SRE CT Re NA IH i EG Np Uy A PU el igs Din hc AGN "Va eget Aes aca ag ALE ae Tie ig Nie a ty plage Mea a ag ie ay Mai Shin ahaa, x5 sligdaiis cages. te oe ee ~~ os Tange eon eet Ree: Praag ne Meee eae tay My eRe A gy eA eth O e 2 OP OE te OE whet Sone ity eG ON A OS: CARRS OL OS OT HS OST ENE EEE SS OS A dye conan ae Rs S vretap an cer Meg estima gs es ae eT ge nn geen ta aN nt Ma tens Ti ies eet Pan Aa Ta Nan athe een age Me eRe eg nae cena AO lt ele a es oe Mea” pt Raa A 9 aL mR wstratt oN aE Be A Rite! Gs komm ne emandretin 49 Eee ee ee FOS ARO ee a ay Mots ee Pon es rw eR ne Ban Taye nlgee nh ok ing Sma an, i Tae a nicl seep ee eee On yep aN cI van te Sens a nee ee LIES TET a OGRE TENET nae eantA ene Rm fetta atte ak are See ee aici eee ee area ee tees Re Se le Tet aia Re te Rag ype Me A an are eT a Fat a Ms HH pee none ae ete edt Tm le I A CE tM eh 9 Fg a ee ae ie Set hee QT en” he ote ee ee ee eed ee erie weal PNT Re Neg aT te peta a es ce ae a ne gem ng ei SeONN ATS en eins teen thm sT ny Ramen f tM pn ted ns A ins a at es RK Ee Sw aM eh aiehinapeat ition Ca atl ni ceateeananhary iedinitaeeaaieaians en ae ee Tncins Tas tin ie ertete tae Saf ae the intn Rest yslhTehatent s, eaten“ waa Ua saied mpi tate ~~ Steamy toetotre Aen te en Shey Ai eins ED esaininin aid tka aieotoaPoestee Yn aditeststRe mes Tessa oe ae ett nmr coe Se en a eo enh see cat ‘ : cs . Pas Pactgotane utestapeaeestanpontnctid OF maton rset th a ee PN ee ee eet ee erm Sm eR Pag Scythe Ri at gin cn ea BN erm hp Ne en IIE gn eythane a a" Pe shee Sn necyte han whe Sle oe eae en Tn pica a TaN a tea fm Dag eA Tt A inn dct Set AS Oe beth emda ay at mag ee ity Sn meee A eS RO RA A ree A eI gn nw po A EM a NOTE i ee, Ae ae te Ste arr etre ne eee Rem tem age Mh Mee egg in nae pe a i A a yy ne Fh Etim Nand sale eat RK yee nh ir ope eae sine Ser rst ish Gl net, Dat ee eNews al ae acai paey paintip aaictnmh-Sncaeehaeedmad athe eatin ates aan r ee ee Pot etary nes hn, nT siaes hn na nen et aN eee t eonedis Seos-aitleniee tater ee Diether nerientioec Meneh tenet otters te ce aan Ge ene tan gp Rae Mem So i cies PRI ie 7g Meet geste paid eg PF nancy ant poppet Pan a Lig es eats wa ter adore OA nok 90m emit ON em be ae rhe eta teem ita Po tT eats Fee Mey the Dee tit ann eS th ee et, Rapit ater cievvietnascnshoPaetnstenN ein onic as OE TE ihe et ol 9b Riera nt AH Se ei eee ene eS : ~~ > = s 2 matt one > ae Steet ata tnt [et Fee ab ieg @2 mn eind aeetee™ - 2 . m ee ee ee * z eee ett Fen Ped oe OVE 8 Boe! a a Me, Tin Ae 9 OA se we P pa eR RTM bet MH ae wet - 2 A eat am em aN at ot a epaiaeabeicaiaedanintdnetamatetioted a ee o woes : ‘wes Ee ES pale etting! . x - tal wii en eto vi ge eee ane meat nanan fag a me ar ey ne nee ate gy Tm pee en eR gl egg een ee ee ee er re dg Rivubaliet maint barb phepeieaindes SST Ste nee ey ie ete i te ~ a ss ee a er a cea tt Pm eg a, Marten PEN Ti ener Toe ae a Tee hata Ta et ean a EE Sn ee Ses ean wae PS Tm ee on pladametiesed Se et a ene eee Dee ee ee Od Pom Rane a atm GN ER ae Nt eS = Fe at ik ih cs Ae Sill Ne Oe NE Pr A et eM ODO ie Em Engh I Oe : nna et Rig had ten On RGIS ee IN i u " ‘ aD ige J pans Seiosicrliaueserae ines eheained enieeiiesteseatedicaainn ca rua ineienina enacted aieadia ae ieaiedinnee apeaaleedaigeaberie aie aeaii inane tai taritel et. a Ser Tr te enki Meer . - a 1c pe bats Lint tan oa ah Ghd any see pipiceopgioainieaamad ooh te etn Tat Eg ii OO OAT a IT a OO me i OM eet Oe OEM 2 ty ie ete ake _ ea BTN Me aE SN i oN a til me ee Sea fone wa e a . ede a cl a ed Siipdtataliek aeiteeicd amie SON EN eatin re Te Ti TE aR a ne Mt one a TM Sa et ee en ee ee te a ee a ed ep Dineen ea SAN Pn ae oe eA et nl ee OS mae Bag eat Oem! neg ET ee ie ee ee ee a er ee ee eS : ntl el ary ei am gn see ESATA in Ne en eee a Se ome WAM Epnit ee ee eer ene era Tal gn Matha eee ies a ang aS Time mn 1p Bo gen che seay eon op Di crs Se net ae eee ng Se he rheentn? WM pee Essa) alae priaitot tacte PS Seeasiaineindbemiedpeicameeedtedaieaeton ae nO eh Pn pata ey ae na Ae ey ig Mw TD Ete gen * i raesNatll es BRL NAH Soames ee oi SO Ne re tent A oA ti CT oN Vaan Pn a am aT ‘ a SOS 6S ete Rt May aT a RN AN A we eae a Ee Ti eee ~ i Saas Pe - J as a a Satin Rate ee tet tet eal a Mente Se a ra a eM ee ae Tht a a TNR Me nett Mm ee RR ee MI A la alt ag NR A Om Whee ane BE Ble Sete Maa gas eka a age Ae ee oe ee en ee eee ee PN an Te eee, BdAenig Niagi ag acc Pem Sig eae Fete ies hasan oe a Re gt Tne nH ATOM ge ating ae teers atthe nand at nah teen ma nega wed aetiate Pie theeet tn es ane POR gee iy S'S i ee ee 7 ie Pw } - *Y be a ; tof, w iy i } / Mie pot LB Si ly A OR, Pn ¥ Wena ere - ey 7 2 ren as ae 5)! ad Ae ee a nf huey ve baie mate te 5 fs vA it L Miah in he J A 4 A és cats pire fe Le At, S| ig 4 t Uate tty, Aen © jase er Cen REC ee a Hal ils Fh yah ais fe berarigi Pits PE ohh Bilt ae ee oe Pan Oc aun oan ite 4 Hit a iy) 10 PA A O06 ee AVES id Cd ane ar DY rad 7 7 / 7 ‘af ; \, 1 j A ad id ane aH ff ate tl, 7 ni d ‘ a. | j j ry ® wip hg be ' ‘ i ai Wy" “id ' Poy ju aes ia nt Mi Te vs 7 ee y at ante ta ; ny. F 1 an far’ a fk yy RA mes toe ee : ce ; _ oy i) a f ar mL a ey ra vay a _ rhe tT ea Onn i t an j- Ahn | Ks Jan Ay 4 ae t fa a Az. t eM a iy Leh vhwy [ nls linia ' ; :) Dae a2 y sear) , nel i wees LL oh Ce A DEAE Rare ea Fads A i | Tr ‘ . 4 - id - , By j ~ A 3 f i ‘a i, aeat 7 a it; i’ as | Mi ae ' aa ah ) . 7 ee inn ihe ta i ch » y f ss) it cor). j a ee | hal r Ty dine Abed : A j ' : } ATTY Mee A ie - 5 wan 7) j Lo iat » F "4 Ae he Fl ths uy ‘ , ha “4 Ato dic » a 7 ie », 4 PR, ry UP 4 oe, 4 a ee we SS Be 02 aS eae ; i? ; in 7h ae 9 iy i") : { 7 he AY, Te ha Maer ' a ah 7 a? i % va ae ‘4 =) hc ; , ‘ aes b, who 5) F un hae +} Atee fe “o uae y ae at a . J au | x! ii OUP Mamma 8 0p. )¢! a] ee eu! bhi ‘ ye a ny -ar\ uy hs a, nk j c q aA: t: t Digitized by the Internet Archive ~ in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/criticalexegeticOOmoft_0 © be anternational Critical Commentary on the Holy Seriptures of the Old and Ae Cestaments. UNDER THE PRESENT EDITORSHIP OF THE REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. Sometime Master of University College, Durham PLANNED AND FOR YEARS EDITED BY THE LATE REV. PROFESSOR SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt. THE REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. THE LATE REv, PROFESSOR CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt, a } ne Ali © Ness we he ae ») id AYES iy a, “2 a ri : As ivi? u THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS BY | Lb JAMES MOFFATT D.D., D.Litt., Hon. M.A. (Oxon.) Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED FOR Tn & T..C UA Rik, iD EN Bi RG NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS FIrseelSprrion oi 3) G24 Reprinted ss 4. 1 948 ” . ‘ ° . 1952 . 2 ° . ° . LO57 The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved TO THE MEMORY OF THREE SCOTTISH EXPOSITORS OF IIPOS EBPAIOY= : A, B. BRUCE, A. B. DAVIDSON, AND MARCUS DODS. PREFACE. IT is ten. years since this edition was first drafted. Various interruptions, of war and peace, have prevented me from finishing it till now, and I am bound to acknow- ledge the courtesy and patience of the editor and the publishers. During the ten years a number of valuable contributions to the subject have appeared. Of these as well as of their predecessors I have endeavoured to take account; if I have not referred to them often, this has been due to no lack of appreciation, but simply because, in order to be concise and readable, I have found it necessary to abstain from offering any catena of opinions in this edition. The one justification for issuing another edition of IIpos ‘EBpaiovs seemed to me to lie in a fresh point of view, expounded in the notes—fresh, that is, in an English edition. I am more convinced than ever that the criticism of this writing cannot hope to make any positive advance except from two negative con- clusions. One is, that the identity of the author and of his readers must be left in the mist where they already lay at the beginning of the second century when the guess-work, which is honoured as “ tradition,” began. The other is, that the situation which called forth this remark- able piece of primitive Christian thought had nothing to do with any movement in contemporary Judaism. The writer of IIpos ‘EBpaiovs knew no Hebrew, and his readers were in no sense ‘E8paiot. These may sound paradoxes. I agree with those who think they are axioms. At any ix x PREFACE rate such is the point of view from which the present edition has been written ; it will explain why, for example, in the Introduction there is so comparatively small space devoted to the stock questions about authorship and date. One special reason for the delay in issuing the book has been the need of working through the materials supplied for the criticism of the text by von Soden’s Schriften des Neuen Testaments (1913) and by some subsequent discoveries, and also the need of making a first-hand study of the Wisdom literature of Hellenistic Judaism as well as of Philo. Further, I did not feel justified in annotating IIpos “EB8paiovs without reading through the scattered ethical and philosophical tracts and treatises of the general period, like the De Mundo and the remains of Teles and Musonius Rufus, “A commentary,” as Dr. Johnson observed, “must arise from the fortuitous discoveries of many men in devious walks of literature.” No one can leave the criticism of a work like IIpos “‘Epaious after twelve years spent upon it, without feeling deeply indebted to such writers as Chrysostom, Calvin, Bleek, Riehm, and Riggenbach, who have directly handled it. But I owe much to some eighteenth-century writings, like L. C. Valckenaer’s Scholia and G. D. Kypke’s Odbservationes Sacrae, as well as to other scholars who have lit up special points of inter- pretation indirectly. Where the critical data had been already gathered in fairly complete form, I have tried to exercise an independent judgment; also I hope some fresh ground has been broken here and there in ascertain- ing and illustrating the text of this early Christian masterpiece. JAMES MOFFATT. GLASGOW, 15th February 1924. CONTENTS, i PREFACE , : ; ; - ' INTRODUCTION : ; : 5 ‘ § 1. Origin and Aim . : § 2. Religious Ideas § 3. Style and Diction § 4. Text, Commentaries, etc. : ; COMMENTARY - : : : ; INDEXES . ; , 4 is : I. Greek . ; ; ; 4 II. Subjects and Authors , ‘ III. Quotations, etc., of the Old Testament. PAGE 1X x1i—Ixxvi Xlil XXX lvi Ixiv I—247 248-264 248 259 a2 0A v +, ri . * . an ; ni P ee a ; We ey (ar ms 6 hi ey aaah? EAN ’ ' - “ts ' hie wil f | ) ; i J ‘ ) , > a ad =i 2 AAR | Dir i ; 3 2 a ’ is , ; a ie ¢ } ¢ : 4a - y ‘ i f 9 / ae ris ite a8 a4 ey j ‘is tsa ‘ k : ‘ i Lei) : 5 i i ' —_ wad ‘ y> F ‘ — : en xi t ‘ , 3 J e PNG 4 : = | : ’ a [? \) 4 ' " =j = - ee ‘1 re j i Sy ’ ‘ ry 7 ; ts i “er ‘Verte = mis. ie % 2 j ® x wes | an Ma if A(z e : , 2 a a ’ ‘ . . Aig j : ~Usay ee jum ), 4 \ | ’ : oe ’ “ ' . ( joni INTRODUCTION. a § 1. ORIGIN AND AIM. (i) DurincG the last quarter of the first century A.D. a little master- piece of religious thought began to circulate among some of the Christian communities. The earliest trace of it appears towards the end of the century, in a pastoral letter sent by the church of Rome to the church of Corinth. The authorship of this letter is traditionally assigned to a certain Clement, who probably composed it about the last decade of the century. Evidently he knew IIpds “EBpaiovs (as we may, for the sake of convenience, call our writing); there are several almost verbal reminiscences (cp. Dr. A. J. Carlyle in Zhe New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 44f., where the evidence is sifted). This is beyond dispute, and proves that our writing was known at Rome during the last quarter of the first century. A fair speci- men of the indebtedness of Clement to our epistle may be seen in a passage like the following, where I have underlined the allusions : 62-5 A NK > / A Xr , > A , , 3 Os Oy dravyacpa THS meyadwovvyns avTodv, ToTOVTH peEiCwv ya > 7 7 7 y ’ eativ ayyéAwy, dow Siadopwtepoy dvoyxa KexAnpovo- pykev’ yéyparra. yap ovtws" an \ a“ , 0 ToL@Y TOUS ayyéAoUS adTOU TVEvpaTa \ X \ > “ x / Kat Tovs AeLTOUpyovs avTod wupos pAoya. ; pa’ \ a“ ea 3 a 4 > ¢ 8 / e €7l O€ TW VL y QvuTOV OUTWS ELTTEV O EOTOTHS ey > , VLOS [LOU EL OV, eyo onpepov yeyevvynka oe ” > . a \ } lA é@ ‘ rt 7 airnoat Tap 逓ov, Kal dwcw cor eOvn THv KANpovopyiav Gov Kal THY KaTacxXEeclv TOU TA TEpata THS Vis. / kal wdAw A€yet mpos avbrov" xiii XIV THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Kadov ék deEt@v pov, o vA lal \ > be ¢€ , lad 56 €WS AV 66 TOUS €xOpovs Gov UOT OOLOV TWYV TOOWV GOV, f - € 2 , € A \ 5) , tal tives ovv ol €xOpoi; of davtAor Kat avTiTaccopevoe TH GeXjpatt avTod. To this we may add a sentence from what precedes : 36! “Incody Xpiordv rov dpxiepéa 218 GUvarat Tols weipagfouevoas Bon- Trav mpocpopav judy, Tov mpoordrny Ojoa. . . . 3! KaTavojoate Tov Kal BonOdor tis doOevelas judy. dmdécroXov kal dpxrepéa Tis duodoylas nuar Inoodv. The same phrase occurs twice in later doxologies, dia rov dpxvepéws Kal mpoordrov (tav Wuydv judy, 61°) (jpav, 641) “Iycod Xptorov. There is no convincing proof that Ignatius or Polykarp used IIpés “Efpaious, but the so-called Epistle of Barnabas contains some traces of it (eg. in 4% 556 and 617-19), Barnabas is a second-rate interpretation of the OT ceremonial system, partly on allegorical lines, to warn Christians against having anything to do with Judaism; its motto might be taken from 3° wa px mpocpncowpeda ws mpoondrvtat (v2. émjdvToL) TO éxetvwy vouw. In the homily called 2 Clement our writing is freely employed, eg. in 3 118 Sore, ddeApol pov, un SiupvyG- 10% xaréxwuev THY duoroylayv ris pev, GANG EXmrloavres Vropelvwuev, va édAmldos akwwH, wioTds yap oO émaryyet- Kalrov uo Ody Komowpueda, mioTds yap duevos. sere kaa) ot dori 6 émayyerddmevos Tas dvTyucBlas ~— dmoddévar éxdotw epywy avbrod. 1° dwrobéuevae éxetvo 8 mepixelucda 12! rocodrov exovres meptxeiuevov végos Ty abrov OeAjoet. nuty vépos mapTrupwy, byKov arobémevot nays wavTa, WE 164 mpocevyn dé ex Kars ouvec- 1318 mpocevxecOe rept judy’ red6- Onoews. Pay > DAL wea yap ore kahny suveldinow Ex omer, “It seems difficult, in view of the verbal coincidences, to resist the conclusion that the language of 2 Clement is un- consciously influenced by that of Hebrews” (Dr. A. J. Carlyle in Zhe New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, p. 126). As 2 Clement is, in all likelihood, a product either of the Roman or of the Alexandrian church, where IIpos “E8paiovs was early appreciated, this becomes doubly probable. There is no reason why Justin Martyr, who had lived at Rome, should not have known it; but the evidence for his use of it (see on 3! rr‘ etc.) is barely beyond dispute. Hermas, however, knew it; the Skepherd shows repeated traces of it (cf. Zahn’s edition, pp. 439f.). It was read in the North African church, as Tertullian’s allusion proves (see p. xvii), and with par- ticular interest in the Alexandrian church, even before Clement INTRODUCTION XV wrote (cp. p. xviii). Clement’s use of it is unmistakable, though he does not show any sympathy with its ideas about sacrifice.! Naturally a thinker like Marcion ignored it, though why it shared with First Peter the fate of exclusion from the Muratorian canon is inexplicable. However, the evidence of the second century upon the whole is sufficient to show that it was being widely circulated and appreciated as an edifying religious treatise, canonical or not. (ii.) By this time it had received the title of pds “EGpadovs. Whatever doubts there were about the authorship, the writing never went under any title except this in the later church; which proves that, though not original, the title must be early. ‘EBpato.? was intended to mean Jewish Christians. ‘Those who affixed this title had no idea of its original destination; other- wise they would have chosen a local term, for the writing is obviously intended for a special community. They were struck by the interest of the writing in the OT sacrifices and priests, however, and imagined in a superficial way that it must have been addressed to Jewish Christians. “Efpaioc was still an archaic equivalent for ‘Iovdato.; and those who called our writing IT pds “EGpafovs must have imagined that it had been originally meant for Jewish (z.e. Hebrew-speaking) Christians in Palestine, or, in a broader sense, for Christians who had been born in Judaism. The latter is more probable. Where the title origin- ated we cannot say; the corresponding description of 1 Peter as ad gentes originated in the Western church, but IIpos “ESpaious is common both to the Western and the Eastern churches. The very fact that so vague and misleading a title was added, proves that by the second century all traces of the original destination of the writing had been lost. It is, like the Ad Familiares of Cicero’s correspondence, one of the erroneous titles in ancient literature, “hardly more than a reflection of the impression produced on an early copyist” (W. Robertson Smith). The reason why the original destination had been lost sight of, was probably the fact that it was a small household church—not one of the great churches, but a more limited circle, which may have become merged in the larger local church as time went on. Had it been sent, for example, to any large church like that at Rome or Alexandria, there would have been neither the need Cp. R. B. Tollington’s Clement of Alexandria, vol. ii. pp. 225 f. 2 It is quite impossible to regard it as original, in an allegorical sense, as though the writer, like Philo, regarded 6 ‘Epaios as the typical believer who, a second Abraham, migrated or crossed from the sensuous to the spiritual world. The writer never alludes to Abrahain in this connexion ; indeed he never uses ‘ESpaios at all. xvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS nor the opportunity for changing the title to IIpos ‘Efpaiovus. Our writing is not a manifesto to Jewish Christians in general, or to Palestinian Jewish Christians, as mpds “EGpaiovs would imply; indeed it is not addressed to Jewish Christians at all. Whoever were its original readers, they belonged to a definite, local group or circle. ‘That is the first inference from the writing itself; the second is, that they were not specifically Jewish Christians. The canonical title has had an unfortunate influence upon the interpretation of the writing (an influence which is still felt in some quarters). It has been responsible for the idea, expressed in a variety of forms, that the writer is addressing Jewish Christians in Palestine or elsewhere who were tempted, é.g., by the war of a.D. 66-70, to fall back into Judaism; and even those who cannot share this view sometimes regard the readers as swayed by some hereditary associations with their old faith, tempted by the fascinations of a ritual, outward system of religion, to give up the spiritual messianism of the church. All such interpretations are beside the point. The writer never mentions Jews or Christians. He views his readers without any distinction of this kind; to him they are in danger of relapsing, but there is not a suggestion that the relapse is into Judaism, or that he is trying to wean them from a preoccupation with Jewish religion. He never refers to the temple, any more than to cir- cumcision. It is the tabernacle of the pentateuch which interests him, and all his knowledge of the Jewish ritual is gained from the LXX and later tradition. The LXX is for him and his readers the codex of their religion, the appeal to which was cogent, for Gentile Christians, in the early church. As Christians, his readers accepted the LXX as their bible. It was superfluous to argue for it; he could argue from it, as Paul had done, as a writer like Clement of Rome did afterwards. How much the LXX meant to Gentile Christians, may be seen in the case of a man like Tatian, for example, who explicitly declares that he owed to reading of the OT his conversion to Christianity (4d Graecos, 29). It is true that our author, in arguing that Christ had to suffer, does not appeal to the LXX. But this is an idiosyncrasy, which does not affect the vital significance of the LXX prophecies. The Christians to whom he was writing had learned to appreciate their LXX as an authority, by their mem- bership in the church. Their danger was not an undervaluing of the LXX as authoritative; it was a moral and mental danger, which the writer seeks to meet by showing how great their re- ligion was intrinsically. This he could only do ultimately by assuming that they admitted the appeal to their bible, just as they admitted the divine Sonship of Jesus. There may have been Christians of Jewish birth among his readers; but he addresses INTRODUCTION XVli his circle, irrespective of their origin, as all members of the People of God, who accept the Book of God. ‘The writing, in short, might have been called ad gen¢es as aptly as First Peter, which also describes Gentile Christians as 6 Aads, the People (cp. on 217). The readers were not in doubt of their religion. Its basis was unquestioned. What the trouble was, in their case, was no theoretical doubt about the codex or the contents of Christianity, but a practical failure to be loyal to their principles, which the writer seeks to meet by recalling them to the full mean- ing and responsibility of their faith; naturally he takes them to the common ground of the sacred LXX. We touch here the question of the writer’s aim. But, before discussing this, a word must be said about the authorship. Had IIpds ‘Efpalous been addressed to Jews, the title would have been intelligible. Not only was there a [cvva}ywy} ‘EBp[alwv] at Corinth (cp. Deissmann’s Light from the East, pp. 13, 14), but a cuvaywyh AiBpéwv at Rome (cp. Schiirer’s Geschichte des /tid. Volkes*, iii. 46). Among the Jewish guvaywyat mentioned in the Roman epitaphs (cp. N. Miiller’s Dze judzsche Katakombe am Monteverde 2u Rom. . ., Leipzig, 1912, pp. t1of.), there is one of ‘E8péo., which Miiller explains as in contrast to the synagogue of **vernaclorum ” (Bepydkdot, Bepvaxdjovo), z.e. resident Jews as opposed to immigrants ; though it seems truer, with E. Bormann (Wener Studien, 1912, pp. 353f.), to think of some Kultgemeinde which adhered to the use of Hebrew, or which, at any rate, was of Palestinian origin or connexion. (iii.) The knowledge of who the author was must have disappeared as soon as the knowledge of what the church was, for whom he wrote. Who wrote IIpos “EBpaiouvs? We know as little of this as we do of the authorship of Zhe Whole Duty of Man, that seventeenth-century classic of English piety. Conjectures sprang up, early in the second century, but by that time men were no wiser than we are. The mere fact that some said Barnabas, some Paul, proves that the writing had been circulating among the adespota. It was perhaps natural that our writing should be assigned to Barnabas, who, as a Levite, might be sup- posed to take a special interest in the ritual of the temple— the very reason which led to his association with the later Epistle of Barnabas. Also, he was called vids zapaxAnoews (Ac 4°), which seemed to tally with He 137% (rod Adyou ris mapakAyoews), just as the allusion to “beloved” in Ps 127? (=2 S 12%4f-) was made to justify the attribution of the psalm to king Solomon. The difficulty about applying 2° to a man like Barnabas was overlooked, and in North Africa, at any rate, the (Roman ?) tradition of his authorship prevailed, as Tertullian’s words in de pudicitia 20 show: “volo ex redundantia alicuius etiam comitis apostolorum testimonium superinducere, idoneum 6 XVlil THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistrorum. Extat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis auctoritati viri, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore: ‘aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potes- tatem ?’ (1 Co 9°). Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum. Monens itaque discipulos, omissis omnibus initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere,” etc. (quoting He 6*:). What appeals to Tertullian in Hpds ‘EBpaiovs is its uncompromising denial of any second repentance. His increasing sympathy with the Montanists had led him to take a much less favourable view of the Shepherd of Hermas than he had once entertained; he now contrasts its lax tone with the rigour of IIpds ‘EBpafovs, and seeks to buttress his argument on this point by insisting as much as he can on the authority of [Ipods ‘E8paiovs as a production of the apostolic Barnabas. Where this tradition originated we cannot tell. Tertullian refers to it as a fact, not as an oral tradition; he may have known some MS of the writing with the title BapvaBa mpos ‘EBpaious (ériatoAn), and this may have come from Montanist circles in Asia Minor, as Zahn suggests. But all this is guessing in the dark about a guess in the dark. . Since Paul was the most considerable letter-writer of the primitive church, it was natural that in some quarters this anonymous writing should be assigned to him, as was done apparently in the Alexandrian church, although even there scholarly readers felt qualms at an early period, and endeavoured to explain the idiosyncrasies of style by supposing that some disciple of Paul, like Luke, translated it from Hebrew into Greek. This Alexandrian tradition of Paul’s authorship was evidently criticized in other quarters, and the controversy drew from Origen the one piece of enlightened literary criticism which the early discussions produced. "Ore 6 Xapakrnp THs Agews THS ™pos “EBpaious Ervyeypappevns emiaroAns ovK éyer TO ev Aoyy tOLwTLKOV TOU door OXov, dporoynoavTos €auTov iSedryv elvat TO Adyw (2 Co 11°), rouréote TH ppadoer, GAAG eoriv 7H émuotodi) avwvbéce THs A€EEws EdAnvixwrépa, was 6 emir dpevos kpivew ppdcewy diahopas opohoynoat dv. madw te ad Ott Ta vonpata THS emioToANs Gavpaovd core, Kat ov devrepa Tov drooToALK@v Oporoyoupevwv Ypapparey, Kal TOUTO Gv ouppyg at elvar dAnbes ras 6 ™ po EXwv ™m dvayvoret TH dTOTTONKT .. . Ey 8& dar oppawvo- pLEVOS elroy av OTL Ta prev vor para. TOU Phebe €oTiy, n be ppdais kal » ovvOeo.s aropuvnpovevoavros Twos TA act ciel Kal woTepe TXoALOypadyoavTds Twos Ta cipypéva bd Tod didacKdAov. el Tis ovv éxxAnoia Eyer TavTHY Tiv émiotorAV as LavAov, adrn eddoxipettw Kal érl TovTw. ov yap Eik7} ot dpxator avdpes ws TavAov aityv mapadedoxact, tis d@ 6 ypawas tiv ériotoAny, TO pev dAnbEs INTRODUCTION X)X Oeds oldev (quoted by Eusebius, 77.4. vi. 25. 11-14).! Origen ts too good a scholar to notice the guess that it was a translation from Hebrew, but he adds, 1 d€ eis jpas pldcaca t ioropta, b7r6 TWwV pev AeyovTwv, OTL KXypas 0 yevomevos elo KOT OS ‘Popatov éypawe tiv emiotoAyy, vd Twwy dé OTe AovKas 6 ypdiyas TO evayyéAvov Kat tas IIpdgeus. ‘The idea that Clement of Rome wrote it was, of course, an erroneous deduction from the echoes of it in his pages, almost as unfounded as the notion that Luke wrote it, either independently or as an amanuensis of Paul—a view probably due ultimately to the explanation of how his gospel came to be an apostolic, canonical work. Origen yields more to the “ Pauline” interpretation of IIpos “EBpatovs than is legitimate ; but, like Erasmus at a later day,? he was living in an environment where the “Pauline” tradition was almost a note of orthodoxy. Even his slight scruples failed to keep the question open. In the Eastern church, any hesitation soon passed away, and the scholarly scruples of men like Clement of Alexandria and Origen made no impression on the church at large. It is significant, for example, ee when even Eusebius comes to give his own opinion (/4.£. ili. 38. 2), he alters the hypothesis about Clement of Rome, it makes him merely the translator of a Pauline Hebrew original, not the author of a Greek original. As a rule, however, Ipods “EBpaiovs was accepted as fully Pauline, and passed into the NT canon of the Asiatic, the Egyptian, and the Syriac churches without question. In the Syriac canon of A.D. 400 (text as in Souter’s Zext and Canon of NT, p. 226), indeed, it stands next to Romans in the list of Paul’s epistles (see below, § 4). Euthalius, it is true, about the middle of the fifth century, argues for it in a way that indicates a current of opposition still flowing in certain quarters, but ecclesiastically Ilpds “E@patovs in the East as a Pauline document could defy doubts. The firm conviction of the Eastern church as a whole comes out in a remark like that of Apollinarius the bishop of Laodicea, towards the close of the fourth century: mov yéypamtar dre Xapaxt7p EOTL THS UTOCTATEWS 6 vids; Tapa TH dort ohw IIlavAw év tH mpos “EBpaious. Ovx exkAnovaleran. "Ad ou katnyyedy TO evayyéAvov Xpicrov, IavAov elvan wemiorevtat 7) emictoAn (Dial. de sancta Trin. 1,22). It was otherwise in the Western church, where Ilpds “EBpadous was for long either read simply as an edifying treatise, or, if regarded as canonical, assigned to some anonymous apostolic 1 There is a parallel to the last words in the scoffing close of an epigram in the Greek Anthology (ix. 135) : ypdWe Tis ; olde Oeds* rivos elvexev ; olde kal aurés. 2 **Uta stilo Pauli, quod ad phrasin attinet, longe lateque discrepat, ita ad spiritum ac pectus Paulinum vehementer accedit.’ XX THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS writer rather than to Paul. Possibly the use made of [pds “EBpatous by the Montanists and the Novatians, who welcomed its denial of a second repentance, compromised it in certain quarters. Besides, the Roman church had never accepted the Alexandrian tradition of Paul’s authorship, Hence, even when, on its merits, it was admitted to the canon, there was a strong tendency to treat it as anonymous, as may be seen, for example, in Augustine’s references. Once in the canon, however, it gradually acquired a Pauline prestige, and, as Greek scholar- ship faded, any scruples to the contrary became less and less intelligible. It was not till the study of Greek revived again, at the dawn of the Reformation, that the question was reopened. The data in connexion with the early fortunes of IIpés ‘E8paious in church history belong to text-books on the Canon, like Zahn’s Geschichte d. NT Kanons, i. 283 f., 577f., 11. 160f., 358f. ; Leipoldt’s Geschichte d. NT Kanons, i. pp. 188f., 219f.; and Jacquier’s Le Nouveau Testament dans L’ Elise Chrétienne, i. (1911). Few characters mentioned in the NT have escaped the attention of those who have desired in later days to identify the author of Ipods “EBpaiovs. Apollos, Peter, Philip, Silvanus, and even Prisca have been suggested, besides Aristion, the alleged author of Mk 16%, JI have summarized these views elsewhere (Jntrod. to Lit. of NT.