOMENOC, Kal TON MONOFENA rpoaédeper o Tas érray-
yertas avadeEapevos, apes dv édarnOn Ott °EN
| A , ’ ' 19 4 4 » Veter:
CadK KAHOHCETAI COI CTTEpMd, AOyloapevos OTL KAL EK
a > / \ € / vd Petae* \ 3
vexpav éyeipew Suvatos o Beds: SOev avrov Kai év
mapaBorn éxopicaro. 0 Tliores kat wept weddXovTwv
evroynoev “Ioaak tov laxwB nai rov ’Hoad. *Ilio-
> \ > / ir4 nn ta >] A
tet laxwB amoOvncKxwv Exactrov tav viev ‘lwond
eVAOYNOEV, Kal TIPOCEKYNHCEN ETT TO AKPON TAC PdBAoy
ayToy. “™Ilicres “Iwmond terevta@y rept tis é&odou
Tov viv ‘lopanr éuvnpovevoer, Kai epi TaY ootéwv
avtov éveteinato. ™Iliores Mavons yevynels éxpyBu
' A ? *
TPIMHNON U7rO TOY TraTépwv avTov, SoTL EIAON ACTEION
\ / \ > > / 5 A a
TO Tatdiov Kai ov époBnOncav To dSidtaypa Tov
Bactiéws. ™Iliotes Mwycfic mérac rendmenoc npv7-
oato Neyer Oar vids Ouyatpos Papa, * uadrov EXOpevos
cuvKaKxovxetabat TS AA@ Tod Geod 7} mpocKaipov Exeww
dpaptias atrod\avow, *peifova mrovTov Hynodpmevos
tav Aiyimtov Oncavpay TON ONEIAICMON TOY ypicToy,
am@éBreTrev yap eis THY ptoOatodociavy, =" Iliores

12 1] TTPOZ EBPAIOY2 19

Katérurev Aiyumrov, un pobyOels Tov Oupov Tod Bact-
rE \ \ 2 I e . Pe 3 f 28117
éws, TOY yap adpaTov ws opav exapTépycer. iores
meTroinkev TO TIACYA Kal THY MpdaxXVaLY TOY aimaToc, iva
py 6 GAOOpEYWN TA TrpwTdToKa Oiyn aitav. ™Iliore
duéBnoav tHv "EpvOpav Odraccayv as Sia Enpas yijs,
hs weipav NaBovtes of Adyirrrion KateTOOncay. *Tlic-
\ , b] \ 4 / ae, e
Tet Ta Telyn “leperyw Erecav KuxroOévta él émra

nMéepas. 1 Tiores “PaaB » wopyvn ov cuvarre@deto
tois ameOnoacw, SeEapévn tovs KaTacKoTOUS peT
ELpHVNS. Kal ti ts Néyw 3 esrideives pe yap

Sinyouuevoy o ypovos mepi Tededv, Bapdx, Yayryror,
lehOde, Aaveid te nal Yapyounr kal tav mpopytar,
Bo) dua Tictews KaTHywvicavTo Bactrelas, HpydoavTo
Suxavoovvny, érétuxov érrayyediav, ppakav oropata
AcovTrayv, *&rBecav Svvauw trupos, épvyov oTopata
paxyatpns, edSvvau@0noav amo acbeveias, éyevnOnoav
ioxupol év rodéum, twapeuBoras ExAtvav addoTpiov*
5 éraBov yuvaixes €& avactdcews Tos veKpovs avTaV"
ddnrot Sé éruptravicOnoar, ov mpocdeEauevot THY atro-
AUTpwoLY, iva KpeiTTOVOS avacTacews TUXWoLW* *Erepor
dé éumaiypov Kat pactiywv teipav éXaBov, ere Sé
Seopav kat duranns: *éxvOdoOncav, éreipdcOncar,
émpicOncav, év hove paxaipns améBavov, trepindOov
év pnrorais, év aiyioss Séppacw, taTepovpevor, Oru-
Bopuevor, Kaxovyovpevor, ®dv ovx Hv aEvos Oo KOoMOS
él épnulats mrav@mevot Kat pect Kal omndatols
Kal Tais omais THS Yin. 8Kal ovTos waves
paptupnOévtes Sia THS TiatTews OvK exomicaYTO THY
érrayyeniav, Tod Ocod trept juov Kpeitrov TL TpoPAE-
rapévov, iva wn Xopis nov Teerc@O@our.

12 1Toyapobv Kal jets, rocodTov exovTes TeEpt-

B2

20 IPOS EBPAIOYS [12 1

Keievov nuiv véehos papTUpwr, dyKov arobéuevot TavTa
kal Thy evTrepiotatov apaptiav, St bTropovas Tpéxyopmev
TOV TpoKkeluevov Hnuiv ayava, *apopavtes eis TOV THS
miotews apynyov Kal Terecwtnv “Incody, ds avtl tis
TpoKkerméevns aVT@ Yapas vrépewev otTavpov aicyvvns
Katadpovnaas, én Aczid Te TOD Opovou Tod Beod KEKdGiKEN.
Savaroyicac0e yap Tov ToLavTHY VropeuernKoTa v0
T@N AMAPTWADN Ec EAYTOYC avTiroylav, iva pH KayNTeE

a a € la ? t 4 oo , v4
tais Wuyais tbuav éxdvdpevor. Otmw péypis aipua-
TOs avTiKaTéoTHTE TPOS THY GuapTiay avTraywvilopevot,
5 “3 / p n / vd “@ A e ta
Kal éxrérdnobe THs TapakrAHnoews, HTis wpmiv ws viois
dvanréyerat,

Yié moy, MH GAiraper traidelac Kypioy,

‘ 2 ’ « 3 > n > ,

? MHAE EKAYOY YT AYTOY EAEPYOMENOC’

S0n rap dramtd& Kypioc maideyel,

MACTIFOI AG TIANTA YION ON TrApadéyeTal.

7eig TIAIAcIAN UmropméveTe* @S YlOIC Duly mpoodéperat oO
Oeds* tis yap yidc dv ov Traldeye! trathp; Fei Sé yopis
€OTE TIAIAEIAC HS METOYOL yeyovact TavTes, apa vdbot Kat
ovy yioi ore. %eita Tovds méev THS TapKOS Huaov TaTépas
4 \ \ > / > \ A f
elyouey tramevtas Kal éverpeTroueba* ov Trodv paddov
brrotayncopeba TH TaTpl TOV TvevpaTwV Kal Exooper ;
6 wey yap mpos OAlyas Huépas Kata TO SoKody avTois
b] / € At o_O \ / > \ A A
érraidevov, 0 dé él TO cumhépov eis TO weTaraBelv THs
dytoTnTos avTov. “daca pév maideia mpds pev TO
mapov ov Soxel yapas elvat adda Avs, BoTepov Sé
KapTov eipnvixov Tots dt avTHs yeyunvacpévots atro-
SiSwow Sixacoctyyns. Aco tdc Trapeiménac yeipac Kal
TA TIAPAAEAYMENA FONATA ANOPOACaTE, Kal Tpoyidc Opbac
TIOIeITE TOIC TIOCIN Duar, Wa pn TO Yorov éxTparrh,
taOn dé warrov. 14FipHNHN AIMKETE ETA TravTar,

12 29] IPOS EBPAIOYS at

Kal Tov aylacpev, o0 ywpls ovdels reTas Tov KUpLor,
DémitKoTrovDvTEs py TUS VaTEpwV amo THs yapiTos ToD
Oeod, MH Tic fiza mikpiac An@ yoyca énoyAd Kal Ov
avuTis wtavOacrv oi Troddoi, un Tus mopvos 7 BéBnAos
ws ‘Heaf, 0s avti Bp@oews pias ATeAETO TA TIPWTOTOKIA
éavtov. Viore ydp bre Kal perémeta OéXwv KANpovo-
‘poate THY evAOYyiav amredoxipacbn, peTavotas yap
TOTOV ovX evpev, KaiTep peta Saxpvav éxbnTHoas
? , 18 9 \ b /
aQuTnv. Ov yap mpoceAnrvVOaTe Wnradwpéevo
\ , ‘ , , \ U \
Kal KEKAYMEN® TIYPl Kal FNOD@ Kal ZOM@ Kal OYEAAH 7° Kail
CAATITTOC FY@ KAI MDWNH PHMATWN, HS Of axovaaVTeEs
mapyTncavto mpooreOhvat avtots NOyov: “ovK« Epepov
yap TO StactTeAXouevov KAN OHpion Gir TOY Gpoyc, AlG0-
BoAHOHceTar “Kali, cttw PhoRepov nv TO havtalopevor,
Movojs eimev “ExcoBdc cim cal évtpouos. ™adra
mpoceAnrvdate Zuwv Sper Kab ore Oeod CdvTos, lepov-
cadnm €Tovpavig, Kal pupidow ayyéXov, *ravnyiper
Kal ExKANola TpwWTOTOKwY aTroyEeypaypévev Ev ovpavots,
Kal KptTh Oe@ TravTov, Kal Tvevpace Sikaiwy TeTEdELw-
Ui 24 \ 5 ra] t , f 3 fa) \ 7
uévorv, *xal SiaOnnns véas pecitn “Incod, cai aipate
pavTicmov Kpetrtov AaXodyTt mapa Tov"ABer. * BYé-
mete 1) Tapattnonaole Tov AaXodYTA* et yap EéxeElvoL
oun e&éduryov ert ys maparTnoapevor Tov ypnuaTiCovTa,
\ a e a e \ 2-39 > n ? /
TONY MAAKOV NuEts ol TOV aT ovVpavav . aTrooTpEedpo-
pevors %ob horn thy yhv évarevoey Tote, viv bE
> 4 , 2 a a ' > id \
éemnyyeATar Aeyor “Et: dmaz €fa@ ceicw ov movoy THN
rAN @AAa Kal TON OYpandn. 77d Sé “Eri Attaz dnroe
[r9v] Tov carevopévwry peTabeotv ws TreTTOLnLEévOD, va
pelvn TA wy carevoueva. % Ard Bacideiay doadeuTov
TaparapBavorvtes éxopmev yap, &’ Hs AaTpevMpeV
> / a A \ > / \ dé 29 \ \
evapéotws TO Oew@ peta evAaBeias Kal déovs, Kai yap
O 8€0C u@V TIYp KATANAAICKON. ,

22 TPO EBPAIOYS (13 1

/ A
13 “H ¢didradergia pevéro. * rhs didokevias ph
emvAavbavec Ge, Sia tavTns yap édabov tives Eevicavtes
f a
ayyérous. Fuyviokerbe tv Seopioy as cvvdedepévor,
TOV KaKOUVXOULEvMY ws Kal avTol dvTeEs ev GwpaTi.
*Tipsos 6 yapos év traow Kai} KoiTn dpiavTos, Tépvous
yap Kat pouyods Kpwei 6 Beds. © AdiAdpyupos 6 Tpd-
Tos’ apkovmevor Tols mapodaw: avtos yap eipnKev
Oy mH ce dN@ OYA OY MH CE ErKaTaAiTw’ SdorTe Oappodr-
Tas Huds Eye
Kypioc émoi BoH@dc, oY oBHOHcomal’
TI TIOIHCel MOI ANOP@TIOC;
™M 4 a“ e / e A rd 3 LA
VNMOveveTE TOV Hyoumevwv Upov, oiTiWes éXa-
Ancav wvpiv Tov Adyov Tod Oeod, dv davabewpodvTes
Thy éxBacw Ths avactpodhns piyeicbe tHY Tio.
87 a x \ > \ \ 4 ¢€ + ee d \ bd
noovs Xpiotos éyOés nal onpepov o avros, Kal eis
Tovs ai@vas. *didayais Trouxitas Kal Eévais oy Tapa-
pépecOe Kardv yap xapits BeBarodoba tHv Kxapdiar,
> / 3 > > / e
ov Bpwpacw, ev ols otx wpernOnocay ot mepira-
Touvtes. é&youer Ovotactypiov é& ob gayeiv ovK
” b] , e A a 4 11%
éyovow [é£ovciay] of TH oKnvn RaTpevovTes. Ov
> ‘ / ‘ e ‘ c ’ > ‘@
wv aria 8
yap eichepetal Samy TO alma Trepi AmapTiac eic TA dria Sud
~ / U 2 a
TOU APXLEpewS, TOUTMWY TA THpATA KaTaKaleTal EZ TAC
TlapemBoAAc’ 12810 Kal “Incods, iva dyidon Sia Tod idiou
A \ / 4 nA 4 ” Q 18 /
aipatos Tov Naov, Ew THs mwvANS Erraber. TOLVUV
éEepyaucla mpos avTov €2Zm Thc TapemBoAAc, Tov dveL-
Siopov avtod pépovtes, od yap éyouev Ode pévovcay
TOMY, GANA THY péAXOVCaY emi~nrodmev? Sv’ avTod
ANAPEPWMEN OYCIAN ainécewc Ova TavTos TG OED, TOOT
EOTLY KAPTION YEIAEWN OMOAOYOUVT@Y THO OvOMaTL AUTOD.
rns d5€ evmoilas Kat Kowwvias pn ériravOaveabe,
4 \ ‘4 ’ an e Q , 7[] /
ToLavTats yap Ouciats evapeoteitat o Geos. él-
a a \
GeaOe Trois Hryoupévots tua@v Kal wreixete, avTol yap

13 25] MPO= EBPAIOYS 23

b) a ¢ \ n n e A e 4 > /
dypuTrvovow vTrép TOV Wuyav DuaV ws Abyor aTrodw-
covTes, iva peTa yapas TOUTO ToLmoW Kal pn oTEVa-
Covtes, aAvaolTEAes yap viv TodTO.

TI pocevyeoOe rept nuav, TeOoucba yap Ste Kadyv
cuveldnow Exopev, €v TaowW Kaos OédXovTes avaoTpé-
gpecOar. areptccotépws S€ TapaKkadw TOTO TroLHoaL
iva tTadyevov atroxatacTaba div. 20°O 5é Geds
TNS ELpHvNnS, O ANATATON €K VEXPO@V TON TIOIMENA TN
TIPOBATON TOV péyav EN AIMATI AIABHKHC AI@NIOY, TOY

A aA / tal
Kvptov nuov ‘Inoodv, “xataptica: tyads év trayti
aya0@ eis TO Trovnoas TO OérAnpa adrov, Tomy ev Hiv
A oe » ae > ie] PY a | A n @ e
TO evdpeotov évwmiov avTov did “Inood Xpictov, ©
s 3 \ 7A nA : I > / 22,
Sofa eis tods ai@vas TOY aim@vav* auny. Ilapa-
Kano 5é tpas, aderdpoi, avéyerOe tod Adyou Tijs
Tapakrnoews, Kat yap dua Bpaxéwv érrécteira dyiv.
BT wwooKkete Tov aderhov Hudv Tipd0cov amroreAupévor,
pel ov edy Taxyeov EpxnTtat drxrouat pas.

24’ Agadcacbe mavtas Tovs nyoupévous tuedv Kat
mavtas Tovs ayious. “Aoraflovtar buds of amo Tis
? /

Iranias.
25°H yapis meTa TAVT@V UMaY

NOTES

CHAPTER I

I. 1—4: Tue Son Erernat.

1 = Gradually and variously, abundantly yet still imperfectly, in the
ancient days God revealed His mind to our spiritual ancestors, the
Hebrew Fathers of the faith. He entered into the hearts of His

2 prophets and each of them uttered the word He gave. Now at the
end of this period to which we belong the same God has spoken to
us in One whose eternal unity with Him we are taught'to recognise in
the name ‘‘Son’’: One whom He appointed from eternity to be the
heir of the whole universe of life, through whom also He created those
successive ages of time in which life goes on, ascending ever back to

8 Him through whom it first sprang forth from God: One who, like
the effulgence of a hidden glory or the engraven form that perfectly
expresses an artist’s idea, has never ceased to shed the divine light
and impress the divine seal upon creation: One too who in the
passage through humiliation which He undertook as well as in the
new exaltation thus achieved, bore and still bears onward all things
to their destined goal, as He was authorised to do by the command-
ment issuing from the effectual power of God. For this eternal Son
entered into the life of men, and like a priest made purification of
those sins which had become the characteristic stain of humanity;
and so, triumphant, He sat down on the right hand of majesty divine
in sublime state. Thus in bold concrete terms borrowed from holy
writ we figure His heavenly reign, while by adding abstract terms of
reverence we confess how little language can describe or mind con-

4 ceive the co-equality of Godhead. Thus then He reigns, having
become in the mysterious progress of that earthly career by so much
greater than the angels—those spiritual beings whose glory and
beauty it might be imagined He would resemble in His journey
through creation—as that name of ‘‘Son,’’ so homely sounding,
which He, the heir of all, inherited by human fashion of in-

11) NOTES 2s

heritance, is more distinguished in real worth than any that
belongs to them.

1. woAvpep@s kal qwoAutpérws. A famous opening in the con-
temporary style of rhetoric. Maximus Tyrius (fl. 150 a.p.) uses the
corresponding adjectives in like conjunction: zodvuepées is an epithet
of mvedua in Wisd. vii. 22, and zodvrporos is a favourite word in
4 Macc. The spirited rendering of the Old Latin, Multifarie
multisque modis ante deus locutus patribus in prophetis, remains, a
little polished in Vg., Multifariam et multis modis olim deus loquens,
etc. The phrase has come into prominence in another way since
criticism has directed attention to the gradual development of
theology in the Old Testament. ‘In divers portions and in divers
manners’’ well expresses the progressive revelation given through
the prophets to Israel, e.g. the judgement of God in Amos, His love
in Hosea, His holiness in Isaiah, the new covenant in Jeremiah,
law and sacrifice in Ezekiel.

It might be questioned whether the prep. év does not point to
the disproportionate stress which the Alexandrines had laid on the
passive disposition of the prophet; God spoke in him as though he
were merely the instrument of revelation. The author of this ep.
however is apt to give the deepest meaning to his phraseology,
whencesoever borrowed; and when he says God spoke in the prophets
he is not likely to have intended less than the fullest inspiration of
most reasonable heralds. See Intr. mr. 29, 30. Indeed this appeal
to prophecy at the opening of the ep. sets the key of the whole.
Not mechanical law but the inspiration of men is the line along
which God’s purpose will be found to reach fulfilment in Christ.
This is in harmony with the whole N.T. The Christian Church was
at one with the more liberal Judaism of the day in its peculiar
reverence for the prophetic augmentation of the original Torah. In
this our Lord had set the example. Canon Box says:

_ ‘Nor must it be forgotten that our Lord’s attitude towards the
old religion of Israel was that of the prophet rather than the priest.
The fulfilment of the Law of which He spoke was essentially prophetic
in character. He breathed into it fresh life, deepened and extended
its moral significance and claim. And above all He took up a position
towards it of sovereign freedom. It is in the prophetic Scriptures
that He finds the most adequate expression of His own Messianic
consciousness, especially in Isaiah liii. The people instinctively
recognised in the new teacher the voice of a prophet. And in fact
the whole character of the Christian movement depicted in the
New Testament is prophetic. The Day of Pentecost marked the

26 HEBREWS fiir

outpouring of the prophetic spirit and gifts. ‘The testimony of
Jesus is the spirit of prophecy?!.’’’

2. én’ écydrov tev jpepov rotrwy. This is the ancient text; |
‘*at the end of these days’’ not ‘‘in these last days.” It is opposed
to waa: like ‘‘ modern ’’ to ‘‘ old time.’’ At the end of the modern
period to which the author belonged the Son entered upon His
ministry. The addition of ro’rwy makes the phrase different from
anything else in N.T. (ef. 1 Pet. i. 20, 2 Pet. iii. 3, Jude 18), and it
indicates the peculiar attitude of the author to the Messianic ideas
of the Church. Intr. m1. 19.

éX\dAnoev. Does this refer specially to our Lord’s teaching, or
more generally to His whole life and work in which God spoke to
men? See the last pages of Milman’s Latin Christianity for an
eloquent appeal to the words of Christ as ‘‘ the primal, indefeasible
truths of Christianity,’’ which, however our understanding of them
be deepened, ‘‘shall not pass away.’’ There is little more in this
ep. about His words; the theme is His act of sacrifice. But His
words form here a just antithesis to the ancient prophecy, and
ii. 3 agrees with that interpretation. Only, the reference there is less
to continuous teaching than to the proclamation of cwrnpia. Such
a proclamation is the beginning of the gospel in Mark i. 15.

év vio. ‘*His Son,’? A.V. and R.V., spoils the grandeur of the
thought. The author sets us for the moment in the sphere of
heavenly pre-existence where logical ideas of personality are out of
place; these will come presently as part of the fruitful limitations
of ‘‘the days of His flesh.’’ Yet R.V. mg., ‘*Gr. a Son,” is hardly
correct. The Greeks, with their frequent omission of the article
in the large tragic style, could express just what is wanted here,
but there is no equivalent in English. In many of those tragedy lines
the idea of class and character is thus presented, as in the fragment
from Euripides, @edv dé Ovnrois xbopov od mpérer pépev. Hence
Westcott’s paraphrase (which he does not offer as adequate) ‘‘ One
who is Son.’? He carries us further by his remark that we ‘should
lose as much by omitting the article before rpogjrais as by inserting
it here.

KAnpovopov mavrev. The noun is rich in associations from O.T.,
Philo, and the gospel tradition. In O.T. the ‘‘ inheritance’’ of
Abraham and his descendants in Canaan, and hence in spiritual
privileges, is a common theme: Israel too is the xAypovoula of the
Lorp. The subject of one of Philo’s treatises is Tis 6 rév Oelwv éoriv

1 “* How should we teach the Old Testament???’ Guardian, July 18, 1916.

1 3] | NOTES 27

KAnpovéuos; In the gospel tradition our Lord was remembered as
having described Himself as the heir of the vineyard, slain by the
husbandmen, and thereby opening the vineyard to other husband-
men: Matt. xxi. 33 ff., Mark xii. 1 ff., Luke xx. 9ff. The particular
noun kAnpovéuos is rare in LXX. In N.T. it is used by S. Paul,
elsewhere only in Jas. ii. 5 and those three passages of the gospels,
and this ep. But in this ep. the three words xAnpovopéw, kdnpovopta,
KAnpovéuos, are characteristic: see i. 4, 14, vi. 12, 17, ix. 15, xi. 7, 8,
xii. 17. From Noah onwards the chosen people are represented as
heirs of God’s blessing in the future. The Christian people have
inherited their hope and are entering, heirs in their own turn, upon
its fulfilment. All this heirship springs from Christ’s universal and
eternal heirship. Through Him all nature was created and to Him
it all reverts in holiness historically perfected by the ascending strain
of life towards its Lord. The commencement of His visible act of
heirship is indicated in vv. 5 ff.: He takes by right of inheritance the
ancient names of Christ and Son.

Kal érolnoev Tovs alavas. aidv in LXX represents ‘olam, *‘ age.’’
In late Hebrew ‘olam had the meaning ‘‘ world,’ xécuos, but perhaps
not when this ep. was written!. ‘‘Ages’’ is a fuller sense and
therefore likely to be our author’s. It corresponds with ‘‘ these
days,’’ i.e. this period or age, just above; and a like full meaning
suits best in xi. 3. The ancient text has the order of words as
quoted. The later text puts r. aiévas before éoincer, a false
emphasis, and perhaps inferior rythm though Blass thought other-
wise. In the true order xai simply connects éroincev with €0ynxev as
contemporaneous or immediately successive.

8. dravyacpa tis SdEns, splendor gloriae (latt.). Whatever may
have been the original meaning of the Hebrew chabod the context
often shows that it expressed the idea of glorious light in O.T., and
so its LXX rendering dééa; e.g. Isa. lx. 1, gdwrifov pdwrlfouv, “Iepov-
carn, nKe yap cov Td das, Kal 4% SbEa Kuplou éwi ce dvaréradxev.
This was consonant with the Hebrew mind. ‘‘ The sky had cleared
after some days of south-westerly weather, and morning broke in that
rare splendour which persuaded the Hebrew poets, that perfect bliss
will be perfect light?.”” “Amavyacua might mean ‘‘reflection’’ but
is more properly ‘‘ effulgence,’’ and that suits this context; the Son
is the stream of light from the innermost glory.

Xapaktip THs tmorrdcews, figura (vg.), imago (d), substantiac.
So xapaxryp, which might be the impression, is here used in the

1 Dalman, The Words of Jesus, p. 153. ;
2 Hogarth, Accidents of an Antiquary’s Life, ch. v.

28 HEBREWS (iis
more primary sense of the engraved seal itself which expresses the
idea in the artist’s mind: cf. Liturgy of Serapion, 6 Oeds....6 rdv
Xapaxripa tov favra kal ddrnOivdv yervyjoas, and Cic. Or. 8, 9,
ipsius in mente insidebat species pulcritudinis eximia quaedam, quam
intuens in eaque defixus, ad illius similitudinem artem et manum dirige-
bat. Cicero had just written quasi imago exprimatur, so that the ren-
dering of d, Erasmus’ expressa imago, and A.V. ‘‘ express image,’’ may
be approved. But A.V. ‘‘person’’ for brocrdcews is an anachronism :
brécracis was not used for ‘‘ person’? till the fourth century. See
three articles by Dr Strong,-Dean of Christ Church!, for full treat-
ment of this and kindred words. A.V. here follows the Geneva
version, and may be compared with Wisd. ii. 23, 6 Oeds éxrivev rdv
dvOpwrov én’ apOapola xal elxdva ris ldlas ldibryros érolncev adbrév.
But that is not the idea in our author’s mind. He treats trécracis
throughout the ep. more as a philologist than a philosopher. It
means that which, in the deepest sense,appropriate to the context,
underlies, supports, or as here originates expression, and it is always
associated with a genitive; cf. iii. 14, xi. 1, and contrast 2 Cor. ix. 4.
Cf. also Coleridge?, ‘* Quod stat subtus, that which stands beneath,
and (as it were) supports the appearance.’’ Milton, who conveys so
much from this ep., says in Paradise Lost, x. 63 ff. :

‘So spake the Father, and unfoulding bright
Toward the right hand his Glorie, on the Son
Blaz’d forth unclouded Deitie; he full
Resplendent all his Father manifest
Express’d, and thus divinely answered milde.’’

dv...pépwv te ‘being and bearing.’? The mode of conjunction
emphasises the difficult assertion that throughout the days of His
flesh the Son was still revealing Godhead and bearing the universe
to its goal. But this is the assertion which the author justifies by
his sacramental view of glory in humiliation; cf. Intr. m. 15, m1. 7.
In B and ps.-Sarap. gavepdv is read for gépwv. That suits the
immediate context but would impoverish the general theology of
the ep. It is an instance of B losing weight by association with one
other and inferior authority. For the pres. part. cf. xi. 17, and brdp-
xwv in Phil. ii. 6, where however the compound “being originally”
is less absolute than the simple «yr.

TS pipart THS Suvvdpews avrod ** by the commanding word (cf. xi. 3)
of His power.’’ Virtutis suae, latt. ; and so the ancient commentators

oon jaan history of the theological term ‘Substance,’”? J7S. Jan., Oct., 1901
2 Aids to Reflection, Intr. Aphorisms xii n.

1 4] NOTES 29

But the second adrod, especially in a balanced piece of rhetoric like
this, would surely have the same reference as the first. And this fits
the context; the Son reveals or mediates God’s power as He does His
glory and inmost being. This adrod is omitted by M 424** Orig.
Perhaps the ancient commentators and translators were unconsciously
influenced by their general view of the passage as a declaration of the
essential unity of the Son with the Father. But it is more than that.
It starts from the prophets, and joins the high doctrine of the con-
temporary Church concerning the Godhead of the Son with the old
prophetic idea of the Christ, the Lorp’s Anointed, representing God
in His people. The theme is not so much the uniqueness of the
Son’s relation to the Father, as His uniting men with God. This
becomes plainer as the ep. proceeds; so far it is partly obscured by
the technical terms which are borrowed from Alexandrine Judaism,
e.g. dmatvyacua Wisd. vii. 25 f. and Philo, xapaxrip and ¢dépwr
(ra mdvra) Philo.

Kkalapirpov Tav dpaptiov moinodpevos. So, without 5’ éavrob or
jpov in the ancient text. The middle, roinodevos, is in accordance
with the rule that a verb in Greek may be resolved into the corre-
sponding noun with the middle roetoOa.

éexdbioev év Seta. First allusion to Ps. cx. which will supply the
guiding thought of the ep., viz. the royal High Priest after the order
of Melchizedek. Cf. Mark xiv. 62, which is reminiscent of this psalm
and of Dan. vii. 13.

peyakootvys. Used in the doxologies of Jude (25) and Clem.
Rom. xx. 12. In viii. 1 it is joined with éy rots ovpavots; in this
rhetorically finished passage the author substitutes dyydois in &
peculiar sense partly for the alliterative music, partly to give dis-
tinction and variety to the style; so Suagopérepov and map’ avrovs in
next verse.

4. KexAnpovopykev. This long word with its running metre is
also chosen partly for its combination with dévoua into a musical
cadence; cf, vii. 28, xii. 2. But there are no idle graces in the author’s
style, and the perfect is needed here. The Son has inherited that
name and still keeps it. In d the translator justifiably renders by
a present tense, thus also getting a good Latin cadence of his own,
possidet ndmén. Intr. v. 12. This verb is also a stylistic echo of
kAnpovéuov in v. 2; yet more than stylistic. Hitherto we have been
mainly concerned with the pre-existent state of One who received in
time the name of Son, also of Christ, and the dignity of Lord, King
and High Priest. But the rest of the ep. is chiefly taken up with °
tracing His inheritance and achievement of these names and dignities

30 HEBREWS [1 4—

on earth. ‘‘ Most of what is said of the Son in His pre-existing state
is contained in i. 2, 3, though some of the things said there are
repeated in other passages. The pre-existing state is alluded to very
little, and chiefly because it explains the present condition of exalta-
tion, which was not possible except to a being essentially Son of
God...Beyond the assumption of the pre-existence of the Son, the
epistle seems nowhere to desert the region of history’? (Davidson,
pp. 40 and 74). Davidson thinks the appointment as heir in v. 2
refers to the historical exaltation after the death on the cross.
Westcott, surely better, says ‘‘ There is nothing to determine the
‘time’ of this divine appointment. It belongs to the eternal order.”’
It is in fact the whole of which our modern notion ‘‘evolution’’ is a part.
But with xex\npovounkxer dvoua we pass to another special part or line
of this whole in history. The next section looks back upon the
Christs of Israel’s history who have, in O.T., received the name of
Son, and regards this as the process of inheritance, by which One,
who will later in the ep. be styled Lord and King and High Priest
and Christ, inherited His name of Son.

I. 5—14. Tue Son’s INHERITANCE. CHRIST-SONS IN
History.

5 The angels I say; for angels have nothing to do with such a
name as ‘‘Son.’? God, who speaks in the writers and personages
of our sacred books, did not say, ‘‘My son art thou; this day have I
begotten thee,’’ to any angel. He said that to one of those kings of
Israel who were also called the Christs of the Lorp, and who, being
themselves faint reflections of the divine effulgence and copies from
the divine seal, made history prophetic of the perfect Christ. It was
again to the best and greatest of those Christ-kings that God said
through Nathan the prophet, ‘‘I will be to him a father, and he shall

6 be to mea son.’’ And whenever God brings back again the people
whom He had called His firstborn son into the family of nations
after one of those repeated humiliations which make the paradox of
their spiritual history and are prophetic of a far more transcendent
glory through humiliation still to come, He says, ‘And let all the
angels of God worship him.’’ The quotation is apt for our argument,
since this nation, itself too, bore the title ‘‘Christ’’: through all this
varied line of Christship our Christ, who crowns the line, inherits
His name of ‘‘Son.’’ |

7 And on the other hand while God, speaking in a psalmist about
Himself, utters words concerning angels which indicate their dignity

15] NOTES 31

in the sacramental order of nature—‘‘ Who maketh His angels winds,
and His ministers a flame of fire,’? concerning the Son God indi- 8
cates His place in a more mysterious line along which manhood and
Godhead, history and its fulfilment in the eternal sphere, are inex-
plicably brought together—‘‘ Thy throne is God (or does He even say,

O God?) for ever and ever, and the sceptre of righteousness is the
sceptre of God’s kingdom. Thou lovedst righteousness and didst hate 9
iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the
oil of gladness above thy fellows.’’ And, going deeper still, bringing 10
seen and unseen, time and eternity, into still closer union, He uses
the person of a psalmist to address Himself by His own ineffable
name; yet utters words which certainly have reference to the Son
through whom He made all things, and to whom, the abiding heir of
all things, they return through all their change and perishing as His
inheritance—‘‘ Thou in the beginning, Lorp, didst found the earth,
and works of Thy hands are the heavens. They shall perish, but Thou 11
still remainest. And they all as a garment shall grow old, and as a 12
vesture shalt Thou roll them up; as a garment shall they be utterly
changed. And Thou art the same, yea Thy years shall not fail.”

And finally, concerning the Son and not concerning any angel, God 13
signifies in a mysterious oracle which a psalmist was inspired to
express in human words, that One (whom we well recognise to day)
is to reign with Himself in co-equal majesty till the victory over evil
is wholly won—‘“Sit thou on my right hand until I make thine
enemies the footstool of thy feet.’? Such an awful summons was 14
never given to an angel. The angels serve, they do not reign. In the
universal temple of creation they are the priestly winds, the holy
spirits, ceaselessly sent forth to do God’s service for the sake of those
who are to inherit salvation in that divine victorious act which lay
quite in the future when the doctrine of angels was first made known
to man, and still we await its full completion.

5. trav ayyé\ov. This takes up xpelrrwv ray d. in the last verse,
and introduces a formal proof of the Son’s superiority to the angels.
We are reminded of Col. ii. 18 and i. 16, and wonder whether the
author is correcting a tendency of his day to angel worship. But
there is no further hint of this in the ep. unless the further parallel
with Col. in xiii. 8 f., be thought to support the conjecture. And th e
positive argument of the section, that the Son has received His name
by inheritance through the line of the Christ-nation and its kings, is
far more essential to the ep. than the negative argument, that the
inheritance has not come through the line of the angels. The main

32 HEBREWS (15+

point comes out at last in ii. 16; the Son is truly man and therefore
truly mediator between man and God.

vids pov el ov, «.T.A. From Ps. ii., which is addressed to a king
of Israel. Apart from the more transcendent Messianic significance
which this Psalm would probably have in the Jewish church of the
later centuries B.c., it is justly quoted by the author in its context
here for this reason. In O.T. kings of Israel are styled ‘‘ the Lorp’s
Messiah.’’ In the English Bible ‘‘ Messiah’’ is rendered ‘‘ Anointed,’’
but in the LXX, which was the Bible of the author, the rendering
is 6 xpicrés. Hence he quite fairly thinks of our Lord as ‘‘inheriting’’
this title through the Christs of the past. He also thinks of these
Christs of the past as being themselves, in their degree, revelations of
the one divine Christ (cf. xi. 26). And he is confirmed in this bold
idea by finding that even these Christs of the past were called ‘‘sons’’
of God. Intr. mu. 6.

éyd tropa air, x.r.A. This appears in a striking manner in
Nathan’s oracle to David, 2 Sam. vii., from which this quotation is
taken. The deep solemnity of that passage was felt of old as much as
by this author. That is proved by the allusion toit in Ps. lxxxix. 26 ff.

6. Srav 8 wddw eloaydyy, k.t.A. The meaning of this appears
from the quotation which follows, cal mpocxuyynodrwoay abr@, K.T.d.
This nearly corresponds to the LXX of Ps. xevii. (xevi.) 7, and
exactly to the B text of a LXX addition to Deut. xxxii. 43. Each
poem celebrates the restoration of the people of Israel,’ who are in
Ps, lxxxix. 51 associated with David in the office of Messiah. It
is, therefore, when God brings His people, after their humiliation
(of exile, etc.), into the fellowship of the nations (rjv olxousévny) again;
that He bids all the angels worship this people who are His firstborn
son (Jer. xxxi. 9, Hos. xi. 1). In Ps. xevii. (xcvi.) dyyedou of LXX
represents the Hebrew ’elohim. This indicates the answer to an
objection that might be raised, viz. that angels are called ‘‘sons of
God’? in Job i. 6, ii. 1, xxxviii. 7. In the author’s Bible, the LXX,
dyyedo is the rendering of bne ’elohim in each place. Nor is this
@ false rendering. ’Elohim is used in the O.T. in various senses, of
false gods 1 Kings xix. 2, of judges etc. Ps. lxxxii. 6, of spiritual
beings or angels. This last is the use in the passages of Job, and
bne ’elohim is the regular Hebrew phrase for the class or company
of ’elohim, as bne neb’iim is for the class or professional guild of
prophets; sonship in the sense of ‘‘descent from’? is not implied.

A question still remains about the force of the temporal clause
8rav elcaydyy. Being completed by the present Aéyer in the apodosis
it should mean ‘‘ whenever he brings again.’’ And this would suit

1 8] NOTES” , 33

the repeated humiliations of Israel very well: ‘‘ The exile of Israel
in its deepest sense has lasted from Nebuchadnezzar’s burning of
Jerusalem to the present day!.’’?. But the imperative mpooxuyycd-
twoav might be considered the real apodosis; cf. Apoc. iv. 9f. Then
the reference would be to an event in the future, and it is very possible
that the author had also in mind that ‘‘second’’ advent of his Lord
(ix. 28) of which he treats in a somewhat unusual manner in this
epistle; cf. Intr. 11.19. mdédw might be taken as in preceding verse,
but whenever it is followed by a verb in this ep. it is construed with
the verb; iv. 7, v. 12, vi. 6.

7. Kal mpds pév, K.7T.A. Not ‘to’? but ‘‘ with regard to.’’ No
address to angels follows, but a description of angels from Ps. civ. 4.
It matters little whether the Hebrew makes ‘‘ winds’? (rvedjuara) and
‘‘ fire’? predicate as the Greek does, or the other way. The meaning
will be really the same. Other pictures of angels might be collected
from O.T., but this accords with the ancient and deepest idea of
the Hebrews. To them the thunderstorm was in very truth the
manifestation of the Lorp their God. The thunder was His voice,
the winds and lightnings His angels. So in N.T. the law, given in
the thunder of Sinai, is spoken of as ordained by angels, and the
coming of the Son of man is expected sometimes with angels, some-
times with clouds; cf. also John xii. 29. That this implies no
derogation from the angels’ glory is shewn by the author’s language
in xii. 23, and the symbolic exaltation of nature and ‘‘ forces of
nature’? in the Apocalypse?. All this however is but hinted here.
The main thing is that angels are shewn to stand in another line
of life from that along which the Son lifts man to God.

8. mpos St rov vidv. mpos must have the same meaning as
before. Yet. the quotation, from Ps. xlv., is in the form of an
address. This might be explained by the consideration that it
would be more in accordance with N.T. usage to speak of the
vocative, 6 @eds, as applicable to the-Son, than to use it as a direct
address to the Son: even §. Thomas’ words in John xx. 28 are
different from the absolute ‘‘O God.’’ But, besides that, there is
some doubt whether 6 @eds here is intended to be taken as a vocative.
In &B, that very strong combination of textual authority, 77s Ba-
orelas avrod, not cov, is read. With adrod, the natural (though not
quite inevitable) translation of the sentence would be ‘‘ Thy throne
is God...and the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre ‘i His

1 Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Fede, p . 159,
2 See further Sanday, The Life of Christ in mecent research, on “ “The Shi
bolism of the Bible,”’ and “A Bannon on Angels.”’

HEBREWS : C

34 HEBREWS [1 8—

kingdom.”’ It is a further argument for following the strong ms.
authority that the author has made another adjustment of his
LXX text by writing kal 7 pdBdos rijs ebOdrnros pdBdos THs Bacidelas
instead: of faBdos evOirnros paBdos THs Bacrdelas, shifting the pre-
dicate as though to imply that wherever righteous rule is found it
will be God’s rule. One who could make such a thoughtful cor-
rection as that might make the other to avoid what he felt to be
somewhat crude theology. It would be possible to construe the
original Hebrew in this way, and it would make the immediately
following ‘‘God, even thy God”’ easier. Most O.T. commentators
however think this unnatural, and all ancient exegesis is against it
in the quoted Greek. The extraordinary arrangement in d perhaps
shows how remarkable that translator found the passage. He
translates xal mpds peév Tovs dyyédous abrod héyer (So in D) by Et angelus
ipsius dicit and then arranges all that follows down to the end of v. 12
as one utterance or oracle.

That of course is merely curious. But the solution of the problem
in v. 8 does depend in part upon the interpretation of vv. 10—12.
These are quoted from Ps. cii. 25 ff. As generally in LXX Kupie
represents the ineffable name. Hort writes in his Commentary on
1 Pet. ii. 3 ‘‘ It would be rash to conclude that he meant to identify
Jehovah with Christ. No such identification can be clearly made out
in the N.T.’’ It would seem right therefore to say that here again,
as in the last quotation, O.T. language is applied to the Son to
describe His divine character; He is not Himself addressed as
‘¢God’’ or ‘‘Lorp.’’? But if so, the whole series of quotations
might seem to be in an ascending scale. First, His inheritance.of
the name Son is illustrated from passages in which that name is
given to the anointed kings or to the people of Israel. Then, after
‘a verse in which the ‘‘ nature-glory”’ of angels is indicated, a second
application of O.T, language is made, assigning to the Son the
attributes of a king who is addressed as ‘‘God,’’ and finally even
the attributes of Him who is the Lorp God of Israel are associated
with Him. :

On the other hand it must be noticed that not all those attributes
are presented. ‘These verses from Ps. cii. seem to correspond to the
‘nature’? character of the angels in v. 7 and to the Son’s work
of creation in v. 2. The mark of His divinity is here mainly recog-
nised in this, viz. that while created nature changes and passes,
He as xapaxrip ris troordcews abides unchangeable: cf. xii. 27 f.,
xiii. 8.

See a paper printed by Hort in 1876 On Hebrews i. 8. Westcott

114] - NOTES 35

agrees with him both in reading av’rov, and in translating ‘‘ God is
Thy Throne.” -

13. Kaddov ék Seftov, «.7.A. From Ps. cx., which dominates in
the ep.; cf. i. 3, v. 6, 10, vi. 20, vii. 11, 15, 17, 21, 24, 28, viii. 1,
x. 12f., xii. 2.. "Ex defy is LXX; in mere allusions the author
writes éy deiig@. In the last two quotations the name ‘‘Son”’ was
not expressed. In this verse that thought is quite superseded by
the culminating glory of exaltation to co-equality in kingly rule;
ef. Mark xii. 37, 1 Cor. xv. 28. This quotation brings us to the
personal history of our Lord on earth, the humiliation in which
this glory was achieved ; that subject will be taken up at ii. 5.

14. mvevpara. Here we must translate ‘spirits’? in spite of
v. 7. But the Greek reader, certainly the Jewish Greek reader,
would feel no difficulty in that. He had not learned, nor found in
his Bible, the separation between symbol and reality which confuses
us. Thus in Gen. i. 2 the wind on the dark water actually was to
him the Spirit of God; cf. Ps. xxxi. 5, Eccl. xii. 7, Luke xxiii. 46,
John iii. 8, xx. 22.

Aeroupyuxd. This adj., like Nevroupyety Aecroupyia, is used of the
Levitical service in LXX (not in Leviticus); cf. Rom. xv. 16. The
angels minister in the ‘‘temple’’ of God, which is the universe, as
often in the Psalter. See especially Ps. xxix. 9 and cf. John xiv. 2,
Luke ii. 49. ‘* Ministering angels ’’ are spoken of in Philo and the
Talmud.

dtroorehAopeva. Pres. part. of continual activity. A part. is
similarly used in the Hebrew of the seraphim in Isa. vi. So Milton,
‘Thousands at his bidding speed And post o’re Land and Ocean
without rest’’; cf. Lucr. v. 297 ff., ardore ministro...tremere ignibus
instant, Instant, nec loca lux inter quasi rupta relinquit.

Sid Tovs péAAovTas KAnpovopety owTyplay. The periphrasis with
#éXAw indicates ‘‘imminence in past time’’ (Blass 62, 4). S. Paul’s
doctrine of election does not enter into this ep., not even in iv. 3;
it is the salvation that is predestined not the number of the saved.
All that is read in O.T. of angels is here represented as having
reference to the salvation to be fulfilled in the latter days; cf. ix. 28,
xi. 40.

Hence cwrypia is to be interpreted from O.T. usage not, as
perhaps in some parts of N.T., from the contemporary Greek world!.
Hort has fine notes on the word in his comm, on 1 Pet., pp. 38 f.,

_ | See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 83 f., Light from the Ancient East,
index, S.VV. cwrijp, cwryp Tod Kécpov, cwrnpia.

C2

36 HEBREWS [1 14

48, 103; see also Sanday and Headlam on Rom.i. 16. The domi-
nant idea is that of victorious rescue, as in Ps. xxxv. (xxxiv.) 3,
Isa. lix. 16—20, ef. Eph. vi. 17. But ‘‘ salvation in the fullest sense
is but the completion of God’s work upon men, the successful end of
their probation and education ’’ (Hort); so in this ep. it is associated
with ‘‘ progress’? and ‘‘perfection,’’ ii. 10, v. 9, vi. 9. Zwrip,
frequent in Pastorals and 2 Pet., cf. also Phil. iii. 20, does not occur
in this ep.

CHAPTER II

II. 1—4. THE TRADITION OF SALVATION: GIVE
HEED TO IT.

Such being the mysterious origin, office and achievement of Him 1
to whom our allegiance has been rendered, we are bound more ex-
ceedingly to give heed to the tradition of life and doctrine on which
we (unlike the earlier disciples) mainly depend. More exceedingly: 2
for we are in a time of trial, and we must be vigilant lest by however
unexpected a chance the tide of trouble sweep us away from our
loyalty. More exceedingly again: for we run a risk like that of
ancient Israel, but of deeper consequence. Their Law was a word
spoken through the angels of the storm at Sinai; and in due course
it was firmly established, and every refusal to walk in its path or
to listen to its meaning, though it delayed complete establishment,
received just and due payment of the wage it merited. So costly
was the establishment of the Law: and how shall we escape away 3
if by our neglect we hinder—no mere word spoken through angels
but —salvation itself? And such a great salvation! A proclamation
of victorious mercy, which received its impulse in the speech of Him
we adore as Lord, has been handed on unimpaired so far as to us by
those who heard the very accents of His voice. So far in its course 4
it has been firmly established: God as well as the disciples witnessing
to its truth all the way with signs and wonders as of old; with
exquisitely varied acts of power; with breathings of a holy Spirit
such as inspired creation and our national history, each duly appor-
tioned according to His ever active will.

1. Set. This verse (omitted in M Orig.) introduces the first of
those exhortations which are so closely interwoven with the argument
of the ep. that the author justly styles it a ‘‘ word of exhortation ”’
in xiii. 22. So, in an ancient prologue to the Pauline epp., Hebrews
is described simply thus—Ad Ebreos quos hortatur ad similitudinem
thesalonicensium ut in mandatis Det persecutiones prumptissime
patiantur!,

1 Gwynn, Liber Ardmachanus, p. 209.

38 HEBREWS (fa

tois axovobeiow. The tradition of the Church on which the
whole ep. rests. Like the ancient prophets, the author disclaims
innovation; cf. xiii. 8 f,

tmapapvapev. Cf, Isai. xliv. 4, wapappéov towp. The passive here
(2 aor. subj.) implies being carried away by the tide of temptation ;
** lest we drift,’’ ne casu lebemur (sic) d, ne forte efluamus veg.

2. 6 8 dyyéwv AaAnOels Adyos. The Law at Sinai, diarayels
5 pote év xeipt wecirov as S. Paul says, Gal. iii. 19; see note on
i. 7 above.

éyévero BéBatos. From xii. 19, 25 we see how the author (so
imaginatively reading his Bible) felt that a risk was run at Sinai;
Israel’s fear made the acceptance of God’s commandments uncertain.
Moses the ‘‘mediator’’ saved them from the peril then, but the
‘* word ’? did not become really firm till the whole troubled course of
the nation’s political ambition was ended by the exile. This verse
like i, 1 is a curious anticipation of modern O.T. criticism, _

3. apedyoavres. ‘‘ If we should have,’’ not ‘‘since we have
neglected.’? A like risk was before the author’s friends, but he had
good hope of them; cf. vi. 1—12.

dpxiv AaBotoa. Cf. xi. 29, 36. The phrase has almost a
personal ring, like ‘‘receiving impulse from.’’ Thus it gives to
éBeBarwn something of the idea of confirmation by ‘‘ development.”’

Aadeiofar. Probably refers to actual ‘‘speaking,’’ i.e. to our
Lord’s proclamation ‘‘ The kingdom of God is at hand,’’ or to the
whole of His teaching during His ministry; xi. 4, xii, 24 are not
parallels. That teaching would include such pregnant sayings as
Mark viii. 35, x. 45, which are the germ of the apostolic doctrine
of salvation by the cross. In this ep. the high-priestly entrance
into the heavenly sanctuary is contemplated timelessly or as simul-
taneous with the act of dying; therefore no reference to the forty
days of Acts i. 3 is likely. '

rod kupfov. Here first the author names his Master plainly. The
readers would have recognised to whom he was pointing throughout
ch. i., but there he set them, as it were, by the throne of God in
heaven, and opened a vision of eternal things. That would have
lost its nwystery if he had introduced a defining title which rose out
of the earthly limitations of ‘‘ the days of’’ the Saviour’s ‘‘ flesh.”

It rose out of those days, yet perhaps not immediately. The
title xvpios is not often found in the synoptic gospels in the full
sense which it has in the rest of N.T. In many places 8. Luke’s
éricrarns, ‘‘Master,’? might be substituted for it without apparent.
loss. In Luke xxiv. 3 rod xuplov ’Inood is quite unusual. But all

2 4] NOTES 39

three words are omitted by authorities which have peculiar weight in
these last chapters of Luke, and the closest parallel to them is in
Mark xvi. 19 f., which according to the most ancient evidence are no
part of the original book. Bousset in his study of early Christian .
doctrine, Kyrios Christos, shewg that this title, Kvpuos, was cha-
racteristic of certain religious fellowships in the Graeco-Roman world
which may have influenced the Christian Church in the development
of faith through worship—lex orandi, lex credendi. Such influence
would not be alien to the followers of Him who is Himself the truth
wherever found (John xiv. 6). But there are passages in the gospels
(though hardly in Mark) which at least raise the question whether the
impulse had not been given earlier and elsewhere; e.g. Matt. vii. 21f.,
xx. 31. And the influence of the LXX with its Kvptos (see above
on i. 10) must also be taken into account.

tnd tov d&kovedvrey, «.t.A. 8. Paul, who claims immediate
revelation so earnestly (see Gal. i. 1, 11f., 16), would hardly have
written this. But, taken by itself, it does not put the author and his
friends farther from the ‘‘beginning’’ than 8. Paul. They had not
listened to the teaching of our Lord himself; that is all that is
necessarily implied; cf. Acts i. 21f., and Hdt. ix. 98 xai rdde torw
kal 6 un éraxovoas buéwv pds Tod éraxovcarTos.

4. onpelois te kal répaciw. So often in Acts and thrice in Paul;
cf. also John iv, 48. A frequent collocation in LXX of Deuteronomy,
which was rather a favourite book with our author. The idea has some
resemblance to the concluding verses of Mark which may have been
written by the presbyter Ariston ; see Swete’s Commentary, pp. ciii.—
cv.; there are also other coincidences in language. Closer attention
shews that the resemblance is probably superficial. In particular,
Ariston makes much of the outward signs; our author passes from
his almost conventionally quoted O.T. words to the deeper things of
spiritual life.

TvevpaTos aylov. Without article, as always in this ep. unless
the Spirit is connected with O.T. inspiration. The exception in
x. 29 is a grammatical necessity. Intr. m1. 29.

OAnow. This abstract noun (only here in N.T.) suits the
‘*movement’’ of the passage; contrast x. 36, xiii. 21.

40 HEBREWS [25

II. 5—18. Jesus THE MAN: GLORY IN HUMILIATION:
PRIESTHOOD THROUGH DEATH.

5 The Lord speaking, God witnessing, Holy Spirit operating! Yes,
for it was not to mere angels that Ged subjected the spiritual world of
_ which we are speaking, our home long destined and now within our
6 reach. To whom then is it subject? Why, to man. Does not some
one somewhere call God to witness to this paradox? ‘*What is a
man,’ he says, ‘‘that Thou art mindful of him; mortal man, that
7 Thou visitest him? Thou didst humble him indeed, but only a little
below angels; with a wreath of glory and honour didst Thou deck him.
8 All things didst Thou put in subjection under his feet.’? Glory in
humiliation! Strange but true, for there it stands written, ‘‘all
things in subjection’’; there is no exception at all. Well, as yet at
any rate we do not see those ‘‘all things’’ in subjection to man.
9 But we do behold One, who stands visible to memory and faith, a
little below angels, humbled—he is Jesus, the man: and but a little
below angels indeed—it is for the suffering of death that He wears a
wreath of veritable glory and honour, so that He may,—thus God of
His free favour granted—on behalf of every one of us taste death.

10 . Manhood, suffering, death! Yes, for,it was befitting Him, for
whose good pleasure ‘‘all things’? came into being, and through
whose direction ‘‘all things’’ hold their course, after bringing many
sons ‘‘to glory’’ in the psalmist’s dream, to carry Him who was to
lead the way in realising that glorious victory of theirs, through

11 sufferings to His purposed goal. For suffering is the faculty of
mortal man, and in suffering we find the pledge of real communion;
not only the sanctifier but those too whom He sanctifies are seen
thereby to have the same divine origin. And that is why He is not
ashamed to call them brothers. Who so well as He can give full
meaning to those often-repeated words of Israel’s martyr and Israel’s

12 prophet? ‘‘I will declare Thy name to my brothers, in the midst of

13 the church of our people I will praise Thee.’’? And again, ‘‘It is I
who will be a man of faith in Him.’’ And again, ‘‘ Behold I and the
children whom God gave me.’’ Now there we hear the accents of

14 a common piety and kindred. And since kindred as regards these
‘‘children’’ implies physical relationship, He too partook of that just
as they do; for the sake of that great purpose already named, viz.
through death to bring to nought the potentate of the realm of death,

15 the awful Adversary; and so to. give quittance to all the multitude of
those who by fear of death throughout the course of natural life were

25] NOTES 4x

liable to slavery. For I hardly fancy you will say that such physical 16
relationship, such ‘‘ taking hold of,’’ is likely with regard to angels.
No, it is Abraham’s human seed He takes hold of. And therefore He
was bound in all respects to be made like to these ‘‘ brothers’’ of His.
For this is the sum of all that purpose indicated by manhood, suffer- 17
ing, human piety and death, namely that He may become, in regular
process, pitiful and faithful as a High Priest on the Godward side,

to the end that He may continually do priestly work in taking away
the sins of the people of God. For, having gone through the tribu- 1g
lation of trial, He has in Himself the lasting experience of suffering,
and in that quality is able to come to the rescue of those who, as
their turn comes round, enter into trial.

5. ov ydp dyyéAous, K.7.A. The LXX of Deut. xxxii. 8 says that
‘when the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance he set
the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the angels of
God’? (Heb. ‘‘of the children of Israel’’). This might imply that
when the world became an olxovyévyn, a society of men, it was put
under the control of the angels. Thus r7v olxovnévny rhy uéddovoav
might mean ‘‘the social world which lay in the future at the time of
creation.’’ If so the author denies the inference (cf. xi. 27). But it
is more likely that he is giving a varied expression of the thought
which recurs in vi. 5, Suvdpecs wéAdovros alwvos, xii. 28 Bacedelay
dodXevrov, xiii. 14 wédw rhy péddXoveay, cf. also iii. 5, iv. 9, viii. 13,
ix. 10, x. 1, 20, xi. 10,16. The world or city or good things to come,
the kingdom that cannot be shaken, the opened way to God, are the
‘*kingdom of God,’’ promised in O.T., proclaimed at hand by our
Lord, brought in some sense by His death, still to be consummated at
His ‘‘coming’’ (ix. 28). That passage, ix. 28, shews that the author
holds the ancient faith of the Galilean disciples (Acts iii, 21) con-
cerning the final advent. But it is enlarged and deepened in his
epistle. A ‘‘coming’’ in the trial of his own day is recognised,
x. 25, 37, Intr. m1. 19; and the seeming confusion of past, present and
future is removed by his Platonic conception of eternity as reality not
length of time, cf. ix. 11f. To him there was no antithesis between
this world and ‘‘the world to come,’’ a favourite formula in Judaism,
but only in late Judaism, see Dalman, p. 147 ff. If, as the coinci-
dence in quoting Ps. viii. suggests, he knew Eph. i. 21 f., he would
feel that he could not quite adopt the phrase used there. His
‘world to come’’ is more akin to 8. Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit,
and nearer still to 8. John’s sacramental thought. It is ‘‘the higher
hidden life which lies at the roots of the visible life,’’ Gardner, The
Ephesian Gospel, p. 194.

42 HEBREWS [2 6—

6. Svepapriparo S€ ov tis. A favourite verb in Acts: ‘‘to call
(God) to witness to the truth of what some one says!.’? Thus the
Alexandrine formula ov 71s is used here with precision. In the
quotations of this chapter it is no longer God who speaks in the person
of the O.T. writer; here it is a man concerning mankind, in 12f.
the man Jesus concerning His relation towards men. Throughout
this chapter the point of view is from earthly history.

tl éotiv dvOpwos, x.t-A. From Ps. viii. The Psalmist con-
templates the grandeur of creation and feels the littleness of man.
But, remembering Gen. i. 26 ff., he appeals to the Lorp to confirm his
faith in man’s high destiny. In the Hebrew he says, ‘‘thou hast
made him little lower than God.’’ That becomes in LXX ‘‘than the
angels.’? The rendering might be justified from the ambiguity of
’elohim (cf. note on i. 8). But it is not necessary to press this. The
real subject of interest in this chapter is not the angels but the
humiliation of Jesus as the means of His glory. The omission of
kal xaréornoas...xeipav gov in the next verse (so BD¢) helps to bring
out the simplicity of the argument.

vids dvOpwmov. So far as there is real antithesis in the original
Hebrew, this second term for ‘‘man’’ means “ordinary man,’’ ‘‘man-
kind.’’? It may be that the lowly idea of this psalm and of Ezekiel
(ii. 1 and passim) was combined with the grand idea in Dan. vii. 13
by our Lord when He called Himself ‘‘The Son of Man.’’ There is
no direct reference to that title in this epistle.

8. é To yap trordtat ait@ td mdvra. Is there reminiscence of
1 Cor. xv. 25—28 in the language here? That passage shews at any
rate how naturally association of ideas would lead the author from
Ps. cx. (i. 13) to Ps. viii. B, still simplifying, omits air@.

The inf. with art., an interesting feature of N.T. Greek, is handled
with skill in this ep. (cf. ii. 15, Intr. v. 3). Its tenses signify state not
time; Goodwin, § 96. But with & rq the use is not classical, and in
this use the tense of the inf. perhaps can indicate time. Blass 71. 7.

9. tov St Bpaxd m1, k.7.A. Throughout v. 8 avrg means ‘‘man’’
in general, in whom the psalmist’s faith is not yet seen fulfilled.
In the one man, Jesus—note the name of His manhood, here first
introduced, so frequent in the rest of the epistle—we do behold it.
As He passes to His death, we behold Him glorified in humiliation:
see John xiii. 31.

Bpaxd ri in the Ps. appears to mean “only a little,’’ here ‘‘at
least a little,’’ or possibly ‘‘for a little while.’’ The distinction is

1 Cf. W. Wallace, Lectures and Essays, p. 205, Man “‘has claimed God for
his everlasting ally, ‘and been content with nothing less than immortality.”

29] | NOTES 43

not important, nor is the comparison with angels. The stress is on
Hrarrwpévov. The author keeps to the main idea of his quotation,
‘*glory in humiliation,’’ but gives a deft turn to this particular phrase.

éorehavopévoy under same article as 7Aarrwudvoyv. The picture is
of one who stands ever before our view (note pres. indic. and perf.
part.) as both humiliated and glorified. This compound phrase is
divided into two parts by the emphatic Brérouev "Incoty, and did 7d
wdOnua...ecrepavwuévov go together. The prep. has its ‘‘forward’’
sense, ‘‘ crowned for the purpose of,’’ not ‘‘in recompense for’’ death.
Thus é7ws...yedonra **that he may taste’’ (vivid subj. in due sequence
to pres. and perf.) follows intelligibly. There is no other way of
construing grammatically’, Blass recognises this so clearly in his
rythmical edition that without any authority he alters yedonra: into
éyetoaro. He does that, because, with so many others, he sees a
reference to the ascension, as in Phil. ii. 5—11. But in this ep. our
Lord becomes king by enthronement not by crowning, and that is in
general accordance with ancient custom. Properly indeed crégavos
is not a kingly crown at all but an athlete’s wreath, cf. 2 Tim. ii. 5,
iv. 8. But the usage of LXX perhaps forbids our pressing that.
The title ‘‘Christ’’ which belongs to His exalted perfection is not
added to the name of His manhood in this place; it first appears at
iii. 6; cf. the antithesis in xiii. 20f. Throughout this chapter the
work of the Lord on earth is in view. Only in the perf. partt. here
and in v. 18 are glimpses of that completed glory which will be the
theme of later chapters. Intr. m. 15, m1. 7.

Xdpite Oeov. M424** have xwpls Geof and this reading was known
to Origen and other Fathers. Textual authority may be considered
decisive against it, and it might seem to have arisen from theological
reflexion, orthodox or docetic; Godhead could not taste death. Com-
parison with v. 7 f. makes one wonder whether it was not due to
recollection of the cry Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, by which the
evangelists mark the supreme moment of glory in humiliation.
There is a curious allusion to this passage in conjunction with xii. 2
in Ap. Const. vit. 1: ouyxwpjoce. Oeod oravpov vréuewer aloxvvns
Karappovncas 6 Beds Abyos, Which in the Constitutions of Hippolytus
runs olkelg cvyxwpjoet kal Bovly cravpdv...deds av Adyos. Behind both
forms actual words of Hippolytus probably lie?. Is it possible that

1 Dr J. O. F. Murray however writes in a letter: ‘‘ I have in times past taken
drrws...yevonrat Oavarov as referring not to the Cross but to a present activity of
the ascended Lord, taking the bitterness out of the cup of death for everyone—
as He did in the case of S. Stephen, Acts vii. 55. 8. Paul suggests that He is
present at every death bed (1 Th. iv. 14) lulling to sleep, xousnOévras dua rod
Ingod. This would prepare the way for ii. 15, and xii, 4,”

2 See Frere, J7'S, Ap. 1915.

44 HEBREWS [2 9—

Hippolytus found ovyxwpjoe in Hebrews, and should this good
Platonic word be added to the classical vocabulary of the author?
Stephanus quotes from Chrysostom: dmou yap xdpis cvyxwpyots* Gmov
dé svyxwpnors ovdeuia Kddacts.

10. rpemev of Christ befitting us vii. 26, cf. Matt. iii, 15.
Philo uses the word boldly, as here, of God the Father. Cf. dderev,
v.17. . |

Se ov...50 od. Cf. Rom. xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6.

moAXovs viovs, not merely the Christ-sons of O.T. as in ch. i., but
all men as in Ps. viii. That follows from the obvious reference in
dyayévra. Rutherford, § 220, says: ‘‘ The use of the aorist participle
to denote an action anterior to that of the principal verb is a sense
acquired by it, and cannot be explained as other than a convention
sanctioned by its utility. Still there are no exceptions of any sort to
this convention, such exceptions as are commonly recorded being no
exceptions.’? Here at any rate there is no need to dispute that
dictum; eis 6. dy. refers back to d6é x. r. éorepdvwoas, ‘having
brought to glory as we have just heard.’’ The breaking of the appo-
sition by the acc. dyayévra is according to the genius of Greek which
exchanges stiff accuracy readily for the ease or emphasis of the ~
sentence; cf. Plato, Ion 540c, dd’ brow dpxovrTe KduvovtTos mpéret
elareiv 6 papwdds yvdoerae KadAALOV 7 6 larpéds;

apxnyov. Cf. xii. 2, Acts iii. 15; in the earlier classical Greek
of a prince; in LXX and later Greek of a leader or author. Aristotle
calls Thales dpx. roadrns girocodlas; often joined with aizvos, cf. v. 9.
The rendering of d is ducem here, principalem xii. 2; vg. auctorem in
both places.

tekeraoa. The phrase redevoiy Tas xelpas is used of appointing a
priest in Ex., Lev., Num., e.g. Lev. iv. 5, 6 iepeds 6 xpuords 6 rere ELw-
pévos Tas xetpas. The ritual association may have suggested its use
in N.T. where it is characteristic of John as well as of Hebrews.
In Hebrews redevdrys, TeAclwors and TedXexwT7ys are also found. But the
author’s habit of pressing the root-significance of words best explains
the varied force he givesit. In each context ‘‘ bringing to the destined
perfection’”’ is the idea. So in Jas. i. 25 véuov rédXevoy is ‘‘a law that
involves its own end,’’ the converse of what this ep. says of the:
Levitical law. Cf. Philo, migr. Abr. 1. 457, reXewwOels 6 vods drodwoet
7d Tédos TH TEXcTPSpw Hew. ,

11. 6 re dydf{wv. Another Levitical word.. The refrain of the
‘‘Law of Holiness’? (Lev. xvii.—xxvi.), dywor @oecbe Sri dytos eyd
Kvptos 6 Geos buGv—with variations, in one of which, xxi. 8, Kvpuos
5 dyuitwv avrovs, is the cadence—shews how deeply moral feeling

214] NOTES . 45

entered into Israel’s ritual. Jesus, whose forerunners speak in the
next series of quotations, is 6 dyiafwy: of dy.agduevor are the moddovs
‘vlovs, i.e. mankind, ef. John i. 9. The tense of the partt. serves this
large faith; contrast x. 10, xii. 14, and note the emphatic ravres:
Intr. 1m. 18.

é évos completes 6:’ dv...d:’ od, cf. Luke iii. 38. But Bruce,
‘borrowing the phrase though not the judgement of: Davidson, sug-
gests ‘tof one piece, one whole.’’ But cf. also the Greek gnome,
év dvipwv év Oeadv yévos, Pind. Nem. v1. and Adam’s development of
‘the thought!, Add Acts xvii. 28, 2 Pet. i. 4.

ovK éravoxuiverar, of God in xi. 16. Here the condescension, or
cheerful humility, of Jesus the Son is declared by putting into His
mouth three verses of O.T. in which representative personages call
those whom they save by suffering (Ps. xxii. 22), or train as disciples
(Isa. viii. 17° ), ‘‘brothers’’ and ‘‘children,’’ and confess themselves
to be like them dependent upon God.

18. tropat memor8ds. An emphatic periphrasis as in class. Gk.,
Goodwin § 45, Moulton, p. 226 f.

Bod éyd, «.r.A. Cf. Odes of Solomon xxxi., ‘He lifted up His
‘voice to the Most High, and offered to Him the sons that were with
‘Him?,”? )

14. alparos kal capkdés. The physical constitution of man, as
in Matt. xvi. 17, 1 Cor. xv. 50, Gal. i. 16, Eph. vi. 12, Johni. 138.
So in Philo and Sirach xiv. 18. Not however in the Hebrew Bible
where ‘‘blood,’’ as in all other places in this ep., signifies ‘‘life’’;
see Ley. xvii. 11 and Intr. mr. 12, 13.

Tov TO Kpdros ~xovTa Tov Oavdrov. The English versions might
‘remind us of Luke xii. 5, but the éfovcla there is God’s; here the devil
has 70 xpdros (imperium d and vg.) of death. Thereis something vague
and shadowy about the phrase. The author, who nowhere else men-
tions the devil or evil spirits, would be in sympathy with Dr Swete’s
view of ‘‘the personal or quasi-personal ‘ Satan,’ ’’? and with Jas. iv. 7
‘¢ Resist’ the devil, and he will flee from you.’’ Our Lord died, he
‘says, to ‘‘do away with’’ this lord of death; death itself, says
8. Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 26 (that passage seems to be still in the author’s
mind). He holds firm to our Lord’s victory over the realm of evil,
but does not define the persons of its agents. Nor does our Lord in
‘the synoptic gospels; He condescends to the popular language of the

-«.1*The doctrine of the divine origin of the soul from Pindar to Plato,’
Cambridge Praelections.

2 Rendel Harris, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, p. 129.

8 Th Holy Spirit in the New Testament, p. 370.

46 , HEBREWS [2 14—

time, but with a quiet correction of its grossness, which impresses
the mind of the reader more and more. In those gospels the devil
or Satan is mentioned comparatively seldom, with reticent and per-
haps symbolical solemnity!; it is the many evil spirits that are
oftener spoken of. In the Pauline epp. of the captivity these spirits
take on a certain grandeur, so that it is not always easy to decide
whether powers of good or evil are meant; see Eph. ii. 2, iii. 10,
vi. 12; Col. i. 13, 16, ii. 10,15. In S. John’s Gospel and 1 Ep. they
almost disappear, but ‘‘the devil’’ is freely and frankly introduced.

In LXX didBodos is the rendering of ‘‘ satan’? =adversary, and is
used of a human adversary Ps. cix. (cviii.) 6, and of that angel whose
office it is to try the servants of God, Job i. and ii.; Zech. iii. 1 ff.
Except possibly in 1 Chr. xxi. 1 this angel is not a rebel or an
evil one; and in 1 Chr. xxi, 1 the LXX translator, prefixing no
article, seems to have understood a human adversary to be meant.
Wisd. ii. 24 gives the first hint of the later explanation of the
serpent in Gen, iii. as being the devil. Rabbinical Judaism was
inclined to the ancient simplicity. ‘‘ Satan and the evil impulse and
the angel of death are one,’’ said Simon ben Lagqish (c. 260 a.p.)*.

15. dmaddAdéy only Luke xii. 58, Acts xix. 12 elsewhere in
N.T., nor there in this sense or construction. With the thought of
this clause cf. Rom. viii. 20f. But dwadX\doow, *‘ give quittance,’’ is
a less noble word than é\ev@epdw which §. Paul uses there. Neither
that word nor the Pauline carad\A\doow, xaraddayy, ‘‘reconcilement of
man with God,’’ come into this epistle.

dcov...SovAelas. Such a state is well illustrated by the hymn of
Hezekiah in Isa. xxxviii., and by all that pagan doctrine of Sheol
which long hindered true religion in Israel. But the author shows
abundantly in ch. xi. that he does not consider that to have been the
real faith of O.T. saints. True faith, though still expectant not
fulfilled, could always rise above the imperfections of its environment:
see below on v. 1f. That holds good of the ancient pagan world as
well as of Israel, but this ep. is mainly concerned with Israel.

16. émAapBdaverar. O.L. adsumpsit or suscepit represents the
interpretation of the Fathers ‘‘who understand the phrase of the fact
of the Incarnation’’—‘‘ when He took upon Him man’’; Westcott
prefers the unclassical meaning ‘‘help,’’? understanding it ‘‘of the
purpose of the Incarnation ’’—*‘to deliver man.’’ Isa. xli. 8f. seems
to have been in the author’s mind. But he substituted émiAauBaverac
for the LXX dvrehaBéunr, which does mean ‘‘helped’’; ef. Luke i. 54.

1 See Sanday, The Life of Christ in "recent research, pp. 28 ff.
2 See Box, Hzra-Apocalypse, p. xli.

2 18] - NOTES i 47

The picturesque expression is quite in his manner; it is faithfully
translated by vg. apprehendit; it has a broader significance than
either of the other translations allow; and the ironical 6% ov (a lite-
rary nicety not found elsewhere in the Greek Bible) serves partly as
an apology for its rather rude vigour. ‘‘The seed of Abraham”?
instead of ‘‘men’’ was suggested by the passage of Isaiah, but is in
harmony with the whole ep., cf. Matt. i, 2.

17. €&erjpov...rurrés. Epithets separated, like the partt. in v. 9,
to distribute the emphasis.

d&pxtepevs. The figurative title, derived from Ps. ex., which rules
throughout the ep. Here first pronounced, it has been prepared for,
more or less subtly, in i. 3, 18, 14, ii. 9—11; indeed almost every
word of this chapter has been pregnant with an expectation which is
now explained. The psalm has iepeds. This author often, not always,
prefers the full-sounding dpxiepeds. In the Greek of his time the
words were used indifferently.

Ta mpds Tov Oedv. This has been well translated *‘on the God-
ward side.’? In Ex. iv. 16 the Lorp tells Moses that Aaron shall be
a mouth to him: od 5é aire ery Ta pds Tov Oedv. Intr. m1. 5, 9.

tAdokeo Oar. Elsewhere in N.T. only Luke xviii. 13 (ikdo@nr).
It is connected with tAews viii. 12, ikacrjpiov ix. 5 (and, in another
sense, Rom. iii. 25), tAXacuds 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10. In LXX ééddo-
keoOa. is more frequent, and often represents Hebrew Kipper, e.g. ,
Ley. xvii. 11. Both Heb. and Gk. verb can take acc. of person in
sense of conciliate, e.g. Gen. xxxii. 20 (Jacob and Esau). But in the
Hebrew scriptures this construction is never applied to God; God
reconciles man to himself, man does not appease or propitiate God in
the true theology of Israel. Intr. mt. 11.

tov Aaod. The doctrine of priesthood in this ep. starts from the
analogy of the Levitical priesthood though its reality is found in
another line. This is one of the terms of the analogy; 4 dads is the
regular Word for the people of Israel, see antithesis in Luke ii. 32.

18. epacGels...rots meipafopévors. In N.T. meipacuds has an
intense meaning which springs from the great trial that shall precede
the coming of the kingdom of God, cf. Ap. iii. 10. In the Lord’s
Prayer, ‘‘ Lead us not into temptation *’ is tinged with that thought,
ef. Luke xxii. 40, 46. The first readers of this ep. were entering
upon a trial of just that nature. The Lord was ‘‘coming’’; loyalty
involved a hard choice, which might niean martyrdom; Intr. mt. 19.

CHAPTER III

III. 1-—6. Jesus 1s CHRIST, THE Son.

1 That is what the humiliation of the Lord Jesus really means.
Wherefore, ye brothers in a consecrated life, partakers like Him in
@ summons to heavenly exaltation through the trials of earth, pene-
trate into the heart of Him whom God sent on such a mission and
made High Priest of the creed which you are destined to confess

2 courageously. We name Him Jesus, man among men, faithful with
manly faithfulness to God who appointed Him His task. So, Scripture

3 says, was Moses faithful in God’s family. But His faithfulness has
richer consequences. For He stands before us endued with a glory
more abundant than Moses had, the glory of kinship with the founder

4 of the family Himself. I mean God, and I mean a larger family than
Moses knew as God’s; Israel was God’s family indeed, but God’s true

5 family is everywhere. And further, if it was in that universal family
that Moses served, still he was but the servant; when God called
him faithful, that was but a guarantee that he would faithfully make

¢ known to the people what God purposed to tell him; while God’s
Christ (even the Christ-kings of Israel’s monarchy) was to be styled
‘¢Son,’’ and the son, as founder’s kin, is in authority over the family.
That family, ruled by the supreme Christ, are we, if we resolve to
hold fast the boldness and the boast of the hope with which such
a divine pedigree invests us.

1. GSeAdol Gy.ov...péroxou take up thoughts already thrown out
in i. 9, ii. 11f.,17. So too xcaravojoare answers to Bdéropuer ii. 9.
It is still Jesus, the man, on whom attention is fixed; not till v. 5
are the two lines of ch. i., (the divine Son) and ch. ii. (the fellow-
man) brought together in the title Christ. The reading Xp. ’Incotv
here has no place in any type of ancient text.