*, pp. 438-442), and it is super- fluous here to discuss hypotheses which are in the main due to an irrepressible desire to construct NT romances. Perhaps our modern pride resents being baffled by an ancient document, but it is better to admit that we are not yet wiser on this matter than Origen was, seventeen centuries ago. The author of Ipods “EBpaiovs cannot be identified with any figure known to us in the primitive Christian tradition. He left great prose to some little clan of early Christians, but who they were and who he was, TO pev dAnGes Feds otdev. To us he is a voice and no more. The theory which alone explains the conflicting traditions is that for a time the writing was circulated as an anonymous tract. Only on this hypothesis can the simultaneous emergence of the Barnabas and the Paul traditions in different quarters be explained, as well as the persistent tradition in the Roman church that it was anonymous. As Zahn sensibly concludes, “those into whose hands IIpds ‘EB8paiouvs came either looked upon it as an anonymous writing from ancient apostolic times, or ” else resorted to conjecture. If Paul did not write it, they thought, then it must have been composed by some other prominent teacher of the apostolic church. Barnabas was such a man.” In one sense, it was fortunate that the Pauline hypothesis prevailed so early and so extensively, for apart from INTRODUCTION XX1 this help it might have been difficult for [pds ‘EBpaiovs to win or to retain its place in the canon. But even when it had been lodged securely inside the canon, some Western churchmen still clung for a while to the old tradition of its anonymity,! although they could do no more than hold this as a pious opinion. The later church was right in assigning Ipods ‘EBpaious a canonical position. The original reasons might be erroneous or doubtful, but even in the Western church, where they con- tinued to be questioned, there was an increasing indisposition to challenge their canonical result. (iv.) Thrown back, in the absence of any reliable tradition, upon the internal evidence, we can only conclude that the writer was one of those personalities in whom the primitive church was more rich than we sometimes realize. ‘Si l’on a pu comparer saint Paul 4 Luther,” says Ménégoz, ‘‘nous comparerions volontiers l’auteur de I|’Epitre aux Hébreux a Mélanchthon.” He was a highly trained éuddo0xados, perhaps a Jewish Christian, who had imbibed the philosophy of Alexandrian Judaism before his conversion, a man of literary culture and deep religious feeling. He writes to what is apparently a small community or circle of Christians, possibly one of the household-churches, to which he was attached. For some reason or another he was absent from them, and, although he hopes to rejoin them before long, he feels moved to send them this letter (1375) to rally them. It is possible to infer from 1374 (see note) that they belonged to Italy ; in any case, IIpds “EBpaiouvs was written either to or from some church in Italy. Beyond the fact that the writer and his readers had been evangelized by some of the disciples of Jesus (23+), we know nothing more about them. The words in 2% * do not mean that they belonged to the second generation, of course, in a chronological sense, for such words would have applied to the converts of any mission during the first thirty years or so after the crucifixion, and the only other inference to be drawn, as to the date, is from passages like 108F. and 13’, viz. that the first readers of [pds “Efpaiovs were not neophytes; they had lived through some rough experiences, and indeed their friend expects from them a maturity of experience and intelligence which he is disappointed to miss (5114); also, 1 According to Professor Souter (7ext and Canon of NT, p. 190) the epistle is ignored by the African Canon (c. 360), Optatus of Mileue in Numidia (370-385), the Acts of the Donatist Controversy, Zeno of Verona, an African by birth, and Foebadius of Agen (0d. post 392), while ‘‘ Ambrosi- aster” (fourth century?) ‘‘uses the work as canonical, but always as an anonymous work.” Xxit THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS their original leaders have died, probably as martyrs (cp. on 13°). For these and other reasons, a certain sense of disillusionment had begun to creep over them. IL pds “EGpaiovs is a ddyos TapakAncews, to steady and rally people who are zewpalopevor, their temptation being to renounce God, or at least to hesitate ~ and retreat, to relax the fibre of loyal faith, as if God were too difficult to follow in the new, hard situation. Once, at the outset of their Christian career, they had been exposed to mob- rioting (1082), when they had suffered losses of property, for the sake of the gospel, and also the loud jeers and sneers which pagans and Jews alike heaped sometimes upon the disciples. This they had borne manfully, in the first glow of their en- thusiasm. Now, the more violent forms of persecution had apparently passed; what was left was the dragging experience of contempt at the hand of outsiders, the social ostracism and shame, which were threatening to take the heart out of them. Such was their rough, disconcerting environment. Unless an illegitimate amount of imagination is applied to the internal data, they cannot be identified with what is known of any community in the primitive church, so scanty is our information. Least of all is it feasible to.connect them with the supposed effects of the Jewish rebellion which culminated in A.D. 70. IIpos “EBpaiovs cannot be later than about a.p. 85, as the use of it in Clement of Rome’s epistle proves; how much earlier it is, we cannot say, but the controversy over the Law, which marked the Pauline phase, is evidently over. It is perhaps not yet quite superfluous to point out that the use of the present tense (e.g. in 7% 7° 8% off 131°) is no clue to the date, as though this implied that the Jewish temple was still standing. The writer is simply using the historic present of actions described in scripture. It is a literary method which is common in writings long after A.D. 70, ¢.g. in Josephus, who observes (¢c. Apzon, i. '7) that any priest who violates a Mosaic regulation amrnyopeuTar unre Tots Bwuots waploracbar wnre peréxery TAS GAAns ayorelas (so Ant. ill. 6. 7-12, xiv. 2. 2, etc.). Clement of Rome similarly writes as though the Mosaic ritual were still in existence (40-41, T@ yap dpxepe? WSrae Nectoupylat dedouévar eloly . . . Kal Aevirats UWrat dtaxoviar émixewrac... mporpépovrat Ovoiar év ‘Tepovcadhu povy), and the author of the Zp. ad Diognet. 3 writes that of 6€ ye @volats adr Se aluaros Kal Kylons Kal dAoKauTw- pedrwy émiredetvy olduevor kal ravrats Tats Tiuatis avdrov yepaipew, ovdévy por Soxodar diadépewy Tv els TA KwHA Thy av’riy évdeckvuuévwv Pirotiulay. The idea that the situation of the readers was in any way connected with the crisis of A.D. 66-70 in Palestine is unfounded. IIpds ‘EBpatovs has nothing to do with the Jewish temple, nor with Palestinian Christians. There is not a syllable in the writing which suggests that either the author or his readers had any connexion with or interest in the contemporary temple and ritual of Judaism ; their existence mattered as little to his idealist method of argu- ment as their abolition. When he observes (8!%) that the old d:a@jxn was éyyvs ddavicuod, all he means is that the old régime, superseded now by Jesus, was decaying even in Jeremiah’s age. INTRODUCTION Xxill (v.) The object of IIpos ‘EBpatovs may be seen from a_ brief analysis of its contents. The writer opens with a stately para- graph, introducing the argument that Jesus Christ as the Son of God is superior (xpeirrwv) to angels, in the order of revelation (11-218), and this, not in spite of but because of his incarnation and sufferings. He is also superior (xkpeirtwv) even to Moses (31°), as a Son is superior to a servant. Instead of pursuing the argument further, the writer then gives an impressive bible reading on the gsth psalm, to prove that the People of God have still assured to them, if they will only have faith, the divine Rest in the world to come (3°-41%). Resuming his argument, the writer now begins to show how Jesus as God’s Son is superior to the Aaronic high priest (4!4-5!°), This is the heart of his subject, and he stops for a moment to rouse the attention of his readers (5-620) before entering upon the high theme. By a series of skilful transitions he has passed on from the Person of the Son, which is uppermost in chs. 1-4, to the Priesthood of the Son, which dominates chs. 7-8. Jesus as High Priest mediates a superior (xpe(rrwv) order of religion or dsa6yKy than that under which Aaron and his successors did their work for the People of God, and access to God, which is the supreme need of men, is now secured fully and finally by the relation of Jesus to God, in virtue of his sacrifice (69-8!) The validity of this sacrifice is then proved (g!-10!8); it is absolutely efficacious, as no earlier sacrifice of victims could be, in securing forgiveness and fellowship forman. The remainder of the writing (10!%—1374) is a series of impressive appeals for constancy. The first (1019-31) is a skilful blend of encouragement and warning. He then appeals to the fine record of his readers (10%), bidding them be worthy of their own past, and inciting them to faith in God by reciting a great roll-call of heroes and heroines belonging to God’s People in the past, from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs (111°), He further kindles their imagination and conscience by holding up Jesus as the Supreme Leader of all the faithful (1213), even along the path of suffering; besides, he adds (12* 1"), suffering is God’s discipline for those who belong to his household. To prefer the world (12!?1”) is to incur a fearful penalty; the one duty for us is to accept the position of fellowship with God, ina due spirit of awe and grateful confidence (1218-9). A brief note of some ethical duties follows (13'7), with a sudden warning against some current tendencies to compromise their spiritual religion (13°16), A postscript (13!7%4), with some fersonalia, ends the epistle. It is artificial to divide up a writing of this kind, which is not XXIV THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS a treatise on theology, and I have therefore deliberately abstained from introducing any formal divisions and subdivisions in the commentary. ‘The flow of thought, with its turns and windings, is best followed from point to point. So far as the general plan goes, it is determined by the idea of the finality of the Christian — revelation in Jesus the Son of God. This is brought out (A) by a proof that he is superior to angels (11-218) and Moses (31), followed by the special exhortation of 3°-4!%, Thus far it is what may be termed the Personality of the Son which is discussed. Next (B) comes the Son as High Priest (444—7°8), including the parenthetical exhortation of 514-679. The (C) Sacrifice of this High Priest in his Sanctuary then (81-1018) is discussed, each of the three arguments, which are vitally connected, laying stress from one side or another upon the absolute efficacy of the revelation. This is the dominant idea of the writing, and it explains the particular line which the writer strikes out. He takes a very serious view of the position of his friends and readers. They are disheartened and discouraged for various reasons, some of which are noted in the course of the epistle. There is the strain of hardship, the unpleasant experience of being scoffed at, and the ordinary temptations of immorality, which may bring them, if they are not careful, to the verge of actual apostasy. The writer appears to feel that the only way to save them from ruining themselves is to put before them the fearful and unsuspected consequences of their failure. Hence three times over the writer draws a moving picture of the fate which awaits apostates and renegades (6*f 1076f 1215f), But the special line of argument which he adopts in 5-10!8 must be connected somehow with the danger in which he felt his friends involved, and this is only to be explained. if we assume that their relaxed interest in Christianity arose out of an imperfect concep- tion of what Jesus meant for their faith. He offers no theoretical disquisition ; it is to reinforce and deepen their conviction of the place of Jesus in religion, that he argues, pleads, and warns, dwelling on the privileges and responsibilities of the relationship in which Jesus had placed them. All the help they needed, all the hope they required, lay in the access to God mediated by Jesus, if they would only realize it. This is what makes the writing of special interest. In the first place (a) the author is urged by a practical necessity to think out his faith, or rather to state the full content of his faith, for the benefit of his readers. Their need puts him on his mettle. ‘‘ Une chose surtant,” says Anatole France, ‘donne le lattrait 4 la pensée des hommes: c’est linquiétude. Un esprit qui n’est point anxieux m/’irrite ou m’ennuie.” In a sense all the NT writers are spurred by this anxiety, but the author INTRODUCTION XXV of IIpos “Efpaiovs pre-eminently. It is not anxiety about his personal faith, nor about the prospects of Christianity, but about the loyalty of those for whom he feels himself responsible ; his very certainty of the absolute value of Christianity makes him anxious when he sees his friends ready to give it up, anxious on their behalf, and anxious to bring out as lucidly and persuasively as possible the full meaning of the revelation of God in Jesus. What he writes is not a theological treatise in cold blood, but a statement of the faith, alive with practical interest. The situation of his readers has stirred his own mind, and he bends all his powers of thought and emotion to rally them. There is a vital urgency behind what he writes for his circle. But (4), more than this, the form into which he throws his appeal answers to the situation of his readers. He feels that the word for them is the absolute worth of Jesus as the Son of God; it is to bring this out that he argues, in the middle part of his epistle, so elaborately and anxiously about the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus. The idealistic conception of the two spheres, the real and eternal, and the phenomenal (which is the mere oxida and trdderypa, a tapaBoXrny, an avtiturov of the former), is applied to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which inaugurates and realizes the eternal dva6yxn between God and man. Ina series of contrasts, he brings out the superiority of this revelation to the OT dtabjKxy with its cultus. But not because the contemporary form of the latter had any attractions for his readers. It is with the archaic oxynvy described in the OT that he deals, in order to elucidate the final value of Jesus and his sacrifice under the new dva7xn, which was indeed the real and eternal one. ‘To readers like his friends, with an imperfect sense of all that was contained in their faith, he says, ‘Come back to your bible, and see how fully it suggests the positive value of Jesus.” Christians were finding Christ in the LXX, especially his sufferings in the prophetic scriptures, but our author falls back on the pentateuch and the psalter especially to illustrate the commanding position of Jesus as the Son of God in the eternal é:a0y«xy, and the duties as well as the privileges of living under such a final revelation, where the purpose and the promises of God for his People are realized as they could not be under the OT dia6yxn. Why the writer concentrates upon the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus in this eternal order of things, is due in part to his general conception of religion (see pp. xliif.). For him there could be no religion without a priest. But this idea is of direct service to his readers, as he believes. Hence the first mention of Jesus as dpyvepevs occurs as a reason for loyalty and confidence (2!4*). Nothing is more practical in religion than an idea, a relevant idea power- fully urged. When the writer concentrates for a while upon XXV1 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS this cardinal idea of Jesus as dpyxuepeds, therefore, it is because nothing can be more vital, he thinks, for his friends than to show them the claims and resources of their faith, disclosing the rich and real nature of God’s revelation to them in- his Son. Access to God, confidence in God, pardon for sins of the past, and hope for the future—all this is bound up with the dvaéj«n of Christ, and the writer reveals it between the lines of the LXX, to which as members of the People of God his friends naturally turned for instruction and revelation. This dca6y«y, he argues, is far superior to the earlier one, as the Son of God is superior to angels and to Moses himself; nay more, it is superior in efficacy, as the real is superior to its shadowy outline, for the sacrifice which underlies any d:a6yx«y is fulfilled in Christ as it could not be under the levitical cultus. The function of Christ as high priest is to mediate the direct access of the People to God, and all this has been done so fully and finally that Christians have simply to avail themselves of its provisions for their faith and eed: What the writer feels called upon to deal with, therefore, is not any sense of disappointment in his readers that they had not an impressive ritual or an outward priesthood, nor any hankering after such in contemporary Judaism; it is a failure to see that Christianity is the absolute religion, a failure which is really responsible for the unsatisfactory and even the critical situation of the readers. To meet this need, the writer argues as well as exhorts. He seeks to show from the LXX how the Christian faith alone fulfils the conditions of real religion, and as he knows no other religion than the earlier phase in Israel, he takes common ground with his readers on the LXX record of the first d.a6yxy, in order to let them see even there the implications and anticipations of the higher. But while the author never contemplates any fusion of Christianity with Jewish legalism, and while the argument betrays no trace of Jewish religion as a competing attraction for the readers, it might be argued that some speculative Judaism had affected the mind of the readers. No basis for this can be found in 13%. Yet if there were any proselytes among the readers, they may have felt the fascination of the Jewish system, as those did afterwards who are warned by Ignatius (ad PAilad. 6, etc.), ‘‘ Better listen to Christianity from a circumcised Chris- tian than to Judaism from one uncircumcised.” ‘It is mon- * strous to talk of Jesus Christ and iovduifer” (ad Magnes. 10). This interpretation was put forward by Haring (Studien und Kritiken, 1891, pp. 589f.), and it has been most ingeniously argued by Professor Purdy (Z£xfosztor§, xix. pp. 123-139), who thinks that the emphasis upon “Jesus” means that the readers INTRODUCTION XXVil were exposed to the seductions of a liberal Judaism which offered an escape from persecution and other difficulties by presenting a Christ who was spiritual, divorced from history; that this liberal, speculative Judaism came forward as ‘‘a more developed and perfected type of religion than Christianity”; and that, without being legalistic, it claimed to be a traditional, ritualistic faith, which was at once inward and ceremonial. The objection to such interpretations,! however, is that they explain zgnotum per tgnotius. We know little or nothing of such liberal Judaism in the first century, any more than of a tendency on the part of Jewish Christians to abandon Christianity about A.D. 70 for their ancestral faith. Indeed any influence of Jewish propaganda, ritualistic or latitudinarian, must be regarded as secondary, at the most, in the situation of the readers as that is to be inferred from IIpds “EGpaious itself. When we recognize the real method and aim of the writer, it becomes clear that he was dealing with a situation which did not require any such influence to account for it. ‘The form taken by his argument is determined by the conception, or rather the misconception, of the faith entertained by his friends; and this in turn is due not to any political or racial factors, but to social and mental causes, such as are sufficiently indicated in IIpds “Epaiovs itself. Had the danger been a relapse into Judaism of any kind, it would have implied a repudiation of Jesus Christ as messiah and divine—the very truth which the writer can assume! What he needs to do is not to defend this, but to develop it. The writing, therefore, for all its elaborate structure, has a spontaneous aim. It is not a homily written at large, to which by some afterthought, on the part of the writer or of some editor, a few personalia have been appended in ch. 13. The argu- mentative sections bear directly and definitely upon the situa- tion of the readers, whom the writer has in view throughout, even when he seems to be far from their situation. Which brings us to the problem of the literary structure of IIpds “EBpadous. (vi.) See especially W. Wrede’s monograph, Das /terarische Ratseld. Hebrier- briefs (1906), with the essays of E. Burggaller and R. Perdelwitz in Zeztschrif¢ fiir Neutest. Wissenschaft (1908, pp. 110f.; 1910, pp. 59f., 105f.); V. Monod’s De ¢ztulo epistulae vulgo ad Hebraeos inscriptae (1910); C. C. 1Cp., further, Professor Dickie’s article in Expositor’, v. pp. 371f. The notion that the writer is controverting an external view of Christ’s person, which shrank, e.g., from admitting his humiliation and real humanity, had been urged by Julius Kogel in Dre Verborgenhett Jesu als des Messtas (Greifenswald, 1909) and in Der Sohn und die Sohne, ein exegetische Studie eu Heb 25-18 (1904). XXVI1il THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Torrey’s article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1911), pp. 137-156 ; J. W. Slot’s De letterkundige vorm v. d. Brief aan de Hebrder (1912), with J. Quentel’s essay in Revue Bibligue (1912, pp. 50f.) and M. Jones’ paper in Expositor’, xii. 426 f. The literary problem of IIpds “EBpatous is raised by the — absence of any address and the presence of personal matter in ch. 13. Why (a) has it no introductory greeting? And why (0) has it a postscript? As for the former point (a), there may have been, in the original, an introductory title. IIpds “EBpa/ovs opens with a great sentence (11), but Eph 1 is just such another, and there is no reason why the one should not have followed a title-address any more than the other.t It may have been lost by accident, in the tear and wear of the manuscript, for such accidents are not unknown in ancient literature. This is, at any rate, more probable than the idea that it was suppressed because the author (Barnabas, Apollos?) was not of sufficiently apostolic rank for the canon. Had this interest been operative, it would have been perfectly easy to alter a word or two in the address itself. Besides, Ipsos “E@patovs was circulating long before it was admitted to the canon, and it circulated even after- wards as non-canonical; yet not a trace of any address, Pauline or non-Pauline, has ever survived. Which, in turn, tells against the hypothesis that such ever existed—at least, against the theory that it was deleted when the writing was canonized. If the elision of the address ever took place, it must have been very early, and rather as the result of accident than deliberately. Yet there is no decisive reason why the writing should not have begun originally as it does in its present form. Nor does this imply (4) that the personal data in ch. 13 are irrelevant. Ipods “Efpaiovs has a certain originality in form as well as in content; it is neither an epistle nor a homily, pure and simple. True, down to 12” (or 1317) there is little or nothing that might not have been spoken by a preacher to his audience, and Valckenaer (on 4%) is right, so far, in saying, “‘haec magnifica ad. Hebraeos missa dissertatio oratio potius dicenda est quam epistola.” Yet the writer is not addressing an ideal public; he is not composing a treatise for Christendom at large. It is really unreal to ex- plain away passages like 514 10%! 124f and 13! as rhetorical abstractions. | II pds “EBpatous was the work of a didacKxados, who knew how to deliver a Adyos wapaxAjocews. Parts of it probably represent what he had used in preaching already (e.g. 3"). But, while it has sometimes the tone of sermon notes written out, it is not a 1 Ep. Barnabas begins with dde\gpol, ottrws Set Huds Ppovety epi Incod Xpicrot ws wept Beod, etc. ; 2 Clement starts with a greeting, xalpere, viol xal Ouyarépes, év dvduart xuplov Tov dyarijoavros Huds év elphry. - INTRODUCTION xxix sermon in the air. To strike out 131% 2224 or 131-7. 16-19. 22f. (Torrey)! does not reduce it from a letter or epistle to a sermon like 2 Clement. Thus, e¢.g., a phrase like 11%? (see note) is as intelligible in a written work as in a spoken address. It is only by emptying passages like 51!f and 10%! of their full meaning that anyone can speak of the writer as composing a sermon at large or for an ideal public. Part of the force of 51", ¢.., is due to the fact that the writer is dealing with a real situation, pleading that in what he is going to say he is not writing simply to display his own talent or to please himself, but for the serious, urgent need of his readers. ‘They do not deserve what he is going to give them. But he will give it! A thoroughly pastoral touch, which is lost. by being turned into a rhetorical excuse for de- ploying some favourite ideas of his own. According to Wrede, the author wrote in 13!%1® on the basis of (Philem 2%) 2 Co r11. 12 to make it appear as though Paul was the author, and then added 13? on the basis of Ph 21% 23.24; but why he should mix up these reminiscences, which, according to Wrede, are contra- dictory, it is difficult to see. Had he wished to put a Pauline colour into the closing paragraphs, he would surely have done it in a lucid, coherent fashion, instead of leaving the supposed allusions to Paul’s Roman imprisonment so enigmatic. But,though Wrede thinks that the hypothesis of a pseudonymous conclusion is the only way of. explaining the phenomena of ch. 13, he agrees that to excise it entirely is out of the question. Neither the style nor the contents justify such a radical theory,? except on the untenable hypothesis that 1-12 is a pure treatise... The analogies of a doxology being followed by personal matter (e.g. 2 Ti 418, 1 P 4" etc.) tell against the idea that Hpds “EBpatous must have ended with 137!, and much less could it have ended with 13!7. To assume that the writer suddenly bethought him, at the end, of giving a Pauline appearance to what he had written, and that he therefore added 13%, is to credit him with too little ability. Had he wished to convey this impression, he would certainly have gone further and made changes in the earlier part. Nor is it likely that anyone added the closing verses in order to facilitate its entrance into the NT canon by bringing it into line with the other epistles. The canon was drawn up for worship, and if [pos “Efpatous was originally a discourse, it seems very unlikely that anyone would have gone 1 To excise 13!*7 as a ‘‘formless jumble of rather commonplace admoni- tions” is a singular misjudgment. 2 The linguistic proof is cogently led by C. R. Williams in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1911), pp. 129-136, who shows that the alleged special parallels between He 13 and Paul are neither so numerous nor so significant as is commonly supposed, and that the only fair explanation of He 13 as a whole is that it was written to accompany I-12. XXX THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS out of his way, on this occasion, to add some enigmatic personal references. In short, while IIpos “EB8patovs betrays here and there the interests and methods of an effective preacher, the epistolary form is not a piece of literary fiction; still- less is it. due (in ch. 13) to some later hand. It is hardly too much to say that the various theories about the retouching of the 13th chapter of IIpds ‘EBpaiovs are as valuable, from the standpoint of literary criticism, as Macaulay’s unhesitating belief that Dr. Johnson had revised and retouched Ceez/za. § 2. THE ReELiGcious IDEAs. In addition to the text-books on NT theology, consult Riehm’s Lehrbegrzf des Hebrierbriefs* (1867), W. Milligan’s Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord (1891), Ménégoz’s La /héologie de [ Epitre aux Hébreux (1894), A. Seeberg’s Der Tod Christi (1895), A. B. Bruce’s The Epistle to the Hebrews (1899), G. Milligan’s Zhe Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1899), G. Vos on ‘‘The Priesthood of Christ in Hebrews” (rznceton Theological Review, 1907, pp. 423f., 579 f.), Du Bose’s Aighpriesthood and Sacrifice (1908), A. Nairne’s Zhe Epistle of Priesthood (1913), H. L. MacNeill’s Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1914), H. A. A. Kennedy’s Theology of the Epistles (1919, pp. 182-221), and E. F. Scott’s The Epistle to the Hebrews (1922). Many readers who are not children will understand what Mr Edmund Gosse in Father and Son (pp. 89 f.) describes, in telling how his father read aloud to him the epistle. ‘‘ The extraordinary beauty of the language—for instance, the matchless cadences and images of the first chapter—made a certain impression upon my imagination, and were (I think) my earliest initiation into the magic of literature. I was incapable of defining what I felt, but I certainly had a grip in the throat, which was in its essence a purely aesthetic emotion, when my father read, in his pure, large, ringing voice, such passages as ‘The heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou remainest, and they shall all wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed ; but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.’ But the dialectic parts of the epistle puzzled and confused me. Such metaphysical ideas as ‘laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works’ and ‘crucifying the Son of God ‘afresh’ were not successfully brought down to the level of my understanding. . . . The melodious language, the divine forensic audacities, the magnifi- cent ebb and flow of argument which make the Epistle to the Hebrews such a miracle, were far beyond my reach, and they only bewildered me.” They become less bewildering when they are viewed in the right perspective. The clue to them lies in the INTRODUCTION XXxl philosophical idea which dominates the outlook of the writer, and in the symbolism which, linked to this idea, embodied his characteristic conceptions of religion. We might almost say that, next to the deflecting influence of the tradition which identified our epistle with the Pauline scheme of thought and thereby missed its original and independent contribution to early Christi- anity, nothing has so handicapped its appeal as the later use of it in dogmatic theology. While the author of IIpos “Efpa‘ous often turned the literal into the figurative, his theological interpreters have been as often engaged in turning the figurative expressions of the epistle into what was literal. A due appreciation of the symbolism has been the slow gain of the historical method as applied to the classics of primitive Christianity. There is no consistent symbolism, indeed, not even in the case of the dpxepevs ; in the nature of the case, there could not be. But symbolism there is, and symbolism of a unique kind. (i.) The author writes from a religious philosophy of his own— that is, of his own among the NT writers. The philosophical element in his view of the world and God is fundamentally Platonic. Like Philo and the author of Wisdon, he interprets the past and the present alike in terms of the old theory (cp. on 85 10!) that the phenomenal is but an imperfect, shadowy trans- cript of what is eternal and real. He applies this principle to the past. What was all the Levitical cultus in bygone days but a faint copy of the celestial archetype, a copy that suggested by its very imperfections the future and final realization? In such arguments (chs. 7-10) he means to declare “that Christianity is eternal, just as it shall be everlasting, and that all else is only this, that the true heavenly things of which it consists thrust themselves forward on to this bank and shoal of time, and took cosmical embodiment, in order to suggest their coming ever- lasting manifestation.” 