Tov dmécrohov Kal dpxtepéa: as effluence of the divine glory, as
proclaimer and leader of salvation He was ‘‘sent.’’ Cf. Gal. iv. 4,
but more especially John xvii. 3. The idea is characteristic of John,
Gospel and 1 Ep. In 1 John iy. 10, dréorei\ev rov viov abtod ihacpor,
it is combined, as here, with the sacerdotal analogy. In Paul the

3 6] NOTES 49

word éxéoroXos has generally a more technical ring. Here it has a
larger sense as in John xiii. 16: so also in that place in the synoptic
gospels where it is used for the first time, Mark iii. 14 (8B), Luke
vi. 13; contrast Matt. x. 2. Cf. Clem. xlii., of ardorodoe quiv ednyye-
NoOncay dd Tod Kuplov “Inood Xpiorod, "Incots 6 xpiords aro Tod beod
éferé upon. ;

THs Spodoylas rjpav twice again in the ep. iv. 14, x. 23; in a more
general sense 2 Cor. ix. 13; in 1 Tim. vi. 12f. of the brave confession
of faith which, after the example of Christ, a churchman ready for
martyrdom makes. That passage helps us to understand both dyo-
Aoylas and kAjoews here. :

2. The reference in this and the following verses is to Num. xii.
where Moses is vindicated by God against the complaint of Miriam and
Aaron. Moses is no mere prophet to whom God makes himself known
in vision and dream; croua kara croua AaAjow adr~: the fut. A\aAnow
explains A\adnOnoouévwr below. But Gepdarwv gets an emphasis in LXX
by repetition; Moses is intimate with God, yet still a servant. Cf.
Philo, Leg. All. 11. 128: miords 5é pdvos 6 Beds, kal ef Tis Pldros Beg,
Ka0drep Mwvofs Néyerar mords & mwavtl T@ olkw yeyerficOat. In
Wisd. x. 16 Moses is called @epdrwv Kvuplov, and Lightfoot says
(on Clem. iv.) that in ecclesiastical literature ‘‘6 Oepdawy Toi Oeod was
a recognised title of Moses, as 6 ¢ldos rod Geov was of Abraham.”’

T) TojoavT. airév, i.e. ‘‘made Him apostle and high priest.’
This is obvious and natural; ‘‘created,’’ absolutely, would—apart
from the question of orthodoxy—bring a superfluous thought into the
context. |

odw om.p"=B Eth Cyr. Amb.: a strong combination; the omission
here would add force to the inclusion in v. 5. But does that con-
sideration point to an ‘‘Alexandrian’’ touch? Intr. rv. 2, 3.

4. 6 8 wavra katacKkevdous Oeds. Cf. i. 2, God made all things
through the Son. This is not a declaration of the divinity of Jesus
as creator, but a step in the argument for His divinity as Son.

6. Xpiorrds & ds vids. Another step in the same argument.
‘*Christ’’? in N.T., but especially in this ep., links the history of
Israel with the Gospel, the adoption of the people of God with the
incarnation of the Son. Here as in v. 5 the title looks backwards
and forwards; Moses was not one of those Christs who were of old
called ‘‘sons,’’ Jesus is the Christ in whom that Sonship is perfected.

od (8s D*M 6 424**9f Lucif. Amb. al.) otkés éopev rpets. The
house throughout this passage is a house of persons, a family. Cf.
Abbott!. ‘‘These things reveal the object of Jesus as being, from

1 The fourfold Gospel, section 111. The Proclamation, pref.
HEBREWS D

50 HEBREWS [3 6—

the first, not the establishment of what men would commonly call a
Kingdom, but the diffusion of what we should rather call the atmo-
sphere of a Family, a spiritual emanation spreading like a widening
circle from a source within Himself as a centre, and passing into the
hearts of all that were fitted to receive it, so as to give them some-
thing of His own power or ‘authority’—a term defined in the
Prologue of the Fourth Gospel as being ‘authority to become children
of God.’’’ This quotation helps us also to appreciate the paradox
(a favourite one in S. Paul) of Christian boasting (7rd xavynua ris
édmldos).

péxpet téAous BeBalav om. p?B Cth Lucif. Amb. The phrase is
unnecessary here and (after 7d cavxnua) grammatically awkward. In
v. 14 it is otherwise, and it would gain force there by coming freshly.
But cf. v. 3 supra.

III. 7—IV. 2. THEREFORE LISTEN TO THE CALL.

7 . Loyalty and hope is the tradition in God’s family. Therefore,
as the Holy Spirit saith in Scripture, ‘‘To day if ye should hear
8 His voice harden not your hearts as in the Provocation after the
“9 manner of the day of the Temptation in the wilderness; in which
wilderness your fathers became God-tempters in the time of His
assay, ‘‘when,” saith God, ‘‘they saw my works full forty years.’’
10 Wherefore He continueth, ‘‘I was wroth with that generation and
said, ‘Ever do they wander in heart, they are the people that know
11 not my ways. As I sware in my anger; certainly they shall not.
12 enter into my rest.’’’ Look to it, brothers, that there be not in any
one of you an eyil heart of mistrust, manifesting itself in apostasy
13 from God who lives; but encourage one another from day to day
while still the call ‘‘To day’’ is sounding; that no one of you be
hardened by the speciousness of that sin which fills our thought
14 at this time. There is ground for encouragement, for partakers in
the fellowship of the Christ-nation we long have been, and still shall
be, if we will but hold fast the principle of its foundation firmly to.
15 the end; the while it is still said, ‘‘To day, if ye shall hear His voice
16 harden not your hearts as in the Provocation.’? For who were they
that heard and provoked? Why, were they not all those who came
17 out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses? And with whom was
He wroth full forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose
18 limbs, saith Scripture, fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware—
He that they should not enter into His rest, but to those who refused
19 to trust Him? Indeed we plainly see that the reason they could not

S13}. | - NOTES 51

enter was just that—mistrust. Let us therefore fear, lest while the iy, 1
promise of entering into His rest survives though they perished, any
one of your number shall be found (a thing scarce credible) to have
deserted your post. Your post, I say, for we too have now heard 2
that same good tidings of rest which they did, though the sense of
what they heard was no use to them—those unhappy men whom we
still remember as lost from the company of the true hearers who have
been welded into one body by faith.

7. Kadds Adyer TO mvedpa TO dytov. So x. 15, cf. ix. 8; Intr.
mr. 29. The quotation is from Ps. xev. in which the psalmist’s
invitation to worship passes into warning; then, at od émelpacar, the
voice of God himself breaks in. The author follows LXX, though
not agreeing exactly with any one known ms., and perhaps adapting
at his own will. Thus 6.0 is probably his own addition. He divides
the sentence where the ‘‘ first person’’ begins, and so lays emphasis
upon the conclusion. This brings the ‘‘ forty years’’ into connexion
with the ‘‘ tempting ’”’ or ‘‘ trying,’’ and comparison with Deut. viii. 2f,
suggests that dox:uwacia means the proof to which God put the Israelites
during the whole period of their wandering; for the metaphor cf.
Sir. vi. 21; 1 Pet. i. 7.

11. e& eloeXevoovrar. A strong negative, as often in LXX
(cf. Mark viii. 12), It represents a Hebrew idiom, an aposiopesis
frequent in oaths.

12. KkapSla movnpd dmorias. Moulton, p. 74, compares Soph.
O.T. 533, récovde To\uns tpdcwrov. But in classical Greek xapdia was
not thus used except in poetry, proverbs etc.1. The force of dmoria
here may be felt by comparing 2 Tim. ii. 13, ef dmicrotmev éxeivos
mistos weve. But iors, with its cognates, gradually reveals its definite
significance in this ep. as the argument develops. |

év t@ dtrootHvat dd Geod Lavros. Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1 for the verb,
and contrast it for the noun. The phrase @eds fv, frequent in N.T.
and nearly always (in the true text) without article, is used with
special emphasis in this ep., cf. ix. 14, x. 31, xii. 22. To readers
brought up in Judaism it would imply the essential energy of Godhead,
cf. Matt. xvi. 16, xxvi. 63. To Grecized ears the epithet ddnOivds
might mean more, cf. 1 Thess. i. 9,1 John vy. 20. In ix. 14 a later
text betrays itself by adding cat dd\nOw@.

13. amary THs dpaprias. Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 10, ev rdoy dwdrg
dduxias. The phrase in 2 Thess. is good classical Greek, even if

1 @.M. Edwards’ English-Greek Lexicon, App. A, “Notes on Greek words
for Mind, Heart, etc.”

D2

52 HEBREWS (3 13—16

Ths be inserted with the later text. But here the single article is
"irregular since the governing substantive does not depend upon a
preposition (Rutherford § 18); and since the author does not elsewhere
offend in that way, it may be supposed that he intended to mark thus
unusually the definite character of the sin. He means some par-
ticular sin to which his friends were immediately liable, cf. xii. 1, 4.

14. péroxot tod xpiorod. In i. 9 (=Ps. xlv.) wéroxo. had the
same meaning as in Luke v, 7. Here it is used as in iii. 1, vi. 4, xii. 8,
participes Christi, Lat. Nor is there any difficulty in this if the O.T.
idea of ‘‘ the inclusive Christ’’ be remembered: Intr. m1. 18.

THY ApXiv THS VToTTAcews. rdcrac1s May mean ‘‘firmness’’ of
character or resolution. It is so used in 2 Cor. ix. 4, xi. 17, and it.
is a natural extension of the word into metaphor. But the author’s
habit is to press the literal sense, and if the idea expressed in the last
note be just we may suppose him here to be referring, in quasi-
philosophical phrase, to the principle of Christship founded upon
which his readers had started upon their spiritual course, cf. vi. 1.
The vg. with its initiwm substantiae eius (so A iz. abrod) might seem
to support this explanation. Westcott quotes Primasius: ‘‘ Initium
substantiae dicit fidem Christi, per quam subsistimus et renatisumus,
quia ipse est fundamentum omnium virtutum. ‘Et bene substantiam
eam vocat, quia sicut corpus anima subsistit et vivificatur, ita anima
fide subsistit in Deo et vivit hac fide. Substantia autem Christi
appellatur fides vel quia ab illo datur, vel certe quia ipse per eam
habitat in cordibus fidelium,’’ He had xi. 1 in mind, and it may
be noticed that one ms. (424**) gives micrews here instead’ of
UTOTTAC ews. )

15. é& TO AéyeoOar...1rapamikpacpe. Hither a complete sentence
in itself with apodosis at uy ond. (A.V., W.H.); or a continuation
of the last sentence (R.V.); or it might be printed with a dash after
mapamixpacu@, the form of the warning being rhetorically altered at
tives yap. |

16. tives yap. A.V, ‘ For some”? (rwvés) was no doubt influenced
by vg. quidam enim. It is not impossible for the (properly) enclitic
rwes to stand at the beginning of the sentence (cf. Luke xi. 15;
John xiii. 29; Acts xvii. 18, 34, xix. 31, xxiv. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 6;
Phil. i. 15; Wisd. xvi. 18f.), but here the position would be too emphatic
and the series of rhetorical questions would be broken. The idiomatic
dda (L. and 8. sub voc, 1.1) misléd the old Latin translators from
whom quidam of vg. is derived; see however Blass 77. 18. For
the historical fact see Num. xiv. 28—35 (to which there is verbal
allusion in next verse), xxvi. 64, Deut. ii. 14, :

CHAPTER IV

1. éwayyeAlas. This word, which in Acts xxiii, 21 bears the
more classical sense of ‘‘announcement,’’ is often used by Paul of
the promises made to Israel. In LXX it is used of God’s promise or
‘announcement in Ps. lv. (lvi.) 9, Amos ix. 6, which latter (half)
verse might almost serve as a motto to this ep.: 6 oikodouwy els Tov
ovpavoy dvaBacw abrod Kal ryv érayyerlav adrod émi rijs ys Oewedi@v.

Sox7.. -borrepnévar. A convenient form for expressing the future-
perf. (cf. xi. 3), which also allows the author to maleate the harshness
of his warning (cf. vi. 9).

2. ebnyyeAtopévor. By the time the heading to Mark was written
rd evayyédov had come to mean ‘The Gospel of Jesus Christ.’
But when our Lord proclaimed ‘‘the gospel of the kingdom,’’ or
spoke of ‘‘losing life for my sake and the gospel,’’ He was, like the
author of this ep., carrying on the idea of the ‘‘ good tidings’’ already
declared to Israel. The use of the verb in Isa. xl.—lxvi. especially
prepared the way for N.T. See Isa. xl. 9, lii. 7 and Rom. x. 15, lx. +6,
lxi. 1 and Luke iv. 18f. )

5 Adyos THs axons. Cf. 1 Thess, ii. 13, Rom. x. 16f., Gal. iii. 2, 5.
‘The phrase almost looks like an improvement upon Paul’s vague
‘‘Hebraism’’ déyos dxojs. It is not ‘‘the word heard”’’ but ‘the
sense of what was heard’’; cf. Ez. xii. 23, jyyixacw. ai ME pase kai
Adyos rans dpacews. |

2. pr) cvvkekepacpévous...tots dkovoaciv. So W.H., R.V., A.V.
mg., von §. One minuscule has, what seems to have been a con-
seotutal emendation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, tots dxovodetoww:
cf. H vg. non admizxtis fidei ex his quae audierunt. D* 104 & (vi*)
S (hl. mg.) have rév dxovedyvrwy. But rots dxotcacw of all other
Mss. may be accepted as certain, and the only variant which need be
considered is suvkexepacuévos: so W.H. mg., Tisch., Westcott Comm..,
and (with correction to the more classical ovykexpauévos) Steph.
followed by A.V. text. The chief authorities for this are ® % (vt)
&S (vg.): for svvcexepacuévovs p*ABCD and most Greek mss., % vg.
(though Sixtine and Clementine editions print admistus), hl. € (boh).

54 HEBREWS [4 2—

A @th. The testimony of the Fathers is divided, and perhaps only
shews, what mss. and versions have already shewn, that both readings
were widely and early current. Since W.H. the accession of p®
to the larger group may almost turn the scale, especially if if can
be demonstrated that cuvvcexepacpévous best fits the context. It surely
does. The author’s mind is intensely set upon the peril to his
readers’ loyalty. He looks back for illustrative warning to Israel’s
history. He sees the disobedient Israelites standing as it were
pictured before him; hence the perfect which well describes those
persons but would ill fit the abstract Adyos axofs (cf. ii. 9, vii. 3,
xii. 2, 23). But some (spite of ddd’ od mdvres;) did listen to that
‘*gospel.’? Caleb did then (see reff. to Num. and Deut. already
given), and the Lord’s disciples did afterwards (cf. ii. 3). With that
company of faithful listeners the ‘‘ generation’? whom Moses led out
of Israel are not (not ‘* were not’’) ‘‘very. members incorporated in
the mystical body.’’ For the metaphor in ovvk. see reff. to Hdt. in
L. and 8. sub voc. 3, and cf. Aesch. Ag. 321 ff. There is a note on
this passage in W.H. Intr. in which Westcott is inclined to accept a
modern emendation dxotcuacw and to combine it with ocuvkexepacpe-
vous; Hort suspects ‘‘ primitive error.’’? Intr. Iv. 2.

IV. 3—10. REST IS OFFERED YOU.

8 For there is a rest into which we are entering even now, we who
have made the venture of faith, according to that He hath said, ‘‘ As
I sware in my wrath, certainly they shall not enter into my rest.’’...
4 And yet...after the six days’ work of creation was finished, He hath
said somewhere I think concerning the seventh day words like these,
5 **And God rested on the seventh day from all His works.’’...And
then in this Psalm again, ‘‘ Certainly they shall not enter into my
rest.’’...What do these deep hints and disappointing contradictions
6 mean? Why surely this: since the fulfilment of the promise
demands that certain persons should enter, and since those who
heard the good tidings in former days did not enter because of their
7 stubbornness, He now again defines a particular day, saying ‘‘ To day”’
in the person of David after all this long time; it is with prophetic
significance that the proclamation comes to us, ‘‘ To day if ye shall
8 hear His voice, harden not your hearts.’’ It comes to us; for if it
had been ‘‘rest’’ that their Jesus gave to them when he led the
second generation of the wanderers into Canaan, the Holy Spirit
would not be speaking in the later period of the psalmist about
9 another fateful day. There remaineth therefore a divine rest for the

4 7] NOTES 55

people of God. For whoso hath entered into that rest which God 10
offers is witness to a bold analogy. Such a one needs no more to
choose and see. He has found rest from the anxieties of effort, even

as God, after what we can only imagine as the six days’ effort of
creation, returned into the tranquil energy of Godhead.

3. ydp. ~®BDwH & (hl) Eth Chr. Cyr. Lucif. al: odv SACM
1908 al pauc & (boh). If 7. dxovcacw refers (as is supposed in the
last note) to the Christian Church, yap gives much the best sense.
Without »!* the authorities would be too strong on either side to
allow that consideration to be decisive. The accession of p!* to the
first group turns the scale. So again with the omission of r7v before
‘Kardéravow in p3BD*. The small but strong group assures us that
we may recognise a certain subtlety in our author’s language; this
is not ‘‘the rest’’ of the psalm in its primary sense, but ‘‘a rest”?
which new experience reads into the old words. Intr. rv. 2,

ot mucrevoavres. Is this technical, ‘‘ those who have become
Christians,’’ cf. Rom. xiii. 11? or quite general, the antithesis to
6’ dmoriay, iii. 19? Or may we compare xiii. 21 and understand
that deep conversion which is peace indeed, already enjoyed by the
author, who, because he desires it for his friends, writes them this
earnest letter ?

katrot, with part. classical: but xalrep is more regular and is
always used elsewhere in this ep., v. 8, vii. 5, xii. 17; Blass 74. 2.
Here this construction yields a rather dim sense. W.H. print a
comma, after as well as before the clause; but if, with p only, we
might omit yap after eipyxey, all would run plainly. Thus kal rou
(rather than xairo:, cf. xiii. 22) would mean ‘‘ and further’’; as
e.g. in Hdt. v. 31, 2d wy orparnddree...kal To...€oTr Eroua map éuol
xXphuara, K.T.A., and possibly Acts xiv. 17. Cf. the old Latin ren-
dering, et cum opera ab origine mundi facta sunt dixit tamen.

7. évAavelS. More like év 7. rpopyras,i. 1, than Rom. ix. 25, xi. 2.
But the stress is on the Holy Spirit who speaks (iii. 7) not on the
tradition of human authorship. Zjuepov may be second accusative
after épifec. Then Aéywv would introduce the repeated quotation, and
KaOws mpoelpyntat, sicut supra dictum est, vg. would refer back to iii. 7,
15. That is a legitimate rendering of mpoeipyra:, though it is not
certain (in spite of R.V.) that the verb is so used elsewhere in N.T.
Here it may be noticed that B @(boh) Orig. read mpoelpnxev and that
the old Latin rendering of dpife: is praefinivit. Reading and rendering
seem to point to a deeper significance in this return upon the already
repeated quotation. The psalm is now recognised as prophetic of
a further future which is pressing to fulfilment while this letter is

56 HEBREWS [4 7—

being written: ‘‘again He defines beforehand...saying To day...even
as He has foretold.’

8. eb yap avrods ‘Incots...ouK dv. Cf. xi. 15f. This name
‘* Jesus,’’ as sometimes ‘‘ Christ’’ in this ep., sounds confusing to
ears accustomed to the English Bible. To readers of LXX there
would be no doubt about the reference to ‘‘ Jesus the son of Naue”?
who brought Israel into Canaan; to converts from Judaism that
Jesus would be the old familiar name. But the coincidence enriches
old and new with interchange of associations; the emphatic position
of avrov’s helps to keep the distinction clear; presently, in v. 14, it
will be strikingly asserted.

9. ocaPBaricpes, a noun (found also in Plutarch, not in LXX)
formed from the Hebrew sabat, which is translated xaréravoey in
LXX of Gen. ii. 2 quoted above. Wetstein quotes passages from
rabbinical writings in which the sabbath is a type of ‘‘the age to
come which is all sabbath and rest unto life eternal’’; cf. Abelard’s
hymn, ‘‘O -quanta qualia sunt illa sabbata Quae semper celebrat
superna curia.’? But our author knows a sabbath rest which may
be enjoyed here and now; the aorists in v. 10 are neither ‘‘ gnomic’’
nor ‘‘ post futurum’’; they spring from experience, cf. xiii. 21.

LV. 11—13. BE ZEALOUS AND SINCERE.

1l Zealous therefore let us be to enter into that rest, in order that no
one of us may chance to fall, involved in that same ruin which is the

12 type of all resistance to God’s purpose. For the Word of God, where-
ever heard, is His reason and is alive. Practical it is, and cuts both
ways, for comfort and for judgment, more sharply than any two-edged
sword; and penetrates to that inmost centre of our being where the
immaterial and material elements combine to form a person; and
analyses the prudent calculations and the quick intuitions of the

13 heart. No corner of our nature is obscure to Him, but all is naked
and exposed before His eyes, to whom the reasonable conscience He
Himself has planted in us must give answer.

11. tva prj...dme@elas. Notice the emphatic final genitive, as
in v. 8 supra and x. 20; the separation of r@ air@ from its noun; and,
possibly, the variation év...réoy for éuméoy. In such a vigorously
composed clause it would be rash to deny that the strange expression
‘¢ fall into a type orexample’’ is possible. Buttit would be strange,
and méoyn is weightier if taken absolutely; cf. mapamecévras vi. 6.
‘Yréderyua is ‘‘a sign suggestive of anything”’’ (viii. 5, ix. 28),

413) NOTES 57

and so may signify a crime or horror which is a world’s wonder,
cf. 2 Pet. ii. 6.

12. {av ydp 6 Adyos, x.t.A. This explains the fresh interpreta-
tion which has just been put upon the written word of the psalm.
But so much in the following paragraph resembles what Philo says
of the ‘‘logos’’ in a wider sense, that it is necessary to recognise
something of the larger sense here also'. The predicate ‘‘living’’
makes this possible. The written word is no mere fixed letter; it
is the means of conversation—a ‘‘ reasonable service ’’—with the
living and still speaking God. Intr. mr. 30.

évepyfs. B has évapy7s, ‘‘ flashing,’’ or perhaps ‘‘ perspicuous,” see
Cic. Acad. 1.17. Cf. i. 3, where B has gavepdy for dépwv. In Philem.
6 the Latin evidens seems to be a translation of the same variant.

paxatpay. Cf. Luke ii. 35, ‘‘ Yea and a sword shall pierce
through thine own soul; that thoughts out of many hearts may be
revealed’’; a saying which really illustrates this passage, with its
keen analysis of conscience, more vividly than the more intellec-
tual parallels in Philo: see Intr. m. 32. But in Luke ‘‘sword”’
is foudata a ‘* great sword,’’ elsewhere in N.T. only in Ap. Here
paxarpa may have its general N.T. meaning ‘‘sword,’’ as in xi. 34, 37,.
or its more proper meaning ‘“‘ knife,’ and the grim realism of the
whole simile may be drawn from fighting, or from the butcher-work
of sacrifice, or possibly from surgery. Cf. note on vi. 19.

13. rerpaxynAtopéva. The choice between these alternatives might
be decided if we could recover the primary meaning of this word, but
that is not easy. Philo speaks (de praem. p. 413) of an athlete éxrpaxn-
Afdueros by superior strength, Theodoret says the metaphor is from
victims in sacrifice. Hesychius, the (late) Alexandrian lexicographer,
Says TeTpaxnALouéva® Tepavepwuéva; so the Latin and Syriac versions,
aperta, made manifest. The general idea may be illustrated by a
passage in Dr H. F. Hamilton’s book, The People of God, ‘vol. 1.:
‘¢What causes Isaiah’s apprehension is the very vividness of his
consciousness, the nakedness with which he sees his soul contrasted
against another Personality. If death is sometimes apprehended
because consciousness is felt to be dying out, in this case death is
apprehended because consciousness is passing the bounds of life in
the opposite direction. It is becoming so acute and so intense,..,

1 In The origin of the prologue to St John’s Gospel (Camb. 1917) Dr Rendel
Harris compares this ep. with John i. 1—18, Col. i. 15—20, and all three with
Prov. i., viil., Sir. xxiv., Wisd. vi., vii., and Cyprian’s Jestimonia, etc. Hence
he concludes that the doctrine of Christ as the Word grew out of an earlier
doctrine of Christ as the Wisdom of God, and that it depends on the Jewish
Sapiential tradition rather than on the Philonic.

58 HEBREWS [4 13—

that the prophet feels that soul and body are on the point of being
torn asunder.”’

mpos Sv nptv o Adyos. Windisch translates ‘‘of whom we
speak,’? comparing rep! of viv 6 Aéyos in Philo and pds dpas of Ad-you
pov in Wisd. vi. 9. Westcott, ‘‘ to whom we have to give account,”’
which agrees with the Syriac and the Latin of d, ante quam nobis
ratio est. Having no equivalent in English to this Greek word with
its complex associations we can hardly express the effect, which
nevertheless we feel, of its emphatic position at the beginning and end
of the sentence.

IV. 14—16. THe compassionate HieH Prisst.

14 Having then a High Priest who is supreme above all others, and
has passed right onward beyond all our imaginations of heaven,
Jesus, the Son of God, let us be loyal in our allegiance to One who

15 is so great yet so kind. For we have not such a High Priest as
cannot be touched with the passionate trouble of our infirmities.
He has gone through every kind of temptation that men are subject
to; He has been as liable to fall as other men; but through all He

16 has kept innocence. Trusting therefore in His real victory over sin,
let us draw near with boldness to the throne of God’s grace, that
we may receive the royal boon of God’s pity, and find His Fatherly
countenance turned graciously upon us, for rescue in each time of
need.

14. éxovres ody. ofv may mean ‘‘therefore,’? marking logical
consequence as in v. 16; or ‘‘then,’’ indicating resumption of argu-
ment after digression as in x. 19. ,

dpxvepéa péyav. Philo twice has 6 wéyas d. In 1 Mace. xiii. 42
the phrase marks a turning-point in Jewish history: cf. x. 21, xiii. 20,
Here the argument begins to rise from mere analogy to the doctrine
of real priesthood.

SueAnAvodta Tovs ovpavots. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2, dprayévra ews
rptrov ovpavod. But the compound part. is the emphatic word. All
that we call ‘‘heaven’’ has been passed through and left behind.
The real presence of God is reached. The plural certainly need not
be an allusion to the rabbinic idea of successive heavens. The
Hebrew word is a dual form. Yet the sing., ovdpavéds, is the regular
rendering in LXX. The plural is common in Psalms and igs
found in passages which have a grand ring—poetry, prayer, etc.
In this ep. the sing. is only used in ix. 24, xi. 12, xii. 26. The
distinction is illustrated in the Lord’s Prayer. The opening is

4 16] NOTES 59

solemn, IIdrep judy 6 év rots otpavois; the antithesis is simple, ws
év ovpav@ kal émi yis.

15. ovvrabyoa, used of God in 4 Macc. v. 25; in N.T. only
here and x. 34; cvyu7a6s in 1 Pet. iii. 8. Both verb and adj. possess
an intensity which ‘‘compassion’’ and ‘‘sympathy’’ have lost in
English; cf. Luke xxiv. 26, Acts xxvi. 23, Intr. m1. 14.

TemTeiparpévov—xwpls dpaptlas, see quotation from DuBose,
Intr. m. 15. It may be asked whether our Lord was tempted or
tried in all points like all men, if, as the silence of the gospels
perhaps implies and ecclesiastical tradition almost asserts, He never
suffered sickness; and if that be so, whether He overcame disease in
and, for man in the same way as He overcame sin!. It is certainly
the will of God that the evil of sickness should be overcome as much
as the evil of slavery or ignorance. And perhaps the true succession
of the miracles of healing is the advance of science. It seems
reasonable as well as reverent to recognise a discipline of sickness ;
we cannot think of a discipline of sin, This ep. would seem to
promise real freedom for man from sin, not from suffering.

16. mpocepxwpeda. A sacerdotal word, Lev. xxi. 17—23, cf. Ez.
xliv. 9—16; it is used in 1 Pet. ii. 4, never in Paul except, somewhat
Strangely, 1 Tim. vi.3. And ‘‘the throne of grace’’ makes one think
of the. mercy seat (LXX iacrjpiov) where the Lorp promised to
commune with Moses, Ex. xxv. 20 ff. Thus the new and living
way of x. 20 is here anticipated, and here as there mwappycia has a
special force. Philo has rov édéov Bwudv (cf. Statius, Theb. xm.
481 ff.), but, the fine phrase of the ep. is probably formed on O.T.
models; see especially Isa. lxvi. 1. For ydpis see Hort on 1 Pet. i, 2,
*¢Tt combines the force of two Hebrew words chen and chesed...
chen, a comprehensive word, gathering up all that may be supposed
to be expressed in the smile of a heavenly King looking down upon
His people (Num. vi. 25)...chesed, the coming down of the Most High
with help to the helpless (Ps. lxxxv. 7).’’ Cf. Culverwell on Ps. iv. 6,
‘‘The words are plainly put up in the form of a petition to Heaven,
for some smiles of love, for some propitious and favourable glances,
for God’s gracious presence and acceptance®.’’ Both yds and
é\eos are found in LXX as renderings of both chen and chesed, and
their combination, as in this verse, is natural; cf. Wisd. iii. 9, iv. 15,
1 Tim, i. 2, 2 Tim. i. 2,

cis evKatpov Bonfaayv. Ps. ix. 10, cal éyévero Kupios xarapuyy
Tw wévytt, BonBos év evxarplars év OAlWe, cf. Ps. ix. 22 (x. 1).

1 See a paper by the Rev. F. M. Downton in The Cowley Evangelist, July,

1914; and ef, note on xii, 2.
2 Campagnac. Cambridge Platonists. pv. 263.

CHAPTER V

V. 1—10. THE PRIESTHOOD OF oUR HIGH PRIEST FULFILS THE
UNIVERSAL RULE; CONSUMMATION THROUGH INFIRMITY.

1 + £Yes, infirmity is characteristic of priesthood. For every high
priest of whatever religion is taken from among men, and on men’s
behalf is established on the Godward side in order that he may, like
any ordinary worshipper, bring gifts and sacrifices before God for

2 relief from sins. He is himself one of the people, no austere saint
in whom the passions of humanity are quenched, but one who is
able to bear gently with the ignorant and wandering just because he,

3 like them, is compassed about with infirmity, and owes the debt of
moral weakness, and while he offers for the people must himself

4 also make offering for sins. He has indeed a distinctive office. And
yet that is no prize of successful effort; he is priest simply because
God calls him.

5 Soit was with Aaron. So also with the Lorp’s Anointed whose
priesthood is celebrated in the Psalm. He did not glorify himself ©
in order to be made High Priest. God called him; God who in one

6 psalm spoke of his sonship, in another assigned him priesthood ;

7 ‘**Thou art priest,’’ He said, ‘‘after the order of Melchizedek.’? And
when this anointed Son manifested Himself wholly, as Jesus Christ,
the same rule held. He, in the days of His earthly sojourning, made
offering of prayers and supplications, with a great cry and with tears,
to Him who was able to lead Him in salvation out of the valley of

8 death. In awful reverence He cried and at once was heard. Then,
Son though He was, He learned by the sufferings appointed Him the

9 obedience that might be achieved no other way. At last, perfected
by the death through which God conducted Him, He became to all
men who, obeying Him, share His obedience, author of salvation that

10 is eternal; being hailed by God in the eternal sphere ‘‘ High Priest,’’
after the order of Melchizedek.

1. wa mpordépyn. mpordépew, mpoopopd, avadépew, and (rarely)
dvagopd, are sacrificial words in LXX. The first three are frequent

55] NOTES 61

in Hebrews, and dvagépew seems to be distinguished from the more
general mpocdpépew as it is in some passages of LXX where ‘‘ zpoo-
gépew is used of the offerer bringing the victim to present before the
altar, dvapépew of the Priest offering up the selected portion upon the
altar, Lev. ii. 14, 16, iii. 1,5. In the Canons of Councils rpoogopa
and mpocgépe are used absolutely for ‘ offering the Holy Sacrifice,’
and ‘ the offering’ itself}.’”? ’Avagopd, which does not occur in N.T.,
became important in later liturgical language—it comes in rubrics of
the Barberini 8. Basil and S. Chrysostom ?—as the title of the more
solemn part of the service which begins with ‘‘ Lift up your hearts.’’
The common verbs in the liturgies themselves are wrpoodépew of the
‘elements’? or the ‘‘sacrifice,’? dvamréurew of the prayers. The
“nouns are d&pa, Ovola, Ovolar, Aarpela, émOvola, mpoopopd.

trip dpaptiayv. mepl duaprias is the usual phrase in LXX. It is
often used as a noun in itself, even without article, = ‘‘ sin-offering.’’
So.in Ps. xl. quoted in ch. x. In LXX drép a. is rare; in N.T. only
in Hebrews, but cf. 1 Cor. xv. 3, Gal. i. 4. The collocation in ix. 7
suggests the feeling of the phrase. |

2. petptorraety Suvdpevos, mensurate pati potens, Arias Montanus,
‘*can reasonably bear with,” A.V. mg. Windisch quotes from Philo
(Leg. All. 111. p. 113), dpas w&s 6 Tédevos Tedelay dwdbevav aiel pweXeTG.
GAN’ 8 ye mpoxdrrwy Sedrepos dv’ Aapwy werpromdbeay doKel, éxreuely yap
ért TO oTHO0s Kal Tov Ouudy ddvvare?. :

rots dyvoovoct. In the Greek liturgies the priest prays that he
may offer ‘‘for his own sins and the ignorances of the people’’:
6h "Iky. Vs

4. Kaddorep kal “Aapov is omitted by p*.- The paragraph is
about high priests in general; xa@domep (altered to xa@amep in the
later text) is a strange word; another ms. omits ofrws kal 6 xpirrés,
which might hint at some early disturbance in the text. Is the
reading of »}* primitive, or a thoughtful ‘‘ Alexandrian ” correction?
Intr. Iv. 2.

5. SO xptords: significantly printed without capitalby W.H. The
psalms about to be quoted referred primarily to ‘‘Christs’’ of O.T.;
not till v. 7 is attention concentrated upon the consummaztor of their
Christhood. .

odx éavrov dtacev yevnPnvar, not ‘‘ imagined that he had been
made’’; dofagw (only here in Heb.) always=‘‘ glorify’? in LXX and
N.T. aoe

1 Hammond, Liturgies Hastern and Western, pp. 876, 389.
2 Swainson, Greek Liturgies, pp. 79, 89.

62 HEBREWS [5 7—

7. rats tpépars THS capKds avrod. Cf. 2 Cor. v. 16, 1 Cor. xv. 50,
and x. 20 below.

mpds tov Suvdapevov. Cf. Mark xiv. 35 f., ef dwarév dervee ss iardvett
duvvara cor. The whole passage seems to allude to Gethsemane;
hardly to the narrative as it stands in any of our gospels. The
clause which is doubtfully attested in Luke xxii, 43 f. perhaps
indicates considerable variety in the tradition behind those gospels.
The language has many affinities with the Maccabean books, 2 Macc.
xi. 6, 3 Mace. i. 11, 16, vi. 13f.

ocotev é Oavarov. Syr. ‘‘to quicken him from death”’; vii. 16
and the whole idea of this ep. justify such a paraphrase, though the
everyday meaning of the three Greek words would be ‘‘to save from:
dying.”’ |

cloaxovebels amd ths evAaBelas. John Smith, the Cambridge
Platonist, said, ‘‘He was delivered from what he feared; for so the
words being nothing else but an Hebraism are to be rendered},’’
but there are no such Hebraisms in this ep. Pro sua reverentia is
the good translation of vg., well explained by Primasius, ‘‘ Reverence
sometimes stands for love, sometimes for fear; here for the eptrene
charity and supreme obedience of the Son of God.’’

8. tualev dd’ av eradey, proverbial in Greek from Hadt. to Philo,
but the acc. r. iraxofy gives the phrase distinction here.

In Ignatius rafety has almost the same sense as in the bread,
‘suffered and died.’? That sense is approached in ix. 26, xiii. 12, Luke
xxii. 15, Acts i. 3, xvii. 3. In1 Pet. the verb is very frequent, and
generally illustrative of the idea that Christ’s disciples are made one 7
with Him by suffering. The theology of 1 Pet. iv. 1 (cf. Rom. vi. 7)
is near akin to that of our author, but less carefully expressed :
Xpiorod oby wabdyros capki Kal bpets Thy adriv évvoay dwNicaabe, Ste 6
wabav gapkl wémavra auapriass.

9. alrios cwtnplas. A phrase twice found in Philo. ‘* While
airta generally means an accusation or charge, a crimen, it is some-
times used by Plato for a cause or source (airia dyafod). Thus in
Pindar, Nem. vir. 11, a pedlppov’ airiay poatst povody means ‘a
pleasing subject (motif) for the flow of song’: and aizios, though
usually ‘the culprit’ or ‘accused,’ is also the author or originator :
so Plato, Rep. 379, rav uév ayabav ovééva ddXov altiaréov?.”’

10. mpocayopevdels. Cf. 1 Macc. xiv. 40, and Clem. xvii., a ch. ,
which has other coincidences with the ep. The parts. redew0els

1 Campagnac, p. 156.
2 Wallace, Lectures and Essays, pp. 302 f.

510] | NOTES 63

(catching here that shade of meaning which it has in Wisd. iv. 13,
‘‘perfected by death’’) and mpocay. are grammatically synchronous,
both marking a moment just anterior to éyévero. But the emphatic
epithet aiwviov complicates the symmetry. It might be said that
éyévero depends on red. grammatically, philosophically on mpocay.
For aidvios in this ep. is quasi-philosophical: cf. vi. 2, ix. 12, 14 f.,
xiii. 20. It mingles in conversational freedom ideas from O.T. and
from the Alexandrine schools, In LXX aiwy=Hebrew ‘olam, ‘‘age,’’
and aidvios represents the same noun modified by dependent words ;
it means in general ‘‘everlasting.’’ In Philo xpévos is distinguished
from aiwy as the measurable system of days, years, etc. which is but
an image of the archetypal aidy; for aiwy is the life of the ‘‘in-
telligible’’ world and must be sought among the immaterial things of
the pure intellect (Quis rerum div. p. 496, De mut. nom. p. 619). This is
like Plato in Timaeus, 37D, B; time with its parts is an eternal image
of the eternity which has no parts or tenses. Only in calling the
image also ‘‘eternal’’ Plato shews the difference between his true
idealism and the vulgar fancy of ‘‘ two worlds’’ which most of his.
successors indulged in (Intr. m. 32); moreover Plato is not speaking
here with philosophic strictness. He is dealing with the ‘‘eternal,”’
not with the ‘intelligible,’ and only gives a poetic hint, in
picturesque terms, of ‘time untimed.’’? Our author is nearer Plato
than Philo in this respect. He has not thought out the problem so
far as perhaps S. John did. But in his free artistic deepening of
O.T. phrases he does so use aidvios that at each of its occurrences the
reader must pause, as though before the opening of a spiritual vista
which outshines the current thought. ‘‘ Divine’’ would be no render-
ing, but a suggestive substitution. After all the usage of O.T., to
a sympathetic reader, will seem different in degree, not kind: see esp.
Psalms, and Eccl. iii. 11 R.V. mg.