1 The idea that the seen and material is but a poor, provisional replica of the unseen and real order of things (ra éroupavia, Ta ev Tots Ovpavots, TA 1.7) TaAEvdpeva), pervades IIpos “EBpavovs. Thus faith (111%) means the conviction, the practical realization, of this world of realities, not only the belief that the universe does not arise out of mere dawodpeva, but the conviction that life must be ordered, at all costs, by a vision of the unseen, or by obedience to a Voice unheard by any outward ear. Similarly the outward priest, sanctuary, and sacrifices of the ancient cultus were merely the shadowy copy of the real, as manifested in Jesus with his self-sacrifice, his death being, as 1 A. B. Davidson, Biblical and Literary Essays (p. 317). XXXII THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Sabatier says, ‘‘une fonction sacerdotale, un acte transcendant de purification rituelle, accompli hors de l’humanité” (Za Doctrine de Expiation, p. 37). Such is the philosophical strain which permeates Ipos ‘EBpafovs. The idea of heavenly counterparts is not, of course, confined to Platonism; it is Sumerian, in one of its roots (cp. on 85), and it had already entered apocalyptic. But our author derives it from his Alexandrian religious philo- sophy (transmuting the xdopos vonrds into the more vivid and devotional figures of an olxos or wéAts Geot, a watpis or even a oxnvy addynOwy), just as elsewhere he freely uses Aristotelian ideas like that of the réAos or final end, with its reAciwous or sequence of growth, and shows familiarity with the idea of the eés (514). The teXeiwors (See on 5°) idea is of special importance, as it denotes for men the work of Christ in putting them into their proper status towards God (see on 21°). ‘By a single offering he has made the sanctified perfect for all time” (rereAciwxey, 10!*), the - offering or wpoogopa being himself, and the ‘“‘ perfecting” being the act of putting the People into their true and final relation towards God. This the Law, with its outward organization of priests and animal sacrifices, could never do; “as the Law has a mere shadow of the bliss that is to be, instead of representing the reality of that bliss (viz. the ‘perfect’ relationship between God and men), it can never perfect those who draw near ” (10%). This gives us the focus for viewing the detailed comparison between the levitical sacrifices and priests on the one hand and the kpeirrwy Jesus. ‘You see in your bible,” the writer argues, ‘“‘the elaborate system of ritual which was once organized for the forgiveness of sins and the access of the people to God. All this was merely provisional and ineffective, a shadow of the Reality which already existed in the mind of God, and which is now ours in the sacrifice of Jesus.” Even the fanciful argument from the priesthood of Melchizedek (620—7!”)—fanciful to us, but forcible then—swings from this conception. What the author seeks to do is not to prove that there had been from the first a natural or real priesthood, superior to the levitical, a priesthood fulfilled in Christ. His aim primarily is to discredit the levitical priesthood of bygone days; it was anticipated in the divine order by that of Melchizedek, he shows, using a chronological argument resembling that of Paul in Gal 3%, on the principle that what is prior is superior. But what leads him to elaborate specially the Melchizedek priesthood is that it had already played an important role in Jewish speculation in connexion with the messianic hope. Philo had already identified Melchizedek out- right with the Logos or possibly even with the messiah. Whether the author of IIpos “Efpadous intends to contradict Philo or not, he takes a different line, falling back upon his favourite psalm, INTRODUCTION XXXII] the r1roth, which in the Greek version, the only one known to him, had put forward not only the belief that messiah was tepeis «is Tov alava Kata tHv Tag MeAxXioédex, but the Alexandrian belief in the pre-existence of messiah (v.3 ék yaorpds mpd éwoddpov efeyevvnod oe). Here then, by Alexandrian methods of exegesis, in the pentateuch text combined with the psalm, he found scripture proof of an original priesthood which was not levitical, not transferable, and permanent. This priesthood of Melchize- dek was, of course, not quite a perfect type of Christ’s, for it did not include any sacrifice, but, as resting on personality, not on heredity, it did typify, he held, that eternal priesthood of the Christ which was to supersede the levitical, for all the ancient prestige of the latter. As this prestige was wholly biblical for the writer and his readers, so it was essential that the disproof of its validity should be biblical also. Though he never uses either the idea of Melchizedek offering bread and wine to typify the elements in the eucharist, in spite of the fact that Philo once allegorized this trait (de Leg. Alleg. iil. 25), or the idea of Melchizedek being uncircumcised (as he would have done, had he been seriously arguing with people who were in danger of relapsing into contemporary Judaism), he does seem to glance at the combination of the sacerdotal and the royal functions. Like Philo, though more fully, he notices the religious signi- ficance of the etymology ‘king of righteousness” and “ king of peace,” the reason being that throughout his argument he endeavours repeatedly to preserve something of the primitive view of Jesus as messianic king, particularly because the idea of the divine BactAeia plays next to no part in his scheme of thought. Sometimes the combination of the sacerdotal and royal metaphors is incongruous enough, although it is not unimpressive (¢g. 101% 18), Primarily it is a survival of the older militant messianic category which is relevant in the first chapter (see 1°), but out of place in the argument from the priesthood ; the reference is really due to the desire to reaffirm the absolute significance of Christ’s work, and by way of anticipa- tion he sounds this note even in 71%. Later on, it opens up into an interesting instance of his relation to the primitive eschatology. To his mind, trained in the Alexandrian philo- sophy of religion, the present world of sense and time stands over against the world of reality, the former being merely the shadow and copy of the latter. There is an archetypal 1 The writer is trying to express an idea which, as Prof. E. F. Scott argues (pp. 207f.), ‘‘ underlies all our modern thought—social and political as well as religious,” viz. that true authority is not prescriptive but personal ; ‘the priesthood which can bring us nearer God must be one of inherent character and personality.” ¢ XXXIV THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS order of things, eternal and divine, to which the mundane order but dimly corresponds, and only within this higher order, eternal and invisible, is access to God possible for man. On sucha view as this, which ultimately (see pp. xxxi—xxxli) goes back to - Platonic idealism, and which had been worked out by Philo, the real world is the transcendent order of things, which is the pattern for the phenomenal universe, so that to attain God man must pass from the lower and outward world of the senses to the inner. But how? Philo employed the Logos or Reason as the medium. Our author similarly holds that men must attain this higher world, but for him it is a oxyv7, a sanctuary, the real Presence of God, and it is entered not through ecstasy or mystic rapture, but through connexion with Jesus Christ, who has not only revealed that world but opened the way into it. The Presence of God is now attainable as it could not be under the outward cultus of the oxynv7 in the OT, for the complete sacrifice has been offered “in the realm of the spirit,” thus providing for the direct access of the people to their God. The full bliss of the fellowship is still in the future, indeed; it is not to be realized finally until Jesus returns for his people, for he is as yet only their mpodpopos (62°), The primitive eschatology required and received this admission from the writer, though it is hardly consonant with his deeper thought. And this is why he quotes for example the old words about Jesus waiting in heaven till his foes are crushed (10! 18), He is still near enough to the primitive period to share the forward look (see, e.g., 22 928 1087), and unlike Philo, he does not allow his religious idealism to evaporate his eschatology. But while this note of expectation is sounded now and then, it is held that Christians already experience the powers of the world to come. The new and final order has dawned ever since the sacrifice of Jesus was made, and the position of believers is guaranteed. ‘‘ You have come to mount Sion, the city of the living God.” ‘The entrance of Jesus has made a fresh, living way for us, which is here and now open. “ For all time he is able to save those who approach God through him, as he is always living to intercede on their behalf.” Christians enjoy the final status of relationship to God in the world of spirit and reality, in virtue of the final sacrifice offered by Jesus the Son. (1i.) ; What was this sacrifice? How did the writer understand it ? (a) The first thing to be said is that in his interpretation of the sacrifice of Jesus, he takes the piacular view. Calvin (Zms?tv. ii. 15. 6) maintains that, as for the priesthood of Christ, “ finem et usum eius esse ut sit mediator purus omni macula, qui sanctitate INTRODUCTION XXXV sua Deum nobis conciliet. Sed quia aditum occupat justa maledictio, et Deus pro judicis officio nobis infensus est, ut nobis favorem comparet sacerdos ad placandam iram ipsius Dei, piacu- Jum intervenire necesse est. . . . Qua de re prolixe apostolus disputat in epistola ad Hebraeos a septimo capite fere ad finem usque decimi.” Matthew Arnold is not often found beside Calvin, but he shares this error. ‘‘’Turn it which way we will, the notion of appeasement of an offended God by vicarious sacrifice, which the Epistle to the Hebrews apparently sanctions, will never truly speak to the religious sense, or bear fruit for true religion ” (St. Paul and Protestantism, p.72). Arnold saves himself by the word “apparently,” but the truth is that this idea is not sanctioned by IIpds “Efpaiovs at all. The interpreta- tion of Calvin confuses Paul’s doctrine of expiation with the piacular view of our author. The entire group of ideas about the law, the curse, and the wrath of God is alien to IIpds “EBpatovs. The conception of God is indeed charged with wholesome awe (cp. on 1278 9); but although God is never called directly the Father of Christians, his attitude to men is one of grace, and the entire process of man’s approach is initiated by him (2° 137°), God’s wrath is reserved for the apostates (1079-31) ; it does not brood over unregenerate men, to be removed by Christ. Such a notion could hardly have occurred to a man with predilections for the typical significance of the OT ritual, in which the sacrifices were not intended to avert the wrath of God so much as to reassure the people from time to time that their relations with their God had not been interrupted. The function of Christ, according to our author, is not to appease the divine wrath (see on 2° 17), but to establish once and for all the direct fellowship of God with his people, and a picturesque archaic phrase like that in 12%4 about the aiva pavricpod cannot be pressed into the doctrine that Jesus by his sacrifice averted or averts the just anger of God. On the other hand, while the author knows the primitive Christian idea of God’s fatherhood, it is not in such terms that he expresses his own conception of God. Philo (De Exsecrationibus, 9) describes how the Jews in the diaspora will be encouraged to return to Israel and Israel’s God, particularly by his forgiving character (€vi peév cizeixeia Kal xXpyoTornte TOD TapakaAouvpevov cvyyvHOpNY TPO Tiywwpias del TLbeV- tos); the end of their approach to God, he adds, ovdev érepov 7 evapeotety TO Jed Kabarep viovs matpi. But the author of IIpds “EBpaiovs lays no stress upon the Fatherhood of God for men; except in connexion with the discipline of suffering, he never alludes to the goodness of God as paternal, even for Christians, and indeed it is only in OT quotations that God is called even the Father of the Son (1° 5°). He avoids, even more strictly XXXV1 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS than Jesus, the use of love-language. The verb dyaray only occurs twice, both times in an OT citation ; dydazy is also used only twice, and never of man’s attitude towards God. ‘There is significance in such linguistic data; they corroborate the impression that the author takes a deep view (see on 12”) of the homage and awe due to God. Godly reverence, eiAdBeva (see on 5’), characterized Jesus in his human life, and it is to charac- terize Christians towards God, #.e. an awe which is devoid of anything like nervous fear, an ennobling sense of the greatness of God, but still a reverential awe. This is not incompatible with humble confidence or with a serious joy, with zappyoia (cp. on 316). Indeed “all deep joy has something of the awful in it,” as Carlyle says. "Exywpev xapw is the word of our author (1278); the standing attitude of Christians towards their God is one of profound thankfulness for his goodness to them. Only, it is to be accompanied pera edrAaPeias kat d€ouvs. We are to feel © absolutely secure under God’s will, whatever crises or catastrophes befall the universe, and the security is at once to thrill (see on 212) and to subdue our minds. Hence, while God’s graciousness overcomes any anxiety in man, his sublimity is intended to elevate and purify human life by purging it of easy emotion and thin sentimentalism. This is not the primitive awe of religion before the terrors of the unknown supernatural; the author believes in the gracious, kindly nature of God (see on 219, also 610 7316 etc.), but he has an instinctive horror of anything like a shallow levity. The tone of IIpds “EBpatovs resembles, indeed, that of 1 P 1!" (ei rarépa érixadetobe Tov arpoowmoAnTTws KpivovTa Kata TO ékdoTov épyov, év poBw Tov THs maporxias tudv ypdvov dvactpapyre) ; there may be irreverence in religion, not only in formal religion but for other reasons in spiritual religion. Yet the special aspect of our epistle is reflected in what Jesus once said to men tempted to hesitate and draw back in fear of suffering : “‘ I will show you whom to fear—fear Him who after He has killed has power to cast you into Gehenna. Yes, I tell you, fear Him” (Lk 12°). This illustrates the spirit and situation of IIpos “E@paiovs, where the writer warns his friends against apostasy by reminding them of 6 Oeds Zév and of the judgment. We might almost infer that in his mind the dominant conception is God regarded as transcendental, not with regard to creation but with regard to frail, faulty human nature. What, engrosses the writer is the need not so much of a medium between God and the material universe, as of a medium between his holiness and human sin (see on 1223), (4) As for the essence and idea of the sacrifice, while he refers to a number of OT sacrifices by way of illustration, his main analogy comes from the ritual of atonement-day in the INTRODUCTION XXXVil levitical code (Lv 16), where it was prescribed that once a year the highpriest was to enter the inner shrine by himself, the shrine within which stood the sacred box or ark symbolizing the divine Presence. The elaborate sacrifices of the day are only glanced at by our author. Thus he never alludes to the famous scape- goat, which bore away the sins of the people into the desert. All he mentions is the sacrifice of certain animals, as propitiation for the highpriest’s own sins and also for those of the nation. Carrying some blood of these animals, the priest was to smear the tAagryjpov or cover of the ark. This had a twofold object. (i) Blood was used to reconsecrate the sanctuary (Lv 161). This was a relic of the archaic idea that the life-bond between the god and his worshippers required to be renewed by sacred blood ; “the holiness of the altar is liable to be impaired, and requires to be refreshed by an application of holy blood.” ! Our author refers to this crude practice in 9%. But his dominant interest is in (ii) the action of the highpriest as he enters the inner shrine; it is not the reconsecration of the sanctuary with its altar, but the general atonement there made for the sins of the People, which engrosses him. The application of the victim’s blood to the tAaoryjpiov by the divinely appointed highpriest was believed to propitiate Yahweh by cleansing the People from the sins which might prevent him from dwelling any longer in the land or among the People. The annual ceremony was designed to ensure his Presence among them, ‘‘to enable the close relationship between Deity and man to continue undisturbed. The logical circle—that the atoning ceremonies were ordered by God to produce their effect upon himself—was necessarily unperceived by the priestly mind” (Montefiore, Fiibbert Lectures, p. 337). What the rite, as laid down in the bible, was intended to accomplish was simply, for the author of IIpos “EBpaiovs, to renew the life-bond between God and the People. ‘This sacrifice offered by the highpriest on atonement- day was the supreme, piacular action of the levitical cultus. Once a year it availed to wipe out the guilt of all sins, whatever their nature, ritual or moral, which interrupted the relationship between God and his People.? For it was a sacrifice designed for the entire People as the community of God. The blood of the victims was carried into the inner shrine, on behalf of the People outside the sanctuary; this the highpriest did for them, as he passed inside the curtain which shrouded the inner shrine. Also, in contrast to the usual custom, the flesh of the victims, instead of any part being eaten as a meal, was carried out and burned up. In all this the writer finds a richly symbolic 1W, Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites (1907), pp. 408 f. 2 Cp. Montefiore, of. czt., pp. 334f. XXXVill THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS meaning (9). Jesus was both highpriest and victim, as he died and passed inside the heavenly Presence of God to establish the life-bond between God and his People. Jesus did not need to sacrifice for himself. Jesus did not need to sacrifice himself more than once for the People. Jesus secured a forgiveness which the older animal sacrifices never won. And Jesus did not leave his People outside; he opened the way for them to enter God’s own presence after him, and in virtue of his self-sacrifice. So the author, from time to time, works out the details of the symbolism. He even uses the treatment of the victim’s remains to prove that Christians must be unworldly (13); but this is an after-thought, for his fundamental interest lies in the sacrificial suggestiveness of the atonement-day which, external and imperfect as its ritual was, adumbrated the reality which had been manifested in the sacrifice and ascension of Jesus. Yet this figurative category had its obvious drawbacks, two of which may be noted here. One (a) is, that it does not allow him to show how the sacrificial death of Jesus is connected with the inner renewal of the heart and the consequent access of man to God. He uses phrases like dyiafew (see on 214) and kadapi€ev and teAeoty (this term emphasizing more than the others the idea of completeness), but we can only deduce from occasional hints like 9!* what he meant by the efficacy of the sacrificial death. His ritualistic category assumed that such a sacrifice availed to reinstate the People before God (cp. on 9??), and this axiom sufficed for his Christian conviction that every- thing depended upon what Jesus is to God and to us—what he is, he is in virtue of what he did, of the sacrificial offering of himself. But the symbol or parable in the levitical cultus went no further. And it even tended to confuse the conception of what is symbolized, by its inadequacy; it necessarily separated priest and victim, and it suggested by its series of actions a time- element which is out of keeping with the eternal order. Hence the literal tendency in the interpretation of the sacrifice has led to confusion, as attempts have been made to express the con- tinuous, timeless efficacy of the sacrifice. That the death was a sacrifice, complete and final, is assumed (e.g. 727 g!4 1010. 12. 14), Yet language is used which has suggested that in the heavenly oxnvy this sacrifice is continually presented or offered (e.g. 7% and the vg. mistranslation of 101? ‘“‘hic autem unam pro peccatis offerens hostiam in sempiternum sedit”). The other drawback (4) is, that the idea of Jesus passing like the highpriest at once from the sacrifice into the inner sanctuary (ze. through the heavens into the Presence, 4'*) has prevented him from making use of the Resurrection (cp. also on 13). The heavenly sphere INTRODUCTION XXX1X of Jesus is so closely linked with his previous existence on earth, under the category of the sacrifice, that the author could not suggest an experience like the resurrection, which would not have tallied with this idea of continuity. On the other hand, the concentration of interest in the symbol on the sole personality of the priest and of the single sacrifice enabled him to voice what was his predominant belief about Jesus. How profoundly he was engrossed by the idea of Christ’s adequacy as mediator may be judged from his avoidance of some current religious beliefs about intercession. Over and again he comes to a point where contemporary opinions (with which he was quite familiar) suggested, e.g., the intercession of angels in heaven, or of departed saints on behalf of men on earth, ideas like the merits of the fathers or the atoning efficacy of martyrdom in the past, to facilitate the approach of sinful men to God (cp. on 114° 121’ 23. 24 etc.). These he deliberately ignores. In view of the single, sufficient sacrifice of Jesus, in the light of his eternally valid intercession, no supplementary aid was required. It is not accidental that such beliefs are left out of our author’s scheme of thought. It is a fresh proof of his genuinely primitive faith in Jesus as the one mediator. The ideas of the perfect Priest and the perfect Sacrifice are a theo- logical expression, in symbolic language, of what was vital to the classical piety of the early church; and apart from Paul no one set this out so cogently and clearly as the writer of IIpos ‘EBpaiovs. (iii. ) Our modern symbolism does no sort of justice to the ancient idea of priesthood. Matthew Arnold says of Wordsworth: ‘“He was a priest to us all, Of the wonder and bloom of the world, Which we saw with his eyes, and were glad.” That is, ‘‘ priest” means interpreter, one who introduces us to a deeper vision, one who, as we might put it, opens up to us a new world of ideas. Such is not the ultimate function of Christ as iepevs in our epistle. Dogmatic theology would prefer to call this the prophetic function of Christ, but the priestly office means mediation, not interpretation. ‘The function of the high- priest is to enter and to offer: eicepxeoOar and mpoodépew forming the complete action, and no distinction being drawn between the two, any more than between the terms “priest” and “high- priest.” The fundamental importance of this may be illustrated from the recourse made by Paul and by our author respectively to the xl THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Jeremianic oracle of the new covenant or dta@yxn. Paul’s main interest in it lies in its prediction of the Spirit, as opposed to the Law. What appeals to Paul is the inward and direct intui- tion of God, which forms the burden of the oracle. But to our. author (87-13 1015-18) it is the last sentence of the oracle which is supreme, z.e. the remission of sins; ‘‘I will be merciful to their iniquities, and remember their sins no more.” He seizes the name and fact of a ‘‘new” covenant, as implying that the old was inadequate. But he continues: “If the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on defiled persons, give them a holiness that bears on bodily purity, how much more will the blood of Christ, who in the spirit of the eternal offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, cleanse your con- science from dead works to serve a living God? He mediates a new covenant for this reason, that those who have been called may obtain the eternal deliverance they have been promised, now that a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions involved in the first covenant” (9!%15), That is, the conclusion of Jeremiah’s oracle—that God will forgive and forget—is the real reason why our author quotes it. There can be no access without an amnesty for the past; the religious communion of the immediate future must be guaranteed by a sacrifice ratifying the pardon of God. This difference between Paul and our author is, of course, owing to the fact that for the latter the covenant! or law is sub- ordinated to the priesthood. Change the priesthood, says the writer, and zfso facto the law has to be changed too. The cove- nant is a relationship of God and men, arising out of grace, and inaugurated by some historic act; since its efficiency as an insti- tution for forgiveness and fellowship depends on the personality and standing of the priesthood, the appearance of Jesus as the absolute Priest does away with the inferior law. This brings us to the heart of the Christology, the sacrifice and priestly service of Christ as the mediator of this new cove- nant with its eternal fellowship. Men are sons of God, and their relation of confidence and access is based upon the function of the Son kar é&éxyv. The author shares with Paul the view that the Son is the Son before and during his incarnate life, and yet perhaps Son in a special sense in consequence of the resurrection—or rather, as our. author would have preferred to say, in consequence of the ascen- sion. ‘This may be the idea underneath the compressed clauses at the opening of the epistle (11°). ‘‘God has spoken to us by 1 As Professor Kennedy points out, with real insight : ‘‘all the terms of the contrast which he works out are selected because of their relation to the covenant-conception ” (p. 201), INTRODUCTION xli a Son—a Son whom he appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him that he had created the world. He, reflecting God’s bright glory and stamped with God’s own character, sustains the universe by his word of power; when he had secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; and thus he is superior to the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior to theirs. For to what angel did God ever say— ‘Thou art my Son, To-day have I become thy Father’?” (referring to the ancient notion that the king first became con- scious of his latent divine sonship at his accession to the throne). The name or dignity which Christ inherits, as the result of his redemptive work, is probably that of Son; as the following quotation from the OT psalm suggests, the resurrection or exaltation may mark, as it does for Paul, the fully operative sonship of Christ, the only way to inherit or possess the universe being to endure the suffering and death which purified human sin and led to the enthronement of Christ. Our author holds that this divine being was sent into the world because he was God's Son, and that he freely undertook his mission for God’s other sons on earth. The mission was a will of God which involved sacrifice. That is the point of the quotation (10%) from the goth psalm —not to prove that obedience to God was better than sacrifice, but to bring out the truth that God’s will required a higher kind of sacrifice than the levitical, namely, the personal, free self- sacrifice of Christ in the body. Even this is more than self- sacrifice in our modern sense of the term. It is “by this will,” the writer argues, that “‘ we are consecrated, because Jesus Christ once for all has offered up his body.” No doubt the offering is eternal, it is not confined to the historical act on Calvary. ‘‘He has entered heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf” (974): ‘‘he is always living to make intercession for us” (77°). Still, the author is more realistic in expression than the tradition of the Zestament of Levi (3), which makes the angel of the Presence in the third heaven offer a spiritual and bloodless sacrifice to God in propitiation for the sins of ignorance committed by the righteous. Our author assigns entirely to Christ the intercessory functions which the piety of the later Judaism had already begun to divide among angels and departed saints, but he also makes the sacrifice of Jesus one of blood—a realism which was essential to his scheme of argument from the entrance of the OT high priest into the inner shrine. The superior or rather the absolute efficacy of the blood of xlii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Christ depends in turn on his absolute significance as the Son of God; it is his person and work which render his self- sacrifice valid and supreme. But this is asserted rather than explained. Indeed, it is asserted on the ground of a presupposi- tion which was assumed as axiomatic, namely, the impossibility of communion with God apart from blood shed in sacrifice (922). For example, when the writer encourages his readers by reminding them of their position (12%), that they ‘‘have come to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant and to the sprinkled blood whose message is nobler than Abel’s,” he does not mean to draw an antithesis between Abel’s blood as a cry for vengeance and Christ’s blood as a cry for intercession. The fundamental antithesis lies between exclusion and inclusion. Abel’s blood demanded the excommunication of the sinner, as an outcast from God’s presence; Christ’s blood draws the sinner near and ratifies the covenant. The author denies to the OT cultus of | sacrifice any such atoning value, but at the same time he reaffirms its basal principle, that blood in sacrifice is essential to communion with the deity. Blood offered in sacrifice does possess a religious efficacy, to expiate and purify. Without shedding of blood there is no remission. We ask, why? But the ancient world never dreamt of asking, why? What puzzles a modern was an axiom to the ancient. The argument of our epistle is pivoted on this postulate, and no attempt is made to rationalize it. - In the Law of Holiness, incorporated in Leviticus, there is indeed one incidental allusion to the rationalé of sacrifice or blood-expiation, when, in prohibiting the use of blood as a food, the taboo proceeds: ‘‘the life of the body is in the blood, and I have given it to you for the altar to make propitiation for yourselves, for the blood makes propitiation by means of the life” (ze. the life inherent in it). This is reflection on the meaning of sacrifice, but it does not carry us very far, for it only explains the piacular efficacy of blood by its mysterious potency of life. Semitic scholars warn us against finding in these words (Lv 171!) either the popular idea of the substitution of the victim for the sinner, or even the theory that the essential thing in sacrifice is the offering of a life to God. As far as the Hebrew text goes, this may be correct. But the former idea soon became attached to the verse, as we see from the LXX—ro yap aia avrod dvTl THs Wuxns éfiAdcerat. This view does not seem to be common in later Jewish thought, though it was corroborated by the expiatory value attached to the death of the martyrs (e.g. 4 Mac 172"), It is in this later world, however, rather than in the primitive world of Leviticus, that the atmosphere of the idea of IIpds “EBpaiovs is to be sought, the idea that because Jesus was what he was, his death has such an atoning significance as INTRODUCTION xlii to inaugurate a new and final relation between God and men, the idea that his blood purifies the conscience because it is 42s blood, the blood of the sinless Christ, who is both the priest and the sacrifice. When the author writes that Christ ‘fin the spirit of the eternal” (9!*) offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, he has in mind the contrast between the annual sacrifice on the day of atonement and the sacrifice of Christ which never needed to be repeated, because it had been offered in the spirit and—as we might say—in the eternal order of things. It was a sacrifice bound up with his death in history, but it belonged essentially to the higher order of absolute reality. The writer breathed the Philonic atmosphere in which the eternal Now over-shadowed the things of space and time (see on 1°), but he knew this sacrifice had taken place on the cross, and his problem was one which never confronted Philo, the problem which we moderns have to face in the question: How can a single historical fact possess a timeless significance? How can Christianity claim to be final, on the basis of a specific revelation in history? Our author answered this problem in his own way for his own day. (iv.) For him religion is specially fellowship with God on the basis of forgiveness. He never uses the ordinary term kowvwvia, however, in this sense. It is access to God on the part of worshippers that is central to his mind; that is, he conceives religion as worship, as the approach of the human soul to the divine Presence, and Christianity is the religion which is religion since it mediates this access and thereby secures the immediate consciousness of God for man. Or, as he would prefer to say, the revelation of God in Jesus has won this right for man as it could not be won before. For, from the first, there has been a People of God seeking, and to a certain extent enjoying, this access. God has ever been revealing himself to them, so far as was possible. But now in Jesus the final revelation has come which supersedes all that went before in Israel. The writer never contemplates any other line of revelation; outside Israel of old he never looks. It is enough for him that the worship of the OT implied a revelation which was meant to elicit faith, especially through the sacrificial cultus, and that the imperfec- tions of that revelation have now been disclosed and superseded by the revelation in Jesus the Son. Faith in this revelation is in one aspect belief (42%). Indeed he describes faith simply as the conviction of the unseen world, the assurance that God has spoken and that he will make his word good, if men rely upon xliv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS it; he who draws near to God must believe that he exists and that he does reward those who seek him (11°), Faith of this noble kind, in spite of appearances to the contrary, has always characterized the People. Our author rejoices to trace it at work long before Jesus came, and he insists that it is the saving power still, a faith which in some aspects is indistinguishable from hope, since it inspires the soul to act and suffer in the conviction that God is real and sure to reward loyalty in the next world, if not in the present. Such faith characterized Jesus himself (2!3 127). It is belief in God as trustworthy, amid all the shows and changes of life, an inward conviction that, when he has spoken, the one thing for a man to do is to hold to that word and to obey it at all costs. This is the conception of faith in the early and the later sections of the writing (3 108-122), The difference that Jesus has made—for the writer seems to realize that there is a difference between the primitive © faith and the faith of those who are living after the revelation in Jesus—is this, that the assurance of faith has now become far more real than it was. Though even now believers have to await the full measure of their reward, though faith still is hope to some extent, yet the full realization of the fellowship with God which is the supreme object of faith has been now made through Jesus.. In two ways. (i) For faith Jesus is the inspiring example; he is the great Believer who has shown in his own life on earth the possibilities of faith. In order to understand what faith is, we must look to Jesus above all, to see how faith begins and continues and ends. But (ii) Jesus has not only preceded us on the line of faith; he has by his sacrifice made our access to God direct and real, as it never could be before. Hence the writer can say, ‘‘let us draw near with a full assurance of faith and a true heart, in absolute assurance of faith” since ‘‘we have a great Priest over the house of God.” “We have confidence to enter the holy Presence in virtue of the blood of Jesus.” He does not make Jesus the object of faith as Paul does, but he argues that only the sacrifice of Jesus opens the way into the presence of God for sinful men. This is the argument of the central part of the writing (chs. 7-10). Religion is worship, and worship implies sacrifice ; there is no access for man to God without sacrifice, and no 1 “Tt was by no divine magic, no mere ‘breath, turn of eye, wave of hand,’ that he ‘joined issue with death,’ but by the power of that genuinely human faith which had inspired others in the past” (MacNeill, p. 26). Bousset’s denial of this (Zheol. Literaturzettung, 1915, p. 431f.: ‘‘man wird bei dem Jesus d. Hebrierbriefe so wenig wie bei dem paulinischen noch im strengen Sinne von einem subjectivem Glauben Jesu reden konnen’”’) is as incomprehehsible as his desperate effort to explain He 57-!° from the fixed ideas of the mystery-religions. INTRODUCTION xlv religion without a priest (see on 7!!). The relations between God and his People from the first! have been on the basis of sacrifice, as the bible shows, and the new revelation in Jesus simply changes the old sacrificial order with its priesthood for another. The writer starts from a profound sense of sin, as an interruption of fellowship between God and man. He thoroughly sympathizes with the instinct which underlay the ancient practice of sacrifice, that fellowship with God is not a matter of course, that God is accessible and yet difficult of access, and that human nature cannot find its way unaided into his presence. Thus he quotes the goth psalm (see p. xli), not to prove that God’s will is fellowship, and that to do the will of God is enough for man, apart from any sacrifice, but to illustrate the truth that the will of God does require a sacrifice, not simply the ethical obedience of man, but the self-sacrifice with which Jesus offered himself freely, the perfect victim and the perfect priest. All men now have to do is to avail themselves of his sacrifice in order to enjoy access to God in the fullest sense of the term. ‘“ Having a great Highpriest who has passed through the heavens, let us draw near.” The conception of religion as devotion or worship covers a wide range in IIpos “Efpaiovs. It helps to explain, for example (see above, p. xxxvili), why the writer represents Jesus after death not as being raised from the dead, but as passing through the heavens into the inner Presence or sanctuary of God with the sacrifice of his blood (414 9144), It accounts for the elaboration of a detail like that of 978, and, what is much more important, it explains the “sacrificial” delineation of the Christian life. In this éAnOwn oxynvy (82), of God’s own making, with its Odvovac- typtov (13!°), Christians worship God (Aarpevev, gl 1278 13!) ; their devotion to him is expressed by the faith and loyalty which detach them from this world (13!%-!4) and enable them to live and move under the inspiration of the upper world; indeed their ethical life of thanksgiving (see on 2!) and beneficence is a sacrifice by which they honour and worship God (13) 18), a sacrifice presented to God by their dépyepeds Jesus. The writer never suggests that the worship-regulations of the outworn cultus are to be reproduced in any rites of the church on earth; he never dreamed of this, any more than of the 7yovpevor being called “priests.” The essence of priesthood, viz. the mediation of approach to God, had been absolutely fulfilled in Jesus, and in one sense all believers were enabled to follow him into the inner oxnvy, where they worshipped their God as the priests of old had done in their oxynvy, and as the People of old had never 1 7.e. from the inauguration of the 6:a07)«n at Sinai, though he notes that even earlier there was sacrifice offered (11%). xlvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS been able to do except through the highpriest as their represen- tative and proxy. But, while the worship-idea is drawn out to describe Christians, in [pds “EGpacovs its primary element is that of the eternal function of Christ as dpxvepeds in the heavenly oxnvy. (v.) Symbolism alters as the ages pass. The picture-language in which one age expresses its mental or religious conceptions often ceases to be intelligible or attractive to later generations, because the civic, ritual, or economic conditions of life which had originally suggested it have disappeared or changed their form. This well-known principle applies especially to the language of religion, and it is one reason why some of the arguments in IIpds “EBpatovs are so difficult for the modern mind to follow. There are other reasons, no doubt. The exegetical methods which the author took over from the Alexandrian school are not ours. Besides, historical criticism has rendered it hard for us moderns to appreciate the naive use of the OT which prevails in some sections of IIpds ‘EBpaiovs. But, above all, the sacrificial analogies are a stumbling-block, for we have nothing to correspond to what an ancient understood by a “priest” and sacrifice. Dryden was not poetic when he translated Vergil’s “‘sacerdos” in the third Georgic (489) by “holy butcher,” but the phrase had its truth. The business of a priest was often that of a butcher; blood flowed, blood was splashed about. It was in terms of such beliefs and practices that the author of IIpos “E@paiovs argued, rising above them to the spiritual conception of the self-sacrifice of Jesus, but nevertheless starting from them as axiomatic. The duty of the modern mind is to understand, in the first place, how he came by these notions; and, in the second place, what he intended to convey by the use of such symbolic terms as “blood,” ‘‘ highpriest,” and ‘‘ sacrifice.” The striking idea of Christ as the eternal dpytepevs, by whom the access of man to God is finally and fully assured, may have been a flash of inspiration, one of the notes of originality and insight which mark the writer’s treatment and restatement of the faith. But originality is not depreciated by the effort to trace anticipations. What led him to this view? After all, the most brilliant flashes depend upon an atmosphere already prepared, for them. They are struck out of something. In this case, it is not enough to say that the conception was merely the transfer- ence to Jesus of the Philonic predicates of the Logos, or the result of a bible-reading in the pentateuch. In the pentateuch the writer found proofs of what he brought to it, and the argu- ments in chs. 7-10 really buttress ideas built on other foundations. INTRODUCTION xl vii (2) Once the conception of a heavenly sanctuary became current, the notion of a heavenly dpxtepevs would not be far-fetched for a writer like this. Philo had, indeed, not only spoken of the Logos as a highpriest, in a metaphorical sense, z.e. as mediating metaphysically and psychologically the relations between the worlds of thought and sense, but in an allegorical fashion spoken of “two temples belonging to God, one being the world in which the highpriest is his own Son, the Logos, the other being the rational soul” (de Somnits, i. 37). Our writer is much less abstract. Like the author of the Apocalypse (see on 41°), he thinks of heaven in royal and ritual imagery as well as in civic, but it is the ritual symbolism which is more prominent. During the second century B.c. the ideas of a heavenly sanctuary and a heavenly altar became current in apocalyptic piety, partly owing to the idealistic and yet realistic conception (see on 8°) that in heaven the true originals were preserved, the material altar and sanctuary being, like the earthly Jerusalem, inferior representations of transcendent realities. From this it was a natural develop- ment to work out the idea of a heavenly highpriest. By “natural” I do not mean to undervalue the poetical and re- ligious originality of the writer of Ipods “E@paiovs. The author of the Apocalypse of John, for example, fails to reach this idea, and even in the enigmatic passage in the vision and confession of Levi (Zestaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Levi 5), where the seer tells us, “I saw the holy temple, and upon a throne of glory the Most High. And he said to me, Levi, I have given thee the blessings of priesthood until I come and sojourn in the midst of Israel”—-even here, though the levitical priesthood, as in our epistle, is only a temporary substitute for the presence of God, the heavenly sanctuary has no highpriest. Nevertheless it was the idea of the heavenly sanctuary which held one germ of the idea of the heavenly highpriest for the author of IIpos “EBpaious, as he desired to express the fundamental signifi- cance of Jesus for his faith. (6) Another factor was the speculations of Philo about the Logos as highpriest (de Migrat. Abrah. 102, de Fug. 108 ff.), though the priestly mediation there is mainly between man and the upper world of ideas. The Logos or Reason is not only the means of creating the material cosmos after the pattern of the first and real world, but inherent in it, enabling human creatures to apprehend the invisible. This is Philo’s primary use of the metaphor. It is philosophical rather than religious. Yet the increased prestige of the highpriest in the later Judaism prompted him to apply to the Logos functions which resemble intercession as well as interpretation. Vague as they are, they were familiar to the author of our epistle, and it is probable that they helped xlvili THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS to fashion his expression of the eternal significance of Jesus as the mediator between man and God. ‘The Logos as highpriest, says Philo (de Soman. ii. 28), for example, is not only duwpos, 6AGKAnpos, but peOdpids Tis Deo’ Pivots, TOD pev éAdrrwv, avOpwrov O€ Kkpeitrwy. Then he quotes the LXX of Lv 1617, The original says that no man is to be with the highpriest when he enters the inner shrine, but the Greek version runs, 6rav cicin eis 7a Gyia. TH dyiwv 6 apxLEpeds, dvVOpwros odk Eorat, and Philo dwells on the literal, wrong sense of the last three words, as if they meant “the highpriest is not to be a man.” ‘“ What will he be, if he is not a man? God? I would not say that (ov« dv eto). . . . Nor yet is he man, but he touches both extremes (éxatépwv Tav adkpwy, os av Bacews Kal Kepadns, épamrdevos).” Later (zd. 34) he remarks, “‘if at that time he is not a man, it is clear he is not God either, but a minister (Aecrovpyds Geod) of God, belonging to creation in his mortal nature and to the uncreated world in his immortal nature.” Similarly he pleads, in the de sacerdot. 12, that the function of the highpriest was to mediate between God and man, iva 614 pécov tivds avOpwrot pev iAdoxwvtat Oedv, Peds S& Tas xapiras avOpwros trodiakdve tivi Xpwpevos dpéyn Kat xopnyy. Here we may feel vibrating a need of intercession, even although the idea is still somewhat theosophic. (c) A third basis for the conception of Christ’s priesthood lay in the combination of messianic and sacerdotal functions which is reflected in the 110th psalm (see above, p. xxxiii), which in the Testaments of the Patriarchs (Reuben 68) is actually applied to Hyrcanus the Maccabean priest-king, while in the Zest. Levi (18) functions which are messianic in all but name are ascribed to a new priest, with more spiritual insight than in the psalm itself. The curious thing, however, is that this Priest discharges no sacerdotal functions. ‘The hymn describes his divine attestation and consecration—‘“‘and in his priesthood shall sin come to an end, and he shall open the gates of paradise and shall remove the threatening sword against Adam.” That is all. Probably the passing phase of expectation, that a messiah would arise from the sacerdotal Maccabees, accounts for such a fusion of messiah and priest. In any case its influence was not wide. Still, the anticipation is not unimportant for the thought of IIpds “EBpaious, which rests so much upon the mystical significance of that psalm. Paul had seen the fulfilment of Ps rro! in the final triumph of Christ as messiah over his foes (1 Co 157 % det yap airov Baorevew axpis od 64 ravtas Tods éxOpovs brd Tots wddas avrod). But meantime Christ was in living touch with his church on earth, and Paul can even speak, in a glowing outburst, of his effective intercession (Ro 8% 6s Kat évrvyyaver izép jpov). This is at least the idea of the highpriesthood of Christ, in almost every- INTRODUCTION xlix thing except name, though Paul says as much of the Spirit (Ro 827 Kara Oeov evtvyxave t7rép ayiwv). Later, in the Fourth Gospel, a similar thought reappears; Christ is represented in priestly metaphor as interceding for his People (171£), and the phrases (1717-19) about Jesus consecrating himself (as priest and victim) that thereby his disciples may be “consecrated” év 77) dAnOela (2.6. in the sphere of Reality), indicate a use of ayidé€ev which ex- presses one of the central ideas of IIpds “EBpaiovs. But in the latter writing the idea is explicit and elaborate, as it is nowhere else in the NT, and explicit on the basis of a later line in the rroth psalm, which Paul ignored. Our author also knew and used the earlier couplet (101%), but he draws his cardinal argu- ment from v.* od ef tepeds eis aidva kara tHy TagW MeAxio eek, (vi.) There is a partial anticipation of all this in the Enochic conception of the Son of Man. No doubt, as Volz warns us ( Jidische Eschatologie, p. 9°), we must not read too much into such apocalyptic phrases, since the Son of Man is an x quantity of personal value in the age of expected bliss and salvation. Still, the pre-existent messiah there is Son of Man as transcen- dent and in some sense as human; he must be human, ‘ Man,”’ in order to help men, and he must be transcendent in order to be a deliverer or redeemer. But the author of pds ‘Efpaiovs, like Paul, significantly avoids ‘the term Son of Man, even in 25; and although he has these two ideas of human sympathy and of transcendency in close connexion, he derives them from his meditation upon the real Jesus ultimately, not from any apoca- lyptic speculations. What he meant by the term ‘‘Son of God” is not quite plain. Philo had regarded the Logos as pre- existent and as active in the history of the people, and so he regards Christ ; but while it seems clear (see on 5°) that Christ is priest for him because he was already Son, the further ques- tions, when did he become priest? and how is the Sonship compatible with the earthly lifep—these are problems which remain unsolved. The interpretation of the function of Jesus through the phrase in the 2nd psalm (see on 1°) hardly clears up the matter any more than in the case of Justin Martyr (Dad. 88). Later on, Hippolytus, or whoever wrote the homily appended (chs. xi.—xii.) to the Zzst. Diognet., faced the problem more boldly and beautifully by arguing that ‘the Word was from the very beginning, appeared new, was proved to be old, and is ever young as he is born in the hearts of the saints. He is the eternal One, who to-day was accounted Son” (6 o7pepov vids AoyoGeis, 11°). Here “to-day” refers to the Christian era ; a | THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS evidently the problem left by the author of IIpds “EBpaious, with his mystical, timeless use of the 2nd psalm, was now being felt as a theological difficulty. But this is no clue to how he himself took the reference. ‘There is a large section in his thought upon Christ as the eternal, transcendental Son which remains obscure to us, and which perhaps was indefinite to himself. He took over the idea of the divine Sonship from the primitive church, seized upon it to interpret the sufferings and sacrificial function of Jesus as well as his eternal value, and linked it to the notion of the highpriesthood ; but he does not succeed in harmonizing its implications about the incarnate life with his special yvaous of the eternal Son within the higher sphere of divine realities. At the same time there seems no hiatus! between the meta- physical and the historical in the writer’s conception of Jesus, no unreconciled dualism between the speculative reconstruction and the historical tradition. In IIpds ‘E8paiovs we have the ordinary | primitive starting-point, how could a divine, reigning Christ ever have become man? The writer never hints that his readers would question this, for they were not tempted by any Jewish ideas. He uses the category of the Son quite frankly, in order to express the absolute value of the revelation in Jesus ; it is his sheer sense of the reality of the incarnate life which prompts him to employ the transcendental ideas. He does not start from a modern humanist view of Jesus, but from a conviction of his eternal divine character and function as Son and as dpyeepevs, and his argument is that this position was only possible upon the human experience, that Jesus became man because he was Son (21), and is dpxvepevs because once he was man. (a) For our author Jesus is the Son, before ever he became man, but there is no definite suggestion (see on 12?) that he made a sacrifice in order to become incarnate, no suggestion that he showed his xydpis by entering our human lot (8° tas ertuoxevoey TAOVTLOS OV, EavToV exevwoey ev Spowwpatt avOpwrwv yevopevos). Our author feels deeply the suffering of Jesus in the days of his flesh, but it is the final sacrifice at the end of his life which is emphasized. That he suffered as the eternal Son is understood : also, that it was voluntary (10%), also that it was his human experience which qualified him to offer the perfect sacrifice, by God’s x¢pis. But, apart from the (2°) allusion to the temporary inferiority to angels, the writer does not touch the moving idea of-the kenotic theories of the incarnation, viz. thé *‘sense of sacrifice on the part of a pre-existent One.” ? (4) Since he knew nothing of the sombre view of the odpé . As H. J. Holtzmann (Meutest, Theologie*, ii. 337) and Pfleiderer (p. 287) imagine. *H. R. Mackintosh, 7he Person of Christ, pp. 265 f. INTRODUCTION hi which pervaded the Pauline psychology, he found no difficulty in understanding how the sinless Jesus could share human flesh and blood. The sinlessness is assumed, not argued (cp. on 41 57). Yet the writer does not simply transfer it as a dogmatic predicate of messiahship to Jesus. One of the characteristics which set IIpds “Efpaiovs apart in the early Christian literature is the idea that Jesus did not possess sinlessness simply as a pre- rogative of his divine Sonship or as a requisite for the validity of his priestly function. It wasnotamere endowment. The idea rather is that he had to realize and maintain it by a prolonged moral conflict év rats juepais THS GapKos avtod. This view goes back to direct historical tradition, with its deeply marked im- pression of the personality of Jesus, and no sort of justice is done to IIpds “EGpaious if its conceptions of the human Son as sinless are referred to a theoretical interest or dogmatic prepossession. Such an interpretation is bound up with the view that IIpds “EBpatious represents the more or less arbitrary fusion of an his- torical tradition about Jesus with a pre-Christian christology. But it is not enough to speak vaguely of materials for such a christology fioating in pre-Christian Judaism and crystallizing round the person of Jesus, once Jesus was identified with the messiah. The crystallization was not fortuitous. What If{pos “EBpaiovs contains is a christology which implies features and characteristics in Jesus too definite to be explained away as picturesque deductions from messianic postulates or Philonic speculations. These undoubtedly enter into the statement of the christology, but the motives and interests of that christology lie everywhere. The writer’s starting-point is not to be sought in some semi-metaphysical idea like that of the eternal Son asa supernatural being who dipped into humanity for a brief interval in order to rise once more and resume his celestial glory; the mere fact that the eschatology is retained, though it does not always accord with the writer’s characteristic view of Christ, shows that he was working from a primitive historical tradition about Jesus (see above, pp. xlivf.). To this may be added the fact that he avoids the Hellenistic term owryp, a term which had been associated with the notion of the appearance of a deity hitherto hidden.!' The allusions to the historical Jesus are not numerous, but they are too detailed and direct to be explained away ; he. preached owrypia, the message of eschatological bliss; he be- longed to the tribe of Judah; he was sorely tempted, badly ' He does not use the technical language of the mystery-religions (cp. on 64), and they cannot be shown to have been present continuously to his mind. If the argument from silence holds here, he probably felt for them the same aversion as the devout Philo felt (de Sacrzf. 12), though Philo on occasion would employ their terminology for his own purposes. lil THE EPISTLE TO-THE HEBREWS treated, and finally crucified outside Jerusalem. These are the main outward traits. But they are bound up with an inter- pretation of the meaning of Jesus which is not a mere deduction from messianic mythology or OT prophecies, and it is unreal, in view of a passage like 57", ¢.g., to imagine that the writer was doing little more than painting in a human face among the messianic speculations about a divine Son. (c) Neither is the sinlessness of Jesus connected with the circumstances of his human origin. No explanation at all is offered of how this pre-existent Son entered the world of men. It is assumed that he did not come out of humanity but that he came into it ; yet, like Paul and the author of the Fourth Gospel (1), our author is not interested in questions about the human birth. Even when he describes the prototype Melchizedek as “without father and mother” (7°), he is not suggesting any parallel to the Christ; the phrase is no more than a fanciful » deduction from the wording or rather the silence of the legend, just as the original priest-king Gudea says to the goddess in the Sumerian tale, ‘I have no mother, thou art my mother; I have no father, thou art my father.” It is impossible to place this allusion beside the happy misquotation in 10° “a body thou hast prepared for me,” and to argue, as Pfleiderer (p. 287) does, that the incarnation is conceived as purely supernatural. All we need to do is to recall the Alexandrian belief, voiced in a passage like Wisd 8!9 (“I was the child of fine parts: to my lot there fell a good soul, or rather being good I entered a body un- defiled”); the good soul is what we call the personality, the thinking self, to which God allots a body, and birth, in the ordinary human way, is not incompatible with the pre-existence of the soul or self which, prior to birth, is in the keeping of God. The author of IIpds “EBpaiovs could quite well think of the incarna- tion of Jesus along such lines, even although for him the pre- existent Christ meant much more than the pre-existent human soul. The meaning of the incarnation is, in one aspect, to yield a perfect example of faith (127!) in action; in another and, for the writer, a deeper, to prepare Jesus, by sympathy and suffering, for his sacrificial function on behalf of the People. The rationalé of his death is that it is inexplicable except upon the fact of his relationship to men as their representative and priest before God (2"£). From some passages like 5%! 727, it has been in- ferred that Jesus had to offer a sacrifice on his own behalf as well as on behalf of men (z.e. his tears and cries in Gethsemane), or that he only overcame his sinful nature when he was raised to heaven. But this is to read into the letter of the argument more than the writer ever intended it to convey. The point of INTRODUCTION hi his daring argument is that the sufferings of Jesus were not incompatible with his sinlessness, and at the same time that they rendered his sacrifice of himself absolutely efficacious. The writer is evidently in line with the primitive synoptic tradition, though he never proves the necessity of the sufferings from OT prophecy, as even his contemporary Peter does, preferring, with a fine intuition in the form of a religious reflection, to employ the idea of moral congruity (21°). (vii.) The symbolism of the highpriesthood and sacrifice of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary is therefore designed to convey the truth that the relations of men with God are based finally upon Jesus Christ. In the unseen world which is conceived in this naive idealistic way, Jesus is central ; through him God is known and accessible to man, and through him man enjoys forgiveness and fellowship with God. When Paul once wrote, ra avw ppoveite, Ta avw Cyreite, if he had stopped there he would have been saying no more than Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius might have said and did say. But when he added, od 6 Xpuords eorw (év deta tod Geod xabypevos), he defined the upper sphere in a new sense. So with the author of IIpds “Efpaiovs. In the real world of higher things, ‘‘everything is dominated by the figure of the great High Priest at the right hand of the Majesty in the Heavens, clothed in our nature, compassionate to our infirmities, able to save to the uttermost, sending timely succour to those who are in peril, pleading our cause. It is this which faith sees, this to which faith clings as the divine reality behind and beyond all that passes, all that tries, daunts, or discourages the soul: it is this in which it finds the ens realisstmum, the very truth of things, all that is meant by God.” ! Yet while this is the central theme (chs. 7-10), which the writer feels it is essential for his friends to grasp if they are to maintain their position, it is one proof of the primitive character of IIpos “Efpaiovs that it preserves traces of other and more popular ideas of Christianity. Thus (a) there is the primitive idea of the messiah as the heir, who at the resurrection inherits full power as the divine Son or KAnpovopos. Strictly speaking, this does not harmonize with the conception of the Son as eternal, but it reappears now and then, thrown up from the eschatological tradition which the author retains (see above, pp. xxxuif.). (4) The isolated reference to the overthrow of the devil is another allusion to ideas which were in the back- ground of the writer’s mind (see on 214)5), (c) The scanty 1 Denney, Zhe Death of Chrést, pp. 239, 240. liv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS use made of the favourite conception of Jesus as the divine Kuptos (see below, p. lxiii) is also remarkable. This is not one of the writer’s categories; the elements of divine authority and of a relation between the Kvpios and the divine Community are expressed otherwise, in the idea of the Highpriest and the People. Furthermore the category of the Highpriesthood itself was not large enough for the writer’s full message. (a) It could not be fitted in with his eschatology any more than the idea of the two worlds could be. ‘The latter is dovetailed into his scheme by the idea of faith as practically equivalent to hope (in 10%) ; the world to come actually enters our experience here and now, but the full realization is reserved for the énd, and meantime Christians must wait, holding fast to the revelation of God in the present. ‘The former could not be adjusted to the eschat- ology, and the result is that when the writer passes to speak in- terms of the primitive expectation of the end (10-129), he allows the idea of the Highpriesthood to fall into the back-. ground. In any case the return of Jesus is connected only with the deliverance of his own People (978). He does not come to judge; that is a function reserved for God. The end is heralded by a cataclysm which is to shake the whole universe, heaven as well as earth (14* 1226f), another conception which, however impressive, by no means harmonizes with the idea of the two spheres. But the writer’s intense consciousness of living in the last days proved too strong for his speculative theory of the eternal and the material orders. (0) Again, the High- priesthood was inadequate to the ethical conceptions of the writer. It did involve ethical ideas—the cleansing of the con- science and the prompting of devotion and awe, moral con- secration, and inward purity (these being the real ‘‘ worship ”) ; but when he desires to inspire his readers he instinctively turns to the vivid conception of Jesus as the dpxyyds, as the pioneer and supreme example of faith on earth. The latter aspect brings out the idea of a contemplation of Jesus Christ, a vision of his reality (cp. 3! 