V. 11.—VI. 8. Iv Is IMPOSSIBLE TO SINK THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY: RETURN TO THE
SIMPLICITY OF CHILDHOOD WOULD BE UNMANLY BETRAYAL
OF OUR LORD.

Of Melchizedek our discourse might be much, and it would be 44
difficult to explain in sufficient argument what we mean by putting
his priesthood in the same line as our Lord’s, since of late you have
grown so lazy-eared. For just when you ought to be commencing 12

64 HEBREWS (5 11—

teachers, now that you have been so long in our Christian school,
you say that you yourselves have need of a repetition of the old pre-
Christian teaching as to what the very elements of the earliest lessons
in the oracles of God may mean. You have come round again to
this; you have need (such is your iterated plaint) of the milk of
simple religion, not of the strong food of the controversy between the
Churches. I play upon your words as you do upon our master,

13 Paul’s. But I am anxious. For any who casts in his lot with that
kind of simplicity, avoids the discipline which produces a reasoned

14 morality ; he is in fact a babe. And full-grown men do require the
strong food; the kind of men, I mean, who by reason of habitual
exercise have their faculties in good training, so that they can discern
in a crisis between the noble course and the base.

vi.1 Wherefore let us leave behind the simple theme of the mere
origins of Messianic doctrine, and let us be borne onward by the
tide of duty to the consummation of that doctrine in thought and
action. Let us not be laying over again a foundation for the con-
ventional religious life of renouncing the works of the devil and of

2 faith towards God; the foundation which consists of teaching about
ceremonial washings, and imposition of hands, about the resurrection

3 of the dead, and judgement at the eternal assize. And indeed we are
to go forward, if, as I surely believe, God will presently commission
us for a time of trial.

4 It is a critical hour. For as to your plan of shirking responsi-
bility by retiring into the Church of your fathers, that is in the
very nature of things impossible. Your eyes have been opened once
for all to the truth; you know the taste of the gracious gift that
comes from heaven: you have become members of the body which

5 the Holy Spirit vivifies; you have tasted the excellence of God’s
promise; you have anticipated its fulfilment in the age that is to come
when our Lord comes as Christ triumphant, for you already experience
the spiritual powers that issue therefrom. That is Christianity;
not an academic problem, but a profound spiritual experience, a

6 gift received, a loyalty to be rendered. If you fall away from this,
it is impossible to start you again fair and fresh in the recovered
simplicity of childhood’s mind, while by the very act of this fresh
start you are crucifying the Son of God—not being “crucified with
Christ,’’ but crucifying Him for your pleasure and putting Him to
open shame by the, renunciation of allegiance which your new life
will daily proclaim.

7 Take a parable from Genesis to enforce my warning. The ground
that (in the time of man’s innocency) drinks the rain which comes

5 12] NOTES 65

often upon it and brings forth herb meet for those for whose sake
it is also, by God’s ordinance, tilled, partakes of the blessing of the
whole creation. But when (after the mortal change) it produces 8
thorns and thistles, it is reprobate and nigh the fulfilment of the
curse which God pronounced, and its destiny is to be cleansed of its
weeds by fire.

11. epi ov, K.7.d., de quo grandis nobis sermo et ininterpretabilis
ad dicendum, vg. Cf. Dion, Hal. de Comp. viii., repli wv cal rodvs 6 Adyos
kal Badeia % Oewpia. These four verses are more than usually tinged
with the literary flavour of the period, but beneath the surface they
are ‘‘biblical.’? §. Paul had written about croyeta, Gal.iv. 3 (where see
Lightfoot’s note), and 9, Col. ii. 8, 20, and about ‘‘feeding babes
with milk,’’? 1 Cor. iii. 1 f., cf. 1 Pet. ii. 2. The author gives a half
playful turn to words which he and his friends knew well (cf. xiii. 25).
Then in the next paragraph this friendly intimacy passes into the
severity of anxious love.

12. tia, so W.H.,R.V., Blass. But most ancient authority is
for rva. Greek ears could perhaps catch the rythm better than ours,
the bare, active inf. is untranslatable but idiomatic, riva ra orotxeia
has a touch of lively irony, rivd, ‘‘ some one,’’ is a mannerism already
repeated to satiety, and on the whole it seems better to read the
interrogative with A.V., von Soden, and probably Euthalius.

HEBREWS E

CHAPTER VI

1. Tov THs dpxys Tod xptorod Acyov. Cf. iii. 14, but there is a
touch of depreciation here as in v. 12.

kataBadAcpevor diruentes JL vt, but Josephus and other late
writers use the word in the sense required here, ‘lay foundation.’

vekpov tpywv. Elsewhere in N.T. vexpds only of persons, except
Rom. vii. 8, viii. 10, and Jas. ii. 17—26, where it is predicate to ayapria,
gpa, wiorts. Tertullian felt the personal sense of v. so strongly that
he translated here operibus mortuorum. The metaphor is bold, ‘‘deeds
which belong to that realm of death’’ spoken of in ii. 15. There is
probably no thought of Paul’s ‘‘ works of merit.’’

2. Sidaxrv. So Bd vi and d (though the Greek of D is d:dax4s).
The attestation though limited is important; and the acc., which makes
a certain ecclesiastical system the foundation of repentance and faith,
suits one interpretation of the passage very well. With the genitive,
the @euédov is not defined; ‘‘laying foundation’’ is but an ornamental
phrase for starting upon repentance, faith, doctrine of washings, etc.

It will be noticed that all the elements of this foundation belong
to Judaism as much as to the Christian faith. They are the croyeia
Ths apxis Tav Aoylwy Tod Oeod as held by a Pharisee like S. Paul or a
Hellenistic Jew like 8. Stephen before their conversion to Christianity.
The plural Bawricuots occurs again at ix. 10 of Jewish ‘‘ washings’’;
cf. Mark vii. 4, 8, Lev. xiv. 7f., xvi. 4, 24, 26, 28 etc.! For ém-
Gécews x. cf. Acts vi. 6, viii. 17, ix. 17, xiii. 3, xix. 6, xxviii. 8,
1 Tim. iv. 14, 2 Tim. i. 6, also Lev. i. 4 etc., xvi. 21, Num. xxvii. 18.
For dvacrdcews...kpiuaros aiwviov, Acts xxiii. 6, xxiv. 15, 25, Dan.
xii. 2f., 2 Macc. vii. and the teaching of our Lord in the gospels.
Of course the last three doctrines were inherited by the Christian
Church. That can hardly be said of the (plural) ‘‘ washings,’’ and
this phrase seems to make it plain that ‘‘ the foundation of repent-
ance and faith’? which the readers of the ep. propose to lay again
would be, should they carry out their proposal, a return to the Jewish
Church. This they think an abandonment of useless controversy,

1 For the “ baptism” of proselytes, etc., see Box and Oesterley, The Religion
and Worship of the Synagogue, ch. xiii, ;

6 6] 3 NOTES 67

a simple and sufficient basis of noble life and true faith in God.
Their friend answers that their purpose is an ‘‘impossible’’ (v. 4) one.
They would be abandoning not useless theological controversy, but
their Lord himself to whom (whatever they think of the doctrine of
His Person) they have given allegiance. T-.-eir new start in the
simple faith of their fathers would be an act of gross dishonour;
it would not be a new start at all, but a base desertion. The idea is
in the very nature of things impossible. Intr. m1. 1—3, 20, 22.

8. édvaep émutpémy, perhaps ‘‘ commission”’ rather than ‘‘ permit. ’’
The nature of the commission may be inferred from x. 25, xii. 4, xiii. 3.

4. gwticbévtas. In eccl. writers gwrifw, dwricuds, mean the
illumination of baptism. This passage and x. 32 perhaps lead up
to that technical usage. For the tense cf. Rom. xiii. 11. The fol-
lowing phrases carry on the description of the manifold character
of ‘‘the new life.’”’ They are tersely suggestive and lose their
pregnancy by detailed explanation. A few parallels will shew how
church tradition lies behind the whole passage: 7. dwpedés 2 Cor.
ix. 15, 2 Pet. i. 3, 4; kaddv y. Ocod pjual Pet. i. 24f.; Suv. wéAdXovros
aiwvos Luke i. 17, v. 17, 1 Cor. v. 4, Gal. iii. 5. For perdxous mv.
aytov it is unnecessary to quote. It is taken for granted throughout
Acts and Epistles that the Christian life is new life springing from
the Holy Spirit, the life-giver. But the form of the phrase, werdxous
vyevnGévras, indicates rather strikingly one characteristic of this thought
as N.T. holds it. In F. D. Maurice’s words, ‘“‘ The Spirit dwells in
the Body, and in each of its members as such, and not in individuals.
The Spirit in an individual is a fearful contradiction,’’ Life, 1. p. 209.
For absence of art. see Intr. m1. 29, v. 5 but here the style of the
context would be sufficient explanation; xadév is only marked as
predicate by position: Intr. v. 6.

5. Svvdpes tre péAdAovros aiavos. In Tertullian’s copy what
might be a full line in a papyrus roll, AMEICTEMEAA, had
dropped out, and he translated with dark grandeur occidente iam aevo.
Intr. m. 3.

6. dvaxawifey, dvacravpotvras. Neither verb carries the mean-
ing ‘‘again’’ in itself; dracravpody is good Greek for ‘‘crucify,”’
‘¢impale,’’ whereas oravpodv, which is always used elsewhere in N.T.,
meant in the classical period ‘‘ make a palisade’’: Intr. v. 2. What
is implied here by this part. may be seen by comparing Gal. ii. 19,
iv. 19; when one entered the Christian family he shared the cruci-
fixion of his Lord and so found the Lord’s life his own. If these
disciples desert Christ they are enacting the crucifixion in another —
manner, declaring their fellowship with the crucifiers instead of with

K 2

68 HEBREWS [66H

the Crucified. For rapadeyu. cf. iv. 11 with Gal. iii. 1, Matt.
x. 33, Mark ix. 39, Luke xii. 9, 1 Cor. xii. 3, and Matt. i. 19.

7f. An analogy in confirmation of what has been said, drawn
from Scripture; ef. Gen. i. 11f., iii. 17 f.

VI. 9—12. You ARE DILIGENT IN CHARITY; BE ZEALOUS
ALSO IN THEOLOGY.

9 But we have really no doubt about you, my very dear friends; you
are certainly destined for those grander efforts which lay fast hold of
10 salvation, even though we do speak thus. For God is not a task-
master, too austere to care for equity. He does not forget your work
and the love of which you gave proof in the service you devoted
to the honour of His name. You ministered in former days to His
covenanted saints, in whom the ancient communion in His name is
continued and renewed. You are still ministering to them. And God
whose memory is effective love will not let you break away from our
11 loving fellowship. But we set our heart on your doing something
further. We would have each one of you continue to prove the same
zeal in another line of service; i.e. in expanding, deepening and
assuring our common hope till at last, matured, it passes into fulfil-
12 ment. That is the impulse we desire to save you from treating with
lazy indifference, and so to make you imitators of your companions
in the faith who through loyal trust in God and a steady enduring
spirit are entering upon the inheritance of the ancient promises in all
their modern complexity.

9. éxdpeva owrnpias. Hdt. often uses this construction as peri-
phrasis, e.g. 7a Tv dveiparwr éxoueva=‘‘dream-matter.’’ But the
gen. owrnpias rather recalls such personal usage as in Eur. Ino,
éXmldos kedvqs éxov: cf. xii. 5.

10. duos. Cf. God’s dixacoctvy in O.T., e.g. Ps. ciii. 17.

THs aydrys. Most mss., but hardly one of weight, prefix rod
xomov (from 1 Thess. i. 3). It mars the force of évedeltacbe.

Staxovycavres...dSuakovotyres. The tenses are in logical relation
to the present position of the readers. Pedantic grammar might have
given ws diaxovycavTwr...diaxovotvTwy. Intr. v. 4.

rots aylois=‘‘the Christians,’ but in this ep. only so here and
xiii. 24 (cf. iii. 1). This is the regular use in Paul. Lightfoot, on
Phil. i. 1, explains it as ‘‘a term transferred from the old dispensation
to the new’’; Israel had been chosen by God as His dads adyos; the

‘Israelites were called in LXX oi dy:o; now the Christian Church
takes over the title; the main idea is ‘‘consecration.’’ Perhaps 1t

6 12] : NOTES 69

may be added that in his two earliest epp., to the Thessalonians,
Paul uses of dco. in a rather different sense of the ‘‘holy ones’’ who
shall accompany the Christ at His advent, 1 Thess. iii. 13, 2 Thess.
i. 10. Is it possible that this apocalyptic colour always affects his
application of the term? Cf. below, x. 25, xii. 14, and 1 Cor. vi. 1 f.

11. &kacrov. Cf. vis, iii. 12f.,iv.1, 11. It is correlative to the
affectionate dyamynrol, frequent in Paul; the writer is very anxious for
his friends and ‘‘calleth them all by their names.’’

twAnpodoplav. Cf. x. 22, 1 Thess. i. 5, Luke i. 1, Col. ii. 2
where Lightfoot says that ‘‘ full assurance ’’ seems to be the meaning
of this substantive wherever it occurs in N.T. Elsewhere only in
ecclesiastical writers, e.g. Clem. xlii. werd wm. mvevmaros dylov. In
this ep. d has confirmatio in both places, vg. expletio here, plenitudo
in x. 22.

12. KAnpovopotyreyv, as in i. 14. Abraham ‘“‘found” the promise
(15); he did not ‘carry home the harvest ’’ (x. 36, xi. 39). That re-
mained for those who ‘in the end of these days’’ are entering into the
various labours of their predecessors (John iv. 37). The word was
suggested to the author by the quotation he is about to make (14) from
Gen. xxii. 17, where the sentence continues, cal x\npovoujoe 7d
oméppa gov.

Vi. 13—20. Tuer oatH or GoD, AND THE ANCHOR OF HOPE.

The promises are ancient, and they are a real ground for hope. 13
For it was to Abraham that God made promise. And since He had
no greater person to swear by, He sware (we read) by Himself, saying 14
“Surely, with great blessing will I bless thee, and with great
abundance will I multiply thee.’’ And that was how Abraham, 15
after spirited endurance, met with his promise. An encouragement
to us as well as to him. For when mere men swear, they swear by 16
some one who is greater than themselves, and however hot their
dispute, it is brought to a close and the agreement is decisively fixed
by an oath. And so it was by oath that God, deliberately purposing 17
to demonstrate with excessive clearness to the future heirs of the
promise made to Abraham the unalterable firmness of His plan,
took the position of an umpire between himself and Abraham. He 18
bound Himself by an oath sworn by His own person, in order that,
through two unalterable sanctions—the oath He sware and His own
Divinity that He sware by—we may have strong encouragement.

_ We were the final cause, we who have now fled for refuge from the

70 HEBREWS [6 13—

storm of this troubled world to seize the hope thus long ago held
19 forth to us. That hope we are attached to as an anchor to which we
may entrust the keeping of more than physical life; an anchor
soundly forged and firm in its hold. Such an anchor as it drops
into the mysterious deep and bites the ground is a symbol of the
high priest’s entry into the presence of God behind the sanctuary
20 veil. And indeed One has entered into that presence as a fore-
runner of our own entry to do priestly service there for us, namely
Jesus. He entered at the moment of His death, having in that
moment become ‘‘ High Priest,’’ ‘‘ after the order of Melchizedek,”’

* eternally.”’

13. émayyeAdpevos. Cf. Rutherford quoted on ii. 10, and see
Moulton, p. 130 f. for the sense in which it is legitimate to call this
an ‘‘aorist part. of coincident action.”’

@porev Kal’ éavtod. Philo (Legg. all. ur. p. 127) presses the
argument from xar’ éuavrod wuooa of LXX in the same manner.

14. ei pyv. The classical 7 wiv was often spelt ef uy in Hellenistic
Greek. Moulton (p. 46) seems to object to the spelling ef in W.H.,
Tisch., v. Sod. But the variant ef u4, both here and in LXX,
suggests that ‘‘ connexion with ei, if,’’ was long ago, though wrongly,
supposed. This oath-formula is not unfrequent inLXX; in N.T. the
quotation here is the only instance.

evAoyav evAoyyow. A common mode of representing an emphatic
Hebrew idiom which throws the stress on the root idea of the verb;
so A.V. and R.V. in Luke xxii. 15, where A.V. mg. is less good.
Moulton calls it ‘‘ possible, but unidiomatic Greek,’’ p. 76.

15. émwérvxev. The part. attached here, and the context in xi. 33,
shew that this word implies boldness in accepting a promise of which
the fulfilment is hidden in the future. It means properly to fall in
with on the way; cf. Thomas Aquinas’ prayer, ‘‘Concede mihi
dilectum filium tuum, quem nunc velatum in via suscipere pro-
pono, revelata tandem facie perpetuo contemplari.’”’ A Christian
gem in Brit. Mus. has a fish and anchor with the legend KIII-
TYNXANOT?.

17. émSeifar. There seems to be a contrast with évdelxvvcba
above (11), and it is tempting to fancy that the author wished thus
to imply ‘‘ additional proof’’; cf. vii. 14 f.

18. éy ois aSdvvarov. Num. xxiii. 19, 1 Sam. xv. 29. N*AC
have rév Oedv, BD Oedv, v. Sod. like W.H. allows the alternative; rév

l Westcott, Religious Thought in the West, p. 807.

6 19] NOTES | 71

Gedy corresponds to our “‘God’’ without article, an emphatic name at
the end of the clause; ef. xiii. 16. Cf. Clem. xxvii. oddév yap advvarov
mapa TP Oew el ph TO PevourOu.

19. ryspuxys. Iniv. 12 yvx7 seems to signify one of the physical
elements in man’s constitution, his living power as distinguished
from (what is intimately connected therewith) his rveiua or breath.
Yet even there the physical analysis is an illustration of the keener
analysis of conscience by God’s Word. Here Wux7% evidently has a
higher meaning in itself. The following extract from Coleridge!
explains this meaning: ‘‘ Life is the one universal soul, which, by
virtue of the enlivening Breath and the informing Word, all organised
bodies have in common, each after its kind. This, therefore, all
animals possess, and man as an animal. But, in addition to this,
God transfused into man a higher gift, and specially inbreathed :—
even a living (that is, self-subsisting) soul, a soul having its life in
itself. And man became a living soul. He did not merely possess it,
he became it. It was his proper being, his truest self, the man in the
man.’’? Coleridge perhaps refines too subtly upon the Hebrew idiom
of Gen. ii. 7. But he has caught the main feeling of the O.T., viz.
that the natural and spiritual are one: and natural life has moral
and so eternal life folded up within it. One writer of O.T. questioned
the sharp division between the ‘‘soul’’ of man and the “‘life’’ of
brutes, Eccl. iii. 21.R.V. Perhaps that writer’s real thought went
deeper than his cynical expression of it. And perhaps there is just a
hint in our author of sympathy with his question. In x. 34, xii. 3,
he seems to recognise that a man’s ‘‘very self’? is a deeper reality
than even his ‘‘soul.’? Hort’s notes on yvx7 in 1 Pet. i. 9, 22, ii. 11,
should be read?.

cioepxopévyny, i.e. the anchor, to which the hope, according to a
common metaphor of Greek writers of every period, is compared.
To break the metaphor at this point and apply eicepyx. merely to
the hope is tame. And the harshness is lessened when eloepxX...KaTa-
metdoparos is recognised as all but a quotation from the well-known
account of the day of atonement in Lev. xvi. This quotation is
introduced in order to bring the argument back to Melchizedek and
priesthood. The general picture is one of three noticeable ones with
which the ep. is punctuated, cf. xii. 1f., xiii. 11f. The faithful are

1 Aids to Reflection, Introd. Aphorisms, ix.

2 Cf. also Wallace, Lectures and Essays, pp. 131f., 204. App. A of Edwards’
English-Greek Lexicon gives briefly the classical usage. And very instructive
is Burnet’s Socrates and the Soul (Milford for the British Academy, 1916), in
which the high Platonic idea of ~vx7%, as that true life which a man ought most
to care for, is proved to have been originated by Socrates.

72 HEBREWS [6 19

likened to the crew of the ship which has run to port from the storm.
The anchor, dropped into the mysterious deep, already holds the
ground. The captain has gone ashore, and the crew await orders to
follow him. The imagery is only touched in with a stroke or two.
But the point is that the submerged bottom which the anchor holds
is continuous with the shore. So in ix. 4 the altar of incense
‘*belongs to’’ the Holy of Holies, in xii. 22 the readers have
‘‘come to’’ the heavenly Sion; all this is éyéueva owrnplas, vi. 9.

CHAPTER VIL

VII. 1—3. MELcHIZEDEK THE TYPE.

Melchizedek; for now I am going to talk about him after all. 1
See him, as he appears in that mysterious chapter of Genesis; King
of Salem, Priest of God most High; who met Abraham as he was
returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him; to whom 2
also Abraham gave as portion a full tithe of all the spoil :—he being
first by the interpretation of his name King of Righteousness, and
then also being entitled King of Salem, which is King of Peace; one 3.
to whom no father, mother or descent is assigned; one who has
neither beginning of days nor end of life in the history ;—we behold
in short a picture drawn after the likeness of that Son of God whom
antiquity faintly discerned, and whose true features we have learned
to day from those who saw the Lord and by our own communion
with Him :—this Melchizedek abides a priest continuously.

For the meaning of ‘‘ priesthood after the order of Melchizedek ””
see Intr. mr. 10.

1. 6 cuvavrioas, ds SABC2DK33. This attestation is so strong
that we must suppose either that it represents a very early scribe’s
error which has only been corrected in comparatively late times; or
that it was a carelessness of the author himself, who began a relative
sentence which he never finished. Cf. x. 1, xi. 35; also Acts xix. 40,
xxiv. 5—8, but in each of these passages Luke seems to be purposely
representing the embarrassment of the speakers. It may be noticed
that there are other confusions of text in D and % vt in vv. 1 and 2;
these perhaps indicate some interruption in the transmission which
we cannot fully trace.

komys. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1276:

Bwpuod matrpwou 5 dvr’ émrlinvoy pévet
Oeppov Kxorévtos powly mporpdyuari.
See W. Headlam ad loc.

3. ayeveadéyynros. Gen. says nothing about Melchizedek’s father,
mother or descent; none could declare his ‘‘ generation,’’ cf. Isa. liii.
8 (LXX).

14 HEBREWS [73s

adwpovwpévos. Used of statues or pictures that ‘‘resemble’’ their
original. Melchizedek is like our Lord, not our Lord like him.

els TO Sinverés, x. 1, 12, 14. The author uses this phrase in-
stead of e/s rév aléva when he wishes to express the simple idea of
time ; so wdvrore v. 25. Cf. note on v. 9. The phrase is frequent in
Greek inscriptions.

VII. 4—10. A GREATER PRIEST THAN LEVI.

4 lLookathim. What a large figure he stands there; one to whom
Abraham gave tithe of the choicest spoils, Abraham the first father
5 of our holy race. It is true that those who, being of the sons of
Levi, receive the legal office of the priesthood, are authorised to tithe
the people of God according to the Mosaic Law, that is their own
brothers ; the family of Abraham is quite accustomed to being tithed
6 by their own kin... But here is one who does not count his ancestry
from the sons of Levi, and he has exacted tithe from Abraham, and
upon the holder of the divine promises himself he has pronounced
7 blessing. Now there is no dispute at all about the principle, Less
g receives blessing from greater. And while in our nation mere men,
dying one after the other in the course of nature, take tithes, in
that ancient mystery it is a far greater Person who takes them, One
9 who, according to the witness of Scripture, absolutely lives. Indeed
we may almost venture to reduce it all to the matter-of-fact assertion
10 that through Abraham Levi also the tithe-taker has been tithed, for
as Levi had not yet been born, he was still part of Abraham his
ancestor when that meeting with Melchizedek took place.

4. -mnydlkos=‘‘how large’’ cf. Gal. vi. 11, or ‘‘ how old.’’? There
seems no parallel in Greek literature for the meaning ‘‘ how great in
character.’? And @ewpetre (only here in this ep., contrast caravojoare
iii. 1) is probably used as in Luke and Acts of literal ‘‘ seeing,’’ not
asin John. This is one of the author’s bold, vivid phrases =‘‘ what
a big one.’’? The ‘‘ apodeictic ’’ obros adds to the effect.

o. So BD* Hf (vt, vg.) Se(vg.) & (boh.) Ambst.: @ kal SACD*w
HW (vg.0t4) S (hl) A Chr. Cyr. al.

The opposed groups in vv, 23 and 26 should be compared. In
v. 23 no doubt is possible. Here and in v. 26 the authority on either
side is weighty enough to make W.H. give a marginal alternative.
But few who have observed the groupings throughout the ep. will
hesitate to prefer their text. And in all three cases this interpretation
of documentary authority supports the reading which minute study

79] NOTES — 75

of the context approves. In this verse cai does not connect an
additional relative clause as in v. 2. And it would throw the
emphasis where emphasis is not required.

6 watpidpxys. Here is the true emphasis of the sentence, cf. xi.
17. For mwarpidpxns cf. Acts ii. 29, vii. 8, and 4 Macc. vii. 19,
xvi. 25, an Alexandrine work which ‘‘ approaches nearer than any
other book of the Greek Bible to the models of Hellenic philosophy
and rhetoric’’ (Swete).

8. paptrupovpevos. The grandeur of this undefined part. is more
easily expressed in the Latin versions (ibi autem contestatus quia
vivit) than in English; R.V. ‘‘ one,” suggests ‘‘one man’’ in the
context, and hardly improves upon A.V.

9. ws eros eimetv. Here again R.V. is not satisfactory. Not ‘‘as
it were’’ but ‘‘one might almost say ’’ is the meaning of this Greek
idiom.

Aevels. So best mss. This nom. form is found in LXX also;
above, v. 5, Aevel is the gen.

VII. 11—25. THE MORAL NECESSITY FOR THE LEVITICAL
PRIESTHOOD TO PASS AWAY.

So then Levi is demonstrated less than Melchizedek. And now
let us come somewhat nearer to reality in considering why our Lord
should be priest after the order of Melchizedek, not of Levi.

The real reason is the failure of the Levitical priesthood to achieve 11
what priesthood is meant to achieve. For if the Levitical priesthood
had achieved that, what need would there still have been for a
psalmist to prophesy that after the order of Melchizedek a quite
different priest should arise, and so be reckoned not after the order
of Aaron? We see from the book of Leviticus that the whole law 12
for Israel rests upon the institution of Aaronic priesthood. The
psalmist’s word is therefore a bold one. It is the sacred law of
Moses that he is daring to repeal, for the law goes with the priest-
hood. He speaks boldly and therefore with as deep a significance
as may be conceived. And so I do not scruple to believe that he 13
spoke prophetically of our Lord Jesus Christ, and contemplated an
astonishing break with ancestral faith and custom in these days of
ours. For He towards whom this oracle is directed is a member
of a different tribe from Levi, and of His tribe no one has ever paid

1 Thackeray, Grammar of O.T. in Greek, § 11.63), W.H., Intr. to N.T. in
Greek, p. 155,

76 “HEBREWS [7 11

14 any attention to the service of the altar. That is plain, for every
one knows that it is from Judah that our Lord is sprung, and
Moses never said a word about priests with reference to the tribe
of Judah.

15 And to come back from contemporary fact to scriptural inference,
the setting aside of the merely instituted priesthood of Aaron is even
more plainly commended, if the oracle be true, and if after a real,
moral likeness to Melchizedek there is to arise a priest of so different

16 a character that he has entered upon his office, not according to law,
which (for all its divine sanction) is nothing but a material system
of authority, but according to the ever freshly operating power of

17 life which passes indissolubly through death. For that is what the
witness of Genesis as completed by the psalmist means—‘‘ Thou art

18 a priest eternally after the order of Melchizedek.’’ It means first
indeed that an ordinance we have received from the church of our
fathers is being set aside to day, because it has proved weak and

19 useless ; for the Law has really accomplished nothing of that priestly
mediation for which it was designed. But more important is this;
a stronger kind of hope is being brought forward in its place, through
the transforming power of which we are in these days of change and
trial actually entering into the presence of God.

20 And there is also that matter of the oath. Whatever divine
sanction there may have been for the Levitical priesthood, the sons
of Aaron have become priests without an oath from God to establish

21 them, but this Priest received his priesthood with the giving of an
oath by God through the psalmist who brought God’s word to him—
‘¢The Lord sware, and will not repent; Thou art priest eternally.’’

22 This oath implies covenant, and makes a great difference. Our
Priest has become surety for a covenant, and a greater covenant than
even Abraham knew. And what this suretyship means we remember
when we call Him Jesus, the man who suffered for us.

23 And yet another point. Those priests have been appointed one
after the other in considerable numbers. They had to be, for they
were always prevented by death from lasting out the office which

24 itself survived them. But our Priest ‘‘abides’’ ‘eternally ’’; and
so the priesthood which He holds can never be passed on to another.

25 Hence He is able to save, and that all-completely, those who from
generation to generation draw near through His priestly aid to God;
seeing that at all times He is living to do in the reality of the eternal
sphere all that the analogy of priesthood indicates for a priest to do
after he has offered his sacrifice. This He does uninterruptedly on
their behalf.

7 22] NOTES 17

11. tedXelwors. Cf. vii. 28, ix. 12, x. 19—22, xii. 28 f., xiii. 13 f.
Windisch quotes Testament of Levi xviii. 1 f., cai wera TO yevéoOau
Thy éxdliknow airdv mapa xuplov éxdelWer lepwovvn, Kal Tote éyepel
Kvptos lepéa Kkawdv, @ mdvres of Adyou Kuplov dmroxaduPOjoorvTa, and
viii. 14, Baoideds éx Tod "Iovda dvacrjcerat Kal mojoes iepatelav véav.
He thinks this clause (viii. 14) a Christian interpolation; Charles
thinks it proves a Maccabean date. ‘Iepareta (leparia v. 5 supra) is a
-LXX translation word, lepwovvn (11, 24) is found in Sirach and the
Greek books of LXX; it belongs to the more literary Greek.

ov, not ui, because ‘it is not the inf. but only the idea xara r.
rdéw °A. which is negatived,’’ Blass 75. 4.

13. mporéryykev TO Ovotacrypiy. A.V. and R.V., ‘‘give attend-
ance at,’? seem to follow the Latin versions (praesto fuit ad aram—
altario) with a kind of allusion to the common, and regular LXX,
meaning of the verb ‘‘pay attention to.’? Note the assonances in
these verses, jer(a)- thrice, -erxnxev twice; cf. i. 1, v. 25 below.

14. 6 Kuptos tpav. Cf. ii. 3. The familiar title goes naturally
with mpédndov, ‘obvious, as a historical fact’’; contrast xarddndov
in next verse.

16. dKkaradirov. Cf. 4 Macc. x. 11 d. Bacdvovs, but the idea
here is far deeper. It is part of the whole conception of death
revealed by the cross as a mysterious act of one indissoluble life,
which conception is characteristic of this ep. Like pvx%, {wy is a
physical term with sacramental extension: John i. 4.

18. &Oérnots...rpoayovons évrodyns. How bold this declaration
is, may be seen from Lev. xxix. 9, kal @orar adrots teparia pou els Tov
alwva.

TS attyns dobevis Kal dvadedés. See Blass 48. 8n. who says
this use of airs without emphasis would hardly be tolerable with
a substantive—riv airfs dodévear.

21. xara rt. rdéw M. was added to this line from v. 17 at an
early stage, but the authorities against it are decisive.

22. Kpelrrovos Sia0yKns. ‘‘Covenant,’’ diadjxy in LXX, berith
Hebrew, is an idea which fills O.T. What has already been said
about Abraham and the Law (12) implies it, cf. Gen. xv. 18,
Ex. xxiv. 7. The word itself is introduced here to prepare for fuller
treatment in the next two chapters. That here, at any rate, it is
used in the O.T. sense, is proved by the addition of &éyyvos, for
neither a ‘‘testament’’ nor an ‘‘agregment’’ in Greek law required
a surety. “Eyyvos is an ordinary Greek word, wecirns (only once in
LXX, Job ix. 33, though the thought is found in Deut. v. 5) is found
in Philo and late Greek as well as in N.T. In this ep. it is used only

78 HEBREWS [7199-2

of Christ, viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24; elsewhere 1 Tim. ii. 5 of Christ,
Gal. iii. 19 f. of Moses. Here it might have caused confusion,
coming so soon after vi. 17, and éyyvos has a more affectionate ring,
ef. Sir. xxix. 15, xdpiras éyyiou uy émiddOy, EdwKev yap Thy Wuxhv
abrod brép cov. It gives a hint of the reason for xpelrroves, which
will be shewn in full presently.

23. -yeyovéres tepets NBwH (vit, vg.) S (vg. hl. pal.) € (boh.)
A Cth Chr. al: iepets yeyovores ACD33 % (vt) Cyr.: icpets solum Cosm.
The reading of NB is confirmed by the rest of the group. The order is
varied from that in v. 20 in order to mark the parallel with damapd-
Baroy éxec T. iepwovdvnv in the next verse; r)eloves is emphatic and
iepeis is not part of the predicate.

25. eis To évrvyxdvetv, perhaps suggested by Rom. viii. 26f., where
however it is the Spirit who intercedes, yet cf. v. 34. In Romans vg.
has postulat, here the celebrated phrase semper vivens ad interpellan-
dum pro eis.

VII. 26—28. Our Hica PRIEST, ETERNAL, SON oF Gop.

26 Along argument, but now you have the heart of it. For such a
High Priest as my last words describe is the High Priest for whom
we were always waiting. He is God’s loving saint, doing no ill,
pure from the least stain, now quite removed from the hindrance
that sinful men could cause to His perfect work, and lifted high

27 above the highest symbols that we know. He is One who hath no
need (as the high priests on earth have) to multiply sacrifices day
after day, first for His own sins and then for those of the people.
Nothing less than that effective two-fold offering did He make once
for all when He offered up Himself, visibly on the cross, eternally in

28 heaven. Once for all; for there is the difference. The law of Moses,
literal and fixed, appoints mortal men to be priests, with an inherent
weakness, that repeatedly saps their priesthood. The living reason
with which God swears His oath of appointment after the discipline
of law has failed, exalts a Son, ‘‘eternally,’’ for the consummation of
His filial work.

26. [Kal] trperev. ABDS (vg. hl.) Eus. add xai. The group
looks ‘‘ Western’’ but the reading is attractive. Yet «al weakens the
sense. It is indeed a startling assertion that such a High Priest
‘*became’?’ us, cf. ii. 10, Ps. lxiy. (Ixv.) 1; but the sublime description
of this High Priest, and the paradox of His priestly offering, are what
the author would chiefly desire to be noticed.

éovos, Often in Psalms for chasid, in English versions ‘‘saint.’?

7 28] NOTES "9

The chasidim were the little band who stood with Judas Maccabeus as
martyrs for the faith. This ep. is an encouragement, xii. 4f., xiii. 22,
to just that kind of martyrdom, and a like spirit breathes through
the Psalter. But the word had a tender and beautiful sense of its own
before it received that associated splendour. Cheyne translates, ‘“ the
man of love,’’ God’s ‘‘duteous loving ones’’; for chasid is connected
with chesed ‘‘lovingkindness,’’ the special attribute of God in Hosea!.
The epithets that follow may be illustrated from Philo’s allegorisings
of high priesthood, but the terse language of the ep. touches the
heart as Philo does not. The author is thinking of one who had
really lived on earth as man. In kexwpicpuévos awd Trav duaprwrOv
he does indeed pass to the exalted state of this High Priest, cf. ix. 28,
xii. 2, but it is still the manhood that is exalted, and carries our
affection with it. Intr. m1. 7.

27. avevéyxas. NA 33, 436, 442, Cyr. have mpocevéyxas. If the
distinction noticed on v. 1 be true, this would seem to refer to
the death on the Cross, wherein our Lord, before becoming High
Priest, gave Himself to be the victim, whereas dvagpépev, just before,
refers to His function as High Priest in heaven. But textual authority
is not in favour of the verbal distinction, and the idea itself cannot
be analysed with so mechanical a logic. The sacrifice on the cross
is sacramental: earth and heaven, now and after, are not twain and
separated; they stand to one another as outward visible sign to
inward spiritual reality. Intr. mr. 8, 32.

More important it is to notice that rofro implies all that follows
dvdyxnv. The sacrifice needs no repetition, but when the Lord
offered it, He offered jrép r&v idiwy duaptidv as well as for the people’s.
In what sense that should be understood may be gathered from ix. 28,
1 Pet. ii. 21—24 (a passage which also explains dxaxos, dulavros)
Gal. iii. 18. The N.T. doctrine is deeper than ‘‘ vicarious suffering.’’
Intr. mr. 15.

28. 6 Adyos THS Opkwpoctas, rather ‘‘the divine reason with
which God sware’’ than ‘‘His commanding utterance’’ or ‘‘our
argument about the oath-giving.’’ This vigorous conclusion brings
us face to face at last with the practical earnestness of the author.
Philo and Leviticus, whose fashion and speech he has partly followed
in the preceding paragraphs, only reach the threshold of his house of
thought.

* The Book of Psalms, or the praises of Israel, pp. 9, 29, 141.

CHAPTER VIII

VIII. 1—13. Tue New Covenant.

1 Here is the climax of the argument: our High Priest’s work is
real, if is not limited by the terms of the analogy. Such a High
Priest as has been described we certainly have. When He was en-
throned in essential unity with the Godhead in heaven, He entered

2 on @ priestly service which is no less essentially divine. It belongs
to the sanctuary and tabernacle of truth not of appearance; the
tabernacle or tent, says Scripture. which the Lorp pitched, not man.