12! *), which, when correlated with the idea of a participation in the higher world of reality, as embodied in the Highpriest aspect, raises the question, how far is it legitimate to speak of the writer as mystical P (vili.) To claim or to deny that he was a mystic is, after all, a question of words. He is devoid of the faith-mysticism which characterizes Paul. Even when he speaks once of believers being wéroxo. Xpiorod (3/4), he means no more than their membership INTRODUCTION lv in the household of God over which Christ presides ; there is no hint of the personal trust in Christ which distinguishes ‘faith ” in Paul. As important is the consideration that the writer does not take the sacrifices of the levitical cultus as merely symbolizing union with God. Such is the genuinely mystical interpretation. To him, on the other hand, sacrifice is an action which bears upon man’s relation to God, and it is from this point of view that he estimates and criticizes the levitical cultus. But while technically he is not a mystic, even in the sense in which that much-abused term may be applied to any NT writer, he has notes and qualities which might be called “mystical.” To call him an ‘‘idealist” is the only alternative, and this is misleading, for idealism suggests a philosophical detachment which is not suit- able to IIpos “E@paiovs. On the other hand, his profound sense of the eternal realities, his view of religion as inspired by the unseen powers of God, his conception of fellowship with God as based on the eternal presence of Jesus in heaven—these and other elements in his mind mark him as a definitely unworldly spirit, impatient of any sensuous medium, even of a sacrificial meal, that would interpose between the human soul and God. Not that he uses any pantheistic language; he is more careful to avoid this than a writer like the author of First John. His deep moral nature conceives of God as a transcendent Majestic Being, before whom believers must feel awe and reverence, even as they rejoice and are thankful. He has a wholesome sense of God’s authority, and an instinctive aversion to anything like a sentimental, presumptuous piety (see above, pp. xxxvf.). Yet as he speaks of the Rest or the City of God, as he describes the eternal Sanctuary, or the unshaken order of things, or as he delineates the present position of God’s People here in their constant dependence on the unseen relation between Christ and God, he almost tempts us to call him ‘‘ mystical,” if ‘‘ mysticism ” could be restricted to the idea that the human soul may be united to Absolute Reality or God. MHe is certainly not mystical as Philo is;} there is no hint in IIpds “EGpaiovs, for example, of an individualistic, occasional rapture, in which the soul soars above sense and thought into the empyrean of the unconditioned. He remains in close touch with moral realities and the historical tradition. But the spirituality of his outlook, with its speculative reach and its steady openness to influences pouring from the unseen realities, hardly deserves to be de- nied the name of “mystical,” simply because it is neither wistful nor emotional. 1 The soundest account of Philo’s ‘‘ mysticism” is by Professor I]. A. A. Kennedy in Philo’s Contribution lo Religion, p. 211 f. lvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS § 3. STYLE AND DICTION. (i) | IIpos “EBpaiouvs is distinguished, among the prose works of the primitive church, by its rhythmical cadences. The writer was acquainted with the oratorical rhythms which were popular- ized by Isokrates, and although he uses them freely, when he uses them at all, his periods show traces of this rhetorical method. According to Aristotle’s rules upon the use of paeans in prose rhythm (A4ez. ill. 8. 6-7), the opening ought to be —-vcv, while .. J - should be reserved for the conclusion. Our author, however, begins with roAvpepws, an introductory rhythm (cp. 1° 3!%) which seems to be rather a favourite with him, ¢.g. 3! ofev adeAd, 7 10 Mert Hoye ev Tn, 12% BAemere py, 137° o de Geos, though he varies it with an anapaest and an iambus vunmun (eg. 2h #5 14 7116 816 ovK eracy, 12! etc.), or -- U- — (as in 512 64 77, see below, 13° adros yap _ — — _ — _— _— _ "we — w €OTLV Be TLOTLS eXrilopevwv vroctacts xpay parov Sa ov Bx eraneier, INTRODUCTION lvii where the cross cadences are plain, as in Isokrates often. But at the end of sentences, as a rule, he prefers .L..—J (mapa- pvapev, 21 8°), or —-L-= (is Aadotpev, 2° 7% 7 etc.) or —U--- (wy TreAcr@oat, 219 218 314 43.11 7721 etc.), sometimes the weighty ——— = (217 82 1039 119 ri! etc.), or V-U— (4! 5% 12 poe 18. 27 118) now and then, or one or even two (51!) ens often ending on a short syllable. He is true to the ancient principle of Isokrates, however, that prose should be mingled with rhythms of all sorts, especially iambic and trochaic, and there even happen to be two trimeters in 1214, besides the similar rhythm in 12}% 26, Also he secures smoothness often by avoiding the practice of making a word which begins with a vowel follow a word which ends with a vowel (de Ta huwvyevta py Cuprintew). Parallelisms in sound, sense, and form are not infrequent. These oyjpara of Isokrates can be traced, ¢.g., in 17% where, by dvrifecis, Ov. . . mavTwr answers to 0s... trooracews atrov, as du ov . . . éxoinoev to depov .. . Suvdpews adtov, or as in 111, which is, however, a case of wapiowots or parallelism in form. As in Wisdom, the accumulation of short syllables, a characteristic of the later prose, is frequent in Ipods ee (e.g. in 21-2 wore mapapy .. . Aoyos eyeveTo BeBasos, 69. 19 Kae sone . . . OV yap adiKos o Geos), To? 11'* 19 72% 9 73% etc.). At the same time, IIpés “EGpatous is not written in parallel rhythm, like Wisdom (cp. Thackeray’s study in Journal of Theological Studies, vi. pp. 232f.); it is a prose work, and, besides, we do not expect the same opportunities for using even prose-rhythms in the theological centre of the writing, though in the opening chapters and towards the close, the writer has freer play. One or two samples may be cited, e.g., in the two parallel clauses of 17: a ww - ~~ ov €OyKxev KAnpovoxov TavTwv A ee Vv Ou OU K@L ETTOLYJO EV TOUS ALWVAS, or in 13 where acvews avrov answers tO apews avrov. In 216 the two clauses begin with —-—-— and end with emAapPavera, the verb being obviously repeated to bring out the anapaestic rhythm. The ‘cretic” (~-—), which is particularly frequent, is seen clearly in a carefully wrought passage like 4%!¢: Vw ~ wwe €l y2p QUTOVS Inoous KOTET AVC EV lvili THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS wy Sot” Maks b vw ww ovk av rept adAAns eAaAer peta Tavt(a) ywepas — -- —_ a _~ — — _— — — vw YY ~~ — 4 ap(a) amoXereta, caPPaticpos To Aaw tov Geov we wotN A Ta, | Gen o yap ecc\Pwv es THY KaTaTavoW avToV ~~ —- SY Ww KQL GAUTOS KATETAVOEV CI Ned, QaTO TWYV Epyov QUTOU ~— a VY VY wy et ee ~ Nt WOTEP ATO TWV LOLWY O Geos. There is a repeated attempt at balance, e.g. of clauses, like Cr cee) :: 7 Ce ee ee) YPYATAVTO du ALOTVUVYV 7 =e aA SO eTETUXOV ETTAyYEALWY, where both have the same number of syllables and end on the same rhythm; or, in the next verse, where dvvayity zupos is Aa = ww echoed in edvyov oroya, while there is a similar harmony of sound in the closing syllables of | a wv vpot ev mroAcum v Neds | ee wav adXotpiwv, and in vv.3" and % the balancing is obvious in Ww ev dovw payxatpys mepinAfov ev votepovpevor GALB Seay Sete eet EV EPYILLALS or in the chiming of *8 and °°: Vw KOL omnAavots KQL TOLS OTTALS TNS ys ~ Kal ovTot TavTes paptupybervtes 6. INTRODUCTION lix - As for the bearing of this rhythmical structure on the text, it does not affect the main passages in question (eg. 2° 62); rather supports and indeed may explain the omission of 7 before vio in 11, and of oAw in 27, as well as the right of peAdAovTwv to stand in 9! and in 1o!; it might favour, however, ayyéAwy yevo- pevos instead of yevopevos tOv ayyéAwv in 14, and the insertion of » oretpa in 1114 and of ope in 12}8, if it were pressed ; while, on the other hand, as employed by Blass, it buttresses the wrong insertion of pexpt TeAovs BePaiay in 3°, and inferior readings like ovyxexepac- pévous and dxovodetow in 47, éxdexopevors (D*) in 9%, ef in 127, ev xoAW in 12, and avéyeoPar in 1372, But the writer is not shackled to orixo., though his mind evidently was familiar with the rhythms in question. (ii.) There are traces of vernacular Greek, but the language and style are idiomatic on the whole. ‘Thus the perfect is sometimes employed for the sake of literary variety, to relieve a line of aorists (e.g. 1117 28), and indeed is often used aoristically, without any subtle intention (cp. on 7° etc.); it is pedantic to press signifi- cance into the tenses, without carefully watching the contemporary Hellenistic usage. The definite article is sparingly employed. Me ... 4¢, on the other hand, is more common, as we might expect from the antithetical predilections of the author in his dialectic. As for the prepositions, the avoidance of ovy is re- markable (cp. on 12!4), all the more remarkable since our author is fond of verbs compounded with ovv. Oratorical imperatives Brewused withretiect (2.9) 31414 4% 10° etc.), also double: (1° \x1% 14 125-7) and even triple (3!%1!8) dramatic questions, as well as single Oresmtatee7 pts 10°? 11 84129)y. ‘The: /style(is: persuasive, neither diffuse nor concise. The writer shows real skill in man- aging his transitions, suggesting an idea before he develops it (e.g. in 217 58), He also employs artistically parentheses and asides, sometimes of considerable length (e.g. xafds .. . xatdravoiv pov 37-11 518. 14 85 7713-16), now and then slightly irrelevant (e.g. 3°), but occasionally, as in Plato, of real weight (e.g. 216 712; ovdev . vopos 719 104; micros yap 6 érayyeiAdpevos 1073; dy otk Hv agtos 6 Koopos 11°8 1314); they frequently explain a phrase (rotr’ eat tov dudBorov 2!4; totr éotw Tovs ddeAGors aitav 7°; 6 Aads yap er avrns vevonobernrat 711; Aris . . . eveotnkdta 9°; TovT EoTLV . Kticews 9}! ; rotr ear TIS wapKos avrov 1079 1270), esnecially an OT citation (e.g. 41° 619 77; 3 aitwes Kata vopov mpooéepovTat 108) on which the writer comments in passing. One outstanding feature of the style (for [pos “EBpatovs is A€gts KATEOT pap pwEev7, not Ais eipouevn in the sense of rapid dialogue) is the number of long, careimily constructed) sentences: (¢.pin 4 234214. 15.912-15, 412,18, Ix THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1-8 g7-10 64-6 616-20 41-3 84-6 92-5 96-10 2-26 yoll-13 yol9-25 1 724-26 y 21.2 1218-24), Yet his short sentences are most effective, e.g. 218 48 10!8, and once at least (3!%18) there is a touch of the rapid, staccato diatribé style, which lent itself to the needs of popular preach- ing. He loves a play on words or assonance, ¢.g. kapdia movnpa amTLTTIAS éV To atootnvat (317), mapaxaXretre éavTovs . . . aypts ov TO onpepov KaXretrat (3!°), euabey af dv erabev (58), kaXod Te Kat Kaxov (514), arak rpocevexOels eis TO woAANGY aveveyKeiv AyapTias (928), rorotrov Exovres TEpLKeimevoV HLLY VEPos MapTUpwY . . . TPEXW- fev TOV TpoKEimevoy Huty aydva (12'), éxAeAnoOe THS wapaxAncews . pnde éxdvov (125), wevovcav TOA GAA THY wéAAOVTAY (13}4). Also he occasionally likes to use a term in two senses, e.g. Cov yap 6 Aoyos Tot Geod . . . mpds ov Hutv 6 Adyos (4) }8), and diabnKy in gf From first to last he i is addicted to the gentle practice of. alliteration, e.g. woAvpepds Kal moAvtporms radar 6 Geos AaAHoas TOUS ots a) tots tpopytats (11), raca mapaBacis Kal wapakon (22), abyKey att@ avurdtaxtov (28), Tov dardctoXov Kal apxvepea. (3°), kairo... . amo xataBorns Koopov (4°), evOupyoewv Kal €VVOL@V (4 ay. ATAT WP, apnjr wp, dyeveahoynros (7°), dua TO aii doOevés Kal avu- eres (718), eis TO mavTedes . . . TOUS Te ey . . . WAVTOTE Cav (7%), ot KexAnpévor THS aiwviov KAypovopmias (g)), eionOey aya Xpworos avritima tov aAnOwdv, GAN cis adrov (974), éret Eder adrov TmoAAaKes madety a6 Karaohys Koo L0v (97°), drag emi ovvTedeia TOV aidvuy eis adernow TIS dpaprias (976), daroxetrat Tots avOpwrrots drag darobavetv (9*"), év abrais dvdpyno is O,pLarpT Lav (10%), advvarov yap aipa Tavpwv Kal Tpaywv aparpey dpoprtias (10%), Oriveow Dear prlo- puevou (10°), et pev exeivs pu wOvEvOV ad 7s e€éPyoav (11), raca pe TaLoeta pos peev TO Tra,pov (1 ath) TEPLO-TOTEPWS de TApakare TOUTO toujoat (131%). On the other hand, he seems deliberately to avoid alliteration once by altering dveAéunv into éroinoa (8°). One or two other features of his style are remarkable. There is, for example, the predilection for sonorous compounds like pcOamrodocia and etiepioraros, and also the love of adjectives in a privative, which Aristotle noted as a mark of the elevated style (Rhet. ili. 6. 7); in IIpos “EBpaiovs there are no fewer than twenty-four such, while even in the historical romance miscalled 3 Mac. there are no more than twenty. Other items are the fondness for nouns ending in -is (cp. on 24), the extensive use of periphrases (cp. on 411), and of the infinitive and the preposition (see on 3!2). The use of a word like re is also noticeable. Apart from eleven occurrences of re xai, and one doubtful case of te... Te... Kat (6”), re links (a) substantives without any preceding «at or 6€; (0) principal clauses, as in 122; and (c) par- ticipial clauses, as in 1° 64. Emphasis is generally brought out by throwing a word forward or to the very end of the sentence. INTRODUCTION lxi The writer is also in the habit of interposing several words between the article or pronoun and the substantive ; e.g. io Bes Tap avToUS KeKAypovonnKey, & ovopa. 48 otk Gy wept cp adAys eAdreu PETA TAVTA HMEpas. toll ras aitas roAAaKis tpocdepwv Ovoias. 12 7, CRY ¢ a , / Io play UTrep ALAPTLWV T POO EVEYKAS 6valav. —— 1027 avpods Lyros éoOiew péeAXovTOs Tovs brevavtiovus. \ , € 4 ¢ \ lal e a 12° rov TOLQUTYV VTOMEVEVYKOTA VITO TWV dpLapTwA av eis avTov > / avTtAoyiav. Further, his use of the genitive absolute is to be noted, e¢.g., in— 24 ovvertwaptupovvtos Tov eo KTA., 41 xataderopevns ... adtov (seven words between px zore and dox7j Tus). 4° kairo. TOV epyov tf - yevnevtov. 72 perar Gepevns yap ris lepwovyys. 84 ovTwv TOV T poo pepovTwv KaTa vomov TA OMpa., 9° rovtwv 5€ ovTw KaTecKevacpevov. !) 8 rottro SyAovytos Tov Ivevpatos tot “Ayiov ... ere THS TPOTNS TKYNVAS ExovTNS TTACLV. 15 Q 4 / / d b 9 avdtov ‘yevopevov . . . TapaSdaoewv (ten words between dws and 7. é. AaBdow). 9)? Aarnbelons yap maons évroAys . . . Muvoéws. 10° éxovaiws yap dpaptavovTwv nUdv. 11+ paptupovvtos et Tots dwpots airod Tov Ged, Finally, there is an obvious endeavour to avoid harsh hiatus, sometimes by the choice of a term (e.g. didre for ort, as in Polybius and Theophrastus, or dxpis for aypi, or ws for dr), and a distinct fondness for compound verbs; Moulton (ii. 11), reckoning by the pages of WH, finds that while Mark has 5:7 compound verbs per page, Acts 6°25, Hebrews has 8:0, and Paul only 3°8. His vocabulary is drawn from a wide range of reading. Whether he was a Jew by birth or not, he goes far beyond the LXX. His Greek recalls that of authors like Musonius Rufus and the philosophical Greek writers, and he affects more or less technical philosophical terms like aio @nryjpuov, Sypovpyds, béAnors, petpioTrabeiv, TeXerdw, TEAS, Tiwwpia, and trddevryya. He was acquainted with the books of the Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and perhaps even Philo. This last affinity is strongly marked. The more he differs from Philo in his speculative interpretation of religion, the more I feel, after a prolonged study of Philo, that our author had probably read some of his works ; it is not easy Ixii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS to avoid the conclusion that his acquaintance with the Hellenistic Judaism of Alexandria included an acquaintance with Philo’s writings. However this may be, the terminology of the Wisdom literature was as familiar to this early Christian dudacKados as to the author of James.! As for the LXX, the text he used—and he uses it ith some freedom in quotations—must have resembled that of A (cp. Buchel in Studien und Kritiken, 1906, pp. 508-591), upon the whole. It is to his acquaintance with the LXX that occasional ‘“‘Semitisms” in his style may be referred, e.g. the éw éoyarov of 11, the xapdia dmurrias of 31%, the év ue pa iee of 3, the Opovos THs xapttos of 41°, and the phrases in 579° and 12%. But this is a minor point. We note rather that (2) he sometimes uses LXX terms (e.g. dvvapets) in a special Hellenistic sense, or in a sense of hisown. (4) Again, it is the use of the contents of the LXX which is really significant. The nearest approach to IIpos “EGpaiovs, in its treatment of the OT, is the speech of Stephen, the Hellenistic Jewish Christian, in Ac 7!°3, where we have a similar use of the typological method and a similar freedom in handling the OT story (cp. ZB. 4791, e.g. Ac 729= He 1127), which proves how men like these writers, for all their reverence for the LXX, sat wonderfully free to the letter of the scripture and employed, without hesitation, later Jewish traditions in order to interpret it for their own purposes. But Stephen’s reading of the OT is not that of IIpés “EBpafouvs. The latter never dwells on the crime of the Jews in putting Jesus to death (123 is merely a general, passing allusion), whereas Stephen makes that crime part and parcel of the age-long obstinacy and externalism which had characterized Israel. In IIpos “EGpaious, again, the xd»- povouia of Palestine is spiritualized (37f), whereas Stephen merely argues that its local possession by Israel was not final. Stephen, again, argues that believers in Jesus are the true heirs of the OT spiritual revelation, not the Jews; while in IIpds “Epaiovs the continuity of the People is assumed, and Christians are regarded as tpso facto the People of God, without any allusion to the Jews having forfeited their privileges. Here the author of IIpds “EBpaiovs differs even from the parable of Jesus (cp. on 11); he conveys no censure of the historical Jews who had been responsible for the crucifixion. The occasional resemblances between Stephen’s speech and IIpos “Efpaious are not so signifi- cant as the difference of tone and temper between them, e.g. in their conceptions of Moses and of the angels (cp. on He 22). For another thing, (c) the conception of God derives largely * On the philosophical background of ideas as well as of words, see A. R. Eagar in Hermathena, xi. pp. 263-287; and H. T. Andrews in E.xposttor’, xiv. pp. 348 f. INTRODUCTION Ixili from the element of awe and majesty in the OT (see on 13 418 7030. 817229), This has been aiready noted (see pp. xxxvf.). But linguistically there are characteristic elements in the various allusions to God. Apart altogether from a stately term like Meyalwotvy (1° 8!) or Adga (9°), we get a singular number of indirect, descriptive phrases like 6c Ov ta wavta xal 8 ov 7a mavra (21°), tO roujoavte airov (3”), mpos dv ypty o Adyos (41%), tov Ovuvdpevoyv owlev attov é€k Oavdtov (5°), 6 érayyeAdpevos (1023 r1!!), rov ddpatov (1177), tov dr otpavav xpnuarivovta (12%), After 11, indeed, there is a slight tendency to avoid the use of 6 @Oeds and to prefer such periphrases of a solemn and even liturgical tone. It is noticeable, e.g., that while 6 @eds occurs about seventy-eight times in 2 Co (which is about the same length as Ilpos “Efpaiovs), it only occurs fifty-five times in the latter writing. The title (6) Kvpuos is also rare; it was probably one of the reasons that suggested the quotation in 11% (xvpue), but it is mainly applied to God (1214), and almost invariably in connexion with OT quotations (72! 8? 88% 1016 1030 126 736), Once only it is applied to Jesus (2°), apart from the solitary use of 6 KUptos yav in 714 (+ 'Incois, 33. 104. 2127) and in the doxology with “Incots (137°), It is not a term to which the author attaches special significance (cp. on 774). “Incovs, as in (i) 29 (Tov de Bpaxd te wap dyyéAous HAaTTwpEvov BA€ropev ‘Inooidv), (ii) 3} (katavojoate Tov ardctoAov Kal dpxtepea Tis Spuodoylas ypav "Inoodtv), (iii) 41* (€xovres otv apxtepéa péyav dueAnAvOdTa Tovs ovpavovs, “Incodv), (iv) 679 (crov mpddpopos trép judy c xix. Hits. vi. ite : @ 1022] cont, 188 2U-16 318-12 412-15 yol-7. 32-88 1210-15 7324-25: mutilated fragments, at Moscow and Paris, of codex Coislinianus, ane 1x. ». (OFS S12), EP. iX. [020 : a §} cont. 11-131 Mii 4x: [o121 : @ 1031] cont. 114% 12-13”, Nuts Fe ax: [o122 : a 1030] cont. 58-6! Paris Gixy [o2z5 : a 3] cont. 11-128 12!!-137, Die ss Du lVs [a 1034] cont. 2!4-5° ro%11)8 18-12": Oxyrhyn- chus Papyrt, iv. (1904) 36-48. The tendency, in 2)4-5°, to agree with B ‘‘in the omission of unessential words and phrases... gives the papyrus peculiar value in the later chapters, where B is deficient” ; thus p!® partially makes up for the loss of B after 9. Otherwise the text of the papyrus is closest to that of D. p’ ,,_ iv. [a 1043] cont. 9179; Oxyrhynchus Papyrt, viii. (1911) TI-13. (vi. ?) viii,-ix. [044 : 6 6] cont. 17-8" 9'9-13”, (iv.—vi.) [I] cont, 1-8 912 24-7. 12-14 “34-6, 14-16 48-6, 12-14 55-7 61-3. 10-13. 20 71-2. 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 Ql. 7-9 Gl-4. 9-11. 16-19, 25-27 195-8. 16-18, 26-29. 35-38 x 76-7. 12-15. 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 [ls 7-9 16-18, 25-27 7 27-9. 16-18. 23-25. ATT ASS an Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexan- drian text, and is ‘‘quite free from Western readings.” se 1 An instance may be found in 10, where a corrector of D obelized the first and last letters of dvecdufduevor and wrote over it Oearpifduevo. In E we get the absurd difouevodearorfouevor (cp. Gregory’s Textkritik des N7, i, 109). é Ixvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 048 saec. v. [a 1] cont. 1192-134, Codex Patiriensis is a palimpsest. OLAS Sits xs [o®]. OLS 1M) jy) xi eS Three specimens of how the MSS group themselves may be printed. (a) shows the relation between M and the papyrus p}*: M agrees with p® in eight places: 3! Incody. 3° ddéns otros (+K L vg, alone), 34 wavra. 3° édv. 3° buaer év Soximacla, 3) ravry. 333 ris €& Huadr. 4? ovyKek(€)pacuévous. It opposes p!¥ (+B) in Bt és: 3° + wéxpe TArous BeBalay, 3° + me. 4° odv. 4°+7#v before cardravow. M has some remarkable affinities with the text of Origen (e.g. 1% 1% 23). (4) exhibits the relations of 8 and D*, showing how A and B agree with them on the whole, and how p” again falls into this group: x and D* agree in 1? position of éroinsey AB M 84 ody AB 18 +xal before 7 p4Bd0s AB M 84 om. rév lepéwy AB 2! rapapudpev A B* 8" om. adrévafter uixpod A B 2’ +xalkxaréornoas... 9° xepovBly (alone of un- cou A cials) 2)5 SouAlas 9? Ka” Hy AB 3! om. Xpiordy AB M p| 9?! épdvyricev A 34 wdavra AB M p®| 9% om. 6 before Xpisrés A 3) ra’rn AB Mp! room. o ,, did A 3)® dv (so 7°) AB M p}*| 10!” odros A 4! xaraduropuévns (alone), 1016 Sidvoiay A except for p'% 10°3 Nedove pévoe 47 mpoelpnrat A(B)_ p85 | 113 7d Brerduevor A ps 45 cuvradjioat A B* 1119 duvarés Be alr AUB |) Uae A eis va Teco 5° pepl aduapriav AB 115? we yap A 6° om, Tod Kéirou AB 1134 wayaipns (sor?) A 616 om. mév AB 125 matdlas A e Aeul mete ercatee t iz! a of gre - nl om. Tév before’ ABpadu 12° wondv (so 12 rt 3» 9 5, Medryuoedéx B 12" éxrpouos (alone) 7 abrijs AB 13° Kaxovxoupéywr Ary iM 711 vevouobérnrat AB 134 ydp A M 718 capklyys AB 13° éybés A M 717 uaprupetrae AB 1371 om. épy@ 82 om. cal before od« dy- Opwiros B INTRODUCTION Ixvil (c) exhibits characteristic readings of H, with some of its main allies: 1? xadapiopdv MEA BAe yOReea rics) bh vg arm 2) SovNlas x Der. i a ris €£ Ono pe RvA. C H MP vg pesh arm boh 34 rod Xpisrov yey. & AB CD WH MP vg 317 rlow dé RF. BeGiD Hee Pe sah 4)? évepyns Mev C.D H P KL vg 4? Wuxiis x AB C H P L(vg arm boh) 4 cuvrabjoat MAB i Doe ah 10! @uclas(-airav) A CD H KL vg to! als Lae itt L 10! duvdrat D H KL vg boh 10? om. ovK Ti* (vg) pesh 10? Kexabapiopuévous & D Inky 0M 10° jvddxnoas Ass (. DreWill Bp 10% rots deculas p® A Dis vg pesh boh 10% éaurovs ete 3 H vg boh 10% trapiiy px* A Doral. vg boh 10° weyddnv wic8. =X A D WH P 10° ypoviet xe A Dev oP KG 108 wou éx micrews & A 1B hey vg arm 12! raca dé pea A Dray et KL vg pesh boh 12)3 roujoare x A D H KL 12) airijs font ne ee H Ep 1238 airot xe eee Ary ye Pai ROL 1372om. Tavaldvev (. OaeeLl arm 1379 quar RAR GS DEW M vg pesh arm boh sah 137 dujy. x A CD H PMK vg pesh (arm) boh CURSIVES. Isaec. x. [6 254] 189 saec. xiii. [0 6 9°] 2) to Pe exit. 253] 20s cays) 2X10 1203 | S as xl atore 531 206 =,, xill. [a 365] Gv xiis(os960), cont.. E'-9% | 209 4, xiv..[6457} 107-13 216)+,5) xiv. [a 409] AV gee xin G03 | 217 isu), Xin [a 10651 cont, 1*-6° 220 ix. -x,' [0°49] Hort’s 17 218 ,, xiii. [5 300] 35 5, xiii. [6 309] aaziees x. [a 69] 38.55 + xiii. [8:355] 226 4,1) xi. [8 156] ry ote NS Me sO OR Rd 227, Wsieh Sia (@ 259] 69 ,, xv. [6 505] 241 4, xi. [6 507] 88 ,, xii. [a 200] 242 Une un Site [0 200) 90 5, xvi. [5 652] 253 4, xi. [0 152] 93 », x. [a 51] 255 + xi. [a 174] 10t ee (| 2505) 5. axit) (a 276) 104" 5, xi. [a 103] 257 4; «/ xiv. [@ 406] Tite aes] 263 ,, xili.—xiv. [5 372] L77esiti 2 xl. (4106) 293 5, xv. [a 1574] cont. g!4-13% LOT xi. [a 101] 200-0 avi. [8 Goo) 188 ,, xii. [a 200} 323 5, xi.—xii. [a 157] Ixviil THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 326 saec. xii. [a 257] 941 saec. xiii. [6 369] BOT Was (iSite Oc) 999 ,, xiii. [5 353] B30 11) der kil. [Ov2hO) 1108 ,, xiii. [a 370] 337. 5, xii. [a 205] /I149 ,, xiii. [8 370] a7 Tica, (a f431 | cont, seks MATT 7 Snes x. [a 74] cont. Bs at 6a. 276) te dixie parase| iz” 383 ,, xiii. [a 353] cont. 11-13? 1243 ,, xii. [6 198] 418 ,, xv. (x.) [a 1530] cont. 11 | 1245 xi. [a 158] 1317 | 1288 (St) xi. [a 162] 424 ,, xi. (0'] Hort’s 67 TRIAL OT 429 ,, xiil.—xiv. [a 398] T3100; ex LOO) ASTM jy.) HRI, [02694 T5190, St eee LO) ASG yes Khe LOE 7a) 1522°\5,)) xiv. [a4G4] ABO Hh). Visi. | 02004 1525 ,, xiii, [a 361] cont. 11-78 Hazied ) emi. (Ore} 1610 ,, xiv. [a 468] 456 ,, x.?[a 52] LOTT, 20) Xb a 20a) 460 ,, xiii—xiv. [a 397] LP ION eG Kee 461 ,,. xiii. [a 3590] 1758 ,, xiii. [a 396] cont. 11-13" 462 ,, xv. [a 502] 1765 ,, xiv. [a 486] yy ana ba FAG hy a | 1927 onc Mili ery 489 ,, xiv. [6 459] Hort’s 102 TOSto 55) AVA 72 ADL RETA T Xi oar ha) 1020" 1; x [i OS) BOO} tay) kine OL sey peer is wes ey (sb) 522 5 WOW. | 00024 1938 /),, ext. [a Tp B47, EXLOLOUI SG) 1845 ,, x. [a 64] 64. 5 el OY 1852" ),,).\ xis fa Tia] conteet ene OSA are eres | 1867 ,, xi.—xll. [a 154] O99 Pa kiee Bor) 1872°"2)) Vo xii. [a 209] 630i5 4) -aiexin [a 760] 1873" 4s px [eaeaae 6424.5, exve faiss2)). conte? 13-7 an Totes x. [a 62] gPH13™ 1898 Gs ee fia 70} 794 5, xiv. [6 454] 1906. 5, axl. [Ow 20!) SOS as) Sihao Zot) 1008.1, wh Rie |e BPs as Kill 0 0R) TOl2 ar x.-xi. [a 1066] S70.) Kills pc, 3504 BOOA L2G, x. [a 56] Olas, xival ea 7! 2055 ,, xiv. [a 1436] cont. 11-7? OLS er xii ooo | 2027 4) Sih 1 OFZ02 1 Ol7 tas) US ee 204) 2138), ea Xiu Agee RO} CIOs xi hance 2143 ,, xi.—xil. [a 184] 920 5, x. [a 55] 2147 ,, xii. [6 299] O27 0. xi. [Oues 14 Of these some like 5 and 33 and 442 and 999 and 1908, are of the first rank; von Soden pronounces 1288 ‘fa very good representative” of his H text. Yet even the best cursives, like the uncials, may stray (see on 416). As a specimen of how one good cursive goes, I append this note of some characteristic readings in 424** : ' 13 om. a’rod after duvdpews M Orig def vg om. 7udv x* A B D* M P 29 xwpils M Orig 31 om. Xpiorév Sy ASB DS CPM PE def vg sah 3° 8s 972s, Me def vg 3 ravry ATE I* M sah INTRODUCTION lxix -4)4 ricrews -5)? buds (om. Twa) 8* om, 7p lepewv oe il oe bd P defvg 9? Kad” Hy x A BD* fvg 973 Kadapiferar (avdyxn) DF Orig 10! dvvavrac x A DPC P [se. D*, Orig] 10” om. A€yet KUptos x” Dr B defvg 10*4 deoulois AE, (Orig ??) f vg 11° om. avrod Seth AD We P defvg 1255 avrfjs A Sy 12% da’ otpavod x M b 1276 celow x A CuM fvg LATIN VERSIONS. A, Old Latin (vt), saec, ii. (?)-iv. Hebrews is omitted in the pseudo-Augustinian Speculum (=m) and in codex Boernerianus (=g), but included in— d (Latin version of D) é ( 99 > a E) ( 9 39 93 r (codex Frisingensis: saec. vi., cont. 6§-7° 78-8! 977-117) Cette e BOGIEIANUS i) cel IX, UCONt wy I wk 2) Of these, ~ (corresponding to the text used by Augustine), with the few quotations by Priscillian, represents the African, d (in the main)! and x? the European, type of the Old Latin text; but / is predominantly vulgate, and it is doubtful whether x? is really Old Latin. On the other hand, some evidence for the Old Latin text is to be found occasionally in the following MSS of— B. Vulgate (vg), saec. iv. am (Codex Amiatinus : saec. vil.—viii. ) Wie. ogg) oF Uldensisi’ \{1,4)/l-vi2) ¢cav{.,, Cavensis: Mette a ah ; iol (2). Toletanas: /., viii) fe Pamtsh Basi ms) (ELarleiangs * 46); vill.) e( ,, Colbertinus: ,,: -xii.) Though ¢ is an Old Latin text for the gospels, Hebrews and the rest of the NT are vulgate ; but He 10-11 in 4ar/ (which elsewhere has affinities with am and fu/d) is Old Latin, according to E. S. Buchanan (7%e 2 pzstles and Apocalypse from the codex Harletanus [z= Wordsworth’s Z,), numbered Harl. 1772 2m the Lritish Aluseum Library, 1913). Both in far/ and in e, 11°°*3 has a special capitulation ; Zar/, which adds after ‘‘the prophets” in 1 The text of d corresponds to that of Lucifer of Cagliari (saec. iv.), who quotes 35-4" and 4-8 in his treatise De non conuentendo cum haereticis, xi. (CSEHZ., vol. xiv.). According to Harnack (Studien zur Vulgata des Hebrierbriefs, 1920) it is d, not x, which underlies the vulgate (cp. J. Belser on ‘‘die Vulgata u. der Griech. Text im Hebriaerbrief,” in 7heolog. Quartal- schrift, 1906, pp. 337-369). c* Ixx THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 11°2-** Ananias azarias misahel daniel helias helisaeus”—apparently points to 11°82? having been at one time added to the original text which ran (117%); ‘in hac enim testimonium habuerunt seniores qui per fidem uicerunt regna,” etc. Of these MSS, /z/d represents an Italian text, cav and tol a Spanish (the former with some admixture of Old Latin) ; am (whose text is akin to fd) is an Italian text, written in Great Britain. At an early date the Latin versions were glossed, however (cp. on 7} 117%). EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. sah = Sahidic (saec. ili.-iv.): Zhe Coptic Verston of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131. boh = Bohairic (saec. vi.-vii.): Zhe Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472- 555: In sah II pds ‘EBpalovs comes very early in the Pauline canon, immediately after Romans and Corinthians, even earlier than in the first (A.D. 400) Syriac canon, whereas in boh it comes between the Pauline church letters and the Pastorals. The latter seems to have been an early (z.