3 For Scripture hallows this picture-language of analogy, and as every
high priest is appointed for the offering of gifts and sacrifices, we say
of our High Priest too that it was necessary for Him to have a

4 ‘‘sacrifice’’ to ‘‘offer.””> Now if He had remained on earth to exer-
cise His priesthood, He would not have been a priest at all. There
was no room among the regular priests with their traditional cere-

5 monial for His quite different action to be counted a sacrifice. (I do
not mean that those priests have nothing to do with heavenly things,
but it is only in a shadowy imitation of the spiritual realities that
they perform their unreal ritual. Imitation; that is the gist of the
oracle announced to Moses when he was to inaugurate the ceremonial
of the tabernacle. See, says the divine voice, that thou do everything

6 in imitation of the pattern shewn to thee in the mount.) But our
High Priest has succeeded to an office different in kind from theirs.
Indeed the analogy as applied to Him gets its peculiar distinction.
by reason of the covenant which it implies. The covenant which
our High Priest establishes between God and man is a better one
than that which Moses mediated. It is a covenant that has, on
the basis of larger promises, become the gospel law. Scripture

7 justifies our calling it ‘‘better.’’? For if no fault could have been
found with the Mosaic covenant, there would be no looking for

8 a second to take its place. But we see just such a searching of faith
in one who was—in a time of trial like the present—carried beyond
the external guarantees of- religion. For there is a divine oracle in
the book of Jeremiah which does find fault with people, and says,

8 3] NOTES 81

Behold days are coming, saith the Lorp, when I will bring my
sacred relationship towards the separated houses of Israel and Judah
to completion in a new covenant. It shall go deeper than the cove- 9
nant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by
the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. For, according to
the divine sanction of that covenant, as they did not abide by my
good purpose toward them, soI ceased to be careful on their behalf.
For this is the covenant which I will grant to the house of united 10
Israel, now that those days have passed away; again establishing it
with my ‘thus saith the Lorp.”? I will give them an affectionate
understanding of my laws, and upon their hearts will I write them.
So, with mutual trust, I renew the essential bond between us:
‘I will be to them God, they shall be to me my people.’? Brothers 11
and fellow-citizens as they shall now be, they will not have to teach
one another, saying, Know the Lorp. For they shall all know me
in their own consciences, young and old, the great men and the simple
alike. For with mercy will I now meet the ingratitude of their 12
offences, and their sins will I never remember any more.

A new covenant! The first He declares outworn. That which is 13
wearing out and growing old is nigh unto vanishing away.

1. Kebddraov. Capitulum $f, =the capital point; if an argument
is well knit its capital point is also the ‘‘sum’’ of it. Here the capital
point is that the High Priest of the Christian faith has entered the
real presence of God; His work is a spiritual reality. The author
still expresses this by visible imagery, taken from scripture, and as it
were etherealised by a few touches; cf. Ps. cx. as ini. 3, Ex. xxix. 30,
and Num. xxiv. 6. For d\7@wés, the antithesis of yetporolnros, cf.
ix. 24.

2. THS okHVAS THS GAnOiwys, K.7.A. There is a verbal reference
here to Num. xxiv. 6, but the underlying thought is of Ex. xxiv. 18—
xxv.40. And by the epithet 4\76.7s the author colours the simplicity
of the Hebrew story of the pattern on the mount with a philo-
sophic tinge. As in ix. 24 we seem to catch a glimpse of Plato’s
‘‘intelligible’? world. The epithet applies also to rév dylwy. The
great High Priest exercises His function in a reality which transcends
our images of thought. For \ecroupyés cf. i. 7, Rom. xiii. 6, xv. 16,
Phil. ii. 25. The word is used both of civil and of sacred officers; to
ancient thought the service of the state was all sacred and Godward.
In Rom. xv. 16 Paul associates the word with priestly phraseology, in
Phil. ii. 25 with civil.

3. & mpoonvéyxy: unclassical subj. cf. xii. 28. See Blass 65. 8,
and for 7v...6 50. 1,

HEBREWS , F

82 HEBREWS [8 4—

4. ovv: so the good mss., though the mass of mss. have ydp.
Ody is used here in the ‘‘looser way to resume or continue,’’ Blass
78. 5. Mév corresponds to dé in v. 6.

To what point of time is the reference in dvayxaiov...ei 7v...008"
av jv? Are we to translate, ‘‘it is necessary...if He were...He would
not be”’ (so HL necesse sit, est), or, ‘‘it was necessary...if He had been
...He would not have been’’? The first might perhaps be defended by
vii. 25, and the tense of itdoxec@a ii. 17, as an allusion to continual
intercession. But that would involve a strange use of rpocpépeww, and if
we ask what the author meant by the ‘‘somewhat to offer,’ it is
difficult to answer otherwise than in the words of ix.14. The second
translation must therefore be accepted, at least for dvayxatov. The
conditional clause is less definite; but its point is that, but for His
passing through death to the eternal sphere, the spiritual priesthood
of the Lord would have been impossible. So here too the thought is
carried back to the crucifixion. Thus the question whether évrwy
Tav mpoopepdyvTwy proves the ep. to have been written before the fall
of Jerusalem becomes superfluous. Westcott says indeed that ‘‘ the
tense of the principal verb (Aarpevovo.y) fixes the translation of the
participle to the present.’”? Butis . the principal verb? It stands
in a relative clause introduced by the generalizing ofrwes.

5. og. Cf. Ps. cii. (ci.) 12, cix. (eviii.) 23, exliv. (cxliii.) 4,
Keel. vi. 12 (vii. 1), Wisd. ii. 5, v. 9, in all of which LXX expresses
the idea of a vain thing passing away. So Col. ii. 17, and in this ep.
(cf. x. 1) oxca indicates the arbitrary, allegorical symbol, as opposed
to the ‘‘ image itself,’’ or real symbol which partakes of the reality it
symbolises. Intr. m1. 8.

totov, from LXX of Ex. xxv. 40. Philo (vit. Mos, 11, p. 146) in his
comment on the same passage makes rimov something like the
Platonic ‘‘idea.’? Our author glances at that fancy (see note on
v. 2, supra), but after all lets the word rest in the simple sense of
‘‘pattern,’’ which was all the translator intended. He changes the
tense of LXX dederypévov because perfects, frequent as they are in
the ep., are never employed without a particular reason; cf. xi. 17,
xii. 2, Intr. v. 3.

6. Aevrovpylas...SvabyKys...émayyeAlars vevopolérnrar: a striking
sequence, leading swiftly to the doctrine of the new covenant which
will be introduced at v. 8 by the quotation from Jeremiah. Nevoyo-
6érnra: is almost paradoxical like érepov vouov...r@ vouw Tod voos pov,
Rom. vii. 23, since in vii. 16 supra we have been carried beyond
‘‘law.’? Such paradoxes may. be reduced to order by reference to
Jas. i. 25. .

8 8] NOTES | 83

8. avrovs. Textual authority is almost evenly divided between
avrovs and avrots. Both are legitimate with pueudduevos, but avrois
was perhaps intended to go with Aéye.. This phrase of introduction
is made as vague as possible. The subject is best understood from
iii. 7, iv. 7, but the tense of Aéye is the noticeable point. The
inauguration of the promised new covenant now, ‘‘at the end of
these days,’’ is in the author’s mind; the original occasion of the
prophecy is of secondary importance to him.

Yet it is of some importance. He has chosen his quotation care-
fully. It is from Jer. xxxi. (xxxviii.) 31—34. Whether those critics
are possibly right who think the passage does not come from Jeremiah
himself, hardly matters; inspiration, not authorship, is what the
writer of Hebrews cares about. And indeed it seems more charac-
teristic of Jeremiah than the prophecies of restoration which
immediately precede it. The material symbolism of those prophecies
is not what Jeremiah specially stands for in O.T.; the daring ‘‘ heart-
religion ’’ of this place is. We are inclined to connect it rather with
the chapter that follows it, and to think of Jeremiah imprisoned as a
traitor, suspected as a free-thinker in religion, certain of the speedy
ruin of Jerusalem, and the abolition of all the ancient institutions
of the faith. In these straits he is lifted to such a pure conception of
spiritual and therefore ‘‘ indissoluble’? communion with God, as
might be considered the culmination of O.T. prophecy. He calls
this a ‘‘new covenant.’’ But the terms of the covenant are the
same as they always have been and will be, ‘‘I will be their God, and
they shall be my people.’’ It is new because it shall now be written
on the heart, instead of in law, priesthood, monarchy, temple, sacri-
fice. Moreover, thus inwardly and spiritually written, it shall at last
be effectual; it shall bring ‘‘ knowledge of God’’ to ‘‘ perfection,”’
and supersede ‘‘ merit” by ‘‘grace’’; cf. John i. 17.

The idea of this new covenant inspired the author of the
‘¢ Comfort ye’’ prophecy (Isa. xl. ff.). The very phrase is recorded
by S. Paul and in one version of the gospel narrative as having been
uttered by our Lord at the last supper, 1 Cor. xi. 25, Luke xxii. 20.
In Mark (xiv. 24f.) the two words are spoken, but the ‘‘new”’ has
rather a different significance: ‘‘This is my blood of the covenant,
which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will no more
drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in
the kingdom of God.”’

The author of Hebrews probably knew 1 Corinthians. He knew
the tradition of the Lord’s words which lies behind the gospels. He
saw the covenant developing in one unbroken line from Abraham,

F2

84 HEBREWS [8 8—13

through Moses and Jeremiah, to the last supper. At the last
supper the new covenant, promised by Jeremiah, received a fresh
sanction in the Saviour’s blood (cf. ix. 15—17) and a final promise of
fulfilment when the Lord Jesus came as Christ with the Kingdom.
In the trial of his own days he believed that, in some real sense, that
coming was to be. Hence he quotes Jeremiah here as a prophecy
for the immediate present. The new covenant was ‘‘in a very
little while ’’ to reach perfection. Even now the obsolete ceremonial,
which Jeremiah had long ago recognised as no necessity for faith, was
dropping away. Intr. mz. 16.

cuvrekéow seems to be the author’s own substitution for 6:a6%-
goua. Of LXX. Like émcredeiv in v. 5, ix. 6, it has perhaps a ritual
colour, cf. éxredeiv Teder Hy, éwiredeiv Nevrovpyiav in Greek liturgies.

9. Kayo ypéAnoa. The Hebrew ba‘alti either means “although
I was an husband to them,”’ cf. Jer. iii. 14, or perhaps ‘‘and I was a
master to them,’’ which would be explained by Hosea ii. 16, *‘ thou
shalt call me Ishi, my husband, and shalt call me no more Baali,
my master.’? The mistranslation of LXX may itself be taken in a
sense not unlike Hosea’s. In Ex. xix. 5 the covenant is made con-
ditional on Israel’s obedience, cf. Lev. xxvi. 14 ff., especially 40 f.
The new covenant, being written on the heart, needs no such con-
dition ; it will continually be renewed by forgiveness, cf. Lev. xxvi.
44 f. This is the main teaching in Deuteronomy (see especially
x. 12—xi. 1), though in some places the more rigorous doctrine of
retribution is enforced, cf. iv. 24 quoted in this ep. xii. 29. The
repeated Aéyer Kvpios (vv. 9, 10) represents the divine sanction, first
for the old promise, with conditions, then for the new promise of
grace.

10. Suudivorayv, cf. John xv. 15.

11. woXdtrnv. For this there is in LXX as in ep. av.l. rAnolor;
a scriptural commonplace instead of the idiomatic but free rendering
of the translator.

yvabs...cl8ycovew. Thus Jeremiah anticipates a richer fulfil-
ment of Hosea’s desire, Hos. vi. 3. To both these prophets, as to
S. John, to know God is eternal life.

13. memadalwkev: perf. corresponding to pres. Aéye. in v. 8. It
also frames the picture which is carried vividly through the ‘‘im-
perfect ’’ participles to the sudden close in dg@aviouod (frequent in
LXX of Jeremiah for sudden violent removal)—‘‘ A certain moment
calls the glory from the grey.”’

CHAPTER IX

IX. 1—10. Tue PARABLE OF THE TABERNACLE.

Now the ordinances of the first covenant were ritualistic and its 1
holiness was materially conceived. A tabernacle was constructed after 2
the fashion ofa double tent. In the first tent are placed the candlestick
and the table and on the table the rite of setting forth the loaves
before the Lorp is celebrated. This tent is called ‘‘ Holy Place.’’
Then beyond the inner veil is a second tent which is called ‘‘ Holy of 3
Holies,’’ the ritual of which is mainly connected with the altar of
incense and the ark of the covenant; the altar is golden and the ark 4
all covered with gold. In this tent the pot, also golden, containing
the manna is kept; also the rod of Aaron which budded, and the
tablets on which the ‘‘words’’ of the covenant at Sinai were written.
Above the ark are the cherubim, the angels of the Lorn’s presence, 5
overshadowing the mercy-seat with their wings. Everywhere pomp
and glory of which it is not possible to speak now in detail.

That is the tabernacle and its furniture as we see it in the sacred 6
books. And this is the divine service of the tabernacle. The outer
tent is entered continually by the priests as they perform their various
ministries. But the great ceremony takes place within the inner 7
shrine. Once and once only in the year, by himself alone, the high
priest enters there. He carries blood. Blood is life, and on this
great occasion no less significant a sacrificial act is admissible. He
offers the blood, bringing it to the Lorp at the mercy-seat where He
has promised to be present; a living soul for the renewal of his own
soul and for cleansing the Lorn’s people from those sins of popular
ignorance for which their priest is so largely responsible. Yet why 8
should they be shut out? The Holy Spirit, through whom the
written record of this institution comes to us, makes it particularly
clear that the way to the inner mysteries has not yet been revealed
to the common gaze; the outer tent still stands to hide it. But we 9
are meant to recognise in this outer tent a kind of premeditation of
the change in these days of ours. The gifts and sacrifices of the old
order are offered duly though they cannot bring the worshipper to

86 HEBREWS | [9 pa

10 real communion with God. They are but part of an external system
of rules about eating and drinking and various ceremonial washings.
As ordinances of worship they are confined within the limits of
earthly ideas. But their significance springs from their transitory
claim. They have been appointed in expectation of a reformation
which inaugurates a new epoch.

1. pév otv might be taken together=‘‘so then.’? But the strong
contrast Xpucrds dé...-in v. 12 requires wév to correspond to that long-
delayed dé. If so, cai is rather superfluous: the emphasis is on the
predicative Narpeias, ckoomixdy, for which latter adj. cf: Tit. ii. 12.
Kal is omitted by B al. pauc. & (vg) € (boh) Orig. |

4) tpdrn. The mass of mss. add cxyv}. But the simple 7 rpdry
of all the good authorities shews that ‘‘the first covenant’ (as in
viii. 13) is meant.

To te Gywov. This or, less often, ra dyia=the outer tent, the
‘‘Holy Place’? in LXX. But in this ep. the plural is always used in
that sense. Is not this ro ayov a neuter abstract=‘‘its holiness ”’
(Intr. v. 5)? Cf. the confused rendering in d, habuit autem et quidem
prior eius iustitia constitutionis cultura sanctum saecularem. |

2. “Ayia. Not ayia, as the following 4 Ney. “Aya ‘Aylwy shews.
B has 7a dya, and in next verse (with considerable support) 74. &ya
Trav aylwy. But B also inserts cal 7d xp. Ovpraryprov after dprww,
omitting xp. éxovoa 8. in v. 4. All these variations seem to arise
from a desire to harmonise ep. with LXX.

For the construction and furniture of the tabernacle, see Ex. xxv.—
xxvii., xxx. 1—10, xxxvi.—xl. But some details in the ep. are taken
from other places in O.T.; cf. especially Lev. xvi.

% mpd0eois tT. dptwv. Substituted, as better Greek, for the more
usual of d. ris mpofécews.

vo Sevrepov katatéracpa. See Ex. xxvii. 16.

4. Ovprarrprov. So Aquila, Symmachus, Philo, Josephus, for
Ovovacrhpiov (Ovuiduaros) of LXX. This was outside the veil. But
when Aaron entered the Holy of Holies the cl6ud of incense pene-
trated to the Mercy-seat. Hence in Lev. xvi. 12 f. it is ‘‘ before the
Lorp,”’ and is here said to ‘‘ belong to’’ the Holy of Holies.

ordpves, K.T.A. Ex. xvi. 33; 7 pdBdos’Aapdv x.7.d., Num. xvii. 10;
ai wAdxes K.T.A., Ex. xxv. 16, Deut. xxxi. 26, 1 Kings viii. 9. The
manna and the rod are not mentioned in 1 Kings viii. Josephus,
Bell. v. 5. 5, says €xetro dé ovdév dws ev adr@, Barov 5é cal &xpayrov
kal d0éarov nv maow, drylov dé ayov éxadeiro. Cf. Tac. H. v. 9, vacuam
sedem et inania arcana, But the ep. refers to the tabernacle in the
wilderness, not to the temple and the later state of things.

9 9] NOTES 87

5. XepovPelvy Sdéns. A phrase formed by the author after the
fashion of those Hebrew compounds in which the second noun
concentrates attention upon the characteristic feature of the first,
cf. Moulton, pp. 73f. So Gen. i. 21 ‘‘ bird of wing” (cf. Ps. xviii. 13,
where we should say ‘‘as a dove’’ in English). Here the glory is
the presence of the Lorn, Ex. xxv. 22, Num. vii. 89, Ez. xi. 22f.,
xliii. 1—4. In tabernacle and builded temple the Lorp ‘‘speaketh
from between the cherubim,’’ and ‘‘ above Him stand the seraphim,”’
Isa. vi. 2. In the temple of the universe (cf. Ps. xxix. 9), a more
ancient conception, He dwells in the ‘‘thick darkness’’ of the storm,
1 Kings viii. 12; rides upon the cherubim, the angels of the wind;
the seraphim, angels of fire and lightning, go before Him, Ps. xviii.
6—14, cf. supr.i. 7; the thunder is His voice, Ps. xviii. 13, Ex. xix. 19,
Deut, iv. 12, cf. infr. xii.19. For a beautiful refinement upon the ritual
conception see Ps. xxii. 3.

mepl ov...catd pépos. No doubt this simply means ‘‘I have no
time or space to dwell on further details.’’ Yet this earnest haste of
the author does itself distinguish him from the allegorical school in
which he had received some instruction, and with which (as he
seems to acknowledge in v. 11) he had a certain sympathy. He
refuses dxpiBeverOar wept THs owrnpias which in the allegorical Ep.
Barn. (ii. 10) is considered necessary. ‘‘ The writer of the Epistle...
mentions the cherubim and the mercy-seat. Of these, he says, we
cannot now speak particularly. Could any allegorist have resisted
the temptation to speak most particularly on these subjects?’’ Maurice.

6f. For the entrance of the priests, the sons of Aaron, see
Ex. xxviii. 1, Num. xvi. 40, xviii. 3—7. For the yearly entrance of
Aaron (the ‘‘ high-priest’’ is hardly mentioned in the ‘‘ Law’’) see
Lev. xvi. and Ex. xxx. 10.

7. ovxoplsaiparos. Cf. Lev. xvi. 14 ff., 18f., with Lev. xvii. 11;
Intr. m1. 12, 13.

ayvonpatrev, cf. Ez. xlv. 20, Lev. iv. 2, 22, 27, and especially
LXX of 13 dyvojoy dxovoiws. Perhaps accidental uncleannesses rather
than what we should call sins are primarily meant by this word.
But v. 2 shows that our author has a deeper thought, and Lev. xvi. 16
justifies it.

8. Here, and in ix. 25, x. 19, xiii. 11, ra dy. seems=“ Holy of
Holies.’’ It is more likely that this reflects the usage of Lev. xvi.
There after the full phrase, eis 7d dytov éowrépw Tod Karamerdoparos
els mpdowmov Tod ihacrnpiov 6 éotw éml ris KiBwrod Tod paprupiov, the
brief 7d ayov is used inclusively of the whole tabernacle.

9. mpoodépovtar like the perfect megdavepoOac is in accord

88 HEBREWS [9 9 —

with the author’s habit of beholding pictures in the sacred records,
standing as present things before his eyes: Intr. v.3. Thus, again
(cf. viii. 4), no inference can be drawn from this passage as to the
date of the ep.

10. Bamricpots. Cf. vi. 2; capkds, cf. ii. 14, v. 7 and contrast
vi. 1 vexp&v %pywv which does not refer to ritual.

Sixaopara NABP 33 (vg) @ (boh) @ Cyr. Euthal.4 is the
well attested reading, not diealwua nor dixauiuacw. Though B agrees
with the mass of Greek mss. in prefixing xai, the authorities for its
omission, N*AD*P 33 Z% (vt) S (vg) C Eth Orig. Cyr. Euthal.°-4, seem
sufficient. Both the insertion of cal and the alteration to dixcaw-
Hacw were meant to make the grammatical construction easier.
But dicaudjuara, in apposition to dépa, Ovoiat, gives a sense more
agreeable to the context. Theauthor is concerned about the abolition
of the sacrifices rather than the petty rites and rules.

StopOdicews. A medical word, used by Aristotle and later writers
in moral sense as here. Cf. Acts iii. 21. The next verse shews that
in one sense this ‘‘reformation’’ has already come. The primitive
and popular faith of the Church would look for it in the ‘‘day of the
Lord’? (cf. x. 25, Apoc. i. 10), the great Advent still expected.
In this ep. a ‘critical moment!’’ is expected ‘‘to day,’’? in which
‘‘reformation,’’ ‘‘new covenant,’? entrance into heaven (x. 19ff.),
receiving of the kingdom (xii. 28), peace in union with the will
of God (x. 10, xiii. 21) may be realised by the readers for whose
encouragement in stress of trial their friend is writing.

IX. 11—14, THE REALITY OF LIFE LAID DOWN TO CLEANSE.

Such is the tabernacle of the Old Covenant and its ritual, splendid,
making no mean appeal to religious emotion, but unfit to fulfil that
new life for which conscience yearns.

11 But when, Levi fading, Christ came, as High Priest of the loving
mercies of God the only good, which found expression through the
tabernacle that has nought to do with ritual splendour or precision,
the tabernacle not made with hands, not of this ordinary earthly

12 building; then He cared no more about the figurative blood of beasts
than about the pomp of worship, but entered by the sacramental
virtue of His own blood, once for all, into the sanctuary: having
found, when all seemed lost upon the cross, such deliverance for
men as can be measured by no temporal standard, nor rendered

13 ineffectual by any limitations of material circumstance. It is a moral

1 For xatpds see Trench, New Testament Synonyms, § LVII.

911] NOTES 89

deliverance. Let it be acknowledged that the ritual observances do
effect such cleansing as the use and wont of mere humanity demands.
Here there is more than that; the ‘‘other world’’ breaks in. Our 14
Lord Jesus completes the long line of the Christs of history with all
their filial yearnings towards the Father. He died willingly, lovingly,
and His life thus consecrated really became what the Levitical
theology defined ‘‘ blood ’’ to be, viz. life set free for the renewing of
lives. As Aaron approached the mercy-seat enveloped in the cloud of
incense, so the dear memory of our dying Lord is interfused with
the mystery of the all-embracing Spirit who makes all life by His
inspiration eternal and divine. So, an immaculate victim, He offered
Himself to God. Such goodness is more intelligible than any analogy.
It is our consciousness of God, who is above and through and in us
all, that He died to restore, cleansing away the evil which is death to
hide; so that, sharing in what He has made priestly service mean,
we too may serve God who lives indeed.

11. yevopévov. This, the reading of BD* % (vt) S (vg. hi. pal.)
Orig. Chr. (Aphr.), must be accepted, though Tisch., v. Sod., R.V. text
prefer wedd\dvtwy with NAD°w J (vg.) S (hl™s) E (boh) A Eth Eus.
Cyr-Hier. Chr°*“4 Cosm. 3 al. Doubtless the second group is strong.
But the first may reasonably be interpreted as a consensus of all
three ancient lines of transmission. And this is one of the few
passages in which intrinsic probability is important in itself. As
Rendall has pointed out, the construction is rév yevopévwr...dia THs
pelfovos K.7.X. But even Westcott, who keeps yevouévwy but translates
‘¢ good things realised,’’ has missed this piece of rather distinguished
idiom. The correction to medAd\vTwv would therefore be obvious:
ef. ii. 5, vi. 5, x. 1, xiii. 14. Nor did the difficulty arise entirely
from the construction. Even with the right construing, the ‘‘ good
things’’ are said to have come already into being, and such sayings
in N.T. have always proved hard: cf. Acts xv. 11, d\da dia Tis xdpiTos
Tod Kupiov “Incod miorevouer owlfjvar Kad? dv Tpdmov Kdxetvor, where
A.V. and R.V. ‘‘we believe that we shall be saved’’ is possible
grammatically but improbable in the context. Here is in fact a test
passage of the credibility of B joined with the great ‘* Western”’
authorities and Origen.

aya8av. Only here and x. 1 in true text of this ep., in which
Kadds and xpeirrwy are so frequent with their ideas of ‘‘ nobility’’ and
‘*superiority.’? From such passages as Mark x. 18, Luke xxiii. 50,
Acts xi. 24, Rom. v. 7, 1 Pet. ii. 20, dya0és would seem to imply
goodness in the divine degree, which is goodness touched with
affection.

go HEBREWS [9 11—

kticews. Jf creationis, so R.V., but ‘* there is no occasion to take
xriots inf any other sense than that in which xrifev is commonly
applied to a city (3 Esdr. iv. 53) or to the tabernacle itself (Lev. xvi.
16)'.”? A.V. ** building’’ does very well.

12. aiwviay AiTpwcw edpdpevos. For alwviav, ‘‘in the eternal
sphere,’’ see note on v.9. This is the only place in the ep. where
AUTpwois or any of its simple cognates occur. In ix. 15, xi. 35 we
find the Pauline dodvrpwois, but hardly in Pauline sense. These
words are an inheritance from O.T. through LXX, especially from
the latter part of Isaiah, where they are mostly renderings of some
form of the Hebrew goel = ‘‘ avenger,’’ and then more generally
‘rescuing with might.’’ So Isa. lxiii. 4 ff.: tuépa yap dvrarodécews
MrGev avbrots, kal eviavTds NuTpwWoews wapecrw. Kal éwréBreWa, Kal ovK
nv BonOds* xal mpocevdnoa, Kal ovfels dvredauBavero* Kat éppicaro
avrovs 6 Bpaxiwy jou, kal 6 Ouuds mov éréorn. In Mark x. 45= Matt. xx.
28 our Lord says that the Son of man came to be a servant and to
give His life \vrpov dvti mwod\d\Gv, which may shew that to Jewish
ears these words implied ‘‘ ransom”? or ‘* price?.’’ Yet that saying
too is part of the Isaianic language of deliverance: ‘‘I have given
Egypt as thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee...I have loved thee ;
therefore will I give men for thee, and peoples for thy life,’’ Isa. xliii.
3f. The mystery seems deeper when coordinated with John xv. 13,
than when explained in terms of law or commerce. On the whole we
may consider that the main idea in our author’s mind is ‘‘ deliver-
ance’’ raised to sublimity by divine self-sacrifice. And this deliverance
the Saviour ‘‘found.’’ In the divine will it already was; not to be
bought with a price, but an ‘‘ideal’’ which has now been realised
in obedience, cf. v. 8. The aor. part. might be described as ‘of
coincident action ’’ (Moulton, p. 130 ff.), but it might also be said
to represent the moment before eio7\Oev just as redewOels, mpocaryo-
pevdels in v. 9 represent the moment after.

14. alwviov. dyiov is read by N°D*P al HS (pal) & (boh.) Did.4
Chr.4 al. The attestation of aiwviov is sufficient, and it suits the
context. The thrice-repeated ‘‘ eternal’’ (cf. vv. 12, 15) is set over
against: the “gold and glory’’ of the tabernacle. For the vast
theological idea see Intr. m1. 13, 29. ‘“‘ The Christ’’ offered Himself
through the medium of that divine, essential life in which the whole
spiritual movement issues from and returns to God—-‘‘ When that
which drew from out the boundless deep, Turns again home.’’

1 Field, Otiwm Norvicense.
2 Of. Sanday and Headlam, Commentary on Romans, p. 86.

9 14] NOTES | gI

To aipa rod xptorod. Intr. mr. 12, 13.

kaOapuct. Cf. ii. 17. In the middle of this word Codex B is
mutilated, and fails us for the rest of the ep.

cuvelSnoiv. A Pauline word; five times in this ep., cf. ix. 9, x. 2,
22, xiii. 18. Rom. ii. 15 shews conscience in its troubled, 1 Pet. ii.
19 in its cleansed and truly natural state, viz. the enjoyment of the
presence of God. This state is perhaps less often remembered than
the other. Hence a later reading in 1 Pet. ii. 19, o. dyadhy for co.
Geod, and R.V. as well as A.V. renders ‘‘ conscience toward God,’?
relegating ‘‘of God’’ to mg: the meaning rather is that because of
his “consciousness of God,’’? in communion with whom he is sup-
ported and at peace, a man can well bear injuries and injustice. The
word, with its commoner equivalent in secular writers, 7d cuvedds,
has passed from this ep. into the Greek liturgies, wherein, as here, it
lifts the mind to reality, and determines the true moral sense of such
ritual terms as duwuos. The whole passage, culminating in deg
fGvr., is artistically ordered to that end.

jpov. W. H. give judy as mg. alternative, the attestation being
strong on either side. In xiii. 21 a like variation is important; here
the sense is hardly affected, but see Intr. v. 7.

vexpov tpywv. Cf. vi. 1 and Sirach xviii. 29 (cod. 248, see Hart,
Ecclesiasticus in Greek, pp. 24, 146) xpeicowv wappyola év decrdbry
bovy* rep vexpa kapdla vexpav avréxerOa.

IX. 15—22. To LIFE THAT RENEWS LIFE DEATH IS
THE ONLY WAY.

And this life-renewing life can only be through death. That is 15
why in the new covenant Christ is a mediator between God who
makes the covenant and men with whom God makes it. God dies
not; but in Christ the mystery of life through death has been
enacted. So the divine purpose is achieved. From the transgres-
sions, by which (as we are told in Jeremiah) the first covenant was
marred, deliverance has been and is still effected. So those who
have heard the call of God to day may recognise in their clean
conscience the fulfilment of the promise; the inheritance long
waited for is theirs to take; the eternal inheritance of spiritual
freedom.

The analogy of ancient custom points to the same truth. Where 16
there is a covenant, the death of him who makes it has to be re-
presented. For the ritual of a covenant is that it must be confirmed

92 HEBREWS [9 15—

17 over slain victims ; since the idea is that it avails not so long as he
who made the agreement lives.

18 Hence the first covenant too is recorded to have been inaugurated

19 not without blood. For when each commandment had been spoken,
in its proper place in the law which God gave at Sinai, by Moses to
the people, Moses took the blood of the calves and the goats with
water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book of

20 the covenant and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the
covenant which God ordained to establish his relationship with you.

21 And, to speak generally, it is in the touch of blood that all things

22 are cleansed according to that law, and without bloodshedding there
is no remission of legal offences.

15. SaOyKys. Cf. vii. 22, viii. 8. For the question whether
the author passes here from the meaning ‘‘covenant’’ to the
meaning ‘‘testament’’ see Intr. m. 16. The point may be left
doubtful. It is the sacrificial analogy that is affected by the alter-
native, not the deeper sense, viz. that our Lord laid down His life
for His friends, and that in no other way might the great salvation
be perfected.

16. tod Siabewévov. Cf. Luke xxii. 29, Acts iii. 25, Jer. xxxi.
(xxxviii.) 31, and Aristophanes, Av. 439; qv uy didOwvral ¥ olde
diabhknv éuol, where the terms of the agreement follow, on oath.

17. émel prj tore. So N*D* Isid-Pelus. The other mss. have
more. Blass says that in either case the sentence must be inter-
rogative; ‘‘never’’? would be pmdérore or ovdémrore, 75. 3, App.
p. 332. But the uy might come under Goodwin’s ‘‘ cautious asser-
tion ’’ § 269=‘‘I am of the opinion that,’’ or perhaps ‘‘ the idea is.’’

19. See Ex. xxiv. 6—8, to which details are here added from
Lev. xiv. 4—7, Num. xix. 6, 17f. So in v. 21 the sprinkling of
‘all the vessels of the ministry’’ comes from the ‘‘law of Moses”’
not from the particular narrative of the inauguration of the covenant.

The phrase épiov xéxxivov, which occurs nowhere in LXX, is found
in a curious compound quotation or reminiscence in Ep. Barn. vii.
about the scapegoat: kal éumricare mavtes kal xaraxevrjoare Kal
meplOere Td eptov TO KdKKivov wept Thy Keparny avrod Kal obrws els Epnuov
BAnOjTw.

22. atparexxvotas. Not found in LXX or profane authors.
It is a general word which includes the ‘‘ shedding ’’ as the necessary
and terrible preliminary to the ‘‘sprinkling’’; cf. Matt. xxvi. 28,
Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20. This would suggest the thought of
the ‘‘ precious blood,’’ 1 Pet. i. 19; cf. Ps. cxv. (cxvi.) 6.

9 23] NOTES 93

1X. 23—-28. CHRIST IN HEAVEN, OUR REFUGE AND
OUR HOPE.

It is therefore necessary that if the imitations of things heavenly 23
be cleansed by these means, the ultimate realities themselves should
be cleansed by mightier than legal sacrifices. That necessity con-
ducted Christ. For He entered no manufactured sanctuary, an echo 24
of the true, but penetrated that very heart of goodness which
‘¢ heaven ’’ symbolises, to be manifested now, before the face of
God, in His compassionate divinity which is the refuge of us men.
Nor did He purpose either to repeat that solemn act. He was not 25
going to offer Himself many times. The very idea of such repetition
is paradoxical. There is no analogy here with the Aaronic high
priest’s entering the sanctuary year after year in the fiction of a
blood-life not his own. If that were a true symbol, Christ must have 26
suffered many times in the long repetition of such rites; for ritual
sacrifice is as old as the world. No; it is now and only now. At
this moment which sums up and sweeps into desuetude the series
of the ages, for the annulling of the sin which till now has obstinately
held its ground, through the sacrifice of Himself, He has been
seen of men and passed to God. And in as much as it is the spiritual 27
destiny of men once to die, and after death the discernment and
separation of judgement; so also He, who as the Christ shares our 28
manhood and shall at last complete our hope, having once been taken
to God that He might (like the prophetic servant of the Lorp) take
upon Himself the sins of many, shall in the sequel, separated from
that burden of sin, be seen by those who are longingly expecting Him.
And that vision shall be rescue from all ill.

23. xpelrroot @volats. For the pl. cf. xiii. 16, but the reference
can hardly be the same. The pl. here is merely the antithesis,
in a general statement, to rodros; in the particular application which
immediately follows, the sacrifice by which the realities of heaven
are cleansed is shown to be one and only one.

The cleansing of the heavenly realities might also be explained
as a mere extension of the Levitical analogy. But from xii. 26 f.
more would seem to be meant. Even the things of heaven shall be
shaken. Even the saints at rest watch anxiously the issue of God’s
will on earth, cf. xii. 1 with xii. 23, also Ap. v. 11f. with vii. 16f.
In heaven itself the intercession of the High Priest is still required,
vii. 25, cf. ii. 18. As yet there is no place, however near to God,
where His will is not working against opposition. Only within that

94 HEBREWS [9 23—

will itself is peace x. 10, xiii. 21. The same idea is expressed in the
Lord’s Prayer, at least in the Greek form in which it has come
to us; yernOyrw 7d OédAnud cov, ws év ovpay@ xal émi vis.

24. éuhavcOnvar. In LXX of manifestation of God Ex. xxxiii. 13,
18, cf. éugavn& Ps. Ixxix. (lxxx.) 2, Zeph. ii. 11.

26. maQeivy. See note on v.8. Two cursives have drodaveiy here.

vuvé does not respond to émwe(=‘‘now as things are,’’ for the
intensive form is not used in that sense. Both vuyi and viv in v. 24
refer to that act which to men is still visible in memory (regavépwrat,
ef. Gal. iii. 1) as the crucifixion, while in eternity beyond the veil
it was the manifestation of the consummated work of redemption
(cf. v. 12). The viv, v. 24, is not quite logically appropriate. But
**'To day ” rings too insistently in the author’s ear for him to heed
that. Moreover there is a sense in which loyal following of Christ
brings the completed sacrifice ‘‘ again’’ into present time, cf. xiii. 13,
Intr. mz. 21.

cuvredciqa. Five times in Matthew (not elsewhere in N.T.) with
sing. alévos: where, as in Dan. ix. 27, xii. 4, 13, it looks forward to
the Messianic ‘‘end.’’ Here it is rather different; the final age, in
the successive periods of history, had been reached when the Lord
died. Cf. i. 2, xi. 3.

27. pera St rovtoKplo.s. Cf. Box, The Ezra-apocalypse, pp. xlvt.
‘* While the theology of S (that part of 2 Esdras which Mr Box calls
the ‘Salathiel-apocalypse’) recognises the Day of Judgement and an
intermediate state for the soul between death and Judgement, it knows
of no resurrection of the body. In the description of the state of the
soul after death it is made clear that the soul enters at once into a
state of blessedness or the reverse.... These conditions—though they |
will be intensified—are not to be essentially altered on the Day of
Judgement itself. This practically means that judgement sets in
immediately after death, and that a man’s fate is virtually deter-
mined by the present life—which is the doctrine of Wisdom and
of Hellenistic Judaism.’’ Cf. xi. 40, xii. 23, but also vi. 2, xi. 35.
Intr. m1. 24, 25.

28. todAav aveveykety dpaptlas. From Isa. liii. 12, cf. 1 Pet.
ii. 24, also John i. 29. Elsewhere in this ep. dvagépw is only used in
sacrificial sense, but Rom. viii. 3, 2 Cor. v. 21, shew how the two
meanings might run into one another.

& Sevrépov. Cf. Collects for I Advent, VI Epiphany ‘‘come
again,’’ ‘‘appear again.’’ But that is not the usual N.T. conception,
cf. Mark xiv. 61 f., Acts i. 11 (where a few mss. add madi); ék
devrépou 6f0. simply answers to awa mpocevex Gels.

9 28] NOTES 95

Xwpls dpaptias. Cf. vii. 26.

Trois avTov drexSexopévors. Cf. Luke i. 21; but in Paul daexé.
is a strongly Messianic word, Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25, 1 Cor. i. 7,
Gal. v. 5, Phil. iii. 20.

eisowrtyplav. Cf. ii.3. owrnoia is the whole of which redemption,
cleansing, sacrifice, etc. are parts.