¢. a fourth century) position in the Eastern or Alexandrian canon, to judge from Athanasius (Fest. Ep. xxxix.); it reappears in the uncials 8 A B! W. Not long afterwards, at the Synod of Carthage (can. 39), in A.D. 397, it is put be- tween the Pauline and the Catholic epistles, which seems to have been the African and even the (or, a) Roman order. This reflects at least a doubt about its right to stand under Paul’s name, whereas the order in sah and the primitive Syriac canon reflects a deliberate assertion of its Pauline authorship. The Alexandrian position is intermediate. The data of the Egyptian versions are of special interest, as several of the uncials have Egyptian affinities or an Egyptian origin, and as IIpdés ‘E8patous was early studied at Alexandria. Thus, to cite only one or two, boh is right, as against sah, ¢.g. in the rendering of mpés in 1’, in omitting dA (3°), in rendering trogrdcews as ‘‘ confidence” in 314, in rendering év Aaveld (4) ‘‘in David,” in reading waGeiy in 96, in rendering trdécracis by ‘‘ assurance” (so syr arm) in 11}, in taking cadXovmevos by itself (118), in keeping éAv0dcOynoar before émplc@ncav (11%’, though éreipdcOnoay, =were tempted, is inferior to sah’s omission of any such term), in reading éwayyeAlay (11°9, where sah agrees with W in reading the plural), etc. On the other hand, and in a large number of cases, sah is superior, ¢.g. at 2! (‘a merciful and faithful high- priest”), at 3° (omitting wéxpe TéAous BeBalav), at 4? (cuvyKexepacuévos), in rendering xpar@uev (4)4) ‘‘let us hold on to,” in maintaining @eds in 6° (for ‘‘Lord” in boh), in omitting rod «érrov in 61°, in reading iepe?s (with W) in 78, in reading tudy in 914, in rendering the last words of 9%, in rendering au... avTiroyiay in 12% etc. Note also that sah agrees with arm in inserting rs before érayyeNXdas in 41, borepov Neyer in 101% 17, and ydp in 12%, while boh agrees with arm in adding efrevy in 18 and alwyos at 51°, and both agree with arm in omitting xaf in 1%, Both translate eicepydueba (4°) as a future, read dmioriav in 4° (with vg and arm), omit xara rh rt. M. in 7%, take &ycov as an adjective in 9!, read weAAdvTwy in 9", take fs in 117 to mean the ark, read 7 oretpa in 11!1, render dyxov by ‘‘ pride” in 12, take bropévere as imperative in 127, and refer airy to rérov peravolas in 12% Sah has 1 Yet in the archetype of the capitulation system in B IIpds ‘E8patovs must have stood between Galatians and Ephesians, which ‘‘is the order given in the Sahidic version of the ‘Festal letter’ of Athanasius” (Kirsopp Lake, The Text of the NT, p. 53): INTRODUCTION xx? some curious renderings, e.g. ‘‘hewed out” for évexawicevy (10%), ‘the place of the blood” for aiuaros in 124, and actually ‘‘hanging for them another time” (dvacravpodvras éavrois, 6°); in general it is rather more vivid and less literal, though boh reads ‘‘ through the sea of Shari” [? slaughter] in 1179 (sah is defective here), which is singular enough. On the other hand, sah is more idiomatic. Thus it is in sah, not in boh, that ywOpol yévyno de (61). is rendered by ‘‘ become daunted.” The differences in a passage like 127° are specially instructive. Sah takes wavnyipe. with what follows, boh with ayyédwr (*‘ myriads of angels keeping festival”); on the other hand, sah is right as against boh’s reading of wveduare (v.”*), while both render ‘‘ God the judge of all.” In v.*6 both render émiyyeArae literally by ‘‘ he promised,” but boh translates wapadauBdvorres in v.28 as a future and xdpw as ‘‘ grace,” whereas sah renders correctly in both cases. In ch. 13, sah seems to read mepipéper Oe in v.® (‘* be not tossed about”), inserts py (as against boh), and reads juiy in v.21; in v.* it reads dvéyecGe; in v.?8, while boh renders do\ehuuévoy by ‘‘released,” sah renders ‘‘our brother Timotheos whom I sent’ (which confuses the sense of the passage altogether), and, unlike boh,. omits the final dujv. It is significant that sah} often tallies with ~ as against d, e.g. in 6'8 (icxupdav), 77" (apxeepets), though with d now and then against 7, as in 11° (6é). It agrees with d and eth in reading wvefua in 17, ws iudrvoy in 1/2 (as well as éAlfers), and kal rév Tpd-ywy in 9}¥, but differs from @ almost as often, and from eth in reading ravry in 3, in omitting xara 7. 7. M. in 7”, etc. Unexpectedly a collation of sah and of eth yields no material for a clear decision upon the relation of the texts they imply. a SYRIAC VERSIONS. For the Old Syriac, z.e. for the Syriac text of Hebrews prior to the vulgate revision (Peshitta) of the fifth century, we possess even less material than in the case of the Old Latin version. Hebrews belonged to the old Syrian canon, but the primitive text can only be recovered approximately from (i) the Armenian version,” which rests in part upon an Old Syriac basis—‘‘ readings of the Armenian vulgate which differ from the ordinary Greek text, especially if they are supported by the Peshitta, may be considered with some confidence to have been derived from the lost Old Syriac” (F. C. Burkitt, 4&2. 5004) ; from (ii) the homilies of Aphraates (saec. iv), and from (iii) the Armenian translation of Ephraem Syrus (saec. iv.), Commentariz in Epp. Paul nunc primum ex armenio in latinum sermonem a patribus Mekithartstts translatt (Venice, 1893, pp. 200-242). Hebrews is not extant in the Philoxenian version of A.D. 508, but the Harklean revision of that text (A.D. 616-617) is now accessible in complete form, thanks to R. L. Bensly’s edition (7he Harklean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11-13”, now edited for the first time with Introduction and Notes, Cambridge, 1889). The Peshitta version is now conveniently accessible in the British and Foreign Bible Society’s edition of The New Testament in Syriac (1920). 1Tt rarely goes its own way, but the omission of any adjective at all with mvevparos in 94 is most remarkable; so is the reading of buds for quads in 13° (where M Orig have one of their characteristic agreements in omitting any pronoun). 2 Mr. F. C. Conybeare kindly supplied me with a fresh collation. Ixxil THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS The early evidence for the use of Ilpos “EBpaiovs may be chronologically tabulated as follows : MSS. | VERSIONS. WRITERS. 100-200 | ; Clem. Rom. | ‘ 200-300 (Old Syriac)(Old Latin) | Clem. Alex. | Tertullian } me 2 Origen aby ; 00-400 Eusebius (-340 ant ye he! Basil (-379) Lucifer (-371) B Sahidic (?) Cyril of Jerus. (-386) Priscillian (-385) Apollinaris (—392) | Ambrose (397) x (2) vulgate (370-383) Cher yacaicnn (-407) | Jerome (-420) Theodore of Mopsuestia 400-500 |W (?) | peshitta (411-435) Augustine (~430) Cyril of Alex. (-444) AC Armenian | Theodoret (-458) 048 500-600 | D d ‘ | fuld Ethiopic Fulgentius H r 600-700 harklean (616-617) 700-800 am Bohairic (?) | YY tol 800-900 L | MN f | Sedulius Scotus mca, Qo00-1000 e (?) O142 xs A BCH M WY W (with p!%) would represent. von Soden’s H text (approximating to WH’s Neutral), his I text (correspond- ing to WH’s Western) being represented by K L P among the uncials. But the difference between these in the Pauline corpus are, he admits, less than in the case of the gospels. Bousset (in Texte und Untersuchungen, xi. 4, pp. 45 f.) has shown that X° H (which tend to agree with Origen’s text) have affinities with Euthalius ; they carry with them a number of cursives (including 33. 69. 88. 104. 424**. 436 and 1908), and enable us to recon- struct the archetype of codex Pamphili, ze. the third century recension of Origen’s text. This group would therefore stand midway between B 8 A C and the later K L (with majority of cursives). But no exact grouping of the MSS is feasible. The text has suffered early corruption at several places, e.g. 2° 4? 7} 10% y1* 1187 428 3218 and 1321, though only the first of these passages is of real, religious importance. But, apart from this, the earliest MSS betray serious errors (cp. on 7! 11%), as though the text had not been well preserved. Thus B, for all its services (¢.¢. in 67), goes wrong repeatedly (e.g. 13 18 41”), as does x*® (eg. 15 om. atta, 49 69 917 tore, 1082 duaprias), and even p}8 in 4° (éAevoortat), 1018 (duaprias), 111 (awdaracts), etc. The errors of W are mainly linguistic, but it reads évOvpyoews in 4}, miotews in 611 etc. A test passage like 2!4, where “blood and flesh ” naturally passed into the conventional “flesh and blood,” INTRODUCTION Ixxil! shows the inferior reading supported not only by K and L, as we might expect, but by / and /o/, the peshitta and eth. Similarly the wrong reading paprupet in 7!” brings out not only K and L again but C D syr and a group of cursives, 256. 326. 436. 1175. 1837. 2127. In 9% only arm inserts riore after amrexdexopuevors, but the similar homiletic gloss of du miotews before or after eis owrnpiav turns up in A P syr™’, and in 38. 69. 218. 256. 263. 330. 436. 440. 462. 823, 1245. 1288. 1611. 1837. 1898. 2005. In 9}* the gloss cai dAyOive is supported also by A P as well as by boh and one or two cursives like 104. To take another instance, the gloss xai daxptwry (in 108) has only D* among the uncials, but it is an Old Latin reading, though ~ does not support it, and it was read in the original text of the harklean Syriac. Again, in 11!%, what B. Weiss calls the “obvious emendation” éyevvyfyoav is supported by & L p#® and 1739, while in the same verse xal os 7 (xdéOws, D) carries with its A DK LP p?8, and D W omit 7) rapa 70 yetAos. When M resumes at 12%? it is generally in the company of & A D P (aS, €.8.; 1229; 24 25 125-990) once (127? om. ryv) with D* arm, once with D* (om. éfovciay, 131°), once with K L P (xaxoy. 13°) against & A D*, Such phenomena render the problem of ascertaining any traditional text of IIpés “Efpaiovs unusually difficult. Even the data yielded by Clement of Alexandria? and the Latin and Egyptian versions do not as yet facilitate a genealogical grouping of the extant MSS or a working hypo- thesis as to the authorities in which a text free from Western readings may be preserved. (ii.) The eighteen homilies by Origen (7253) are lost, though Eusebius (cp. above, pp. xvili-xix) quotes two fragments on the style and authorship. The “Arodoyia ‘Opvyevots of Pamphilus (partially extant in the Latin version of Rufinus) implies that he also wrote a commentary on the epistle, but this is lost, and the Syriac commentary of Ephraem Syrus (373) is only extant in the Latin version of an Armenian version (cp. above, p. 1xxi). We are fortunate, however, in possessing the first important ex- position of IIpés “Efpatous, viz. the homilies of Chrysostom (+407), extant in the form of notes, posthumously published, which the presbyter Constantine had taken down. Chrysostom’s com- ments are drawn upon by most of the subsequent expositors. The foremost of these Greek exegetes is Theodore of Mopsuestia (+428), who is the first to show any appreciation of historical 1 The original text in one place at least (cp. on 11‘) can be restored by the help of p'* and Clement. IXxiV THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS criticism (Zheodori Mopsuesteni in NT Commentaria quae reperiri potuerunt, collegit O. F. Fritzsche, 1847, pp. 160-172). The exposition by his contemporary Theodoret of Cyrrhus (7458) is based almost entirely upon Chrysostom and’ Theodore of Mopsuestia (Zheod. Comm. in omnes Pauli epistolas, ed. E. B. Pusey, 1870, ii. 132-219). Similarly, the work of Oecumenius of Tricca in Thrace (tenth century) contains large excerpts from previous writers, including Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Photius (cp. Migne, PG. cxvili-cxix). Theophylact, arch- bishop of Bulgaria (end of eleventh century), also draws upon his predecessors (cp. Migne, PG. cxxiv), like Euthymius Ziga- benus (beginning of twelfth century), a monk near Constanti- nople. The latter’s commentary on Hebrews is in the second volume (pp. 341 f.) of his Commentari (ed. N. Calogeras, Athens, 1887). Ina happy hour, about the middle of the sixth century, Cassiodorus (Migne’s PZ. lxx. p. 1120) employed a scholar called Mutianus to translate Chrysostom’s homilies into Latin. This version started the homilies on a fresh career in the Western church, and subsequent Latin expositions, eg. by Sedulius Scotus, W. Strabo, Alcuin, and Thomas of Aquinum, build on this version and on the vulgate. An excellent account of these commentaries is now published by Riggenbach in Zahn’s Forschungen zur Gesch. des NTlchen Kanons, vol. viii. 1907). asinee F, Bleek’s great edition (1828-1840) there has been a continuous stream of commentaries; special mention may be made of those by Delitzsch (Eng. tr. 1867), Lunemann (1867, 1882), Moses Stuart* (1860), Alford? (1862), Reuss (1860, 1878), Kurtz (1869), Hofmann (1873), A. B. Davidson (1882), F. Rendall (1888), C. J. Vaughan (1890), B. Weiss (in Meyer, 1897), von Soden (1899), Westcott? (1903), Hollmann? (1907), E. J. Goodspeed (1908), A. S. Peake (Century Bible, n.d.), M. Dods (1910), E. C. Wickham (1910), A. Seeberg (1912), Riggenbach (1913, 1922), Windisch (1913), and Nairne (1918). Other works referred to, in this edition,! are as follows :— Bengel (Bgl.). /. A. Bengelit Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742). Blass: #*, . . Blass, Grammatik des mneutestamentlichen Griechisch : vterte, vollig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrader, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903). 1 Some references, in the textual notes, are the usual abbreviations, like Amb.=Ambrose, Ath. or Athan.=Athanasius, Cosm.=Cosmas Indico- pleustes (ed. E. O. Winstedt, Cambridge, 1909), Cyr. =Cyril of Alexandria, Euth.=Euthalius, Hil. =Hilary, Lucif.=Lucifer, Sedul. =Sedulius Scotus, Thdt. = Theodoret, Theod. = Theodore of Mopsuestia, etc. BGU. BM. Diat. EB. Erasmus Expositor Ce ae Helbing IMA. Josephu LXX Magn. Michel Mitteis-Wilcken Ss Moulton OGIS. OF Pfleiderer Philo Radermacher. Rein. P. Syll. INTRODUCTION Ixxv Aegyptische Urkunden (Griechisch Urkunden), ed. Wilcken (1895). Greek Papyri in the British Museum (1893 f.). E. A. Abbott, Diatessarica. The Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899-1903, ed. J. S. Black and T. K. Cheyne). Adnotationes (1516), Zn epist. Pauli apostoli aa Hebraeos paraphrasis (1521). Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings). The Expositor. Small superior numbers indicate the series. Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, von L. Mitteis und U. Wilcken (1912), I. Band. Grammatik der Septuaginta, Laut- und Wort- lehre, von R. Helbing (1907). Inscriptiones Graecae Insul. Maris Aegaet (1895 f.). Hlavit Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber. The Old Testament in Greek according to the _ Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete). Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (ed. Kern, 1900). Recuetl @Inscriptions Grecques (ed. C. Michel, 1900). Grundziige u. Chrestomathte der Papyruskunde (1912). J. H. Moulton’s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906). Dittenberger’s Ovientis Graect Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905). The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt). Primitive Christianity, vol. 11. (1910) pp. 272- 299. Philonis Alexandriat Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland). Neutestamentliche Grammatik (1911), in Lietz- mann’s Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (vol. i.). Papyrus Grecs et Démotiques (Paris, 1905), ed. Th. Reinach. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum? (ed.W. Ditten- berger). xxv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Tebt. P. . . Tebtunis Papyri (ed. Grenfell and Hunt), ve go2. Thackeray . “St J. Thackeray, 4 Grammar of the Old Gea in Greek (1909). Weiss. . B. Weiss, ‘Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe” (in Zexte und Uniersuchungen sur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), also Der Hebriaerbrief in Letigeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910). Wiig ae: . Westcott and Hort’s Mew Testament in Greek (1890, 1896). Zahn. . Theodor Zahn’s eaaiaee in das IVT, S§ 45-47. COMMENTARY. oe pe THE final disclosure of God’s mind and purpose has been made in his Son, who is far superior to the angels; beware then of taking it casually and carelessly (1!~2*) ! The epistle opens with a long sentence (vv.!4), the subject being first (vv.!: 2) God, then (vv.*: 4) the Son of God; rhetorically and logically the sentence might have ended with év (+ 7é arm) vid, but the author proceeds to elaborate in a series of dependent clauses the pre-eminence of the Son within the order of creation and providence. The main thread on which these clauses about the Son’s relation to God and the world are strung is és... exdbicev év Se&id THs peyadwovvyns. It is in this (including the purging of men from their sins by His sacrifice) that the final disclosure of God’s mind and purpose is made; 6 Oeds éAdAnoev nplv ev vid... Os... ekdbioev kth. But the cosmic signifi- cance of the Son is first mentioned (v.”) ; he is not created but creative, under God. Hereas in 2!° the writer explicitly stresses the vital connexion between redemption and creation ; the Son who deals with the sins of men is the Son who is over the universe. ‘This is again the point in the insertion of dépwv re ra mavra Ktd. before kabapiopov ayaptiav romyodpevos. The object of insisting that the Son is also the exact counterpart of God (és év xrX. 5), is to bring out the truth that he is not only God’s organ in creation, but essentially divine as a Son. In short, since the object of the divine revelation (AaAciv) is fellowship between God and men, it must culminate in One who can deal with sin, as no prophet or succession of prophets could do; the line of revelation év mpodyras has its climax év vig, in a Son whose redeeming sacrifice was the real and effective manifestation of God’s mind for communion. As it is necessary to break up this elaborate sentence for the purpose of exposition, I print it not only in Greek but in the stately Vulgate version, in order to exhibit at the very outset the style and spirit of IIpds “EBpaiovs. I 2 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Tlo\vpepG@s Kal modurpérws mddat 6 Beds Nadyoas Tols waTpdow €ev Tots mpopyras ém éoxdrov Tay huepav rovrwy édddnoev Huy év via, dv €Onke KAnpovdpnov wavrwy, dv ob Kal érrolnce rovs aldvas* bs Oy admravyacua THs dofys kal xapakrhp THs vrocrdcews avTou, pépwov Te TH WavTAa TH phuare THs Suvduews avrod, Kabapiouov TOV duap- Tiov mornodmevos exdOurev év Seki THs meyarwovryns év VWndols, ToroUTw kpeltrwy yevouevos Tay ayyédwy bow dtahopwrepov map avrovs Kexdynpovd- penkev bvoua. (To Lye. Multifariam et multis modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis novissime diebus istis locutus est nobis in filio, quem constituit heredem universorum, per quem fecit et saecula, qui cum _ sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae elus, portans quoque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem pecca- torum faciens, sedit ad’ dexteram majestatis in excelsis, tanto melior angelis effectus quanto differen- tius prae_ illis nomen _heredit- avit. 1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, * but in these days at the end he has spoken.tous by a Son—a Son whom he has appointed heir of the universe, as tt was by him that he created the world. Greek prefaces and introductions of a rhetorical type were fond of opening with zoAvs in some form or other (e.g. Sirach prol. zoAAGy Kat peyaddwv xtrX.; Dion. Halic. de oratoribus antiquts, moAAnv xapw KkrA., an early instance being the third Philippic of Demosthenes, rodd Gy, & avdpes “AOnvaior, Adywv yryvopévwv KTd.). Here troAupep@s Kal aodutpdtws is a sonorous hendiadys for “variously,” as Chrysostom was the first to point out (rd yap ToAupepas Kal ToAuTpoTws TouvTéaTt Siadpopws). A similar turn of expression occurs in 2% rapaBdous Kal mapaxon. The writer does not mean to exclude variety from the Christian revelation; he expressly mentions how rich and manysided it was, in 24. Nor does he suggest that the revelation év zpodyras was inferior because it was piecemeal and varied. There is a slight sugges- tion of the unity and finality of the revelation év vid, as compared with the prolonged revelations made through the prophets, the Son being far more than a prophet; but there is a deeper suggestion of the unity and continuity of revelation then and now. ILoAvpepds Kai woAvtpdrws really “signalises the variety and fulness, of the Old Testament word of God” (A. B. David- son). On the other hand, Christ is God’s last word to the world ; revelation in him is complete, final and homogeneous. Compare the comment of Eustathius on Odyssey, 11: modurpérws dveyvwp- lo0n waow ols HrOev eis yvou, undevds advayvwpicpod cummrecdvros érépw dvayrvwpicu@ Td cWvoNov' GAwWs yap TH Teteudxyw, érépws dé Evpucdela, érépws Tois dovAots, dAAov Oé Tpdrov TH Aaépry, Kai Srws dvopoiws dract. Tlodumepas, according to Hesychius (= woAvoxédws), differs from odurpérws (dtadédpws, mokidws), and, strictly speaking, is the adverb of ro\uuepjs=manifold (Wis 7%, where Wisdom is called mvedua povoyevés, rodvmepés). But no such dis- tinction is intended here. In wdédat (as opposed to em évyarov trav neepav TovTwv) eds Aadyjoas, AaActv, here as throughout the epistle, is prac- aD 2. ] THE FATHERS AND THE PROPHETS 3 tically an equivalent for A€yew (see Anz’s Sudsidia, pp. 309-310), with a special reference to inspired and oracular utterances of God or of divinely gifted men. This sense is as old as Menander (6 vots ydp éotw 6 Aaryowv Géos, Kock’s Comic. Attic. Fragm. 70). Oi warépes in contrast to jets means OT believers in general (cp. Jn 6°8 772), whereas the more usual NT sense of the term is ‘‘the patriarchs” (cp. Diat. 1949-1950, 2553¢), #.e. Abraham, etc., though the term (3° 8°) covers the ancients down to Samuel or later (Mt 23°°). Our fathers or ancestors (Wis 18°) means the Hebrew worthies of the far past to whom Christians as God’s People, whether they had been born Jews or not (1 Co 10! of warépes 70v), look back, as the earlier Sirach did in his zarépwy vuvos (Sir 441-5074), or the pro- phet in Zec 1° (of warépes tuov . .. Kal of rpopyrac). For of marépes = our fathers, cp. Prayer of Manasseh! (6e0s rév zarépwr) and Wessely’s Studien sur Palaographie und Papyruskunde, i. 64, where boys are reckoned in a list ovv tots watpdor. The inser- tion of #pav (p!2 ggg. 1836 boh sah Clem. Alex., Chrys. Pris- cillian) is a correct but superfluous gloss. As for év tots mpooy- tats, mpopyrat is used here in a broader sense than in 11°; it denotes the entire succession of those who spoke for God to the People of old, both before and after Moses (Ac 3”? 737), who is the supreme prophet, according to Philo (de ebriet. 21, de decalogo 33). Joshua is a prophet (Sir 461), so is David (Philo, de agric. 12). In Ps 105) the patriarchs, to whom revelations are made, are both God’s zpodjrat and ypioroi. Later on, the term was extended, as in Lk 1328 (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, xai wavras Tous mpopytas, cp. He 11°), and still more in Mt 512 (rots mpopytas Tovs mpo tuav). The reason why there is no contrast between the Son and the prophets is probably because the writer felt there was no danger of rivalry ; prophecy had ceased by the time that the Son came; the “‘prophet” belonged to a bygone order of things, so that there was no need to argue against any misconception of their function in relation to that of the Son (Bar 851° ‘“‘in former times our fathers had helpers, righteous men and holy prophets . . . but now the righteous have been gathered and the prophets have fallen asleep”). As no further use is made of the contrast between Jesus and the prophets (who are only again mentioned incidentally in 11°), it was natural that dyyéAous should be conjectured (S. Crellius, Initium Ioannis Evangeltt restitutum, p. 238, independently by Spitta in Stud. u. Kritiken, 1913, pp. 106-109) to have been the original reading, instead of zpodyjrats. But ‘the word spoken by angels” (2?) does not refer to divine communications made to the patriarchs; nor can ot marépes be identified with the patriarchs, as Spitta contends (cf. U. Holzmeister in Zeitschrift 4 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 1, 2. fiir kathol. Theologte, 1913, pp. 805-830), and, even if it could, mpodyrats would be quite apposite (cp. Philo, de Abrak. 22). Why the writer selects mpopytas is not clear. But av@pwrors would have been an imperfect antithesis, since the Son was human. Philo (de Monarch. 9: €ppnvets yap eiow ot mpopyrar Geod Kataxpwpévor Tois éxeivwy dpyavots mpos SjAwow dv av éGeAHoy) views the prophets as interpreters of God in a sense that might correspond to the strict meaning of év, and even (Quaest. in Exod. 2322 rod yap A€yovros 6 mpodytys ayyeAos Kupiov éoriv) applies dyyeAos to the prophet. But év here is a synonym for da (Chrys. épas dre kal 7d ev dua eoriv), as in 1S 28% (darexpiOy aire KUpLos év ToLs evumviots Kal év Tots dyAoLs Kal év Tots tpopyTats). In Test. Dan 1! [acc. to the tenth cent. Paris MS 938]? and in LXX of Nu 2414, Jer 2320[B: éoydrwv, A Q*], 2519 (49°?) [B: érydrwv, AQ], 37 (30) %* [AQ: écxdrwv, B), Ezk 388 (ér éxydrov érov), Dn rolt [écyatw ? éoxdérwv], Hos 3° [Q], éx écydrov tov jpepov appears, instead of the more common é7’ éxxdtwv tov ypepGv, as a rendering of the phrase O27 NMINNI. A similar variety of reading occurs here; Origen, eg., reads éoxatwv without rovrwy (on La 4°) and écxdrov (fragm. on John 331), while éoxdrwv is read by 044, a few minor cursives, d and the Syriac version. The same idea is expressed in 1 P 1° by éx égxdtov tav xpovwv, but the rotrwy here is unique. ‘The messianic mission of Jesus falls at the close of these days, or, as the writer says later (92°), éxi ovvreAcia TOV alwvwv. These days correspond to the present age (6 viv aidv); the age (or world) to come (6 péXdwv aidv, 6°) is to dawn at the second coming of Christ (98 1087), Meantime, the revelation of God éy vid has been made to the Christian church as God’s People (éAdAyoev npiv); the jets does not mean simply the hearers of Jesus on earth, for this would exclude the writer and his readers (2°), and é\dAyoev Covers more than the earthly mission of Jesus. There is no special reference in éAdAnoey to the teaching of Jesus ; the writer is thinking of the revelation of God’s redeeming pur- pose in Christ as manifested (vv.*4) by the (resurrection and) intercession in heaven which completed the sacrifice on the cross. ‘This is the final revelation, now experienced by Christians. The saying of Jesus quoted by Epiphanius (aer. xxiii. 5, xli. 3, Ixvi 42), 6 AadAdy év Tols mpoPyrats, ldod maperm, was an anti-gnostic logion based partly on this passage and partly on Is 52° éyd elue adrds 6 addy, mdperme. The author of Hebrews is not conscious of any polemic against the OT revelation as inferior to and unworthy of the Christian God. He assumes that it was the same God who spoke in both Testaments: ‘‘Sed in hac diversitate unum tamen Deus nobis proponit: nequis putet Legem cum Evangelio pugnare, vel alium esse huius quam illius authorem” (Calvin). 1 The Armenian reading rovrwy after juepov, instead of av’rod, is incorrect, and may even be a reminiscence of He 17. I. 1, 2.] THE SON AND THE UNIVERSE 5 In dv €OyKxev KAnpovépov mdévtwy there is a parallel, perhaps even an allusion, to the Synoptic parable: fizally he sent his son (Mt 2127), or, as Mark (12°) and Luke (20!%) explicitly declare, his de/oved son, though our author does not work out the sombre thought of the parable. There, the son is the heir (otrés éeatw 6 kAnpovopos), though not of the universe. Here, the meaning of ov €Onkev KAnpovomov mavtwv is the same: he was ‘appointed ” heir, he was heir by God’s appointment. It is the fact of this position, not the time, that the writer has in mind, and we cannot be sure that this ‘“‘appointment” corresponds to the elevation of v.° (éka@cev). Probably, in our modern phrase, it describes a pre-temporal act, or rather a relationship which belongs to the eternal order. The force of the aorist €Oyxev is best rendered by the English perfect, ‘“‘has appointed”; no definite time is necessarily intended. ‘* Nam ideo ille haeres, ut nos suis opibus ditet. Quin hoc elogio nunc eum ornat Apostolus ut sciamus nos sine ipso bonorum omnium esse inopes ” (Calvin). The reflection of Sedulius Scotus (alii post patrem haeredes sunt, hic autem vivente Patre haeres est) is pious but irrelevant, for xAnpovopetv in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean, like its equivalent ‘‘inherit” in Elizabethan English, no more than ‘‘ possess” or ‘‘ obtain”; a xAnpovduos was a ‘‘possessor,” with the double zwance of certainty and anticipation. ‘* Haeres” in Latin acquired the same sense; ‘‘ pro haerede gerere est pro domino gerere, veteres enim ‘haeredes’ pro ‘dominis’ appellabant” (Justinian, Zs¢z¢. 11. 19. 7). In 8.’ ob (Griesbach conj. 8071) kat émotnce tots aidvas the Kat especially ! suggests a correspondence between this and the preceding statement; what the Son was to possess was what he had been instrumental in making. Tots aidvas here, though never in Paul, is equivalent (£47. 1147) to ra wdvta in v.3 (implied in ravtwy above), z.e. the universe or world (113). The functions assigned by Jewish speculation to media like the Logos at creation are here claimed as the prerogative of the Son. This passing allusion to the function of Christ in relation to the universe probably originated, as in the case of Paul, in the re- ligious conception of redemption. From the redeeming function of Christ which extended to all men, it was natural to infer His agency in relation to creation as part of his pre-existence. The notion is that “the whole course of nature and grace must find its explanation in God, not merely in an abstract divine arbitrium, but in that which befits the divine nature” (W. Robertson Smith), ze. the thought behind 2% is connected with the thought behind 11°. This may be due to a theological re- flection, but the tendency to emphasize the moral rather than the metaphysical aspect, whicl: is noticeable in IIpos “EBpavous as 1 An emphasis blurred by the tovds aidvas émoincev of D® K L P harkl Chrys. Theod. (Blass, von Sod.). 6 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 3, 4. in the Fourth Gospel, and even in Paul, is consonant with Philo’s tendency to show the function of the Logos and the other inter- mediate powers as religious rather than cosmical (cp. Bréhier’s Les Idées Philos. et Religzeuses de Philon @ Alexandrite, pp. 65 f., r11f., 152, ‘il ne s’agit plus chez Philon d’un explication du monde mais du culte divin”; 174f., “la thése de Philon, qut explique et produit la doctrine des intermédiaires, n’est pas Vimpossibilité pour Dieu de produire le monde mais l’impossibilité pour l’4me d’atteindre Dieu directement”). Yet Philo had repeatedly claimed for his Logos, that it was the organ of creation (e.g. de sacerdot. 5, oyos & éoriv eixav Oeod, & od ovptas 6 KOcmos eOnutoupyetro), and this is what is here, as by Paul, claimed for Christ. Only, it is a religious, not a cosmo- logical, instinct that prompts the thought. The early Christian, who believed in the lordship of Christ over the world, felt, as a modern would put it, that the end must be implicit in the be- ginning, that the aim and principle of the world must be essenti- ally Christian. This is not elaborated in ‘‘ Hebrews” any more than in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 1°); the author elsewhere prefers the simple monotheistic expression (21° 11%). But the idea is consonant with his conception of the Son. ‘If pre-existence is a legitimate way of expressing the absolute significance of Jesus, then the mediation of creation through Christ is a legitimate way of putting the conviction that in the last resort, and in spite of appearances, the world in which we live is a Christian world, our ally, not our adversary” (Denney in ZAZ. viii. 516f.). 3 He (5s av) reflecting God’s bright glory and stamped with God’s own character, sustains the untverse with his word of power; when he had secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Mayzesty on high ; * and thus he ts superior to (kpelrtwv) the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior (diapopwrepov, 8°) to theirs. The unique relation of Christ to God is one of the unborrowed truths of Christianity, but it is stated here in borrowed terms. The writer is using metaphors which had been already applied in Alexandrian theology to Wisdom and the Logos. Thus Wisdom is an unalloyed emanation 77s tot zavroxparopos ddéys, arav-yacpa . + » pwrds aidfov (Wis 77°: 26), and dravyacua in the same sense of “reflection” occurs in Philo, who describes the universe as olov dyiwy dravyacpa, wiunua apxetirov (de plant. 