CHAPTER X

X. 1—18. THE WILL OF MAN UNITED TO THE WILL OF GOD
THROUGH THE WILLING SACRIFICE OF CHRIST.

1 The Levitical Law carries with it an imaginary shadow of the
good things which God purposed for man, not the consubstantial
symbol which is a vehicle of the realities it symbolises. So year by
year the sacrifices go on in monotonous succession. Men are ever
approaching God, but are unable to reach by such merely ritual

2 means His very presence. If it were otherwise these sacrifices would
have ceased, since they would have already brought about the desired
result; the ritual cleansing of the worshippers would have passed
once for all into spiritual cleansing, and they would no longer be let

3 and hindered by the consciousness of sins. But it is not so. There
is some good in the ritual, especially of the Day of Atonement. It

4 awakes the sense of sins year after year. But it never passes into the
eternal order, for bulls’ and goats’ blood cannot take sins away.

5 Wherefore, on His entrance into the created world, One whom we
know saith: ‘‘Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not—a body didst

6 Thou prepare for me. In burnt-offerings and sin-offerings Thou

7 didst not take pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I am come—as in a
written book my commission is recorded—to do, O God, Thy will.”

8 In the first part of this quotation (which is so prophetically applicable
to the Person and work of our Lord) the legal sacrifices are spoken of

9 as quite apart from the inmost mind of God. Then follows an answer
to God’s appeal which has abiding validity. The consent of Christ is
in real correspondence with the will of God. Remove sacrifices:
then God’s will is established as the source and goal of salvation.

10 And God’s will envelopes us with complete and permanent conse-
cration, since Jesus, a man like us in the body, used these human
limitations to realise His representative, inclusive Christship, and to
make an offering to God through which, once for all, we are brought
into God’s very presence, i.e. into union with His good will.

11 This union of men’s wills with God’s will is the reality of which
sacrifice is the figure. Priesthood in general is merely figurative.

10 1] NOTES gy

We see priest after priest standing up in history and offering sacri-
fices, all of the same fictional, ineffective kind. The sacrifices are
offered, and still sins bar the entrance. But this Priest of ours 12
offered one sacrifice for the continuous taking of sins out of the
way. That was the real sacrifice of a will lost and found in God’s will.
And so it ensued that having offered it, He was enthroned in high 13
collateral glory at God’s right hand; whence, as from the centre of
life, He henceforth directs the process which shall at last be com-
pleted by the utter defeat of the powers of evil. That end is certain; 14
the one true sacrifice assures it, for that sacrifice has already brought °
perfection. And He has made those partakers of His own perfected
holiness who in continual succession are called to realise their con-
secration in the school of life.

These reflections on the life and death of our Lord, as interpreted 15
by the experience of our hearts, are confirmed by the witness of the
Holy Spirit in Scripture. For in the promise of the New Covenant 16
already quoted from Jeremiah, forgiveness of sins is the concluding
assurance—‘‘of their sins and of their iniquities I will have no more 17
remembrance at all.’’ The peace of the Christian conscience answers
to the promise of prophecy; and where such remission is effectual 18
there is no place for any further offering for sin.

1. okiav—eixdva. Cf. viii. 5: eixwv here, as in Col. i. 15,
iii. 10=Gen. i. 27, indicates a true type, symbol or sacrament, in
which the visible actually partakes of the eternal reality signified.
What the ep. implies throughout is here plainly said, that the
Levitical rites, however they may furnish an analogy, are no ‘‘ type”’
of the sacrifice of Christ ; Intr. mz. 5.

There is some uncertainty about the text of this verse, as will
appear from the following conspectus of readings:

Ovolas] add. airav SP (HL (vg.)) ds SCDwChr. al.: ais D*
HL 5 263 442 456 patres: om. A 331908 (vg. hl.)@ dinvexés] add.
at A* 104 ( (hl.) A) Sivavrac NACD>P 33 424** 436 442 1908 al. S
(vg. hl.) @ Chr. al.: duvarar DHKLS 326 al. pauc. & (vt. vg.) € (boh.) -
Orig. Chr. 3

The v.l. ésvarac makes a complete, but not so neat a sentence as
we might desire, and textual authority points to its being an ancient
attempt at emendation. We might be content to suppose that the
author left the sentence unfinished with unconscious, or perhaps
with deliberately rhetorical carelessness. But the other variations
suggest further disorder. Hort proposed as the original text, cad’ mv
kar’ éviavrov Tas avTas Ovolas mpoopépovow at els Td dinvexés odbdérore
Sivarrar Tods mporepxouevous Tehewoar—, after which double relative

HEBREWS ° G

98 HEBREWS [10 1—

the author will have broken off and begun a new sentence. The usage
of the ep. is against connecting els 76 dunvexés with a following verb,
but its peculiarly emphatic position in the clause thus fashioned might
meet that objection. On the other hand the accumulation, xar’ éviav-
tov tais abrats Ovolais...eis 7d Sinvexés, is perhaps not so pointless as
Hort felt; the printed text of W.H. is faithful to the actual evidence;
the author may have written vigorously rather than beautifully here;
and, if the ep. be regarded as a real letter, such a touch of roughness
is acceptable.

rexecooat. D has xafapica:, the part for the whole; cf. next verse.

2. ovx. A few authorities omit this, as though the sentence
were not interrogative, thereby bringing av into an awkward position.

3. dvdpvnots. [Com]memoratio, Latt. But the Greek implies an
awakening of mind rather than an external making of remembrance;
cf. Clem. liii., éricracde...els dvdpynow otv ratra ypddouer. Here
and elsewhere the author recognises a sympathetic influence in the
old ceremonies which, as mere ceremonies, were shadows.

5. eloepyopevos els tov kdopov. It is not of course meant that
our Lord uttered these words at His birth or when He began His
ministry. Nor need we suppose that our author thought the psalm
was composed as a direct prediction of our Lord in the days of His
flesh. But he did consider it a prophetic psalm, which expressed,
by more than mere coincidence, the very mind of his Lord. He
writes rév xécuov, ‘the universe of natural law,’’ not rh oilkov-
pévnv, ‘*the society of men’’; there are no limitations in nature
which are not transformed to instruments of the true freedom when
a will in harmony with God’s will operates.

héyet. The unexpressed subject harmonises with the idea of the
eternal, variously manifested Christ which pervades the ep. There
is more in the quotation than a dramatic application of ancient words
to the Lord’s earthly circumstances ; cf. 1 Pet. i. 11.

The quotation is from Ps. xl. (xxxix.). It follows LXX, with
evdéxnoas for 7rncas and 7d @. cov after instead of before 6 Oeds. That
transposition gives the key, and removes the suspicion of unfaithful-
ness which might be aroused by the adoption of the LXX ‘‘body’’
for the Hebrew ‘‘ears.’”?’ S(hl™s) gives ‘‘ears,’’ like Aquila and
Symmachus. But though the author alludes to the word céya in
v. 10, the doctrine of that allusion permeates the ep., and does not
depend on this quotation. And this particular word has nothing to
do with the purpose for which he quotes the psalm. That purpose
is to introduce the main subject of this section, Christ’s union with
the will of God and our union through Him in that same will.

10°13]! NOTES 99

6. aepl dpaprias. A compound noun representing the Hebrew
word for ‘‘ sin-offering’’: cf. v. 1.

7. KepadlS.. Properly the umbilicus or horn of the rod round
which the writing was rolled. But here and elsewhere in the LXX it
is used for the roll itself. So we might say, ‘‘ between the covers of a
book.’’ It is possible that the psalmist had no definite book in view,
but meant simply, ‘‘my duty is as plain as if it were written down,”’
cf. perhaps Ps. cxlix.9. But Cheyne says, ‘‘ To the psalmist, there was
a Bible within the Bible, and the books of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah
formed principal elements in its composition. ‘The law within
my heart’ reminds us at once of Deut. vi. 6 and Jer. xv. 16,
xxxi. 33.”’

9. tore elpnkev. dre is part of the quotation: the perf. elpyxev
sums up the argument emphatically, as ini. 13. What the psalmist
has said of old stands confirmed by the obedience of Christ: union in
the will of God is consecration and perfection.

10. ywuopévor: the perfect corresponds to ég?drat. Whatever
their subsequent failures, those who have entered upon the Christian
allegiance are sanctified ; nothing but renunciation of their dyiacpds
(cf. xii. 14) cancels that. In those early perilous times, entrance
upon such allegiance could seldom be anything but a sincere act of
will. But the thought here is deeper than that. The security is
guaranteed by the greater will of God: cf. 1 John iii. 20.

11. tepeds. Thisis to be read with p ND, not dpxiepeds with AC.
That, after ix. 7, might seem inconsistent with xa@’ jyépav. Indeed,
the view here may extend beyond the bounds of Judaism to all the
ritual priesthood of the wide world: cf. v.5. The history of religion
—the satisfying of man’s heart-restlessness for God—is here pre-
sented.as a consistent whole. The cross is the focus. Thither all
past yearning tends; thence all new confidence proceeds. There a
devotion of will is apparent which goes beyond all that even the analogy
of sacrifice can picture. Yet the analogy is necessary, else language
would be cold and loveless. Moreover sacrificial language brings the |
mystery home to the only men who will recognise the cogency of the
argument of these verses, in which, considered as logic, too much is
taken for granted. For in no other language can the relief of forgive-
ness be so movingly expressed.

meptedeiy : cf. weplkerra, v. 2, and edmreploraroy, xii. 1. The word
is precisely appropriate to the context so charged with yearning for
freedom. Yet the author’s instinct for rythm must have helped
him to find it. Contrast ddapeiy, v. 4, in both tense and prefix.

13. Asin ch. i. the whole circle of the Incarnation and Redemption

G2

100 HEBREWS [10 13—

is contemplated in this paragraph about the Will. And, as there,
all closes on the oracle from Ps. cx., which tells of exaltation to the
throne in heaven, and then looks on to the great Advent; cf. 1 Cor.
xv. 25.

14. eredelwxev...dyrafopévovs. As in Acts ii. 47 (rods owto-
pévous), the thought of progress in the Christian life is not ex-
cluded. But the argument of the ep. as a whole would lead us to
recognise the succession of those who one after another in perpetuity
(eis 7d Sunvexés) are called: Introd. mz. 18, 21. As there is one divine
will and all wills freed in it, so there is one achieved perfection and
each successive perfecting of men is by partaking in that one.

X. 19~—25. THE VENTURE OF FAITH.

19 So then, brothers, argument ended, let us clinch it by action.
We are emboldened to venture upon the way into the sanctuary,
20 spiritually united and vivified in the life-blood of Jesus. It is the way
which He inaugurated for us, a way fresh-slain yet living, the way that
leads through the veil into the inner shrine. But such figurative
language obscures the heart-touching reality—it is the way of His
flesh, the mystery of His union with us in the affections of suffering
21 manhood. And He who is the way is also the priest, the great priest
prophetically descried, who mediates as elder brother over the family
22 of God. Let us then draw near with genuine affection in the full
assurance which faith gives of spiritual truth. Our ritual is com-
plete; and it is a ritual in which the eternal pervades and overflows
the visible. We are sprinkled, and at the touch of the blood of life
each heart has been purged of the consciousness of its own evil. The
body too has been bathed for its sojourn here with water of sacra-
23 mental purity. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope, so that
what we professed at baptism may not swerve in trial; nor shall it,
for faithful is the Master to whose promise our confession answered.
24 And let us study one another for the provocation of mutual love and
25 emulation in noble deeds; not neglecting the closer fellowship which
comes from common worship—nay, sirs, such manners are not good
—but rather contributing encouragement, and so much the more as
ye behold the Day drawing nearer, that Day of the Lord, on which the
hope of our confession was concentrated.

19. GSeApot. As in iii. 1 exhortation is deepened by the sense of

intimacy (cf. xiii. 22) and fellowship. So éy aluarc instead of dud
(ix. 12), and the encouragement of united worship in v. 25.

10 22] NOTES 2) Nee IOI

20. totr’ torw tis wapKos adrod.” The “Greek ‘liturgies and
almost all readers of the er. ba abr eon a éais er reset aba *« the
veil’’: CHF ake

‘‘Onely this veyle which ‘Sid binat bid
And must be broken yet in me,
This veyle I say is all the cloke
And cloud which shadows me from thee.”
. VauGcHaNn, Cockcrowing.

But Westcott, after considering all the legitimate senses which
such an expression might bear, says, ‘‘it remains surprising that
‘the flesh’ of Christ should be treated in any way as a veil, an
obstacle, to the vision of God in a place where stress is laid on His
humanity (év r@ atuart "Inood).’? He therefore prefers, with Tyndale,
Coverdale, the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible, to take rijs capxds
avrod as gen. after 656v: ‘‘ By the new and living way which he hath
prepared for us through the veil, that is to say by his flesh.’”? Such
emphatic final genitives are not uncommon; see e.g. xii. 11, Acts iv.
33, James ii. 1, and Luke ii. 14, where Origen considered that evdoxlas
might be construed with elpjvy. Moreover the repetition etcodor...
édov, and the epithet rpooparov (which may have been supposed by
the author to mean properly ‘‘fresh-slain’’) in antithesis to ¢écar,
combine to keep the idea of ‘‘way’’ prominent throughout the
sentence. The ‘‘common-sense’’ of readers is against this, and it
is possible that Westcott, with the more exact expressions of 8. John
in his mind, has been needlessly offended by a verbal inconsistency in
this author, who strikes out a first sketch of the sacramental language
elaborated by 8S. John. That is possible but improbable; the subtle
nicety of the author’s phraseology and the sanity of Westcott’s
judgement grow upon the patient reader: Intr. mz. 15.

21. tepéa...rod Geod. A reference, as in iii. 1, to Num. xii.,
but combined by lepéa puéyavy with the deep theology of Zech. vi.
11 ff.

22. amo cuvedixcews m. The prep. is recognised as natural
when it is remembered that cuveldnois has not yet taken the
definite modern sense: it is still a state rather than a part of
mind. :

AeAXovopévor. Washing the body is a natural symbol of inner wash-
ing, as has probably been always felt; cf. Aesch. fr. 32, xaXoto. NovTpors
éxAedoupevos Séuas | els bWlixpnuvor ‘Iuépar ddrxdunv. But no doubt there
is an allusion here to baptism, which throughout Acts and Epistles
fills so much of the background: cf. Joh. xiii. 10. In the whole sentence
we have an example of what Bengel rather loosely calls ‘‘chiasmus,”

102 | _ HEBREWS [10 22—

and says is the chara¢teristic‘figure of the epistle. IIpocepydpeda,
peparyrittpévor, ‘7d° oOpa,*dart, are thé more metaphorical or visual
terms ; Kapdlas,” cuveedjo'eins, AZhovepévor, KaOap@ touch the - spirit
more directly. The antithetical weaving of the sentence draws the
attention inward and onward to the unseen: ‘‘ Let us draw near, but
to the unseen shrine of faith; let us use ritual, but the simplest, the
most cleansing; let us rejoice in our baptism, but remembering that
baptism is the appeal of conscience to God,”’ cf. 1 Pet. iii. 21, 1 John
iii. 19f. We might say that the washing is general symbolism,
but the associated thought of baptism gives further point as in
Shakespeare, H. V,i.2, ‘‘ That what you speak is in your conscience’
wash’d As pure as sin with baptism.’’ It is possible to imagine
another connexion between these two clauses, viz. that while dedov-.
ouévot points to baptism, pepayriopévar points to the chalice of the Blood
of Christ. The reader must consider whether or no such interpre-
tation fits the whole context of the epistle; Intr. 1.4, m1.21. For the
ritual and moral significance of pepayricuévor see Hort’s thorough and
profound examination into the nse of paytiopdv alwaros I. X., 1 Pet.
i. 2. He shows that ‘‘ The sprinkling of blood on the altar is repre-
sented by the sacrifice of the Cross.,..the virtue of which proceeded from
nothing cognisable by the outward senses, but from the inner yielding
up of the very life for the sake of men at the Father’s will’’; that
‘* Obedience was the form of moral good which the preparatory dis-
pensation of law could best teach. Under the higher dispensation
of grace it lost none of its necessity: the sprinkled blood enlarged its
scope, while it filled it with a new spirit and sustained it with a
new power”; and that to S. Peter and the seer of the Apocalypse
‘* The blood of martyrdom was in some sense comprehended in ‘the
blood of the Lamb,’ of Him who is called ‘ the faithful Witness,’ or
Martyr.” 5

The punctuation might be made after rovypas. But apart from
the considerations touched upon above, the abrupt commencement
katéxwuev, K.T.A. is quite in the manner of our author: Intr. v. 8.

23. éAmlSos. ‘‘Faith’’ of A.V. was not found in earlier versions
and is without authority. The mistake has affected A.V. heading.
The slip was easy: in cod. armach. of vg. fidei was written and
afterwards corrected to spei in vi. 11.

24. mapotvepdv aydrys. Such paradoxes are not unfrequent in
N.T.; cf. Mark iii. 5, 1 Thess. iv. 11; also Clem. R. lviii and ILxii,
éxrevys émetxeca. So in 2 Cor. iii. 17 the Bishop of Ely would read,
of d¢ 7d wvedua Kuprever, EXevdepla, JTS, Oct. 1915.

25. émovvaywyyv. In 2 Thess. ii. 1 of joining Christ in the

10 26] NOTES 103

day of coming. And here, asin Didache xvi, gathering for worship
is connected with that hope. The common worship is preparation
for, even a sacrament of, the gathering together of all in Christ.
And this the more evidently because here Christ’s immediate coming:
in the crisis of the time is especially in view.

X. 26—31. IN GOSPEL TRUTH NO SUBTERFUGE FOR SIN.

Away with fastidious hesitation; the coming trial is of tremendous 26
import. For there is no'more question of sins of inadvertence as in
the old Law; nay the whole of that old Law with its technical sin-
offerings is gone by. If we now persist in wilful sin after receiving
the knowledge which discerns real instead of conventional truth,
nought remains but an expectation of judgement, the more fearful for 27
our incapacity of defining it in terms of human imagination—it is
what the prophet meant when he told how God had predestined
‘ta, fierce jealousy of fire to eat up His adversaries.’’ Do not be
adversaries of God. When a man has set Moses’ Law at nought, he 28
is out of reach of all human pity; ‘‘on the evidence of two or three
witnesses,’’ we read, ‘‘ he dies.”” How much worse, think ye, shall 29
be the estimate of his penalty who shall have trampled on the Son
of God, and accounted as a vile thing the Blood of the Covenant in
which he received his consecration to our Lord’s service, and shall
have insolently used the Spirit who breathes God’s grace? Argument 30
is needless; we know without telling Him who said, ‘‘ Judgement is
mine, I will repay’’: and again, ‘‘ The Lorp will vindicate his own
people.’? It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God, the 31
living One.

26. émlyvwow = knowledge; not in the abstract, but directed
towards a particular object. See Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 248—254;
and cf. John i. 17.

ovKért...0voia. Like vi. 4ff., xii. 17, this almost appears to
contradict the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins. Yet closer exami-
nation shews that ‘‘ sacrifice for sins’? is an O.T. term, and that
the latter half of the verse is but a repetition of v. 18. What
does ‘‘remain’’ is indeed fearful. Here, as elsewhere, the ruin
involved in a base choice at the crisis with which the readers are
confronted is emphatically stated. Yet such ruin is too mysterious
to be humanly defined: hence the 71s. As in 2 Tim. iv. 14, O.T.
language is quoted (Isa. xxvi. 11, LXX) to adumbrate what the
author presumes not to explain. And in all such fears or threats
S. Paul’s principle (1 Cor. v. 5) is presupposed: Intr. mr. 20.

104 HEBREWS (10 28—

28. éml Svolv...dmo8vyoKe. From Deut. xvii. 6. The curious
addition in Dit (vt.7™*") S (hl.*) xat daxpiwr after ofkripudv, may be
a modified reminiscence of a phrase in the same section of Deut.,
xiii. 8.

29. To atpa rt. Staixns. From Ex. xxiv, as in ix. 20, but here
raised to a higher power by the preceding ‘‘ Son of God.”’

TO Tvevpa tHS xdpitos. The following reff. will shew how
difficult it is for us, accustomed to the developed language of Trini-
tarian doctrine, to appreciate the delicate shades of meaning that
attach to combinations of rv. with other words in N.T., Rom. viii. 15
cf. 1 John iv. 6, 1 Cor. ii. 12, 2 Cor. iv. 13, Eph. i. 13, 2 Thess. ii. 8,
But it must be remembered that a heritage of Jewish thought made
the personal conception of Spirit more natural than any vague idea of
influence: Intr. m1. 29.

“The grace’’ is the gift of new life which Christians received,
not merely in general, but with special intensity for meeting their
several trials. The Spirit of this grace is, from one point of view,
the ‘‘ breath ’? of God who brings the grace (cf. John xx. 22f.): from
another, the breath of new life within springing from this grace.

80. epol eSiknots...cpivet Kupios. Quoted from Deut. xxxii.
35f. The second sentence agrees with LXX, the former does not.
But it corresponds exactly with a quotation of the same four words in
Rom. xii. 19, and it represents the Hebrew fairly. Since it agrees with
the Targum of Onkelos still more closely, we cannot certainly infer
that the author remembered §. Paul’s words when he wrote this
verse, as is likely however, since the Pauline faith-text follows
almost immediately in v. 37; cf. xi. 383, where there seems to be
a reminiscence, not of the LXX of Daniel, but of some version
which re-appears in Theodotion. More interesting is S. Paul’s
purpose in quoting. He gives the words the meaning they bear in
the original context: God’s people may be secure, for He will judge
between them and their enemies. Our author seems to give them
a precisely opposite meaning. Yet if the choice before his readers
was between a false patriotism and ‘‘in quietness and confidence
shall be your strength,’’ the original intention of the sentence would
presently recur to them.

10 34] NOTES 105

X. 32—39. FIRST LOVE AN EDUCATION FOR THE SUPREME
VENTURE OF FAITH.

And call to mind the early days when, freshly enlightened by the 32
Dayspring of the Gospel, you faced like stout athletes much trial
of sufferings. On the one hand you were then a spectacle to the 33
populace by the insults and afflictions you endured; on the other
hand this gave you the assurance that you had really been made
comrades of the men whose chosen lot was a life like that. Your 34
comradeship you shewed by compassion towards our brothers in
prison ; your own hardship you transformed by accepting the seizure
of your property with joy, recognising in your new knowledge that
so long as you were masters of yourselves you had a better possession
than material wealth, and a possession that abides. Do not then 35
cast off that daring mood which so became you then and is now
designed to reap a plenteous harvest. For brave endurance is what 36
the times now call for, in order that you may do the duty which
God wills and then carry home what the prophets have proclaimed. °
For there is yet but ‘‘a very little while.”’ He (thus we may render 37
the dim early oracle precise to day), He who ‘‘ cometh shall come
and shall not delay. And to my righteous servant life shall spring 3g
from faith.’? Yet there is another verse on another note: ‘‘If he
shrink back my soul hath no pleasure in him.’’ Well, as for us, we 39
have nothing to do with shrinking back to ruin; our calling is the
faith that ventures all for a life in harmony with God’s over-ruling of
the adverse world.

32. gwticSévres, cf. vi. 4. The reading of N*, duaprlas dudyr for
nuépas, looks like a ‘‘ western’’ audacity prompted by the idea of
baptism; cf. Rom. v. 8.

33. GOArAnow...Pearpi{devor. These metaphors are so like what
Clement (vi) says of the martyrdoms under Nero at Rome that they
seem to point to Roman Christians as the recipients of the letter.
But they are bookish metaphors (cf. xii. 1 f.), and the author may
possibly have 8. Paul’s phrase, 1 Cor. iv. 9, in mind. In D* éve-
di¢suevae stands instead of @., which shews that the Neronian allusion
was not obvious in early days.

34, tots Seoplos. Here the v. Il. 4 deculos pl AD*H 33
424** 442 1908 al. @ (vg.) S (vg. hi.) @ (boh.) @ Chr. al.:
Tois decpots wou ND¢wH (vt.) Eth Clem., Orig.cod.: rots Secpois
Orig.cod.* ; uinculorum tormenta % (vt.") suggest that rots decpols
pov arose from an earlier mistake decuots for decuious. Once ad-

106 HEBREWS [10 34—

mitted, rots Secuots wou became an argument for Pauline authorship;
ef. Phil. i. 7, 13 f., 17, Col. iv. 18, Philem. 10, 2 Tim. ii. 9; Intr. m. 2.
The parallel to the true reading is xiii. 3 infra.

éavtods. éavrods pl8 NAH al. pauc. HE (boh.) Clem. (Orig.) Cosm. 2
Euthal.cod. al.: éavrots D al. Chr. al.: év éavrois minusc. pauc.
Urapiw sine additam. p'? N*AD*H* 33 LE (boh.) €th Clem. Orig. :
add. év otpavois N°D‘H**wS (vg. hl.) @ Chr. Euthal.cod. Cosm. 2 al.
Here again early corruption has marred the freshness of the thought,
with which cf. Luke xxi. 19. Once the private will has been lost and
found in God’s will (x. 10), the self or soul is infinite riches. The
addition of éy ovpavots imports an idea of future recompense which
is quite alien to the context.

For a theological comment on the value of ‘‘ self ’’ see 2 Cor. xiii.
5, 4 ovbk émvywwoxere éavrods bru’ Inoods Xpioros év byiv; and Maurice’s
pathetic explanation of this to his troubled mother (Life, 1. ch. xi)
‘¢ ..The truth is that every man is in Christ; the condemnation of
every man is that he will not own the truth; he will not act as if this
were true, he will not believe that which is the truth, that, except he
were joined to Christ, he could not think, breathe, live a single
hour....Separate from Christ, I can bear no fruit. to God. Separate
from Christ, I am separate from every one of my brethren....’’

And cf. the language of Themistocles after Salamis: etpnua yap
evpikayev juéas Te adrod’s Kal Thv ‘Edd\dda, védos Tocodrov dvOpwTwv
dvwodpmevor...Tade yap ovK huets Karepyacaueda, d\AG Deol Te Kal Howes,
Hdt. viii. 109.

35. py aroBdAnre. Field writes: ‘A.V. ‘Cast not away....’
The rendering of the Vulgate is Nolite amittere, which is the»more
common meaning of the word, ‘Lose not, let not go,’ the opposite of
which is xaracyeiv rhv m. (ch. iii. 6).”’> He gives quotations which
are highly illustrative of this ep.: déd0Kca wh TéX\ews dmroBadynTe THY
mappnoltav, Dio Chrys. Or. xxxiv. p. 425; viv dé rod mielovos dpeydmevor,
kal Ti THs mporépas vixns d6fav admwéBadov, Dion. Hal. Ant. vii. 86.

37. @rvydp. 3 omits yap, thus producing a vigorous abruptness
as in v. 23.

The quotation is from Hab. ii. 3f., introduced by a phrase from
Is. xxvi. 20, another ‘‘advent’’ passage. The clause, éay troorel-
Anrat x.T.A., precedes 6 5é Sikatos x.r.\. in Hab. Here it is postponed
to v. 38, and further emphasised by the prefixed cai. As here, so in
LXX, there is some uncertainty about the insertion and position of
pov. But what is important is the author’s bold addition of 6 to
épxdpuevos, by which he adapts O.T. language to the Church’s expec-
tation of the coming of Christ. In LXX épy. jie represents the

10 39] 7 NOTES © 107.

emphatic Hebrew ‘shall indeed come’’; who shall come,’ is left
mysteriously vague. In the Hebrew it is ‘‘the vision’’ that comes.
Thus Hebrew, LXX, and ep. represent three stages in Messianic
thought, corresponding to the three periods to which they belong.
39. mepuro(now. Cf. 1'Thess. v. 9,2 Thess. ii. 14, both ‘‘advent”’
contexts. The noun seems a late formation from repiroéw, cf. 1 Pet.
ii. 9 with LXX of Isa. xliii. 21, Mal. iii.17; also Plat. Def. 415, cwrnpia
mw. &BdraBys, and Haggai ii. 9, elpjyny puxis els wepirolnow. It is
difficult to avoid recognising a reference to the saying of our Lord
which in Luke xvii. 33 takes the form, ds éav fyrjoy Thy Yuxhy adbrod
mwepmonocacba. arodéce. adriv, bs 5 dv dmrodéca Swoyovncer avriy.
(Cf. Acts xx. 28, the only other place in N.T. except 1 Tim. iii. 13
where this verb is used.) In Luke too the context is an ‘‘advent”’
prophecy; but the verb seems to have been difficult to coarser under-
standings and in the later text became cca. Nor does the noun
occur in N.T. except in the passages already referred to, and Eph.
i. 14, els drod’tpwow THs mwepiroijoews, & difficult phrase which the
Dean of Wells explains (as in 1 Pet. ii. 9) from the concrete idea of
LXX; ‘‘that ultimate emancipation by which God shall claim us
finally as His ‘peculiar treasure.’’’ Westcott! however sees a larger
promise in 77s 7.—‘‘all that which God has made His own in earth
and heaven, not men only who had fallen from Him, and earth which
had shared the consequences of man’s fall, but all created things,
gathered together in the last crisis of their history...God in His infinite
patience and love wins His creatures to Himself...The thought is
of the complete fulfilment of God’s purpose.’’ This appears to suit
the general character of Ephesians and the absolute use of 7. in that
verse. In our passage there is a difference; a. has changed position,
and gaining the grammatical government of the phrase has lost its
principality in the idea. Here the emphasis is on wvxfs, and the
interest is in that process or crisis of life by which the ‘‘soul’’
reaches freedom. ‘‘A living being has a body; the soul takes
possession of it and without intermediary has objectified itself in it.
The human soul has much to do, before it makes its corporeal nature
into a means. Man must, as it were, take possession of his body, so
that it may be an instrument of his soul?.’’ The author desires that
his friends may so truly get possession of their souls that they
may become masters of the circumstances which endanger them.
They are to ‘‘come to themselves’’; to realise the true harmony
between the ideal of the Christian calling, and the difficulties pre-

1 St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, Macmillan, 1906.
® The Logic of Hegel, transl. W. Wallace, § 208, cf, § 216.

108 HEBREWS [10 39

sented by the seeming, external necessity of taking a lower choice.
When this friction shall be serenely accepted as the divinely fit
means of destined advance (cf. gepwuefa, vi. 1) they will have
entered upon ‘‘ possession of soul,’’ which is the happy state of
faith, consequent upon the venture of faith.

CHAPTER XI

XI. 1—3. FairwW AND THE ETERNAL ORDER.

And, let men say what they will, there is such a power as faith. 1
It is the heart of hope; it sifts fancy from reality when we reach into
the unseen. Faith is; for in the impulse and strength of faith alone 2
did the men of old time win their place in the roll of scripture heroes.
It is by faith that we get intelligence to comprehend how the ages 3
have been adjusted and re-adjusted by God’s decree, so that we may
not think that the course of history has come about from the surface
play of passions and accidents.

For this description of faith see Intr. mm. 33, v.11. Add these
quotations from Windisch:

wlotis Tolvuy éotiv Sis Tév adjrAwWY, Pyol, Kal els Thy abTHY Tots
dpwuévors péper mAnpopoplay ra wh dpwueva...€red) yap Ta év édlde
dvurécrara elvat Soxe?, } mloris drboracw avbrois xaplferar’ maAdov
dé ob yxapifera, aN adro éorw ovcia airav, Chrysostom, t. xiii.
p. 197%»,

5d kal mioreDoa Aéyerat TH Oe@ mpGros (sc. "ABpadu), ered) kal
mparos axhwh Kal BeBalay éoxev brgrnpu, ws eorw év alriov 7d dvw-
TaTw Kal mpovoe? Tod Te Kdopou Kal Trav év atr@, Philo, de virt. 216,
p. 442.

povov otv awWevdes kal BéBasov ayabdy 7 mpos Gedy mioris...mAjpwua
xpnorav édrldwy...puxijs év Grace Bedriwors érepynpecuevns Kal édrdpu-
pévns TQ TavTwv aitiy kal Svvayévm pév mavta, Bovdouévy Sé Ta
dpicra, Philo, de Abr. 268, p. 39.

Add also Coleridge, Aids, Moral and Relig. Aph. xii., ‘‘ in all finite
quantity there is an infinite, in all measure of time an eternal; and
the latter are the basis, the substance, the true and abiding reality of
the former.”’

And Pindar, Ol. i. 28 ff., glancing half cynically, yet with an
artist’s reservation, at the uncertainty of faith, has coincidences
with the language of the epistle:

h Savard moda, kal mov Te xal cations parw vmrép Tov &alF
hoyov

110 HEBREWS pee

Sedarcdarpévor Wevdeor mokidos éEawarayre poor.
xapis 6’, awrep amwavTa revxer TA meldixa Ovarois,
émipépoica Timdv Kal dmvotov éuhoato miorov
éupevac TO moANdKts*

ducpat 5” émldovtroe

paprupes copwraro.

1. %orwv, emphatic; the reality of faith rather than its definition
is insisted upon. Hence the following yap.

mpaypatoyv, the order in p!3, rpayyuarwr dréoracis (sic) shews that
this word was read sometimes in the first clause. The rythm of the
true text seems better. So does the sense, for unless zp. be taken in
the vaguest sense, it scarcely fits édmifoudvwr.. Faith gives subsistence
to any hope, existence to invisible fact. :

For iréoracts see notes on i. 3, iii. 14. “EXeyxos is the ‘ test”’
or ‘‘ trial’? which shews a thing as it really is. Windisch quotes
from Epictetus, Dissert. iii. 10, 11, év6a5’ 6 @\eyxos Tod mpdyparos,
Soxtacla Tod giocogobyros. There it means the ‘‘account’’ which is
given in answer to this trial: so Socrates in his Apologia (39 c) said
that the Athenians would find, when he was gone, others to try or
expose their true characters with less sympathy than he had shewn
(oi édéyxovres), and that they vainly expected to escape ‘‘ giving
account ’? (roo didovac €devxov rod Blov). A.V. ‘*evidence’’ is almost
a confusion of the two senses. ‘‘ Test’’ seems to suit the context
here.

2. ratty. av’7y p!? and two cursives; the same variation is found
at xii. 15 where p!* seems again to be in group that gives airjs. Is
this the quietude of an Alexandrian corrector (Intr. 1v. 2)? Or did the
author himself throw the stress on the verb, éuaprup)Onoay, rather
than the pronoun? This verb is a striking one, and with its cognate
noun gathers deeper meaning as the argument proceeds; ef. xi. 39,
note.

3. atovas: cf.i.2. The ref. is primarily to the ae Gen. i.
But with this word the author takes a wider sweep. The idea of time
in aidvas—‘‘ages’’ not “ worlds’’—is extended into faith in the
growing process of God’s already perfect will, cf. x. 10. Thus moral
purpose enters creation. To the first readers of the ep. their own
troubled days appeared disorderly. . Their friend’s faith, seeing life
steadily and whole, perceived the divine continuity of history.

dawwopévwv: our borrowed word phenomena just expresses the
meaning. Blass, 75. 7, says mi éx here = éx mH, according to a
usage of good Greek, early and late. But it is more forcible to
construe uw} with yeyovéva:, a perf. inf. which attracts the weight of

11 3] NOTES | 111

the sentence to itself; Goodwin, § 109. .The result of intelligent faith
is the conviction that ‘‘ nullity and transitoriness constitute only the
superficial features and not the essence of the world!.’’ Blass
quotes the parallel in 2 Macc. vii. 28, dre ov« €& bvTwy érolnoe abTa
6 Ges. Readers of Philo will notice how often this chapter’ seems
to be connected with his writings. But the coincidences with the
Maccabean books are quite as remarkable. With Philo a general =
community of thought and language is all that can be asserted.
Intr. m1. 32, 33.

XI. 416. FAItH AND THE PATRIARCHS.

‘* Still far beyond the range of actual touch, historical sympathy
sets the individual amid a kindred of great names.’’ Wallace.

By faith Abel offered to God a more abundant sacrifice than Cain, 4
and through that sacrifice he received witness of his righteousness,
God himself witnessing to the rightness of his gifts; and through the
sequel of the sacrifice he died and yet still speaketh. —

By faith Enoch was taken away so as not to see death; he was 5
not found, says the Scripture, for God took him. God took him
because He had pleasure in him, for before he was taken the witness
is recorded that ‘‘he hath pleased God.’’ Apart from faith it is im- 6
possible to please; for he who cometh to God’s presence must by an
act of faith decide that God is, and that to those who diligently seek
Him He proves a good paymaster in affection.

By faith Noah received oracular warning of events not yet in 7
sight; he reverently heeded it, and prepared an ark for salvation, his
family’s salvation. Thus he openly condemned the opinion of the
vulgar world, and became heir of the righteousness which developes
along the line of faith.

By faith Abraham obeyed the call, while it was yet in his ears, to g
go forth to a place which he was destined to receive as an inheritance;
and he went not knowing whither. By faith he entered like a9
sojourner into a foreign land; but it was indeed the home-land
where the divine promise would realise itself. He came as a sojourner
vowed to the life of tents, with Isaac and Jacob who were associated
with him in the succession of the same promise; a sojourner in tents,
for he looked away from earth to the city that hath firm foundations, 10
whose designer and creator is God.

By faith too Sarah herself (doubter though she seemed) was 11
invigorated for the seed-sowing even when past the seasonable age,

1 Hegel, Logic, Wallace, p. 234, cf. swpr. i. 10 ff.

112 HEBREWS (11 4—

12 since she did account Him faithful that promised. And so, from
one man, from a man as good as dead, were born children like
the stars of the sky in multitude and as the sand on the sea-shore
which is innumerable.

13 On the journey of faith these patriarchs all died; they did not
come home with the promises, but they saw them on the far horizon
and greeted them, and confessed they were strangers and pilgrims on

14 earth. ‘‘On earth’’; for those who use that form of creed make

15 manifest their search after a native land beyond. And if they had
been merely re-awakening the memory of that land from which
they came forth, they would have had opportunity to retrace their

16 steps. But now, you see, they are yearning for the better land,
that is the high heavenly one. And therefore infinite God is not
ashamed to answer to the homely title of ‘‘ their God’’; for He
prepared, for them, a city.

4. mdelova. A picturesque epithet which lent itself to the author’s
weakness for alliteration.

Hort’s judgment on the readings of the clause waprupodrros ..rob
Geod—adrod rod Geo N° D°w tt (vt." vg.) S (vg. hl.) @ (boh.) @ Orig.
Chr. al.: airg rov Oeou p® Clem.: atrov re Oem S®* AD* 33?
tf Euthal.¢ *—was that “the reading of the best mss. (adrov
Tov Geov) is apparently a primitive error, due to mechanical permu-
tation, the true reading being that which Clem. alone has pre-
served.’? That reading is now supported by yp. Yet Gen. iv. 4 might
perhaps have justified the emphasis laid by avrod on God’s ‘‘own”?
witness.

Aadet: so PENA etc.; Aarefrac DwH (vi.4) Eth is the textus
receptus. Perhaps the influence of the Vulgate saved our A.V. from
such a jejune sentiment. ‘‘Immortality! Not here in human re-
membrance’’; cf. Phil. Quod det pot., p. 200, 6 “ABed, 7d mapa-
dotérarov, dvypnrat re kal fj. The pass. is rare; in this sense of a

_ person being spoken about, perhaps epee etek of the mid. there
seems to be no example.

5. pereréOn. L. translatus est. Gen. v. 24 has kal ednpéornoev
"Evax Te Oew Kal obx ebpicxero Sri wer eOnKev abrov 6 Geos, Which might
describe a calm and holy death. Wisd. iv. 10 is as reticent, unless
the part. be restricted in connexion to the verb, xal ¢&v perati duap-
Twr@v w. Nor is Sirach xliv. 16 different,. but in xlix. 14 something
miraculous is implied, ovdé efs éxric@n ofos "Evwy rovodros éml ris yijs,
kal yap atrés dvedjugdn aro ris vfs. Our author, full of the one
great wonder of the Person of Christ, prefers mystery to papa and

' restrains himself from speculation.

1113] - NOTES 113

6. pirQaroSérns. This does not imply mercenary religidh, but
trust which is really personal. respondet curis aequatque amorem.
Notice the full-sounding compounds; but »® has ¢yrovew.

7. ebddaByOels. Cf. v. 7, xii. 28; L. metuens is inadequate.

karéxpwev. Cf. Luke xi. 31f. This verb is rare compared with
xplvw in N.T., where only in Mark xvi. 16 and perhaps 2 Pet. ii. 6 is
God’s ‘‘condemnation’’ of man asserted. |

THs kata mliotw Sikatocvvys. 8. Paul thinks rather of righteous-
ness springing ‘‘out of’’ faith; Rom. ix. 30, x. 6; cf. Rom. iii. 22,
iv. 11, 13, Phil. iii. 9.

8. For Abraham’s ‘‘call’’ see Gen. xii. 1; from the human point
of view, Gen. xi. 30f. For his ‘‘sojourning,’’ Gen. xxiii. 4. That
thought is taken up again in v. 13. The stages of its spiritual
development are to be observed in 1 Chr. xxix. 15 and Ps. xxxix.
(xxxviii.) 12. It is the core of that ‘‘ other-worldly’’ idealism which
has always been characteristic of the Jew, appeared in utmost purity
in the Galilean Gospel, and is interpreted for a rising generation in
the rest of N.T. In this ep. the doctrine of faith is mainly an appeal
for the revival of that enthusiasm.

9. yyv THs érayyeAlas. For this gen. of essential character cf.
ix. 5. In N* ris is omitted before the final a’rfs of this verse.
A slip, no doubt; yet the promise which the land owned (cf. xii. 4)
would be a pleasant thought.

11. KkatraBoAyyv is the proper word for ‘‘generation’’ rather than
‘*eonception,’’ cf. Rom. ix. 10. Hence W.H. propose airy Zdppg as
alternative spelling; the early addition, [%] oreipa ofca, would of
course be incompatible with that. Perhaps the active verbal noun is
not alien to the Greek language in which ‘‘we cannot say xaderdv
evploxecOa, but only yaXerdv edploxew,’’ Rutherford, § 339.

érel Tirtov Hyyoaro, as in v. 27, the author goes against the
letter of O.T. (Gen. xviii. 12 ff.) to reach the general and pro-
founder truth. For S. Paul’s application of the incident cf. Rom.
iv. 18 ff.

12. Kalas ta dorpa, K.t.r., from Gen. xxii. 17.

13. Katd wlorw améfavov. Cf. v.7=‘‘inthe way of faith.’? In
accordance with the metaphor that follows the author pictures faith
in terms of space, whereas 8. Paul hardly varies from terms: of
energy.

Twoppwlev...domacdpevot. Like pilgrims who see the minarets of
the city on the horizon, and still must camp for one more night in the
desert. T.R. inserts cal reioOévres after (éévres with a curious paucity
of authority or sense.

HEBREWS H

114 HEBREWS [11 16—

16. viv...dpéyovrar, pres., because the author, as usual, realises
written history as a vivid picture. Perhaps also because these pilgrim
fathers were still living and still waiting, cf. v. 40. But viv must
be a particle of logic; else cat viv would have been required.

ératoxvverat avtovs. The concordance seems to suggest that to —
the N.T. writers éra:cxdvouce sounded more natural than aicxd-
vouat When an acc. follows: yet cf. ii. 11 and the author’s general
tendency to use compounds. The meaning is rather ‘‘is not abashed
before them ’’—a boldly imaginative figure-—than ‘‘ashamed of their
conduct.’’ Cf. Plat. Symp. 216 3B, wémov@a mpds rovrov povov av-
Opwrwv, 5 obk dv tis oloiro év éuol éveivar, TO alicxdvecOar dvTwovr"
éyw dé rodrov pdvoy aicxtvouat. Note the emphasis, airods—airav—
avrois.

értxadeiobar, almost ‘‘to be surnamed,’ cf. Ex. iii. 15. The
author dissents from Philo’s philosophic reverence, and follows the
early historians of Israel in dwelling on this homely, ‘‘human”’
condescension in God.

XI. 17—31l. FairH: THE CONSECRATION AND REDEMPTION
OF ISRAEL.

17 By faith hath Abraham fulfilled the sacrifice of Isaac, though the
trial was hard: yea, the only begotten son was he in the act of

18 offering who had accepted the promises, unto whom it was said,

19 In Isaac shall a seed be called for thee. For he had made up his mind
that God, even from the dead, can raise to life. And from the dead
indeed, by a restoration that is a symbol for later faith, he did
recover him.

20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, and his blessing reached
into the purposes of God.

21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, distinguished the two sons of
Joseph as he blessed them; and with the reverent insight of infirm
old age he worshipped leaning on the top of his staff.

22 ~+&By faith Joseph, as his end drew near, bade his brethren remember
that the children of Israel should go forth from Egypt, and gave
commandment concerning the removal of his own bones.

23 By faith Moses was hidden immediately after birth for three
months by his parents, because they saw how goodly the child was,
and they feared not the decree of the king.

24 By faith Moses, when he was grown a man, refused to be called

25 the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, having made his choice rather to
suffer abiding affliction with the people of God than to have enjoy-

11 20] NOTES 115

ment of sin for a season. Greater riches in his reckoning than the 26
treasures of Egypt was the scorned estate of the Christ-bearing
nation; for he looked to the eternal service in which God pays the
wages.

By faith he left Egypt, but not because he feared the wrath 27
of the king; for he strengthened his resolution, as seeing Him who
is invisible.

By faith he celebrated the Passover (as Israel still does) and the 28
ritual of blood, that the destroyer of the first-born should not touch
them. ;
By faith they crossed the Red Sea as by dry land. But the 29
Egyptians had enough of sea and were swallowed up.

By faith the walls of Jericho fell after the procession had gone 30
round them seven times in seven days.

By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with the infidels, because 31
she had received the spies with the hospitality of peace.

17. mpooevyvoxev, k.t.A., from Gen. xxii., but the perf. is in marked
contrast to the aorists of that narrative. ‘‘Sacrifice’’ is a metaphor
from ancient worship; the reality such language points to lies in the
union of man’s will with God, cf. x. 10. Thus Abraham is ever to
be regarded as having in fact sacrificed Isaac, though the slaying of
the boy was stayed. To our author the main argument of Gen. xxii.
is the eternal consecration of the nation, through Isaac, to the Lorp.
Cf. the somewhat narrower application of the same thought in Ep.
Barn. vii. 3, éwel kal adrés brép Tav juetépwr dauapridv euedrevy 7d
oKedos ToD mvevuaros mpocpépew Ovolay, wa Kal 6 Tos 6 yevduevos
émi "IoaaK Tod mpocevexOévros émt Td Ovocacripiov TedecOy. In Clem.
xxxi. Isaac himself is spoken of as a willing sacrifice, "Ioadx mera
meTobjncews ywwoKwy Td wédov HOéws mpoohyeTo Ovala.

19. Kaléy mapaBory. Cf. ix. 9; but Camerarius, in the sixteenth
century, proposed to take év r.=mapaBédws, as though ‘‘in the very
crisis of the hazard’’; another of the bold paradoxes of the ep.,
but hardly possible though a scholium on Thue. 1. 131 lends vague
support to it.

20f. See Gen. xxvii., xlviii. The last words of v. 21 are quoted
from Gen. xlvii. 31, where IsXX pd8dou represents a different pointing
\ of the consonants which signify ‘‘bed’’ in the traditional Hebrew
text. Latt. render adoravit fastigium virgae eius. But cod. D of the
vulgate inserts super, and our English paraphrase, ‘‘leaning upon,”’ is
legitimate. Our author certainly, and the LXX probably, had no
idea of Jacob’s worshipping an image carved on his staff; cf. however
Gen. xxxi. 19, 1 Sam. xv. 23, xix. 13, Hos. iv. 12.

I 2

116 HEBREWS [11 23—

23 ff. See Ex. ii., of which these verses are verbally reminiscent,
as v. 28 isof Ex. xii. 21 ff. yevvndels might possibly be construed
with wiocre: as referring to Ex. ii. 1; his parents were careful of his
pure Levitical descent.

26. Tov oveidiopov Tod xpiorod. A reminiscence of Ps. lxxxix.
(lxxxviii.) 50 f., where ‘‘ thine anointed,’’ or ‘‘ thy Christ,’’ means the
people of Israel; Intr. m. 6, 28, and i. 5, v. 5, notes.

27. pry oPyOels. This might refer to the exodus, and the
addition of a clause about killing the Egyptian, in D*% (vt. vg.07¢4),
to v. 23, was no doubt meant to commend that explanation. But ‘‘as
seeing the invisible’’ seems to point forward to the burning bush, and
here as in 8. Stephen’s speech the spiritual education of Moses in the
wilderness is the proper sequel to his secular education in Pharaoh’s
court, and the preparation for his redemptive work. The author
deliberately corrects the letter of Ex. ii. 14 by the deeper truth of
Moses’ real courage, which he gathers from the whole context.

28. «mpdoyxvow: cf. ix. 21 f. The verb zpocxey is frequent in
the ritual chapters of the Pentateuch for the dashing of the sacrificial
blood against the altar, etc.

29. tiv’Epv@pdvy @. So LXX for Hebrew ‘‘sea of reeds.’’

meipav AaBovres: cf. v. 36. Field would translate, ‘‘had ex-
perience of,’’ adducing many parallels. And in v. 37 he suggests
that ére.pdcOnoav (which from the variety of readings might seem to
have come in as a gloss) was originally ére:pa0yoav and was intended
to explain 7. €\aBor there.

XI. 32—38. FarirH: FROM THE JUDGES TO THE
MACCABEES.

39 And what more am I to say? For time shall fail me if I tell the
tale of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David too and Samuel
33 and the prophets:—who by faith overcame kingdoms, wrought
34 righteousness, won promises, stopped lions’ mouths, quenched fire’s
power, escaped the sword’s edge, were made powerful when they
were weak, and strong in war; they turned back armies of invaders;
35 women received their dead by resurrection ; others were broken on
the wheel, having refused the deliverance that was offered them so
36 that they might attain the better resurrection; others again had
bitter experience of mockings and scourgings, of bonds too and of
37 prison; they were stoned, tortured, sawn asunder, died the death
of the sword, went about in sheepskins, in goatskins; need, affliction,
88 evil estate was theirs continually; men of whom the whole world

Ti s7}e 4) NOTES 117

was unworthy wandered about deserts, were fugitives in mountains
and caves and holes in the ground.

32. Zapour\A kal trav mpodytav. Samuel, whose ‘‘ ear the Lorp
uncovered ’’ (1 Sam. ix. 15), inaugurated or restored the line of ‘‘ in-
spired’’ prophets; cf. 1 Sam. iii. 20f., Amos iii. 7, Deut. xxxiv. 10,
and contrast 1 Sam. x. 10—13, xix. 23 f., 1 Kings xxii. 6 ff.

34. paxatpys. So p NAD* rightly; uaxalpas w: see Hort,
Intr. p. 156.

Svvapdbnoav amd dobevelas. Rendel Harris! sees a reference
to Judith in this verse. Cf, Clem. lv. with Lightfoot’s note,

mapepBords. In the quotation, xiii. 11, this word has the
meaning ‘‘camp,’’ frequent in late Greek. Here it means ‘‘ army
in line of. battle,’’ as often in Polybius and LXX. This is however
especially frequent in 1 Macc. And at this point the author seems
to turn his mind almost entirely to the Maccabean heroisms,
especially to the famous narrative of the Maccabean martyrs in
2 Mace. vi. and vii.—pd paptipwy péyroroe udprupes, as the Prayer
Book of the Greek Church styles them. Thus ‘‘ stopped the mouths
of the lions’’ looks like a verbal reminiscence of Dan. vi. 22. But
that particular Greek phrase is not in LXX of Daniel, we only know
it fram Theodotion’s version, and the general reference might be to
1 Mace. ii. 60.. The women who received their dead may be those
mentioned in 1 Kings xvii. 17 ff., 2 Kings iv. 17 ff. But the thought
of ‘*resurrection’’ is greatly deepened if the mother of the seven
‘martyrs is particularly included. See her noble words in 2 Macc. vii.
29. The ‘‘ better resurrection’’ will then be a climax not a contrast,
and the reality of her receiving will be like the saving of our Lord
‘out of death’? in v. 7 f. soe

85. ‘yuvaixes. So of course the mass of mss. But the consensus
of N*AD*, especially if as is probable »!* must be added to the group,
shows that yuvaixas is the reading which the most ancient line of
transmission has preserved. Is it a ‘* primitive error,’’ or a faithful
record of the author’s own slip of the pen?

éruptravic8ynoay, distenti sunt vg.; a late word for a late form
of torture, which however can too well be translated into English
‘*broken upon the wheel.’’? Cf. 2 Macc. vi. 28 ff.

37. émapdoiyocav. See note on v. 29 supra.

érploOyoav. Isaiah is said in an apocryphal book to have been
sawn asunder, but it would be strange to hark back here to an

1 Side lights on N.T. research, pp. 170 f.

118 HEBREWS (11 37—46

early prophet. Yet see Clem. xvii., who says that by those who went
about ‘‘in goatskins and sheepskins preaching the advent of Christ,”’
he understands Elijah, Elisha and Ezekiel. Intr. rm. 4.

38. The punctuation of W.H. gives better rythm and more
_ vigorous sense than is got by putting wy...6 xéomos in parenthesis,
The position of rAavwuevoe makes its slightly improper conjunction
with ‘‘caves and holes’’ quite tolerable.

XI. 39—40, DEFERRED FRUITION.

39 ~+And yet all these, though canonised through faith in the witness

409 of scripture, lacked fruition of the promise; inasmuch as God, with
us to day in view, had provided a better fulfilment than they could
conceive, that the completion of their blessedness might not be
achieved without our co-operation.

39. paptrupySévres. This passage takes up the éuapruphOynoay of
v.2. In xii. 1 (uapripwr) ‘being witnessed to”? passes into ‘ wit-
nessing’’: at each stage in the salutary sufferings of the Christ the
partakers of those sufferings become in their turn witnesses, and the
earthly scene is filled with invisible as well as visible spectators.
Indeed in xii. 1 we are not far from the idea of ‘‘martyrdom,”’ ef. note
on xi. 2 supra, also cf. 1 Cor. iv. 9, 1 Pet. i. 11 f. (where notice’ the
affinity with our author’s doctrine of angels), v. 1, 9, 1 Tim. vi. 13,
and the testimony of the nations in Isa. lii. 13—liii.

40. pj xopls jpov. In spite of xii. 23, it seems as though the |
author presses this argument here -upon the little group of friends
whom he is urging to their imminent duty—the perfect satisfaction
of these O.T. saints waits for their hastening or hindering it.
Intr. m1. 23,

CHAPTER XII
XII. 1—3. THE MARTYRS’ TRIAL.

Now we in our turn are on trial. Those whose faithfulness was 1
attested in the past are now to attest ours. They are spread round
us like a cloud of spiritual spectators as we stand in the arena.
Therefore, though hesitation to do our appointed duty clings to us
like the wrap which the anxious athlete shrinks from casting off, let
not hesitation become the sin of refusal. Let us cast it off and run
with steady resolution the race that stretches before us, looking past 2
the fears of sense to Him who leads us into the mysteries of faith and
will lead us to their consummation ; even Jesus, who in the trial set
before His manhood balanced pain with heroic joy, and with a noble
scorn of shame resolutely faced the cross. So hath He been en-
throned on God’s right hand. Mark Him well, for our contest is all 3
one with His; what Korah-like gainsaying hath He so resolutely
endured from men who sinned against themselves in opposing Him.
Still men gainsay, and still His firmness gives us power, so that your
faint-heartedness need not end in failure.

1. véhos. A common metaphor ; here particularly appropriate to
the gathering of ‘‘spirits,’’ xii. 23.

evtrepioratov: not elsewhere except in passages dependent on this.
Vg. circumstans makes it active in sense like the preceding mepixetwevor.
The strange fragilem (sic) in d seems to point to the passive sense
which is preferred by some. Isocrates’ reploraros iro mwavTwy sug-
gests ‘‘admired,’’ the ‘‘ specious’? sin (cf. iii. 13), in which, if they
yield, their honour will stand rooted in dishonour. No vague
besetting sin is meant, but failure in the particular duty which the
ep. is written to urge. The picture here presented (cf. vi. 19 f.) is of
a race-course; the O.T. heroes are watching to bear witness how the
readers of the ep. will acquit themselves: they, having Jesus now in
sight, who has run the same course and now sits visible on His
throne at the goal—note perf. xexdcxev, which at last marks a new

120 HEBREWS [12 1—

stage in the argument of the ep.—they are preparing to run the race.
This picture suggests an active sense for evr. The sin which presses
on all sides upon the readers is like the wrap which the athlete, in the
anxious moments before the start, shrinks from laying aside—dzo-
Sutéov dpe. rods toddods Hudv xirGvas, Porphyry, de abstinentia. Cf.
Clem. vii. év yap 7@ airg@ éopéev oxdumart, cat 6 adbrds tuiv ayo ért-
keirat. 610 drrodelrwuev Tas Kevas kal waralas ppovrldas...dreviowper els
TO alua Tod xpiorod.

tpéxwpev might be used figuratively of any contest, but the foot-
race makes the best picture here.

tov mpoxe(uevov. The Sixtine and Clementine vg. have ad pro-
posttum certamen. Hence A.V. in its original text ‘‘ unto the race.”
Notice in the Prayer-Book how this passage helped Cosin to bring
the 1549 version of the collect for IV Advent into its fine present
form.

2. apxnyov Kal teXcwrrv: cf. ii. 10. This has been well
rendered, ‘‘ He who trod the path before us and trod it perfectly
to the end}.”’ Yet the idea of a captain in arms is included. In
Te\ewwrhv the author, who never labours his imagery, is passing from
the romantic picture to the realism of vv. 3 f.

avTl TiS MpoKepévns atte Xapds. mpoxeiuévys corresponds to
mpoxeluevoy in last verse. Not the future reward but the immediate
‘*joy of battle’’ is meant. Cf. Father R. M. Benson, Letters, p. 201,
‘The joy which comes after peace is a spurious joy, an earthly one,
if it is a joy because there is peace in our days’: Intr. mr. 7.

imépevey takes up vrouorfs from preceding verse (cf. x. 32, 36),
and is echoed in vv. 3and 7. The thought is characteristic of this
ep. of the divine manhood. ‘‘ The message of the cross to sufferers
is this, that the highest and greatest victory that has ever been won
in human nature was won by the perseverance of faith, hope and
charity—in a word, by patience,—under the pressure of sufferings
that were neither removed nor mitigated, but endured; and that,
provided we can, by the grace of God, meet trouble in a spirit which
is essentially the same, however much weaker in degree, we may win
the same kind of victory in our measure?.’’? Cf. note on iv. 15, and
Intr. u. 15, m1. 15.

3. Tov dp. els Eavtots. éaurods NR*D* (adrods p¥¥ N° 33 Orig.)
HS (vg.) G (boh.): éavrdy APH (vg.-44-) S (hl.): adrdv Dew Orig. (?)
Chr. ‘The y.ll. shew the progress of error to airév. Probably
avrovs, in nearly the same sense as éavrovs, was the original word;

1 Foundations, p. 192.
2F.M. Downton | in The Cowley Evangelist, June, 1914.

12 5] | NOTES 121

see Blass, 48. 2, 7, and cf. xii. 16 where most mss. have avrov for
éavrod of N*ACD>et*, The phrase is a reminiscence of Num. xvi. 37
(xvii. 2). Its bitterness is turned by the complementary utterance of
our Lord, Luke xxiii, 34.

XII. 4—13. CHASTISEMENT THE REVELATION OF THE
FATHER’S LOVE.

In your wrestle with the threatening sin of these critical days you 4
have not yet had to face death, and you have forgotten the consola- 5
tion which comes to you like a father’s voice pleading with his sons:

‘* My son despise not the chastening of the Lorn, nor yet faint when
thou art reproved by Him; for whom the Lorp loveth He chasteneth, §
and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.’’ Wait manfully for 7
His chastisement. As with sons He dealeth with you, He who is
God. For is there ever a son whom a true father does not chasten? 8
If you stay outside the discipline of the divine family into which the
whole suffering world of men have been initiated, you must be
bastards and not sons. And further: if we accepted the fathers who 9
begat us as disciplinarians and so learned to respect them, shall we
not much more readily submit to ‘‘the Father of spirits’? and so
rise to life? To the life, I mean, which is life indeed; for if they, 10
according to their poor judgement which looked forward but fora few —
days, used to exercise discipline, He knows what is really for His
children’s good and means them to share the holiness of His own
life. All chastening indeed seems at the moment to be a matter of 11
pain, not of joy: yet afterwards it yields fruit of peace to those who
have been trained thereby—the peace of righteousness. Wherefore 12
‘‘the slackened hands and the palsied knees do ye set firm and
straight,’’ and ‘‘straight paths be ye making for your feet,’’ that 13
the lame folk be not led astray but rather be healed.

4. tiv dpaptiay. The article is significant: cf. note on iii. 13
and Intr. v. 5. The sin of failing in the one hard duty set before the
readers of the ep. at that very time is meant.

5. yris...darkéyerar. As though discipline were a person, cf.
xi. 9, xii, 24. To our author the discipline of love raises natural
relationship into spiritual. Cf. Leonian Sacramentary: DS qui
diligendo castigas et castigando nos refoves.

The quotation is from Prov. iii. 11 f. It follows LXX with
the addition of yov, which is omitted in D* and a few other

2 ea _ HEBREWS [12 5—

authorities. Philo cites the verse with xal uh for undé, and so p¥
here.

7. eis wadelav. As often in the ep. some trial seems indicated
which is nigh but not yet come, cf. 1 Pet. iv. 12. But in textus receptus
the characteristic prep. has become ei, the foreboding is dulled, and the
cheerful faith in God’s fatherhood is made dependent on His creatures’
resignation.

9. TO Tr. TOV Tvevpdtwv. Cf. Num. xvi. 22, Apoc. xxii. 6, and
v. 23 infr. Some printed edd. of S(vg.) give ‘‘fathers of spirits’’
(i.e. ‘‘ spiritual fathers’’?) here. That is a misprint or misreading of
the mss. But the Armenian translation of Ephraem’s commentaries
seems to shew that he actually had this reading in the older version
which he knew.

11. mwaoa pév. Another of our author’s abrupt beginnings. The
v.l. dé shews that it offended early scholarship.

12. tds mrapepévas...dvopOdcare, from Isa. xxxv. 3; a close
rendering of Heb.; yet there seems to be a reminiscence of LXX
also.

13. tO xwddv, prob. concrete ‘ lame persons,’’ cf. of modXol,
v. 15; Intr. v. 5. But, giving a later sense to the verb, we might
translate, ‘‘that your lameness grow not worse’’; cf. Thuc. 76
dveiévoyv THS yvwuys.

An adaptation of Prov. iv. 26, LXX. Most mss, have wojoarte,
(p13) N*P 33 woeire. Is wovetre an Alexandrine correction of the un-
suitable hexameter rythm? Intr. rv. 2, v. 12.

XII. 14—17. CHARITY WITH LOYALTY.

14 Peace: Yes, ‘‘ pursue peace’’ with all men. But do not, for the
dream of peace, desert the consecrated fellowship outside of which no

15 one shall see the Lord at His coming. Keep that unviolated, continually
interesting yourselves in the brethren lest there should be any one in
lack of the common treasure of God’s grace; lest any root of bitter-
ness spring up into a noxious plant, and thereby the simple multitude

16 be defiled; lest any one be corrupted with lewd heresy or worldly
ambition, as Esau was, who for one dish of food sold his proper birth-

17 right. For you know that when he did afterwards wish to claim his
inherited blessing he lost his plea—no ‘‘ place for afterthought ’’
was allowed in that court—though with tears he had sought diligently
to recover it.

14. ipryvnv Sidkere. Cf. Ps. xxxiv. (xxxiii.) 14, Rom. xii. 18.
Tov aytacpév. A Pauline word, but here used in the more special

12 17] NOTES 123

sense of LXX, the consecration which marks the people of God. So
2 Mace. ii. 17: 6 5é Beds 6 cdoas TOY mdvrTa Aady adrod, Kai drodods Thv
K\npovoplav atrod waow xai ro Bacidevov Kai 7rd lepdrevwa Kal rov
ayiacudv. It introduces a warning like those in vi. 4 ff., x. 26 f.;
such a warning as was hardened later into extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This warning is in iambic metre and has almost a proverbial ring;
but it is followed by a second iambic line which is too plainly due to
the author’s carelessness.

15f. paj tis: for ellipse of verb see Blass, 81.2. The clause u4
ris...€voxdyn is from Deut. xxix. 18, where the corrected text of B
(adopted by Swete) has uy ris dorw év byuiv pifa dvw piovoa ev xodq Kal
mixpig. B* has €NOXAH which makes no sense preceded by éorw, and
(like the addition of mixplas after pifa in AF) shews how N.T. affected
the text of LXX. ’Evoxdy is probably due to our author’s adapting
memory. Blass, 35. 5 note, thinks it was in his text of LXX. For
the sequence of thought cf. this coincidence or reminiscence in
Leighton quoted by Coleridge!: ‘*The boasted peaceableness about
questions of faith too often proceeds from a superficial temper, and
not seldom from a supercilious disdain of whatever has no marketable
use or value, and from indifference to religion itself. Toleration is a
herb of spontaneous growth in the soil of indifference; but the weed
has none of the virtues of the medicinal plant, reared by humility in
the garden of zeal.’

17. é&{yricas airyv. For Esau’s profaneness and tears see
Gen. xxv. 33 f., xxvii. 30—40. The airy might refer to ‘‘ the bless-
ing,’’ and Gen. xxvii, 34 supports that explanation, which is adopted
by W.H. in their punctuation. The sense is much the same, whether
‘‘blessing’’ or ‘‘repentance’’ be referred to. Esau’s hopeless loss
(which however is not represented in Gen. as eternal rejection from
God) is a warning to the readers of the ep. whose hesitation involves
a fearful risk of ruin. We find the phrase ‘‘ place of repentance’’ in
the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch Ixxxv., and the Latin 2 Esdr. ix. 12.
In these books, which were consolations to the Jews after the fall of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the doctrine is that in the day of judgement
repentance will be no longer possible. In Wisd. xii. 10, 20, the same
phrase occurs in praise of ‘‘ the God of the fathers and Lord of
his own mercy’’ who gives so many opportunities of repentance.
Westcott quotes from Pliny’s letter (x. 97) to Trajan on the Christians:
ex quo facile est opinari quae turba hominum emendari possit, si sit
locus poenitentiae ; and from Ulpian, as though it were a term of

1 Aids, Moral and Rel. Aph, xx7i,

124 HEBREWS [12 17—

Roman law, in the third century at least. The phrase had wide
applications and need not have conveyed to the first readers the
theological hopelessness it suggests here to us; Intr. mz. 20.

XII. 18—27. THE TREMENDOUS HAZARD IN ETERNAL
THINGS.

18 This is a stern warning, for in eternal things the issue of our
19 choice is tremendous. In this crisis you have come near to no
material fire of kindled stuff, to darkness and gloom and storm and
trumpet-clang and sound of words, of the which sound those who
20 heard it begged that they might have no further explanation. For
they had been moved beyond endurance by that awfully distinct
command, ‘‘If so much as a beast touch the mountain it shall be
21 stoned.’? And so fearful was the apparition, Moses said, ‘I am
22 beside myself with fear and all a-tremble.” No, you stand on the
frontier of eternity, near to Sion the mount and city of the living
God, Jerusalem in heaven above; and myriads of angels in festal
23 assembly; and to the church of the firstborn, the patriarchal saints
whose names are enrolled in heaven; and to God the judge of all;
and to the spirits of those later saints whose righteousness has been
divinely perfected; and to the mediator of the covenant which now

- 24 renews its youth, even to Jesus; and to the Blood of that unearthly
ritual, tragic, personal, brotherly, which speaks, as Abel speaks,
unceasingly but with a meaning all divine.

25 See that you refuse Him not who is thus OME For if the
Israelites escaped not from God’s purpose when in the limited and
earthly revelation at Sinai they had refused their human interpreter,
how much less we who are all but turning our back on our Lord who

26 speaks from heaven. That other voice at Sinai, the voice which -
shook the earth, was His. And now too it is He whom we hear
proclaiming in the words of the ancient prophecy, ‘‘ Yet once more

27 will I myself shake’ not only ‘‘earth” but also ‘‘heaven.”? That
‘‘once more’’ signifies the removal of the things that are shaken,
I mean the whole fabric of institutions human and divine, in order
that the realities which are never shaken may come and abide.

18—21. These verses are full of reminiscences of Ex. xix. 11—13,
Deut. iv. 11 f., cf. also Deut. v. 22, ix. 19. But Wyradwuévy is the
author’s own. DwS (hl.) @ Ath. al, add dpa, but the authority for
omission NAC 33 1908 9% S (vg.) € Eth Orig. Chr. al. is decisive.
To ‘‘understand’’ dpe from v. 22 seems weak. It is possible to take

12 23] NOTES 125

the partt. as neuters, expressing vague horror: *‘ Something tangible
and seared with fire.’”’ But vg. has ad tractabilem et accensibilem
ignem. Dr E, C. Selwyn! emends conjecturally repeWahwuévy to be
construed with dpe, and says that x. mvp could only mean ‘‘a fire
burnt out.’’? If so, ‘a tangible fire and presently burnt out’? would
stand in good antithesis with 6 0eds fjuav wip Karavanickor, at the
conclusion of this passage. But it is easier to explain the perfect
from the primary meaning of xaiw as ‘“‘having been kindled.’? The
author’s addition Wnr\adwuévw governs the clause. Exodus and
Deuteronomy express the terribleness of Sinai; he thinks of the
material quality of its terror in contrast with the invisible, personal,
spiritual richness of the mount and city of the living God, vv. 22 ff.
It is that inherent quality which he tries to suggest by this perf.
part.

19. tapytTycavro, in all mss. except N*P and two cursives uy is
added. This is probably a correction of scrupulous grammarians;
for though wapa:roduat with acc., as in v, 25 and Acts xxv. 11 (od x.
drobaveiv), or with direct inf., as Joseph. de vita sua 29 (Gaveiv ov r.),
means ‘‘beg to be excused from,’’ with acc. and inf. it would as a
rule mean simply ‘‘ beg.”’

21. +o havratopevov. A nicely selected word ; it gives to the whole
description what Victor Hugo in his funeral oration on Balzac ex-
pressed as ‘*je ne sais quoi d’effaré et de terrible mélé au réel.”’

tvrpopos. The agreement of %*D has persuaded W.H. to preserve
in mg. the otherwise unknown word éxrpopos.

22f. For the heavenly Jerusalem cf. Apoc. iii. 12, xxi. 2, Gal.
iv. 26 f. with Lightfoot’s note on S. Paul’s use of ‘‘an expression
familiar to rabbinical teachers.’? In O.T. too Sion and Jerusalem
have sacramental significance, see esp. Ps. lxxxvii. Whether ’Iep. é7.
be joined with wéde 6. §. or taken in apposition to the whole pre-
ceding clause, may be left to the reader’s taste. Whether raynyipe
be separated or not from dyyéAwy is a more interesting question.
Tradition, including versions and punctuated mss., is on the whole
for taking these words together; so vg. multorum milium angelorum
frequentiae. The author’s penchant for iambic cadences makes for
this. For the liturgical tone of this passage see Intr. 1. 4.

23. ékkAynoig. In the first division of Acts which tells of the
apostolic community in Jerusalem, éxxd. is reserved, in technical
sense—v. 11 is different—for the ancient Jewish Church. So pro-
bably in this ep. Hence the ‘‘first-born’’ are O.T. saints, who are

1 JTS, Oct. 1910.

126 HEBREWS (12 23

enrolled in heaven, even though xi. 40 should imply that the realisa-
tion of their birth-right is delayed. The daughter Church, the
disciples of Jesus, will then come in at cai rvevuacw. The universal
«pity Gq mdvrwy—looking back as judge and forward to His ‘‘all in
all’’—(1 Cor. xv. 28)—connects the two.

Tpwr. atroyeypappévev. Cf. Ex. xxxii. 32, Ps, lxxxvii. 6, Is. iv. 3,
Dan. vii. 10, xii. 1: R. M, Benson, Letters, p. 220, ‘‘ As the circle of
affectionate memories becomes enlarged in the heavenly record, we
learn increasingly the blessedness of the eternal bond which unites
us in the company of all saints.’’

mvevpact Sikalwv TrereAcewpévov. See Intr. mr. 23, 24, 25. D*
has mvevuare 6. TeOepehiwuévwv spm tustorum funditorum : and Hilary
explains, spirituum in domino fundatorum.

24. SiaOiykyns véas. xKawds, ‘‘new,’? has here become vréos,
‘“‘young.’’ Cf. Arist. Eth. i, 3, dtapépec 5’ obey véos tiv HrLklar F
To 700s veapbs. Since véos can of course be used more generally, the
quasi-personification (cf. xii. 5) is not bizarre; indeed it seems
natural in this picture of exultant life. In Gilbert’s reredos at
S. Alban’s Abbey the crown of thorns on the head of the Lord
rising from the tomb is just breaking into leaf. When the High Priest
entered the true sanctuary there was a renascence of the world. So
in 1 Pet. i. 3, ‘‘ Who according to his great mercy begat us again (dva-
yervjoas) unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead.’? Cf. Philo, sacr. Abel et Cain, p. 178, mapa Tod dyhjpw Kal
véou Geod Ta véa kal Kawa ayaba pera maons aplovias KauBavortes éxdt-
Sdoxwyrar pndev wycioOa wap airy mwadadv 4 cuvddws mapedynrvObs,
GANA yuwdpevdv Te dxpbvws Kal ideornKés.

peoiry, here with imaginative propriety; the mediator is not
merely the internuntius of God and man, He links the ancient church
with the new heirs.

25. Tov am ovpavev. N with limited but considerable support
has ovpavod: cf. note on iv. 14.

26. The shaking of heaven and earth is quoted with added
emphasis from Haggai (ii. 6), who prophesied when an older ritual
had passed away and a new worship was beginning with little outward
promise.

XII. 28—-29. THe Kinapom or Gop.

28 Those realities are what our fathers called The Kingdom of God;
and that Kingdom which shall not pass away we are receiving in this
final issue of the ages. Wherefore let us shew gratitude, and in the
kingdom do loyal service well pleasing to God with reverence and

12 29] NOTES 127

awe, for our God is, as He was of old, ‘‘Fire’’—not material but 29
‘*consuming.’’

28. Bacirelav. The ‘‘kingdom”’ or ‘‘reign’’ of God was the
symbol by which salvation was preached and wrought in the Galilean
gospel. After the synoptists and Acts it falls into the background of
N.T. till the Apocalypse. But the primitive language now and then
reasserts itself as here: Intr. m. 11, mr. 32. For doddevrov cf. Dan.
vii. 14.

éxwpev xapiv. “éexew xdpw, habere gratiam, pro eo quod est gratias
agere, non est styli Apostolici: utuntur enim Apostoli passim verbo
evxapireiv,’’? Estius. But this is one of our author’s classical
niceties. He does not mean ‘‘ give thanks,’’ but ‘‘shew gratitude.”’

& here joins an inferior group in reading éxouev. That spoils the
construction of the sentence, for \arpedwuev is a parallel independent
subj., not as in the latinism of viii. 3, dependent on the relative.

evrAaBelas kal Sous. déouvs only here in N.T., and even here it has
disappeared in the late text, aidods kai ebaBelas. The true reading in
Clem. ii., wera Séous kal cuverdjoews, is an almost contemporary witness
to the originality of d¢ous in this passage.

29. tip karavahloxov, from Deut. iv. 24; cf. vv. 18 ff. supr.

CHAPTER XIII

Cu. XIIT. 1—6. PRECEPTS OF GOOD CHURCHMANSHIP.

1 Let the brotherly love which has always bound together the family
2 of Christ continue todoso. Love is also due to those without, do not
forget it; for through that wider love some have entertained angels
3 unawares. Be mindful of people in prison—in these perilous times
you are as good as prisoners yourselves; and of those in misery or
want—the weakness of our mortal nature is the blessed source of
4 sympathy. Marriage? Everywhere honourable, and the marriage
bed always pure. I speak not of fornicators and adulterers; God
5 will judge them. A fine carelessness of money: everyone content
with daily bread. For it is the very Ipse dizit of God: ‘‘Be sure
6 I will not overlook thee; most certainly I will not forsake thee.’’ So
we Christians must be of good courage and repeat: ‘‘ The Lorp is
my help, I will not fear. What shall man do to me?”’