12), the human Spirit as tvrov Twa Kal xapaxrypa Oeias duvapews (guod deter. pot. ins. sol. 83), and similarly the Logos. yapaxryp is ‘‘the exact reproduction,” as a statue of a person (OGJS. 363 yapaxrijpa popdys euns); literally, the stamp or clear-cut impression made by a seal, the very facsimile of the original. Tne two terms dravyacua and xapaxrnp are therefore intended to bring out the same idea. I. 3.] THE FATHER AND THE SON 7 tméortaois =the being or essence of God, which corresponds to his ddé&a (= character or nature) ; it is a philosophical rather than a religious term, in this connexion, but enters the religious world in Wis 167! (7 wév yap b7e- atacls gouxkrX.). Its physical sense emerges in the contemporary de Mundo, 4, Tay év dépt pavracudtrwv ra wév éote kar Eugacw ra Oé Kal’ irdaracw. The use of it as a term for the essence or substance of a human being is not un- common in the LXX (e.g. Ps 39° 13915) ; cp. Schlatter’s Der Glaube im NT4 (1905), pp. 615f., where the linguistic data are arranged. xapaktyp had already acquired a meaning corresponding to the modern ‘* character ” (e.g. in Menander’s proverb, dvdpds yapaxrip ék Adyou yywplferar, Heauton Timoroumenos,11). The idea of xapaxr#p as replica is further illus- trated by the Bereschith rabba, 52. 3 (on Gn 217): ‘*‘ hence we learn that he (Isaac) was the splendour of his (father’s) face, as like as possible to him.” An early explanation of this conception is given by Lactantius (adzuzn. instzt, iv. 29), viz. that ‘‘the Father is as it were an overflowing fountain, the Son like a stream flowing from it ; the Father like the sun, the Son as it were a ray extended from the sun (radius ex sole porrectus). Since he is faithful (cp. He 3”) and dear to the most High Father, he is not separated from him, any more than the stream is from the fountain or the ray from the sun; for the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the sun’s light in the ray.” But our author is content to throw out his figurative expressions. How the Son could express the character of God, is a problem which he does not discuss ; it is felt by the author of the Fourth Gospel, who suggests the moral and spiritual affinities that lie behind such a function of Jesus Christ, by hinting that the Son on earth taught what he had heard from the Father and lived out the life he had himself experienced and witnessed with the unseen Father. This latter thought is present to the mind of Seneca in Epp. 6°: 8, where he observes that ‘‘Cleanthes could never have exactly re- produced Zeno, if he had simply listened to him; he shared the life of Zeno, he saw into his secret purposes” (vitae eius interfuit, secreta perspexit). The author of Hebrews, like Paul in Col 11*!’, contents himself with asserting the vital community of nature between the Son and God, in virtue of which (@épwy re) the Son holds his position in the universe. In the next clause, pépwv ! re ta dvta is not used in the sense in which Sappho (fragm. 95, ravra pépwr) speaks of the evening star “bringing all things home,” the sheep to their fold and children to their mother. The phrase means ‘upholding the universe as it moves,” bearing it and bearing it on. “Thou bearest things on high and things below,” Cain tells God in Bereschith rabba, 23. 2, ‘‘but thou dost not bear my sins.” *‘ Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse vehit omnia” (Seneca, List. 31%), The idea had been already applied by Philo to the Logos (e.g. de migrat. Abrah. 6, 6 Aoyos . . « 6 T&V Awv Kupep- vayTHS ASLO. TA CUpTAVTG : ‘de spec. legibus, i. 81, Noyos 8 éoriv eikdv Oeod, dv ov atpras 6 Kdopos ednptoupyetto: de plant. 8, Aoyos dé 6 atdsos Geod Tov aiwviov 7d 6yvpwratoy Kal BeBadrarov epacpa tov dAwy éori). So Chrysostom takes it: dépwv . . . tovréorti, kuepvay, Ta dtariarrovta ovyxpatav. It would certainly carry on the thought of &’ ob . . . aidvas, however, if dépev here could be taken in its regular Philonic sense of “ bring into existence” (eg. guts rer. div. haer. 7,5 Ta py Ovta Pépwv Kal Ta TavTA yEevvav : 1 gavepdy is, like droXe?rac in 4°, an error of B*. 8 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 3, 4. de mutat. nom. 44, wavta dépwv orovodata 6 Oeds); this was the interpretation of Gregory of Nyssa (AZPG. xlvi. 265), and it would give a better sense to “word of power” as the fiat of creative authority. But the ordinary interpretation is not untenable. In TO pypate THs Suvdpews adtov, the avrod (atrod ?) refers to the Son, not as in the preceding clause and in 11> to God. Hence perhaps its omission by M 424** 1739 Origen. With xaSaptopoy . . . dots the writer at last touches what is for him the central truth about the Son; it is not the teaching of Jesus that interests him, but what Jesus did for sin by his sacrifice and exaltation. From this conception the main argu- ment of the epistle flows. Kadapiopov tév duaprtidv is a Septua- gint expression (e.g. Job qe Tolnow ot ie kabapic pov (72y) THS dpoptias ov), though this application of x. to sins is much more rare than that either to persons (Lv 151%) or places (1 Ch 23”, 2 Mac 105). In2 P 1° (rod Kabapicpod tdv rdéAat atrod auaptiar). it is filled out with the possessive pronoun, which is supplied here by some (e.g. 7av D° K L harkl sah arm Athan. Chrys., iudyv x°). Grammatically it=(a) purgation of sins, as ka@apilw may be used of the ‘‘removal” of a disease (Mt 8% 4), or=(4) our cleansing from sins (94 ka@apiet ryv cuveldnow judy ard vexpOv epywr). Before xaOapiopov the words 6d: éavrod (atrov) are inserted by DHKLM 256 d harkl sah boh eth Orig. Athan. Aug. ete. A? éavrod=ipse, as éavro@=sua sponte. “Exdéicev ev dekia is a reminiscence of a favourite psalm (1101) of the writer, though he avoids its éx de€uav. It denotes entrance into a position of divine authority. ‘‘Sedere ad Patris dexteram nihil aliud est quam gubernare vice Patris” (Calvin). °Ev iwyAoits, a phrase used by no other NT writer, is a reminiscence of the Greek psalter and equivalent to év twWioros: grammatically it goes with é«kdéficev. (The divine attribute of peyaAwovv7 is for the first time employed as a-periphrasis for the divine JZayesty.) This enthronement exhibits (v.4) the superiority of the Son to the angels. “Ovoya is émphatic by its position at the close of the sentence; it carries tthe general Oriental sense of ‘“‘rank” or “dignity.” The precise nature of this dignity is described as that of sonship (v.5), but the conception widens in the following passage (vv.%), and it is needless to identify évoue outright with vids, though vids brings out its primary meaning. In togodtw kpetttwy yevdpevos (going closely with éxd@icev) tav (accidentally omitted by B and Clem. Rom.) éyyéXwv (emphatic by position) map’ adtods Kexdn- povépnkey Svona, the relative use of da0s in NT Greek is con- fined to Mk 76, but rowovros . . . 600s is a common Philonic expression. Kpeitrwy (for which Clement of Rome in 36? sub- stitutes the synonymous peiCwv) is an indefinite term = “ superior.” I. 4, 5.] THE SON AND THE ANGELS 9 Unlike Paul, the writer here and elsewhere is fond of using wapa after a comparative. Kpelrrwy in this sense occurs in the contemporary (?) Aristotelian treatise de Mundo, 391a (dia 7d a0éaror Tv KpeirTévuw elvat), where Td ae means the nobler Universe. The sudden transition to a comparison between the Son and the angels implies that something is before the writer’s mind. Were his readers, like the Colossians to whom Paul wrote, in danger of an undue deference to angels in their religion, a deference which threatened to impair their estimate of Christ ? Or is he developing his argument in the light of some contem- porary belief about angels and revelation? Probably the latter, though this does not emerge till 22, Meanwhile, seven Biblical proofs (cp. W. Robertson Smith, Zxfositor?, 1. pp. 5 f.) of v.4 are adduced; the two in v.® specially explain the d:adopmrepov ovopza, while the five in vv.®14 describe the meaning and force of Kpelttwv Tov ayyeAwv. The first two are: 5 For to what angel did God ever say, ‘* Thou art my son, to-day have I become thy father”? Or again, “7 will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me”? The first quotation is from the znd Psalm (v.”), read as a messianic prediction—which may have been its original meaning, and certainly was the meaning attached to it by the early Chris- tians, if not already by some circles of Judaism :1 vids pLov El ov, eyo onmepov yeyevvynkd oe. Did the author take ojpepov here, as perhaps in 37, though not in 138, in (a) a mystical sense, or (0) with a reference to some special phase in the history of Christ ? (a) tallies with Philo’s usage : onpEpov 8 éoriv o dTréparos Kal dSvetirytos aiwv eo” “ave TO awevdes dvowa aidvos (de fuga, 11, on Dt 4*), éws THs onpepov neepas, TouvTéoTw del’ 6 yap aiav pills TO OHMEPOV TapapeTpeEtrat (deg. alleg. ili. 8 on Gn 354). (4) might allude either to the bap- tism or to the resurrection of Christ in primitive Christian usage ; the latter would be more congenial to our author, if it were assumed that he had any special incident in mind. But he simply quotes the text for the purpose of bringing out the title of Son as applied to Christ. When we ask what he meant by onpepov, we are asking a question which was not present to his mind, unless, indeed, “the idea of a bright radiance streaming forth from God’s glory” (v.*) pointed in the direction of (a), as 1 See G. H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse, pp. lvi, lvii. 10 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 5, 6. Robertson Smith thought. But the second line of the verse is merely quoted to fill out the first, which is the pivot of the proof : vids pov el ov. Sons of God is not unknown as a title for angels in the Hebrew Old Testament (see £47. 4691). ‘Sometimes Moses calls the angels sons of God,” Philo observes (Quaest. in Gen. 64—as being bodiless spirits). But the LXX is careful to translate: “sons of Elohim” by dyyeAou Geod (e.g. in Gn 6? 4, Job 18 21 387), except in Ps 29! and 89’, where sons of God are intended by the translator to denote human beings ; and no indi- vidual angel is ever called vids. As the author of [pds “EBpatovs and his readers knew only the Greek Bible, the proof holds EGod: The second quotation is from 2S 7}*: / "Eyo eropat AUTO cis marépa, KQL QUTOS EGTAL [LOL ELS VLOV, a promise cited more exactly than in 2 Co 6!8 and Rev 21’, but with equal indifference to its original setting. Paul and the. prophet John apply it to the relationship between God and Christians ; our author prefers to treat it as messianic. Indeed he only alludes twice, in OT quotations, to God as the Father of Christians (see Introd. p. xxxv). The third quotation (v.®) clinches this proof of Christ s unique authority and opens up the sense in which he is xpeittwy tov ayyeAwv : and further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says, “* Let all God’s angels worship him.” In étav S€ wddAw eioaydyy the term waAw, rhetorically trans- ferred, answers to the wad of v.5; it is not to be taken with eicaydyn = “ reintroduce,” as if the first “introduction” of the Son had been referred to in v.“*. A good parallel for this usage occurs in Philo (éeg. adleg. ill. g: 6 dé waAw adrodidpacKwy Gedv TOV pev ovdevos aitiov dyow eivat, where waAdw goes with Pyciv). Kioayev might refer to birth,? as, e.g., in Epictetus (iv. 1. 104, ovxi exetvos oe eioyyayev) and pseudo-Musonius, ep. go (Her- cher’s Zpist. Graect, 401 f.: ov Téxva povov eis TO yévos GAAa Kal ToLdde TEkVa eionyayes), Or simply to “introduction” (cp. Mitteis- Wilcken, i. 2. 141 (110 B.C.), etod€w Tov éwavrod viov eis THY cUvodor). Linguistically either the incarnation or the second advent might be intended; but neither the tense of eicayayn (unless it be taken strictly as futuristic =ubi introduxerit) nor the proximity of 1Tt is only Theodotion who ventures in Dan 375) to retain the literal son, since from his christological point of view it could not be misunderstood in this connexion. 2Cp. M. Aurelius, v. 1, toetv Gy Evexev yéyova kal dv xdpw mpojyuae els Tov Kégmor. I. 6. | THE SON AND THE ANGELS II mdaAw is decisive in favour of the latter (6rav cicaydyn might, by a well-known Greek idiom, be equivalent to “when he speaks of introducing, or, describes the introduction of ”—Valckenaer, etc.). Lpwrdroxos is Firstborn in the sense of superior. The suggestion of Christ being higher than angels is also present in the context of the term as used by Paul (Col 11% 16), but it is nowhere else used absolutely in the NT, and the writer here ignores any inference that might be drawn from it to an inferior sonship of angels. Its equivalent (cp. the v.// in Sir 361") zpwrd- yovos is applied by Philo to the Logos. Here it means that Christ was Son in a pre-eminent sense; the idea of priority passes into that of superiority. A apwrdroxos vids had a relation- ship of likeness and nearness to God which was unrivalled. As the context indicates, the term brings out the pre-eminent honour and the unique relationship to God enjoyed by the Son among the heavenly host. The notion of worship being due only to a senior reappears in the Vzta Adae et Evae (14), where the devil declines to worship Adam: ‘‘I have no need to worship Adam . . . I will not worship an inferior being who is my junior. I am his senior in the Creation ; before he was made, I was already made; it is his duty to worship me.” In the Ascenszo [saiae (117%) the angels humbly worship Christ as he ascends through the heavens where they live ; here the adoration is claimed for him as he enters 7) oixoupévy. The line kat mpookuvnodtecav ait mdvtes Ayyehou Oeod Comes from a LXX addition to the Hebrew text of the Song of Moses in Dt 324%, calling upon all angels to pay homage to Yahweh. But the LXX text! actually reads viot Geov, not adyyedou Oeod (into which F corrects it)! Our author probably changed it into ayyeAou Geov, recollecting the similar phrase in Ps 97° (xpooxv- VATATE ATO Waves ol ayyeou airov),? unless, indeed, the change had been already made. The fact that Justin Martyr (Dad. 130) quotes the LXX gloss with dyyeAou, is an indication that this may have been the text current among the primitive Christians. The last four (vv.7-!4) quotations carry on the idea of the Son’s superiority to the angels: 7 While he says of angels (rp6s=with reference to), ‘* Who makes his angels into winds, his servants into flames of fire,” 8 he says of the Son, ** God ts thy throne for ever and ever, and thy royal sceptre ts the sceptre of equity: ® thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades” — 10 and, ** Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord, 1 As the song appears in A, at the close of the psalter, the reading is dyyedo (viol, R). 2 Which acquired a messianic application (see Dzat. 3134). 12 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (Ei % and the heavens are the work of thy hands: 1 they will perish, but thou remaznest, they will all be worn out like a garment, — 12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle, and they will be raneey but thou art the same, and thy years never fail.” In vy.’ the quotation (6 rowv tous ayyéXous airod mvevpata| Kal Tovs Aecroupyovs avTod rupds PAdya) only differs from the LXX by the substitution of wvpds fAdya! for wip préyov (B: rupds ddeya A*). The singular in ¢Aoya and perhaps the recollection that wvedua elsewhere in NT =‘‘ wind” only in the singular, led to the change of zvevpara into rvetpa (D 1. 326. 424**. 1912. 1245. 2005 d sah eth Orig.). The author is taking the LXX translation or mistranslation of Ps 1044 (6 wowv «rX., a nomina- tive without a verb, as in 1 Co 3!) to mean that God can reduce angels to the elemental forces of wind and fire, so unstable is their nature, whereas the person and authority of the Son are above all change and decay. ‘The meaning might also be that God makes angels out of wind and fire;? but this is less apt. Our author takes the same view as the author of 4 Esdras, who (82!) writes : ‘Before whom the heavenly host stands in terror, and at thy word change to wind and fire.” Rabbinic traditions corroborate this interpretation ; eg. ‘ every day ministering angels are created from the fiery stream, and they utter a song and perish” (Chagiga, ed. Streane, p. 76), and the confession of the angel to Manoah in Yalkut Shimeont, i. 11. 3: “God changes us every hour. . . sometimes he makes us fire, at other times wind.” The interest of rabbinic mysticism in the nature of angels is illustrated by the second century dialogue between Hadrian, that ‘‘ curiositatum omnium explorator,’” and R. Joshua ben Chananja (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten*, i. 171-172). The emperor asks the rabbi what becomes of the angels whom God creates daily to sing His praise; the rabbi answers that they return to the stream of fire which flows eternally from the sweat shed by the Beasts supporting the divine throne or chariot (referring to the vision of Ezekiel and the ‘‘ fiery stream” of Dn 7!). From this stream of fire the angels issue, and to it they return. Ae:roupyovs of angels as in Ps 10374 (Aecroupyol avTov, moodvres TO OéAnua avrod). The fifth (vv.®%) quotation is from Ps 457-8—a Hebrew epithalamium for some royal personage or national hero, which our author characteristically regards as messianic. ? Aquila has wp AdBpov, Symm. muplyny proya. 2 As in Apoc. Bar. 21° (‘‘ the holy creatures which thou didst make from the beginning out of flame and fire”) and 48° (‘‘ Thou givest commandment to the flames and they change into spirits ’’”). I. 8, 9.] THE SON AND THE ANGELS 13 € / c ‘ > \ + a) a 2A 6 Opdvos cov 6 eds cis TOV aidva TOv aidvos, kat! pafdoos THs evOUTHTOS H PaBdos THS Bacrcias Gov.? nydayncas Sukaoctvyv Kal éuionoas avouiav’ lal / dua TOVTO Expio€ GE 6 Oeds, 6 Oeds cov, M»” > / ‘ 3 ‘\ / eXaov ayaAAtacews Tapa’ TOUS METOXOUS TOU. The quotation inserts rs before ed@vryros, follows A in pre- ferring tov ai@va tov aidvos (rod aidvos om. B 33) to ai@va aidvos (B), but prefers * B’s dvoytay (cp. 2 Co 614) to A’s déixiav, and agrees with both in prefixing 77 to the second (D K L P Cyr. Cosm. Dam.) instead of to the first (8 AB M, etc.) fdBdos. The psalm is not quoted elsewhere in NT (apart from a possible remini- scence of 45°: ® in Rev 67), and rarely cited in primitive Christian literature, although the messianic reference reappears in Irenaeus (iv. 34. II, quoting v.”). ‘O Oeds (sc. éoriy rather than éorw) may be (a) nominative (subject or predicate). This interpretation (“God is thy throne,” or, ‘thy throne is God”), which was probably responsible for the change of ood after BacwAetas into airod (8 B), has been advocated, e.g., by Grotius, Ewald (“thy throne is divine”), WH (‘founded on God, the im- movable Rock”), and Wickham (“‘represents God”). Tyndale’s rendering is, “‘God thy seat shall be.” ‘Those who find this interpretation harsh prefer to (4) take 6 Oeds as a vocative, which grammatically is possible (=@ Océ, cp. 107 and Ps 38 138!” etc.) ; ‘“‘ Thy throne, O God (or, O divine One), is for ever and ever.” This (so sah vg, etc.) yields an excellent sense, and may well explain the attractiveness of the text for a writer who wished to bring out the divine significance of Christ; 6 6eds appealed to him like «vpre in the first line of the next quotation. The sense would be clear if 6 Oeds were omitted altogether, as its Hebrew equivalent ought to be in the original ; but the LXX text as it stands was the text before our author, and the problem is to decide which interpretation he followed. (4) involves the direct application of 6 Os to the Son, which, in a poetical quota- tion, is not perhaps improbable (see Jn 118 2028); in v.® it may involve the repetition of 6 #eds (om. by Irenaeus, Afost. Preaching, 47—accidentally ?) as vocative, and does involve the rendering of 6 Oeds cov as the God of the God already mentioned. The point of the citation lies in its opening and closing words: (i) the Son has a royal and lasting authority (as 6 6eds?), in contrast 1 The addition of this kal is not to mark a fresh quotation (as in v.?%), but simply to introduce the parallel line (as in v.!° kal pya xrX.). Cp. Ps 1107 paBdov Suvdpews cov (om. &) éEarooreNe? Kvpros. 3 For apd with accus. in this sense, cp. above, v.*, and Is 53% d&rimov Kal éxXurrbv mapa Tovs viols Tay dvOpwTwy, 4 dvoulay, B D (A* dvoulas) M P lat harkl Ath. Eus., déiclay x A 33. 38. 218. 226. 919 Iren. Cosm. 14 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (I. 9-12. to the angels, and (ii) he is anointed (éypure!=6 Xpioros) more highly than his companions—an Oriental metaphor referring here, as in Is 613 etc., not to coronation but to bliss. If the writer of Hebrews has anything specially in mind, it is angels (1273) rather than human beings (34) as péroxo: of the royal Prince, whose superior and supreme position is one of intense joy, based on a moral activity (as in 12%, where the passive side of the moral effort is emphasized). The sixth (vv.!012) quotation is from Ps 102?6-?8 which in A runs thus: | SiS is Se N 2 , , 8 \ “ > / Kat apxas® ov, Kipre,? tH ynv eOepnedXiwoas, lal ‘ Kal €_pya TOV XELPOV TOU €ioLY Ol OYpayot’ > \ 4 > » n~ \ be 6 / avtoit aroXotvrat, ov d€ drapevets, td Kal TavTEs WS luatiov TarAaLwOycovTat, Nae \ , Sg SAN i “9 , : Kal oe tepiBdraov €Ai~es adrovs Kal dAAayyoovTat \ Ve a > N \ » > > , col € 6 abros «i, Kal TA ETN TOV OVK ExXeiWovcw. The author, for purposes of emphasis (as in 21%), has thrown ov to the beginning of the sentence, and in the last line he has reverted to the more natural ov (B). In the text of the epistle there are only two uncertain readings, for the proposed change of diaévers into the future diapevets (vg. permanebis) does not really affect the sense, and D*’s as for aceé is a merely stylistic alteration. In }** two small points of textual uncertainty emerge. (a) éXtéers (A B D° K L P M fu Syr arm sah boh eth Orig. Chrys.) has been altered into dAAdfers (N* D* 327. g19 vt Tert. Ath.). The same variant occurs in LXX, where dAAdgers is read by & for éd/€es, which may have crept into the text from Is 34%, but is more likely to have been altered into dAAdges in view of dAAayn- govrat (éAvynoovrat, arm). (6) ds ipdriov (X A B D* 1739 vt arm eth) after airovs is omitted by D*° M vg syr sah boh Chrys. Ath. Cyril Alex. Probably the words are due to homoioteleuton. If retained, a comma needs to be placed after them (so Zimmer.) ; they thus go with the preceding phrase, although one early ren- dering (Dd) runs: ‘(and) like a garment they will be changed.” The psalm is taken as a messianic oracle (see Bacon in Zert¢- schrift fiir adie neutest. Wissenschaft, 1902, 280-285), which the Greek version implied, or at any rate suggested; it contained welcome indications of the Son in his creative function and also, of his destined triumph. The poetical suggestion of the sky as a mantle of the deity occurs in Philo, who writes (de fuga, 20) 1 yplw, in contrast to ddeldw, is exclusively metaphorical in NT (cp, Gray in #47. 173), although neither Latin nor English is able to preserve the distinction. 2 A classical and Philonic equivalent for év dpy7 (LXX again in Ps 1191), 8 This title, which attracted our author, is an addition of the LXX, 4 Including % v7, but with special reference to of odpavoil. I. 12-14. | THE SON AND THE ANGELS 15 that the Logos évdverat @s eo Ota Tov Koopov" ynv yap Kal Vowp Kal dépa Kal wip Kal TA ek TOUTWY erapmicxerat, But the quotation is meant to bring out generally (i) the superiority of the Son as creative (so v.”) to the creation, and (ii) his permanence amid the decay of nature ;! the world wears out,? even the sky (1276) is cast aside, and with it the heavenly lights, but the Son remains (“thou art thou,” boh); nature is at his mercy, not he at nature’s. The close connexion of angels with the forces of nature (v.”) may have involved the thought that this transiency affects angels as well, but our author does not suggest this. The final biblical proof (v.!%) is taken from Ps 1101, a psalm in which later on the writer is to find rich messianic suggestion. The quotation clinches the argument for the superiority of the Son by recalling (v.°) his unique divine commission and authority : 3 To what angel did he ever say, ‘* Sit at my right hand, till IT make your enemies a footstool for your feet” ? 14 Are not all angels merely spirtts in the divine service, commissioned for the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation ? The Greek couplet — / 2 os kaflov éx defvav pov, g Xv ” \ > ie ¢€ / a A ews av OH tovs éxOpovs cov tromdd.ov TaV TodaV GoD, corresponds exactly to the LXX ; D* omits dy as in Ac 2%5, The martial metaphor is (cp. Introd. pp. xxxiii f.) one of the primitive Christian expressions which survive in the writer’s vocabulary (cp. 1o}), The subordinate position of angels is now (v.14) summed up; mdévres—all without distinction—are simply Aetroupytxa mvedpata (without any power of ruling) eis Sakoviay dmootehMAdpeva (Com- missioned, not acting on their own initiative). According to the Mechilta on Ex 141%, the Israelites, when crossing the Red Sea, were shown ‘“‘ squadrons upon squadrons of ministering angels” (nwa "NPD by non MwA); cp. Heb. of Sir 437, and Dieterich’s Mithrasliturgie, p. 6, line 14, } api Tod AecroupyotvTos dvéuov (see above, v.”). Philo speaks of dyyeAoe Aectoupyot (de virtutibus, 74), Of Tovs brodiaKxovovs adtod Trav duvdpewr ayyéXous (de templo, 1), and in de plantatione, 4: Mwons dé dvopnati ebbvBdru xXpwpevos ayyéXovs mpocayopever, mperBevopevas Kal diayyeAdovoas 1 A pre-Christian Upanishad (Sacred Books of East, xv. 266) cries: ‘* Only when men shall roll up the sky like a hide, will there be an end of misery, unless God has first been known.” 2 radatodcbat is a common word with iudriov, and the wearing-out of clothes is a favourite metaphor for men (Is 50°, Sir 1417) as well as for nature (Is 51°). ILepeBodatov is any covering for the body ; not simply a veil (1 Co 11'°), but a generic term (cp. Ps 104° d8vacos ws iudriov Td repiBddrarov avrod). ® B reads diaxovias, as in 8° juépacs for juépe. 16 THE EPISTLE TQ THE HEBREWS [I. 14. Td TE Tapa TOV HyEeLovos ToIs bryKdaLs ayaGd Kai TH Bacir€l dy ciow ot tayKoor xpetor. ‘ Angels of the (divine) ministry” was a com- mon rabbinic term, and the writer concludes here that the angels serve God, not, as Philo loved to argue, in the order of -nature, but in promoting the interests of God’s people ; this is the main object of their existence. He ignores the Jewish doctrine voiced in Test. Levi 35, that in (the sixth?) heaven the angels of the Presence (of Aecroupyotvres Kat eEtAacKkdpevot pos KUpLov él TacaLs tais dyvoiais Tov dixaiwy) sacrifice and intercede for the saints, just as in 114-12! he ignores the companion doctrine that the departed saints interceded for the living. Later Christian specu- lation revived the Jewish doctrine of angels interceding for men and mediating their prayers, but our author stands deliberately apart from this. Heaven has its myriads of angels (12%), but the entire relation of men to God depends upon Christ. Angels are simply servants (Aeroupyol, v.7) of God’s saving purpose for mankind ; how these ‘‘angels and ministers of grace” further it, the writer never explains. He would not have gone as far as Philo, at any rate (dyyeAou . . . tepai kat Octar pioeis, drodidKovor Kal Urapxot TOD rpwrov Geod, d: dv ola mperBevtav doa dv Gedjon TO yever HudV TpocHecriaa diayyedAre, de Abrahamo, 23). In 814 tods péANovTas KAnpovopety wtynptay (KA. cwr. Only here in NT), it is remarkable that cwrypia is mentioned for the first time without any adjective or explanation. Evidently it had already acquired a specific Christian meaning for the readers as well as for the writer; no definition was required to differentiate the Christian significance of the term from the current usage. As owrnpia involves the sacrificial work of Christ (who is never called cwryp), it cannot be applied to the pre-Christian period of revelation. Indeed in our epistle cwrnpia is invariably eschato- logical. The outlook in the messianic oracles already quoted is one of expectation; some future deliverance at the hands of God or his messianic representative is anticipated. MéAAovras implies a divine purpose, as in 8° 11°, The phrase about tots pédAovtas KAnpovopety owrnpiay marks a skilful transition to the deeper theme of the next passage, viz. the relation of the Son to this cwrypia (on 21° cp. W. Robertson Smith in Expositor, i. pp. 138f.). But the transition is worked out in a practical warning (2!) to the readers, which not only explains the underlying interest of the preceding biblical proofs, but leads up effectively to the next aspect of truth which he has in mind: 1 We must therefore (5a todro, in view of this pre-eminent authority of the Son) pay closer attention to what we have heard, in case we drift away. 2 For if the divine word spoken by angels held good (éyévero BéBatos, proved valid), zf transgression and disobedience met with due (évd.cov =adequate, not arbitrary) punishment in every case, * how shall we (huets, emphatic) escape II. 1.] ATTENDING TO CHRISTIANITY ed, the penalty for neglecting (duedjoarres, if we ignore: Mt 225) a@ salvation which (iris, inasmuch as it) was origtnally proclaimed by the Lord himself (not by mere angels) azd guaranteed to us by those who heard him, * while God corroborated their testimony with signs and wonders and a variety of miracu- lous powers, distributing the holy Spirit as tt pleased him (avrod emphatic as in Ro 3%). Apart from the accidental omission of v.! by M 1739, Origen, and of re (M P) in v.4, with the variant mapappvapev (B° D°) for rapapvduer,? the only textual item of any moment, and it isa minor one, is the substitution of 76 for did in v.* by some cursives (69. 623. 1066. 1845), due either to the following bird, or to the dogmatic desire of emphasizing the initiative of 6 kvpios. But did here as in 60 adyyéAwy, meaning ‘‘ by,” is used to preserve the idea that in Aadetv the subject is God (11). The order of words (v.') de? repiccorepds mpocéxew judas has been spoiled in & vg (wepiooorep@s det) and K L P (jyuas Tpooéxewv), As elsewhere in Hellenistic Greek (e.g. Jos. Apion. i. 1, émet dé cvyvors 6pG tals tr Sucpeveias id Twwv elpnuwevats TpocéexXovTas Braodypiats kat Trois wept tHv “Apxaoroylav tm’ é“od yeypappeévors amuotouvtas KTA.; Strabo, ii. I. 7, Tots pev amioreiv . . . exeivy Oe Mpowéxelv), Tpoaexerv (sc. TOv vovtv) is the opposite of dmoreiv: to ‘attend ” is to believe and act upon what is heard. This is implied even in Ac 8° and 16! (zpocéyew rots AaAovpévors bd IIavAov) where it is the attention of one who hears the gospel for the first time; here it is attention to a familiar message. Neptocotépws is almost in its elative sense of “with extreme care”; “all the more” would bring out its force here as in 13}9. Certainly there is no idea of demanding a closer attention to the gospel than to the Law. ‘“Hpas=we Christians (7piv, 11), you and I, asin v.32. The ra dxovaGérra. (in tots dxouobetar) is the revela- tion of the eduyyéAvov (a term never used by our author), ze. what 6 eds éAdAnoey Hpiv ev vid, 11, and this is further defined (in vv.* #) as consisting in the initial revelation made by Jesus on earth and the transmission of this by divinely accredited envoys to the writer and his readers (eis judas éBeBaw6y). In the Zp. Aristeas, 127, oral teaching is preferred to reading (ro yap xadds Chv év TG 7a vopipa cuvtrypety elvar' TovTo dé emiteAetobar Oud TAS akpodcews TOAAG padrdov 7 da THs avayvocews), and the evange- lists of v.4 include ofrwes éAdAnoay ipiv tov Adyov Tod Heod (13°); but while the news was oral, there is no particular emphasis as that here. The author simply appeals for attentive obedience, py Tote tapapu@pev (2 aor. subj.), z.e. drift away from (literally, “be carried past” and so lose) the owrtypia which we have heard. ILapapém in this sense goes back to Pr 3%! vié, uy Tapapuns, THpNnTOoV Oe evry BovAnyv Kat evvorav (see Clem. FPaed. 11. 1 éxpevédueda, without an object (xplua rod Geob, Ro 2°) as 12, Sir 1615, eaves 2 Arm apparently read torepjowuev, and P. Junius needlessly conjectured wapacup@uev (‘* pervert them”). 