2. Cf. Rom. xii. 13, Gen. xviii. 3, xix. 2; for fev. in another
sense 1 Pet. iv. 4.

3. os...€v cdpart. Cf. 2 Cor. v. 6 rather than Rom. xii. 5:
%, rightly paraphrases, tamquam et ipst in corpore morantes, and
Virgil would have understood—mentem mortalia tangunt. ;

5. dpKkotpevor. For this loose apposition see Blass 79. 10, but
cf. note on v. 8. The quot. is adapted from Deut. xxxi. 6, 8, Jos. i. 5:
that in the next verse is from Ps. exviii. (exvii.) 6.

airés, emphatic: cf. Clem. xvi. of ‘‘ Christ Himself, in whose
person the Psalmist is speaking.’’

6. adore Sappotvras, with this martyr-courage cf. the amorem
intellectualem Dei of Plato: ovxody ef det ddjOea huiy rdv brvTwr
éorly év TH ux aOdvaros av h Wuxnh en, wore Oappodvra xph 6 wh
Tuyxdvers émiotauevos viv, Ttotro 8 éorly § wh pmeuvnuédvos, émixerpetv
tnreiv kal dvampvjokecda. Meno86s. .

tt wowjoe. This might be made dependent on ¢o8yOjoopa,
according to the ‘‘ Alexandrian and dialectical use of the interrogative

13 7] NOTES 129

rls instead of the relative éo7is,’’ cf. Mark xiv. 36, od ri éyw Oédw,
aa 7h ov, Blass 50.5. But, apart from the original context in LXX,
the more spirited interrogative form which W.H. prefer is far more
in keeping with the aphoristic style of this passage.

XIII. 7. MEMORIAL OF DEPARTED LEADERS.

Cherish the memory of your leaders, men who spoke to you the 7
word God gave them. And contemplating with ever fresh wonder the
supreme event of their career, be imitators of their faith.

7. Tov yyoupevev. Clement uses this word and also mponyov-
pevot (i., xxi.) of the officers of the Church in a general sense: cf.
Luke xxii. 26. But Clement also uses it of civil or military rulers
(xxxvii.), and it is often applied to the leaders of the Jews in 1 and
2Macc. This passage seems to imply teaching as a function of the
leadership, and to hint at martyrdom—for it has a militant ring.
But it is impossible to guess whether they were bishops, elders,
presidents at the eucharistic service, or founders of the community
to which the readers belonged.

XIII. 8—16. THE SACRAMENT OF CALVARY.

Jesus Christ, yesterday and to day the same; yea, and while the 8
agesrun. Elaborate precepts are rife which are as novel to Judaism 9
as to us. Do not swerve because of them from the onward course.
For it is a noble thing to have the heart founded deeper and deeper
by simple grace. But rules of food are mean—a trivial, disappointing
round. We are beyond such cares; the ministers of the tabernacle 10
partake of the sacrificial food; our altar is of a different order.
Indeed it is in outward appearance more analogous to the place out- 11
side the camp where the refuse of the high priest’s sacrifice was (as
we read) burned. It was on Calvary, outside Jerusalem, that Jesus, 12
in order to sanctify the people of God, suffered as a criminal. There- 13
fore let us go forth to Him outside the camp, bearing the burden
which associates us with His shame. With His shame; but also
with the inward spiritual reality of His sacrifice, for the city which 14
we must now leave was never our abiding home; but, beyond the
shows of sense, we seek the city God has destined for us. By the 15
priestly mediation of our Lord Jesus let us offer up a sacrifice which
prophets and psalmists loved, a sacrifice of praise which ascends to
God unhindered by all the changes and chances of ritual; I mean
the ‘‘fruit of lips,’? the sweet mystery of language by which we

HEBREWS 5

130 HEBREWS 1884

16 interpret our heartfelt devotion to His essential perfection. And do
not forget to be kind to one another and to share your earthly
goods; for such acts are also sacrifices with which God is wel
pleased. ;

8. No verb is required. As in the original Hebrew of the
Shema‘ (Deut. vi. 4) this is a battle cry rather than a creed. Cf.
Maran atha=‘‘ Lord come!”’ in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, and vv. 4 f. above.

9. tmapadépecbe. T.R. has perpetuated the repidépecde of a few
ancient authorities; with that cf. Eph. iv. 14. But in this ep. the
danger is not of vague misbelief but of taking the wrong turn at
a particular choice; cf. ii. 1, xii. 13. This might seem to recommend
the reading of most Mss., oi repirarnoartes, ‘‘those who have taken
to that walk,’’ i.e. who have already made the wrong choice. But
the consensus of 8*AD*% is almost decisive for of repirarobvtes,
and such a rendering of the aorist would not really suit the ep., in
which the trial is always envisaged as being imminent yet still future;
ef. vi. 4—9, xii. 5—7.

xapitt: cf. note on iv. 16. Here, as in ii. 9, the main idea seems
to be of the absolute bounty of God which can neither be disputed
nor measured, Yet something further makes itself felt. How far
does xapis in N.T. imply beauty of form or character—‘‘ the grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ’’? There is certainly much feeling in N.T.
for that kind of ydpis; our Lord and the lilies; S. Paul in Phil. iv. 8;
the frequent xaNés in this epistle; the dyyéAwv raryytper; the love of
language, often so delicate in pathos; the desiderium for the golden
splendour of the tabernacle, and (more exquisitely) for the tragic
simplicity of ‘‘the days of His flesh.’’

Bpwpaci. Cf. Rom. xiv., 1 Tim. iv. 3, Col. ii. 21 ff. The
reference is not to the rules of Leviticus, but to novel ‘‘ unfitness
and irrelevance of teaching...barren and mischievous trivialities
usurping the office of religion!.”

10 ff. Another picture, completing vi. 19 f., xii. 1 f. Here
Jesus, who in vi. is out of sight, in xii. in sight but distant, is to
be joined (13). And this imminent reality compels the author to
dissolve his picture almost while he draws it. The imagery is
thoroughly sacramental. When the Lord died on the cross, that
scene of ‘‘shame”’ (xii. 2), what could be seen was like the off-
scouring of a sacrifice (11; cf. Lev. xvi. 27). But what really took
place in the eternal sphere was the entrance of the divine High
Priest with His own sacrificial Blood into the presence of the Father.

1 Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 134,

13 17] NOTES 131

And the sacrament is complete, for we, says the author, are to
appropriate its efficacy by doing as He did in visible shame and
spiritual glory (13 f.; ef. ii. 9, vi. 20, xii. 4, xiii. 7, 20). The imagery
is borrowed from Levitical ritual, but no care is taken to make all
the details correspond; that ritual is not obeyed as a type, it is merely
suggestive. Intr. mr. 5 and 7.

15. Cf. Ps. 1. (xlix.) 14, Lev. vii. 12 (2), 2 Chr. xxix. 31, Isa. lvii.
19 (Heb.), Hos. xiv. 2.

The ‘‘ sacrifices ’’ of these verses are not the same as that which
informs the whole theology of the ep. Christ’s one sacrifice could not
be declined into the plural number. Here the idea is rather that even
in the ritual of Christian worship there is a more than adequate
substitute for the many sacrifices of Judaism. Nor was this doctrine
altogether strange to Jews. Philo and other, especially Hellenistic,
teachers had already recognised that it was enshrined in the Old
Testament for the deepening of religion. Intr. m. 4, mr. 13.

16. talibus enim hostiis promeretur Deus, vg.; ‘* promeretur
passive dixit interpres, etsi parum latine,’? Estius: it is a survival
from the Old Latin.

XIII. 17. Loyauty to THOSE ON WHOM THE BURDENS OF
RESPONSIBILITY LIE HEAVILY.

Be pliant to your leaders’ advice and commands. They bear the 17
weight of responsibility, and are watching through dark hours over
you, the living souls entrusted to them; they know the account that
must be rendered of such a charge. See to it that they may do their
duty with happy cheer and no occasion for groaning—that would
scarcely be to your profit.

17. dypurvotocw. Can this be a reminiscence of the type of
leadership, S. Paul? See 2 Cor. vi. 5, xi. 27. Or is it rather a
grim touch of reality in this document of the warfare that occupied
the corner of the apostolic Church to which this letter was written ?
There at any rate the command of the Lord was already approving
itself as necessary ; va ypnyop7...ypnyopetre obv...6 5é tuiv Aéyw, maow
héyw, yenyopetre, Mark xiii. 35 f.

XIII. 18—21. ComMUNION IN PRAYER.

Think of us in your prayers; for we would fain believe that our 18
inmost mind is known to God, and we desire nothing else than to be

true to His honour in all our dealings. And more than ever do 19
12

132 HEBREWS [13 18—

I beseech you to do this, in order that I may be the sooner restored
to you.

20. And may God who makes peace in troubled times, who brought
up from the dead the Shepherd of the sheep in the Blood of the
Eternal Covenant, that great shepherd of prophecy, the transmuter
of the ancient symbol of Life through Death into reality by His

21 obedience to God’s will, even our Lord Jesus—may God confirm
your shrinking resolution with all or any driving force of goodness
for the doing of that duty which His will demands; while He
continues to do with us (whose peace is already in His will) just that
which is well-pleasing in His sight; may God do all this for you and
us through Jesus, now exalted as Christ, to whom be glory for
ever and ever: Amen, even so may God’s will be done.

18. pov. The author says little about himself, and we cannot
tell precisely what he means by this plural, In v. 21, as well as here,
it implies community in conscience at least as much as in circum-
stances (cf. iv. 3). It might even be a modest way of saying ‘‘me’’;
notice the modesty of assertion in we@dueAa, and contrast Phil.
i. 25, wemroi8as olda, with Lightfoot’s note. It is perhaps worth
remarking that a similar request for remembrance in prayer is
introduced in Eph. vi. 18 f. by dypumvoivres (cf. v. 17 supra,
dypurvodow).

20. This blessing sums up the doctrine and purpose of the
epistle. It may be compared with the liturgical conclusion of
Clement’s epistle, but the form is different. Clement’s prayer re-
sembles the Greek liturgies; this is like a western collect, terse
with close-knit movement, asking for a particular gift of grace:
Intr. m1. 4.

In v. 20 there is the solemn invocation: inv, 21 the main petition
for the author’s friends that they may be enabled to do their par-
ticular pressing duty (note the aor. movjoa), continued into the
secondary petition for the author, and perhaps his fellow prisoners
or fellow sojourners, that God’s will may still be theirs. And all
ends with the mediation of Jesus Christ, and a doxology which in the
context seems to be addressed to Him in glory.

The passage from ‘‘our Lord Jesus’’ who did His duty in the
days of His flesh, to ‘‘Jesus Christ’’ who has thus been perfected
in His glorious office, is parallel to the passage from the author’s
petition for his friends to his petition for himself—their will is not
yet lost and found in God’s will, his own is. ‘Through Jesus
Christ’? is more than ‘‘ through Him I offer prayer.’’ It corre-

13 22] NOTES 133

sponds to the faith of the whole ep., that loyalty to Jesus the
Lord is possible through His assumption of manhood into God.

But all this antithesis and particularity is lost in the later text
which gives ravri épyy dyad@ for the r. dya0g of SD*HL€E (boh.)
Greg.-Nyss. Euthal®4 Fulg., and dyiv for the juiv of NDM 33 1908
3 (vg.) @ (boh.) @. Another addition, which did not get into textus
receptus, is Xpiordv after "Incody; so D* and some mss. of vg.; and
so Andrewes has it in his Preces Privatae. All these are modifi-
cations which (like éreoxéyaro for émixéyera:t, Luke i. 78) fitted
the special prayer of the author to the general conditions of church
worship. So too, perhaps, the ‘‘Amen” at the end of the ep. which
S*33 ZL (vg.2-) A omit.

The air@ rodv which W.H. place in mg. of v. 21 on account of
its very strong attestation (S*AC* 33*€ (boh.?) Greg.-Nyss.) is thought
by them to be a ‘‘primitive error’? for airds m. The correction
actually appears in 1912 %, (vt.*), and it would invigorate the ‘‘ par-
ticularity’’ of the original prayer.

For the prophetic phraseology of v. 20 see Isa. lxiii. 11, Zech. ix.
11, Isa. lv. 83, Ez. xxxvii. 26.

‘‘Amen”’ is explained by 2 Cor. i. 20, Apoc. xxii. 20.

"Ev r. dya0@ might be illustrated from the rayzi rpérw etre mpo-
gpdce elre ddnGelg of Phil. i. 18, or at any rate from 1 Cor. ix. 22, rois
waow yéyova Tavta va ravTws Twas owow. If ‘the living principle, the
law within” them be not clear enough, then let any good motive be
supplied that may drive them to the venture.

XIII. 22—25. Finan worps.

And, brothers, if this be too stern a treatise of exhortation, bear
with it. I exhort you now in quite another tone. For here you see
I am sending you also a real letter. ;

You know—or let me tell you, that our brother Timothy is at
liberty. Accompanied by him, if he comes here reasonably soon,
I will see you.

Greeting to all your leaders and to all the members of our holy
Church. The brothers of Italy send greeting to you.

And now, in the words of one we all know and shall ever love,
‘¢Grace be with you all.”

22. avéxeo0e: more intimate and affectionate than the inf. of
W.H. mg. The ‘‘exhortation” of the author has been long and
sometimes stern. Like 8. Paul at the end of Galatians, he ‘‘ softens

24

25

134 HEBREWS [13 22

the severity’ by ‘‘ Brothers.” He adds a further courtesy; cai and
yap may be taken separately, and the clause thus introduced will
refer to the kindly conclusion of a ‘‘letter’’ which had in its earlier
pages grown into a treatise: so apparently A.V. Nor would the
gentle play upon wapakadd...rapaxdjoews be scorned. According to
this interpretation érécreAa is epistolary aor., ‘‘I write’’ or
‘have just written.’’ Clement, in his conclusion, uses érecre-
Adunv differently, of the main directions he has given in the body
of his epistle.

We do not know where Timothy, or where the author was. In
the next verse dordfovra buds oi dd ris "IraXlas is a little more likely
to mean, ‘‘ Your friends in Italy send you greetings from thence” than
‘¢ Your Italian friends send you greetings thither,” because the former
is idiomatic Greek in which this writer would take pleasure. But
either rendering is perfectly justifiable. For the rest, the impression
left on unsophisticated minds by the whole conclusion, with its
reminiscences of Pauline phrases, and this mention of one Pauline
name, might be that a glimpse is given of a little company of apostolic
churchmen to whom §8. Paul was a loved master, lately removed
by death. The writer has been near the apostle in his peril, and is
hastening to share a new peril which now threatens his friends.

INDEX

Aaron xiv, xxxii, lxvii, lxxxvii,
xe, xcv, 61, 76, 87

Abbott 49 f.

Abelard li, 56

Abraham xxxii, xc, 47, 49, 69f.,
74, 83, 111 f., 114 f.

Adam, J. 45

Advent cviif., exvii, exix, 33, 41,
69, 88, 94, 103, 106f.

Aeschylus xciii, 73, 101

| Africa xxviii, xlv

Alban’s 8. abbey 126

Alexandria xix ff., xxv ff., exxvi

Alexandrine philosophy liii, lv,
lvii, xxii, lxxvii, lxxxvi, lxxxix,
CXxxil, cxxxvii, clv, 63; bible
CXXVi, Cxxxli, 62, 75, 111

Alford xlvi

Ambrose, 8. xlvf.

Amos 25, 53

Analogy lxxviii f., 58, 97, 99

Andrewes, Lancelot 1, 133

Angels xii, lxxxii, 30 ff., 41, 87

Antioch liv —

Apocalypse xxvif., xlvii, lxxviii,
Ixxxii, cviiil, cx, cxx, ¢xxviii,
exlvi, 33, 102

Apocalyptic Christianity lix f.,
lxxv

Apollos lv f., lxi

Apostle xix f., xlvi, 48 f.

Approach to God Ixxviii, Ixxxix,
xevi, xcix f., 58 f., 88

Aquila 86, 98

Aquinas li, 70

Arianism ]xxxii

Arias Montanus 61

Aristion or Ariston lvi, 39

Aristophanes 92

Aristotle clix ff., 44

Arminiaus li ff., lxxi

Article cxlix, 26, 39, 42, 51 f.,
121 |

Articles of religion xci

Ascension lx, lxv, Ixxx

Athanasius, S. xxv

Atonement Ixxviii, xc ff., cxiii;
day of lxxxiii, 71, 96 f.

Augustine, 8S. xlviif., li, evi

AiBpéwy cvvaywyh 1xxii

aivarexxvola xcli, 92

aidvios 63, 90

alwv, Siabnkyn Cxil; xptwa cxxii;
AUTpwois Cc, 90; mvedua xev, ©
exiif., cxxviii, 90

advaoraots Cxxiif., exxv

épxnyos xxxii, 44, 120

dpxtepeds xxxi, lxxxvii, 47, 58,
99

Baptism lxxxiv, cx, 66f., 100 ff.,
ef. 88

Barnabas (ep.) xxiv, xxvii f., xlv,
xlvii, 1, lvi, 87, 92, 115

Baruch apocalypse 123

Baur lxi f.

Bengel lxvf., 101

Benson, R. M. Ixviii, exxi, 120,
126

Bethune Baker liv

Biesenthal Ixvi

Bigg cxxxf.

Blass lv f., clix, elxiiif., 43

Bleek xlvi, lxvi

Blomfield, R. lxiv

Blood xi, xxxiii f., liii, Ilxxi,
lxxxiv, xcii ff., ciii, 45, 85,
88 f., 102

136

Bousset lxii f., 39

Box 25, 46, 66, 94
Bréhier cxxx

Brooke cxvii

Bruce lxviiif., 45 .
Bruder clxv

Burkitt xxvi, lix, exliv
Burnet exxxiii, 71

Caesarea Xxv

Caird cxxx, cxxxvili

Calvin xlix, li, liii

Cambridge platonists liii, 59, 62

Camerarius 115

Canterbury, archbishop of cxi

Captain cvii, cxx, cxxxiii, clvi,
72, 120

Carpzov lv

Catholicity Ixiv f.

Charles 77

Cheyne 33, 79, 99

Chiasmus 101

Christ xiii, xviii, Ixxiv, Ixxvii;
in Old Testament xif., xviii,
xxiii, ]xxix, lxxxvili, evi, ¢xxvii,
30 ff., 44, 49, 61, 116; inclusive
lxxxv, cvi, 52, 96; prophet,
priest and king li, lxxix; the
eternal Son xif., xviii, lxxix f.,
Ixxxv, cxxvii, 24 ff.

Chrysostom, §S. liv, 44, 109

Church, apostolic lxii, 1xxii, lxxiv,
55, 67, 126, 131; Jewish ciii,
Cvi, Cxxvi, cxxxv, 32, 64 ff., 125

Church Quarterly Review cxx fi.

Cicero exxxvi, clx, 28

City of God xviii, 111, 124

Clark, A. C. clxi

Cleansing xciif., ¢, 93

Clement of Alexandria xix; of
Rome xxii, xxiv, xxix ff., xlvii,
xlix, lvi, ex, cl, 98, 105, 127,
129, 132

2 Clement xxxvi

Cletus xxxix

Codex & xxv, cxxxix, cxliii, 113,
127; B xxv, cexxxix, cxliii, 28,
86, 89, 91; D xxviii, xliv f.,
exxxix, cxliv, 34, 86, 104f.;
Armachaunus 37, 102

INDEX

Cohn cxxx

Coleridge 28, 71, 109, 123

Collects 120, 132

Communion of Saints exxv f.

Conscience 91, 101

Consecration cv, cxix, 99, 115,
122 f,

Corinth xxix, xxxvi

Cosin 120

Covenant xv, ciff., 77f., 80 ff.,
88, 91 f.

Cowley Evangelist exviii, cxxi,

Crucifixion lx, Ixxx, Ixxxiii, 67,
94, 129 ff. 4

Cyprian, 8. xliv f., 57

Cyril of Jerusalem li

Dalman 27, 41

Daniel lx, evi, cxxiii, 94, 117

Dante xlviii, evi

Davidson Ixvii, 30, 45

Day of the Lord xvi, 1xi, eviii,
cxxiii, 100

Death xi, lxxi, Ixxiv, xevi ff., °
exili, exviiif., 91 f.

Debrunner clxiii

Deissmann cli, clxii, 35

Demosthenes clx

Deuteronomy lxxv, 32, 39, 41, 84,
99, 104, 123, 127 f., 130

Didache 103

Dio Chrysostom 106

Diognetus, ep. to |

Dionysius of Halicarnassus 65,
106 |

Domitian xxix

Downton 59, 120

Drummond cxxx

DuBose 1xi, ]xix f., xeviif., c, 59

déos xxxil, 127

diaOyky ci, 77, 92, 126

Ecclesiastes 71
Edmundson lvi
Edwards 51, 71
Egypt xxv

Ely, bishop of 102
Enclitics 52, 65

- Enoch Ix, 112

INDEX

Enthronement 43

Ephraem Syrus 122

_ Epictetus 110

Erasmus xlix f., liii, 28

Esau xvi, 122 f.

Estius xlviiif., 127, 131

Eucharist x, xxvii ff., lxxxiv, exiv,
129

Euripides xxxii, 26, 68

Kusebius xix ff., xxiv, xlf., xliv

Kuthalius xxvii, 65

Evolution lxxxviii, 30

Ewing xevi

Ezekiel xci, cix, 25, 42, 53,118, 133

Ezra apocalypse 46, 94, 123

eka 1xxix, 97

€& dvOpwrwyv xxviii, lxxx

éricuvaywyn XxXxvi, Ixxii, 102 f.

Hyovpevor Xxxil, 129

Faith xvi, exxxvf., elvi, 100, 102,
105 ff., 109 ff.

Farrar lxvii

Fathers li, Ixxi, ex, exl, exlv;
N.T. in the apostolic xlvi

Field, F. cxviif., 90, 106, 116

Field, J. E. xxxix

Flesh exxiiif., 45; days of lxxxi,
lxxxvi, cxxiv; way of xii, xvi,
CXxiv, cxxxiv, 101

Florus lxxv

Forerunner x, 70

Forgiveness xv, xe, ¢, cii, 96 £.,99,
103

Freer cxxxviii

Frere 43

gwricbévres lxxxiv, 67, 105

Gaius xli

Gardner 41

Gaul xxiii f.

Geden and Moulton elxv

Gethsemane 62

Glory in humiliation xii, lxix,
lxxx ff., 40, 43

Gobar xxiv, xli

Goodness 89

Goodspeed exxxviii

Goodwin elxiii

Gospel Ixxx, 58, 83; synoptic

137

Xxxix, lx, lxiii, Ixxxi, exxiv,
45, 62; fourth xxxix, lxiii,
lxxxvi, cxlvi, 50, 57

Grace 40, 43, 104, 130

Graeco-roman world |xi ff., lxvi,
39

Greek, Alexandrineclv f., 42, 128f.;
classical exlvi f., 44, 67, 86, 92,
127; ‘‘common” cxlv, 81

Gregory, C. R. exxxviii, cxliv

Gregory of Elvira xl

Grimm and Thayer elxv

Habakkuk 106 f.

Haggai xxxii, 107, 126

Hamilton 57

Hammond 61

Harnack xxxvi, xxxviii, lv

Harris, Rendel 45, 57, 117

Hart 91

Hatch and Redpath clxv

Headlam, A. C. see Sanday and
Headlam

Headlam, W. clxi, 73

Heaven 58, 93

Hebrew idiom exlvii, 45, 47, 51,
53, 70, 87, 90, 106 f.

Hebrews, epistle to: author
xxxvili, lii, lvf., 106; date x,
lviii ff., xxv; destination x, lvii,
lxxiiff.; final blessing x, xvii,
lxxiil, cxlv, cv, 132f.; intensity
lix, Ixxiii, evi; occasion ixf.,
lxxiiff.; place of writing 134;
position in New Testament
xxvf.; style x, xxi, cxlviff. ;
title xliiif., lvii, lxxiif. ; use of
Old Testament exxvif., 32,57,
113, 116

Hegel 107, 111

Hellenistic Judaism lv, lxiii, lxvi,
lxxiiif., 94, 131

Herbert, George Ixxxvii

Hermas, Shepherd of cx

Herodotus 55, 68, 106

Herwerden clxiv

Hesychius 57

Hilary of Poitiers xlv ff., 126

Hippolytus xxiv, xliff., 43

Hogarth 27

138

Hope evili, cxxxvf., 109 f.

Hort xxv, exxvii, 34 ff., 54, 59,
71, 97 £., 102, 112, 130

Hosea exxxv, 25, 79, 84, 131

Hoskier exliv

Humanitas lxv, lxvii

Ignatius, 8. 1, 62

Influence Ixxxiv, xciv, xcixf., cii,
civ

Inheritance lxxix ff., 26 f., 30

Intercession xc, exiil, 76, 78

Intermediate state cxix ff., 94

Irenaeus, S. xxiii, xli

Isaiah 25, 45 f., 53, 57 f., 90, 103,
106, 117f., 122, 133

Isocrates clx, 119

itdoxecOar xxviii, xci, cxiil, 47

James, S. xxx, xl, exlvi

Jannaris clxiv

Jeremiah ciff., 25, 80 ff., 97, 99

Jerome, S. xxvi, xliiif., xlvif.

Jerusalem’ lvii, lix, xiii, lxxv, cii,
eviii, 123 ff.

Jesus, the name of our Lord as
man, xif., xviii, lx, lxxiv, lxxix,
lxxxi, exvii, 40, 42, 48, 56, 96,
101, 119 f., 132

Jesus= Joshua 54, 56

John, S. xxxix, xlii, lx, lxiii, ex,
exvi f., exxvi, exxxv, cxlvi, 41,
84, 101

Josephus lxxvf., cl, 86, 125

Judgement 64, 66, 93 f.

Kenyon xxv, cxliv

Kingdom of God xvii, lx, Ixxvi,
xevii, cvi, cix, cxxxili, 38, 41,
84, 88, 126 f.

kadaplivew xcii

kéopos cv, 27, 98

Kpio.s Cxxii, 94

kvupios 31, 34, 37 ff.

Lake, K. xxv, lxii, lxiv, exliv

Last supper cif., cxiv, 84

Law xvii, liii, lviii, lxxxvii, ciiif.,
cix, 33, 37 f., 78, 87, 96

Leighton 123

INDEX

Leonian sacramentary 121

Levi, testament of 77

Leviticus xcii f., 44, 79, 87

Liddell and Scott elxiii, elxv

Life enriched by death xciv ff.,
91 f.

Lightfoot xxx, xxxii, xxxiv ff.,
xliff., cxxxv, 49, 68, 125, 132

Limborch liif.

Linus xxxix

Literalism 1xiii ff.

Liturgy: English lxxxvi, exiv, 94,
120; Greek xxxiv, xxxix, 61,
84, 91, 132; Mozarabic xxxviii;
Roman xxxiliff., xxxviii; of
Serapion 28

Loofs liv

Lord’s prayer 47, 58 f., 94

Lucretius 35

Luke, 8. xx, xlix, lvi, cviii, cxxxiv,
exlvi, clvi, 39, 73

Luther xlix, lv

Adyos ix, 38, 53, 57 £,, 66, 79

Maccabees cxxxii, 62, 75, 111,
116 ff., 129

Mangey cxxx

Manhood and godhead xiif., liv,
lxiv, lxxx ff., 34, 101

Manifestation cxvii

Marcion xliv

Martyrdom exixf., clviii, 40, 47,
102, 105, 117 ff., 129

Maurice, F. D. liii, lxiv, Ixvii f.,
67, 87, 106

Maximus Tyrius 25

Mediation lxxviii, Ixxxviif., ¢xxxi,
38, 77 f., 126

Melchizedek xiv, xxxviii, lxxxix ff.,
Cxxix, exxxi, 63f., 73 ff.

Ménégoz | ff.

Messianic doctrine lxxxviii, cxxix,
29, 32, 64, 95, 106

Millennium exxi

Milligan, G. lxviii, elxii f.

Milligan, W. lxviii

Milman 26

Milton 28, 35

Moffatt xxv, lviii f., lxviii, Ixxii,
elvi

INDEX

Mommeen canon xliv f.

Montanists xli

Moses xiii, xxxi, lxxxvii, exxix,
exxxvi, 38, 48f., 84, 114 ff.

Moulton clxiii ff.

Muratorian canon xlii f..

Murray exxi ff., 43

- Mystical principle ]xxxvi, cvii

paprupetoOa xxxii, 118

Nero xxix, lxxv, 105
Nestorius liv

Nicaea, council of xxv, liii
Novatian xl

Odes of Solomon 45

Order of words exlix, 27, 56, 58,
75, 82, 84, 101, 110, 118, 125

Origen xx ff., xlii, xlvi, Ilxxi,
xeix, exlv, 43, 101

666s xxxi, Ixxviii, xcix, 101

olkouuévyn 1xxxvili, evili, 32, 41,
98

ouoroyla xxx, 49

Paget, F. Ixxxiii

Pantaenus xix

Papyri exxxviiif., exliv, elxii

Participles cxlviii, 35, 44, 62 f.,
68, 70, 75, 90, 124 f.

Particles and conjunctions clii f.,
28, 42, 55, 58, 61, 86, 92, 94,
110, 114

Patience 120

Patriotism lxxvii, ciii, exxxvi

Paul, 8. xix ff., xxiii ff., xxviii,
XXxix, lvi, lx, lxiii, Ixxx, xevii f.,
evi f., cixf., XY, Cxvilif., cxxi,
oxxiv, CXXXiii, CXxxv, exly, 41,
66, 104, 113, 131, 133f.

Peake Ixviii

Perfection Ixxxi, Ixxxvi,
exvii ff., exxiv, 44, 100

Peter, S. xxix, xl, lvi, lxxx, xevi,

x¢eviii,

1 Peter xxix, Ixxviii, exix f., exlvi,
62, 71, 91, 102, 126

2 Peter exlvi, el

Pfaff xxiii

Philip the deacon lvi

139

Philo lv, Ixiii, Ixxvii, Ixxxix,
cxi, Cxxvi, cxxix ff., cxxxvii,
cl, 26, 44, 49, 57, 59, 61, 63,
79, 82, 109, 111f., 114, 126

Photius xxiv, xli

Picturesque language xiv, xvif.,
Ixxviii, Ixxxvi, exili, cliii f.,
71 f., 74, 84, 113, 119f., 130

Pindar 45, 62, 109 f.

Plato Ixxxvi, CXXiX,CXXXxili \CXXxVii,
44, 62f., 81 ee 114, 128

Pliny 123

Plutarch elxi

Porphyry 120

Prepositions ecxlvii, 25, 33, 61,
113, 122, 134

Presbyters xxxiii, 129

Priesthood Ixxvii f., 60 f., 97, 99;
Levitical xxxiii, lxxiii, lxxviiif.,
lxxxix ff., 47, 61, 85 f.; of Christ
xf., xiii ff., xviii, ‘liii, Ilxx,
lxxxiii ff., Ixxxix ff., 41, 58 ff.,
78 f., 81 £.; after the order of
Melchizedek xi, xviii, lxxxix ff.,
xciv, 73 ff.

Primasius 52

Priscilla xxxviii, lv

Prophecy 25f., 55, 98, 117

Proverbs 121 f.

‘Psalm II xxx, exxvii, 32; VIII

Ixxxii, 42; XXII 45, 87; XL
96,98; XLV 33; LXXXIX 32,
116; XCV exxvii, 51; XCVII
32; CII 34; CIV lxxxii, 33; CX
xe, 29, 100, 119

meipaguds XCViii, cvili, 47

mwepimolnots xevili, 107 f.

Wux} X¢evili, cxxiii, 71, 107 f.

Rabbinic Judaism lxvi, lxxvi, 46,
58

Ransom li, 90, cf. xxxiii, 92

Reconciliation li, xei, 46

Reformation lxxivf., 88

Rendall Ixvii, 89

Repentance xxviii, cix ff., exv, 66,
123

Rest of God xiii, 54 ff.

Resurrection Ix, Ilxxx,
exxiv f,, 66, 117, 132

cxx ff.,

140

Riehm Ixvi

Robertson elxiv

Robinson, F. ciii f.

Robinson, J. A. xxvi, evi, 103,
107

Rome x, xxix, xxxiv, lvii, lxxii,
xxv, cil, cviii

Rutherford elxiii, 44, 113

Rythm clix ff., 29, 99, 110, 118,
122 f., 125

pavriouds 102

Sacramental principle xviii,
XXxvli, lxix f., lxxxiii ff., cvii,
CXXV, CXxix, cxxxiif., 41, 77,
79, 102, 129 f.

Sacrifice x f., xv, lxxi, xciii, civ,
115; in Old Testament x f.,
xv, 1, Ixxiii, lxxviii, civ, 85 f.;
of Christ xv ff., xxxiii f.,
xxxvii f., 1, lxxxiii, 85, 88 ff.;
re-enacted in the faithful cxiif.,
cxxxiv, 131 f.

Sacrifices xxxiv, xxxviif., 131

Saints cxix, 68 f., 78f., 118, 125f.

Salome, daughter of Gadia Ixxii

Salvation lxxiv, 35 ff., 95

Sanctification ev f.

Sanday elxv, 33, 46

Sanday and Headlam xci, xevii,
36

Sardinia xxviii, xlv

Satan exxiii, 45 f.

Saunders cxxxviii

Schweitzer lix ff., lxiv

Self xcv, 106

Selwyn 125

Septuagint xxx f., ci, exlv ff., elxv,
32, 42, 51, 98, 106f., 115

Sermon on the mount Ixxvi

Servant of the Lorp xciv, 94

Shadow and type liii, Ixviii, lxx,
xxix, xciii, 82, 97

Sheol 46

Sickness 59

Silas lvi

Sin, sinlessness lxxiv, lxxxif.,
xevi, c, cxvf., 52, 119,121, 124 f.

Sinai xvii, 33, 37f., 124 f.

Sirach xxiv, cxxiii, 57, 78, 91, 112

INDEX

Smetham lviii

Socinians lii

Socrates 71, 110

Soden, von lvii, exxxviii, exliv, clv

Sophocles 51

Soul xcii, 71, 107 f.

Souter xxviii, xl, xliii ff., xlviii,
CXxxvViii, cxliv

Spirit lxviii, exxviii, exxxiii, cliii,
35, 37, 39 ff., 51, 55, 64, 67, 85,
89 f., 104

Spirits cxvii ff., exxiiif., 35, 119,
122

Srawley clxv

Statius 59

Stephanus clxiii, 44

Stephen, 8. lv, Ixi, clvi, 66, 116

Strong 28

Suffering Ixxxiv, xcvi, 40, 59, 62,
94, 120

Swainson 61

Swete cxlv, clxivf., 39, 45, 75

Symmachus 86, 98

Synagogue Ixxii

cvyxwpnots 43 f.

guveldnots Xxxii, xxxvf., 91, 101

TXONOYpagpycayros xxii

owrnpia 35 f., 95

Tabernacle lvii, Ixxxvii, 80 f.,
85 ff., 88

Tacitus 86

Targum of Onkelos 104

Temple lvii, lxxiiif., lxxxvii, 35,
87

Tenses cv f., cxiiif., cxix, exlviif.,
29, 321., 35, 43f., 53f., 56, 62f.,
68, 70, 81f., 84, 87f., 89f.,
99f., 110f., 114f., 132

Tertullian xxviif., xl, xliii, cix,
66 f.

Text 26f., 33f., 43f., 53f., 55,
57, 66, 70f., 73ff., 78f., 89,
97 f., 105f.,110, 112,117, 120f.,
1383; Alexandrian cxliiff., 49,
61, 110, 122; neutral cxliif.,
89; received cxliif., 112f., 122;
western xxvi, cxliiff., 89, 105;
Westcott and Hort’s exliff.

Thackeray clxiv, 75

' INDEX

Theodotion 104, 117

Theology and religion ciii, cf. 68

Tischendorf ¢xxxviii

Tradition xlvii, lvi, cxxivf., 26,
37f., 50, 67, 83

Trench 88

Trent, council of xlix

Tuker xxxviii

Ta mpos Tov Oedv lxxviil, 1xxxvii, 47

Terelwots xCViii, 44, 77

rots deopots mov xxvii, 105 f.

Oepdrwv xxxi, 49

Ulpian 123

Vaughan, C. J. lxvii

Vaughan, H. 101

Versions cxl ff. ; Aethiopic exlii ;
Armenian xxvi, exlii; A. v.
clviff.; earlier English 101 ;
Egyptian xxvi, cxlii f, ; modern
English clvi; Old Latin XXXViii,
xlv, cxlii, cxliv, 25, 27, 46;
R. V.clvi ff. ; Syriac xxvi, exlii,
122; Vulgate xxvi, xlv, cxlv,
25, 27, 47, 65, 78, 120, 125, 131

14!
Virgil 113, 128
Wallace 42, 62, 111
Westcott xxv, xliii, xlv, Ixxf.,

exlv, 26, 54, 70, 82, 89, 101,
107

Wetstein lvii, 56

White cxlv

Wickham lxvii, cliv f.

Will xii, lxxxv, xciii, civf., 88,
93 f., 96 ff., 106, 115

Windisch lxiii ff., cix ff., 77, 109

Wisdom xxiv, cxxxii, 46, 57 f.,
94, 112, 123

Witkowski elxii

Word lxxxix, cxxx ff., 28, 56 ff.

World (‘‘other,” ‘‘to come”)
Ixxxvili, cviii, cxxxiiif,, 27, 41,
89, 110, 113

Wrede xx, lix, cli

Zahn xxviii, |xxii

Zealots lxxv

Zechariah 101, 133

fwh dxaranuros 1xxxix, xciv, 76 f.

PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
BY J. B. PEACE, M.A.

res
*
Sas j
Aa core

3
fy
CAT.

re

tiie ee — a

14 DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED

LOAN DEPT.

This book is due on the last date stamped below, or
on the date to which renewed.

Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.

* 20AG’58W J

K * Tig General Library
, LD 21A—50m-8,"57 ~ 59 University of California
4. jag C8481s10)476B Berkeley

r tie

YB 72246

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

bral

mean

SSS near DS

ey

f
it

, Pall
ci I i h
Hitt
aa
hone

ak

; y
WG y
; i

i
eit!
i

Ps? Se

raters

i- }
WA
LS)