2 18 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 2. xi. 58, 81d kal ovoréAdew xp?) TAS yuvatkas Koopiws Kal repiodiyyeL aidot cHppovl, (7) TapappvHor THs aAnOetas); indeed the writer may have had the line of Proverbs in mind, as Chrys. suggested. The verb may have lost its figurative meaning, and may have been simply an equivalent for ‘‘going wrong,” like ‘‘labi” in Latin (cp. Cicero, De Offictes, i. 6, ‘‘labi autem, errare . . . malumet turpe ducimus”). Anyhow mpocéxecv must not be taken in a nautical sense (=moor), in order to round off the ‘‘drift away” of wapapéw, a term which carries a sombre significance here (=maparlrrew, 6°); pnmore mapapuauev, TouréoTt wh arokwpueda, wy éxtréswuev (Chrysostom). In vv. we have a characteristic (e.g. 108-31) argument a minori ad matus ; if, as we know from our bible (the bible being the Greek OT), every infringement of the Sinaitic legislation was strictly punished —a legislation enacted by means of angels—how much more serious will be the consequences of disregarding such a (great, rnAtkavTn) cwrnpia as that originally proclaimed by the Lord himself! The ryAtccatry is defined as (a) “directly in- augurated by the Kvpros himself,” and (4) transmitted to us unimpaired by witnesses who had a rich, supernatural endow- ment; it is as if the writer said, ““Do not imagine that the revelation has been weakened, or that your distance from the life of Jesus puts you in any inferior position ; the full power of God’s Spirit has been at work in the apostolic preaching to which we owe our faith.” The reference in Adéyos is to the Mosaic code, not, as Schoettgen thought, to such specific orders of angels as the admonitions to Lot and his wife. Adyos is used, not vouos, in keeping with the emphasis upon the divine Aadecty in the context, and, instead of vouos Macéws (108), 6 dv’ dyyéAwy AadyOeis Adyos is chosen for argumentative reasons. Here as in Gal 3! and Ac 78 53 (éX\aBere rov vomov eis duatayas dyyéAwv) the function of angels in the revelation of the Law at Sinai is assumed, but without any disparaging tone such as is overheard in Paul’s reference. The writer and his readers shared the belief, which first appeared in Hellenistic Judaism, that God employed angels at Sinai. Josephus (Azz. xv. 136, Hhpav Oo ta Kadota Tdv Soypdrwv Kal Ta GoudTaTa TOV év ToIs vopos Ou ayyéAwv rapa Tod Geod paldvrwv)} repeats this tradition, but it went back to the LXX which altered Dt 33? into a definite proof of angelic co-operation (é« def.dv atrod dyyeAo per’ aitod) and brought this out in Ps 684%. Rabbinic tradition elaborated the idea. The writer, however, would not have claimed, like Philo (de vita Mosis, 2°), that the Mosaic legislation was BéBa.a, aodéXevta, valid and supreme as long as the world endured. 1 This is from a speech of Herod inciting the Jews to fight bravely. ‘In such a speech,” as Robertson Smith observed, ‘fone does not introduce doubtful points of theology.” The tenet was firmly held. IT. 2, 3. | THE COMING OF CHRISTIANITY 19 NapdBacts kal mapakor form one idea (see on 11); as rapaxoy (which is not a LXX term) denotes a disregard of orders or of appeals (cp. Clem. Hom. x. 13, «i ézi wapaxon Adywv kpiors yiverat, and the use of the verb in Mt 18!" éav d€ rapakovoyn airov krA., or in LXX of Is 651? éAdAyoe kal rapnKkovcare), it represents the negative aspect, mapdBaots the positive. MucOarodocta is a sonorous synonym (rare in this sombre sense of xdAaovs) for puoOes or for the classical pucfodocia. Some of the facts which the writer has in mind are mentioned in 3!” and 1078. The Law proved no dead letter in the history of God’s people; it enforced pains and penalties for disobedience. In v.? dpy}v AaBodoa is a familiar Hellenistic phrase; cp. e.g. Philo in Quaest. in Exod. 127 (6rav ot tév oraptav Kaprrol Tedew- Gdow, ot tov dévdpwv yevérews apxnv AauBavovewy), and de vita Mosis, 1* (riv apxnv tod yeverbor AaBov év Aiyirtw). The writer felt, as Plutarch did about Rome, ra ‘Pwpaiwv rpdypara ovk av éevtatda mpovBy duvdpews, wi) Ociav Twa apynv AaBdvTa Kat pndev peéeya pnde tapddofov €xovoav. The modern mind wonders how the writer could assume that the owrnpia, as he conceives it, was actually preached by Jesus on earth. But he was un- conscious of any such difference. The Christian revelation was made through the Jesus who had lived and suffered and ascended, and the reference is not specifically to his teaching, but to his personality and career, in which God’s saving purpose came to full expression. Ot dkodcavtes means those who heard Jesus himself, the atrdérrat of Lk 11-4 (cp. the shorter conclusion to Mark’s gospel: pera d€ ratra Kai airds 6 “Iycots .. . efaréc- TetAev Ou atTav TO lepov Kat apOaprov Kypvypa THs aiwviov cwrnpias). If the Sinaitic Law éyévero BéBatos, the Christian revelation was also confirmed or guaranteed to us—eis fjpas (1 P 175 76 pyua 7d evayyeAuoGev eis duas: Ac 2% “Incotvy.. . avdpa ard Tov Oeod amodederypévov eis tas) €BeBarsOy. It reached us, accurate and trustworthy. No wonder, when we realize the channel along which it flowed. It was authenticated by the double testimony of men} who had actually heard Jesus, and of God who attested and inspired them in their mission. Xuverupaptupetvy means “ assent ” in £f. Aristeas, 191, and “corroborate” in the de Mundo, 400a (cuveripaptypet d¢ Kat 6 Bios amas), as usual, but is here a sonorous religious term for ovppaprupety (Ro 81°), ‘ Coniunctio ovv ... hunc habet sensum, nos in fide euangelii confirmari symphonia quadam Dei et hominum” (Calvin). 1In bd trav dxovedvTwv, tard is used, as invariably throughout IIpds ‘E8palous, of persons, which is a proof of good Greek. ‘‘ There is no more certain test of the accuracy of individual Greek writers than their use of the passives (or equivalent forms) with té and agenitive. In the best writers this genitive almost invariably denotes personal, or at least ving objects” (W. J. Hickie, on Andocides, De Mysterits, § 14). 20 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [1I. 4. on., TEp., Suv. in the reverse order describe the miracles of Jesus in Ac 2° ; here they denote the miracles of the primitive evangelists as in 2 Co 12). Philo, speaking of the wonderful feats of Moses before the Pharaoh, declares that signs and wonders are a plainer proof of what God commands than any verbal injunction (dre 6% rod Geot rpavorépas xpnouay amodelfeot Tais dia onuelwv kal Tepdtwv 7d BovAnua dedndwxdros, vzt. Mos. i. 16). As “God” (Geod) is the subject of the clause, adrod (for which D actually reads Geo) refers to him, and mvevparos ayiov is the genitive of the object after pepiopots (cp. 64). What is dis- tributed is the Spirit, in a variety of endowments. To take avtov with mvevuaros and make the latter the genitive of the subject, would tally with Paul’s description of the Spirit dcarpoty idia éxdotw kabws BovrAerat (t Co 1214), but would fail to explain what was distributed and would naturally require 7@ pepicpo. A fair parallel lies in Gal 3° 6 émtyopyyav tpiv 76 rvedpa Kat éevepyav Ovvdpes év tyuiv, where duvdyes also means “ miraculous’ powers” or ‘“‘mighty deeds” (a Hellenistic sense, differing from that of the LXX=‘“‘forces”). In kara thy adrod dna, as perhaps even in 738 (cp. Blass, 284. 3; Abbott’s Johannine Grammar, 2558), the possessive airdés is emphatic. OéAnow is read by 8 R for déyow in Ps 21% (cp. Ezk 2873 pn OeAjoe deAnow). It is not merely a vulgarism for OéAnua. ‘ @eAnua nest pas GéAnous, volonté; OeAnua désigne le vouloir concentré sur un moment, sur un acte, l’ordre, le commandment” (Psichari, Essai sur le grec de la Septante, 1908, p. 171n.). The writer is fond of such forms (e.g. aOérnows, aAnows, aiveots, perabects, mpoaxvots). Naturally the phrase has a very different meaning from the similar remark in Lucian, who makes Hesiod (D%s- putatio cum Ffesiode, 4) apologize for certain omissions in his poetry, by pleading that the Muses who inspired him gave their gifts as they pleased—ai Oeat dé tas éavtdv dwpeds ols te dv eédwor. The vital significance of the Son as the dpynyos of this ‘‘salvation”! by means of his sufferings on earth, is now devel- oped (vv.°18). This unique element in the Son has been already hinted (13), but the writer now proceeds to explain it as the core of Christ’s pre-eminence. The argument starts from the antithesis between the Son and angels (v.°); presently it passes beyond this, and angels are merely mentioned casually in a parenthesis (v.16). The writer is now coming to the heart of his theme, how and why the Son or Lord, of whom he has been speaking, suffered, died, and rose. Vv.*° are the prelude to vv.10-18. The idea underlying the whole passage is this : Aadeto@at 81a Tod Kuptou meant much more than Aadrcioba dv’ ayyéAwv, for the Christian revelation of owrnpia had involved a tragic and painful experi- ence for the Son on earth as he purged sins away. His present superiority to angels had been preceded by a period of mortal 1JIn A x of Is 96 the messiah is called rarnp rod uédXovros aldvos. II. 5-9. | THE SON AS SUPREME 21 experience on earth év tais epars THs oapKos airov. But this sojourn was only for a time; it was the vital presupposition of his triumph; it enabled him to die a death which invested him with supreme power on behalf of his fellow-men; and it taught him sympathy (cp. Zimmer, in Studien und Kritiken, 1882, pp. 413f., on 215, and in VZVichen Studien, 1. pp. 20-129, on 26-18), 5 For the world to come, of which I (jets of authorship) am speaking, was not put under the control of angels (whatever may be the case with the present world). © One writer, as we know, has affirmed, ‘* What ts man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou carest for him? 1 For a little while thou hast put him lower than the angels, crowning him with glory and honour, 8 putting all things under his feet.” Now by} ‘putting all things under him” * the writer meant to leave nothing out of his control. But, as it ts, we do not yet see ‘‘ all things controlled” by man; * what we do see ts Jesus ‘who was put lower than the angels for a little while” to suffer death, and who has been ‘‘ crowned with glory and honour,” that by God’s grace he might taste death for everyone. Od yap dyyédots (ydp, as in Greek idiom, opening a new question; almost equivalent to ‘‘now”: od ydép=non certe, Valckenaer) dmérage (2.e. 6 Oeds, as C vg add)—the writer is already thinking of téragas in the quotation which he is about to make. In the light of subsequent allusions to péAdovra ayaba (g4 101) and 7 péAXovoa 76ALs (1314), we see that thy oikoupevny Th »é\Noucay means the new order of things in which the owrnpia of 114 22-3 is to be realized (see 98), and from which already influences are pouring down into the life of Christians. The latter allusion is the pivot of the transition. The powers and spiritual experiences just mentioned (in v.*) imply this higher, future order of things (cp. 645 especially dvvapes tre peAXovTos ai@vos), from which rays stream down into the present. How the ministry of angels is connected with them, we do not learn. But the author had already urged that this service of angels was rendered to the divine authority, and that it served to benefit Christians (1!*), This idea starts him afresh. Who reigns in the new order? Not angels but the Son, and the Son who has come down for a time into human nature and suffered death. He begins by quoting a stanza from a psalm which seems irrelevant, because it compares men and angels. In reality this is not what occupies his mind; otherwise he might have put his argument differently and used, for example, the belief that Christians would hold sway over angels in the next world (1 Co 6? 8), 1 év r@ (sc. Aévyew, as 819), # The omission of this air@ by B d e arm does not alter the sense. 22 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 5-7. Philo (de ofificto, 29, ob map bcov tararov yéyovev dvOpwros, dia Thy Takey 7dTTwrat) argues that man is not inferior in position because he was created last in order; but this refers to man in relation to other creatures, not in rela- tion to angels, as here. The quotation (vv.%8) from the 8th psalm runs: ter + 4 , 1 > an Ti éoti avOpwrros OTe popvyoKn+ avror, H vids avOpwrov ott érurKxértn adrov; 3 , ips , ars , HAaTTwWaas aviTov Bpaxv TL wap ayyeAous, d0&n kal tiny eotepadvwoas adrov. TavTa vréeTakas VTOKATW TMV TOOBY avTOD. The LXX tr. o'nds not incorrectly by dyyéAous, since the elohim of the original probably included angels. ‘This was the point of the quotation, for the author of Hebrews. The text of the quotation offers only a couple of items. (a) ri is changed into ris (LXX A) by C* P 104. 917. 1288. 1319. 1891. 2127 vt boh, - either in conformity to the preceding tis or owing to the feeling that the more common zis (in questions, e.g. 12’, Jn 12°4) suited the reference to Christ better (Bleek, Zimmer). (4) The quota- tion omits kal Katéorynoas avrov éri Ta épya Tov xeipov aov before mdavra: it is inserted by % AC D* M P syr lat boh arm eth Euth. Theodt. Sedul. to complete the quotation. It is the one line in the sentence on which the writer does not comment ; probably he left it out as incompatible with 11° (épya rav xeipoav cov ciow ot ovpavot), although he frequently quotes more of an OT passage than is absolutely required for his particular purpose. In 8tepaptépato S€ mov tis (v.°), even if the d€ is adversative, it need not be expressed in English idiom. diapaptupeto ar in Greek inscriptions ‘‘ means primarily to address an assembly ora king” (Hicks, in Classical Review, i. 45). Here, the only place where it introduces an OT quotation, it =attest or affirm. Ilov tis in such a formula is a literary mannerism familiar in Philo (De Ebriet. 14: etre yap mov ts), and wov later on (4*) recurs in a similar formula, as often in Philo. The ts implies no modifica- tion of the Alexandrian theory of inspiration; his words are God’s words (v.8). The psalm intends no contrast between 7Adtrwcas xrA. and 86€9 . . . éorepdvwoasaitév. The proof that this wonder- ful being has been created in a position only slightly inferior to that of the divine host lies in the fact that he is crowned king of nature, invested with a divine authority over creation. The psalm is a panegyric on man, like Hamlet’s (‘‘ What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel!” etc.), but with a religious note of wonder and gratitude to God. In applying the psalm, however, our writer takes Bpaxv tu 1 uiuvioky means mindfulness shown in act, and émicxérry, as always in the NT, denotes personal care. II. 7, 8.] HUMILIATION AND HONOUR 23 in the sense of ‘‘temporarily ” rather than “slightly,” and so has to make the “inferiority ” and ‘‘ exaltation ” two successive phases, in applying the description to the career of Jesus. He does not take this verse as part of a messianic ode; neither here nor elsewhere does he use the term “Son of Man.” He points out, first of all (v.8) that, as things are (viv 8€ oUmw: o¥ tw =ov tws might be read, z.e. “‘in no wise,” and viv taken logically instead of temporally ; but this is less natural and pointed), the last words are still unful- filled; oUmw Spwyev abt (7.2. man) Ta “‘mdvta” (Ze. 7) olkoupevy h wéAXovoa) Swotetaypeva. Human nature is not ‘‘crowned with glory and honour” at present. How can it be, when the terror of death and the devil (v.15) enslaves it? What is to be said, then? This, that although we do not see man triumphant, there is something that we do see: Bdémopev “Inoody dealing triumph- antly with death on man’s behalf (v.°). The ’Ijcotv comes in with emphasis, as in 3! and 12%, at the end of a preliminary definition tov . . . mAaTTwpEvoy. It is less natural to take the messianic interpretation which involves the reference of atr@ already to him. On this view, the writer frankly allows that the closing part of the prophecy is still unfulfilled. ‘‘ We do not yet see 74 mdvta under the sway of Jesus Christ, for the world to come has not yet come; it has only been inaugurated by the sacrifice of Christ (1° xaapirpov tOv dpaptidv moinoapevos exdbicer ev deEig THS meyadwovrvys ev dbWyAots). Though the Son is crowned (1° °) and enthroned (118 xafov ék defidv pov), his foes are still to be subdued (éws dv 06 rods éxOpovs cov tromdd.ov TOV ToOaV gov), and we must be content to wait for our full cwrypia (978) at his second coming; under the ovrw ép@pev xrA. of experi- ence there is a deeper experience of faith.” The writer rather turns back in v.® to the language of v.’; this at least has been fulfilled. _/esws has been put lower than the angels and he has been crowned. How and why? The writer answers the second ques- tion first. Or rather, in answering the second he suggests the answer to the first. At this point, and not till then, the messianic interpretation becomes quite natural and indeed inevitable. It is the earlier introduction of it which is unlikely. The application to the messiah of words like those quoted in v.® is forced, and *‘ Hebrews” has no room for the notion of Christ as the ideal or representative Man, as is implied in the messianic interpretation of airé in v.8. That interpretation yields a true idea—the thought expressed, ¢e.g., in T. E. Brown’s poem, ‘‘Sad! Sad!”— “One thing appears to me— The work is not complete ; One world I know, and see It is not at His feet— Not, not! Is this the sum ?” 24 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 8. No, our author hastens to add, it is not the sum; our outlook is not one of mere pathos; we do see Jesus enthroned, with the full prospect of ultimate triumph. But the idea of the issues of Christ’s triumph being still incomplete is not true here. What is relevant, and what is alone relevant, is the decisive character of his sacrifice. The argument of v.® 9%, therefore, is that, however inapplicable to man the rhapsody of the psalm is, at present, the words of the psalm are true, notwithstanding. For we see the Jesus who was “put lower than the angels for a little while” to suffer death (81a 75 wéOnpa Tod Oavdrou must refer to the death of Jesus himself! not to the general experience of death as the occasion for his incarnation), now ‘crowned with glory and honour.” When 814 76 1éOnpoa Tod Oaydrou is connected with what follows (86&q kal Tinf €otepavwpévoy), it gives the reason for the exaltation, not the object of the incarnation (= «is ro mwacyxewv). But dud . . . Gavarov is elucidated ina moment by 67ws . . . Gavdrov. V.° answers the question why Jesus was lowered and exalted—it was for the sake of mankind. In v.! the writer proceeds to ex- plain how he was ‘‘ lowered ”—it was by suffering that culminated in death. Then he recurs naturally to the ‘“‘why.” The mixture of quotation and comment in v.® leaves the meaning open to some dubiety, although the drift is plain. ‘‘ But one Being referred to in the psalm (rév . . . AAaTTwpEvov) we do see—it is Jesus, and Jesus as nAatTwpevoy for the purpose of suffering death, and 84€y cat rip éorehaywpevov. Why did he die? Why was he thus humiliated and honoured? For the sake of every man; his death was drep mavros, part of the divine purpose of redemption.” ‘Thus émas.. . Gavdrou explains and expounds the idea of é:a 76 ra6npua (which consists in) rod avarov, gathering up the full object and purpose of the experience which has just been predicated of Jesus. This implies a pause after éorehavwpévoy, or, as Bleek suggests, the supplying of an idea like 6 éa@ev before dws xrA., if yevonrat is to be taken, as it must be, as= “‘he might taste.” Howa dzws clause follows and elucidates 64 «rA. may be seen in ZA. Arist. 106 (dva Tous év Tals ayveiais OvTas, dws pyndevds Oryyavwcw). As for v.88, Paul makes a similar comment (1 Co 15”), but excludes God from the 7&4 mdvra. The curiously explicit language here is intended to reiterate what is possibly hinted at in v.®, viz., that the next world has no room for the angelic control which characterizes the present. (The ra mdvra includes even angels!) This belief was familiar to readers of the Greek bible, where Dt 32° voices a conception of guardian-angels over the non- Jewish nations which became current in some circles of the later Judaism, Non-Jewish Christians, like the readers of our epistle, would be likely to appreciate the point of an argument which dealt with this. Note that dvuréraxroy occurs in a similar antithesis in Epictetus, ii. 10. 1, ra’ry Ta 1 But not, as the Greek fathers, etc., supposed, as if it was the fact of hir death (and stay in the underworld) that lowered him (61é4=on account of). II. 9.] THE DEATH OF JESUS 26 ddd\a vmroretaypéva, al’tyy & ddovevTov kal avuwéraxrov. Our author’s language reads almost like a tacit repudiation of Philo’s remark on Gn 1% in de opificto Mundi (28), that God put man over all things with the exception of the heavenly beings—éca yap Ovnra év Trois rpiol aroxelos yy dare dépr mwdvra wrératrev al’t@,. Ta Kar’ ovpavdy vreteAduevos Gre Sevdrepas polpas érihaxovra, The closing clause of v.® (6mws xdpite Ped inép Tavtds yevon- tat Gaydrou), therefore, resumes and completes the idea of é:a 7d méOnua tov Gavdrov. Each follows a phrase from the psalm ; but dmws . . . Gavarov does not follow éorehavwpévov logically. The only possible method of thus taking dzws xrA. would be by applying O09 kai tip éeorehavwpevoy to Christ’s life prior to death, either (a) to his pre-incarnate existence, when “in the counsels of heaven” he was, as it were, ‘crowned for death” (so Rendall, who makes yevoac@at Oavarov cover the ‘inward dying” of daily self-denial and suffering which led up to Calvary), or (4) to his incarnate life (so, e.g., Hofmann, Milligan, Bruce), as if his readiness to sacrifice himself already threw a halo round him, or (¢) specifically to God’s recognition and approval of him at the baptism and transfiguration (Dods). But the use of ddéa in v./ tells against such theories; it is from another angle altogether that Jesus is said in 2 P 1!” to have received tipi Kal ddgav from God at the transfiguration. The most natural inter- pretation, therefore, is to regard ddé) . . . éorehavwpévoy as almost parenthetical], rounding off the quotation from the psalm. It is unnecessary to fall back on such suggestions as (i) to assume a break in the text after éorehavwpévov, some words lost which led up to dmws . . . Gavarov (Windisch), or (11) to translate ézws by ‘“‘how,” as in Lk 24”, ze. ““we see how Jesus tasted death” (so Blass, boldly reading éyevcaro), or by ‘‘after that” or “when” (Moses Stuart), as in Soph. Oed. Col. 1638 (where, however, it takes the indicative as usual), etc. In brép ravrés, wavréds was at an early stage taken as neuter, practi- cally=the universe. This was a popular idea in Egyptian Christianity. ‘You know,” says the risen Christ to his disciples, in a Bohairic narrative of the death of Joseph (Zexts and Studies, iv. 2. 130), ‘*that many times now I have told you that I must needs be crucified and taste death for the universe.” The interpretation occurs first in Origen, who (2% Joan. i. 35) writes: ‘‘He is a ‘great highpriest’ [referring to Heb 4!°], having offered himself up in sacrifice once (dat) not for human beings alone, but for the rest of rational creatures as well (4A\a kal brép r&v AowrGv AoyixGy). ‘For without God he tasted death for everyone’ (xwpls yap Qce0d vrép mavrds éyevcaro Gavdrov). In some copies of the epistle to the Hebrews this passage runs: ‘for by the grace of God’ (xdpitt yap Geod). Well, if ‘without God he tasted death for everyone,’ he did not die simply for human beings, but for the rest of rational creatures as well; and if ‘ by the grace of God he tasted the death for everyone,’? he died for all except for God (xwpls 9¢00)— for ‘ by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone.’ It would indeed be 1 Reading rod before vzrép. 26 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (II. 9. preposterous (dromov) to say that he tasted death for human sins and not also for any other being besides man who has fallen into sin—e.g. for the stars. Even the stars are by no means pure before God, as we read in the book of Job: ‘The stars are not pure before him,’ unless this is said hyperbolically. For this reason he is a ‘great highpriest,’ because he restores (droxa0loryot) all things to his Father’s kingdom, ordering it so that what is lacking in any part of creation is completed for the fulness of the Father’s glory (apds 76 xwphoa Sdtav marpixyv).” The Greek fathers adhered steadily to this inter- pretation of mavrés as equivalent to the entire universe, including especially angels. But the neuter is always expressed in ‘‘ Hebrews” by the plural, with or without the article, and, as v.!® shows, the entire interest is in human beings. Tevonrat after brép wavrds has also been misinterpreted. Tevew in LXX, as a rendering of oyy, takes either genitive (I S 144, cp. 2 Mac 6”) or ac- cusative (1 S 14%, Job 34%), but yever@ar Oavdrov never occurs; it is the counterpart of the rabbinic phrase anm’> oyy, and elsewhere in the NT (Mk g'=Mt 16%=Lk 9”, Jn 8*) is used not of Jesus but of men. It means to experience (=/ldeiv Odvarov, 115). Here it is a bitter exper.ence, not a rapid sip, as if Jesus simply ‘‘ tasted” death (Chrysostom, Theophyl., Oecumenius: od yap évéwewev TO Oavdrw addAa pdvov avrdv tpdrov Twa ameyevoaro) quickly, or merely sipped it like a doctor sipping a drug to en- courage a patient. The truer comment would be: ‘‘ When [ think of our Lord as tasting death it seems to me as if He alone ever truly tasted death” (M‘Leod Campbell, Zhe Nature of the Atonement, p. 259); yevonrat does not echo Bpaxv 71, as though all that Jesus experienced of death was slight or short. The hardest knot of the hard passage lies in ydépure Oeov. In the second century two forms of the text were current, xwpic Oeoy and xapiti Gcoy. This is plain from Origen’s comment (see above); he himself is unwilling to rule out the latter reading, but prefers the former, which he apparently found to be the ordinary text. Theodoret assumed it to be original, as Ambrose did in the West. Jerome knew both (on Gal 3°), and the eighth century Anastasius Abbas read xwpis (“absque deo: sola enim divina natura non egebat”), z.e, in the sense already suggested by Fulgentius and Vigilius, that Christ’s divine nature did not die. On the other hand, writers like Eusebius, Athanasius, and Chrysostom never mention any other reading than xdpirt. Of all the supporters of ywpis, the most emphatic is Theodore of Mopsuestia, who protests that it is most absurd (yeAovdrarov) to substitute ydpire Oeod for ywpis Geod, arguing from passages like 1 Co 15! and Eph 2% that Paul’s custom is not to use the former phrase dai@s, dAAG ravtws did Twos akodovbids Aoyov. The reading suited the Nestorian view of the person of Christ, and probably the fact of its popularity among the Nestorians tended to compromise xwpis in the eyes of the later church ; it survives only in M 424**, though there is a trace of it (a Nestorian gloss?) in three codices of the Peshitto. But Oecumenius and Theophylact are wrong in holding that it Originated among the Nestorians. This is dogmatic prejudice; II. 9. | A DOUBTFUL READING aur xwpis was read in good manuscripts, if not in the best, by Origen’s time, and the problem is to determine whether it or xdpire was original. The one may be a transcriptional error for the other. In this case, the textual canon ‘potior lectio difficillima” would favour ywpis. But the canon does not apply rigidly to every such case, and the final decision depends upon the internal probabilities. Long associations render it difficult for a modern to do justice to xwpis Geov. Yet xwpis is elsewhere used by our author in a remarkable way, eg. in 978 ywpis dyuaptrias 6pOyoera1, and the question is whether xwpis deod here cannot be understood in an apt, although daring, sense. It may be (i) “forsaken by God,” an allusion to the “dereliction” of Mk 15%4 (B. Weiss, Zimmer), though this would rather be put as atep Oeod. (11) “Apart from his divinity” (see above), ie. when Christ died, his divine nature survived. But this would require a term like tys Oedryntos. (ili) Taken with zavros, ‘die for everyone (everything ?) except God” (Origen’s view, adopted recently by moderns like Ewald and Ebrard). Of these (i) and (iii) are alone tenable. Even if (iii) be rejected, it furnishes a clue to the problem of the origin of the reading. Thus Bengel and others modify it by taking trép wavrds=to master everything, xwpis Geod being added to explain that ‘ everything” does not include God. It is possible, of course, that in the Latin rendering (ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem) gratia is an original nominative, not an ablative, and repre- sents xdpis (Christ=the Grace of God),! which came to be altered into xwpis and ydpitt. But, if ywpis Geod is regarded as secondary, its origin probably lies in the dogmatic scruple of some primitive scribe who wrote the words on the margin as a gloss upon zravrds, or even on the margin of v.® opposite ovdev adnkev avT@ avuroraxtov, whence it slipped lower down into the text. Upon the whole, it seems fairest to assume that at some very early stage there must have been a corruption of the text, which cannot be explained upon the available data. But at any rate ydpire fits in well with ézpere, which immediately follows, and this is one point in its favour. It was xdpite Jeod that Jesus died for everyone, and this was consonant with God’s character (érperes yap aire, te. Geo). The nearest Latin equivalent for mpémov, as Cicero (de Officits, i. 26) said, was ** decorum ” (dulce et decorum est pro patria mori), and in this high sense the divine xdpis (41°), shown in the wide range and object of the death of Jesus, comes out in the process and method. 1It was so taken by some Latin fathers like Primasius and by later theologians of the Western church like Thomas of Aquinum and Sedulius Scotus, who depended on the Vulgate version. 28 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _[II. 10-18. The writer now explains (vv.10!8) why Jesus had to suffer and to die. Only thus could he save his brother men who lay (whether by nature or as a punishment, we are not told) under the tyranny of death. To die for everyone meant that Jesus had to enter human life and identify himself with men; suffering is the badge and lot of the race, and a Saviour must be a sufferer, if he is to carry out God’s saving purpose. The sufferings of Jesus were neither an arbitrary nor a degrading experience, but natural, in view of what he was to God and men alike. For the first time, the conception of suffering occurs, and the situation which gave rise to the author’s handling of the subject arose out of what he felt to be his readers’ attitude. ‘‘ We are suffering hardships on account of our religion.” But so did Jesus, the writer replies. ‘‘ Well, but was it necessary for him any more than for us? And if so, how does that consideration help us in our plight?” To this there is a twofold answer. (a) Suffering made Jesus a real Saviour; it enabled him to offer his perfect sacrifice, on which fellowship with God depends. (4) He suffered not only for you but like you, undergoing the same temptations to faith and loyalty as you have to meet. The threefold inference is: (i) do not give way, but realize all you have in his sacrifice, and what a perfect help and sympathy you can enjoy. (ii) Remember, this is a warning as well as an encouragement; it will be a fearful thing to disparage a religious tie of such privilege. (iii) Also, let his example nerve you. 10 In bringing many sons to glory, tt was befitting that He for whom and by whom the universe exists, should perfect the Pioneer of thetr salvation by suffering (dua madnudrwv, echoing 61a 7d wdOnua Tot Oavdrov). 4 For sanctifier and sanctified have all one origin (é& Evos, sc. yevotds: neuter as Ac 17°65), That ts why he (6 ayidgwr) zs not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying, ““T will proclaim thy name to my brothers, in the midst of the church I will sing of thee” ; 13 and again, “© 7 will put my trust in him” ; and again, ** Here am I and the children God has gtven me.” 14 Since the children then (obv, resuming the thought of v.*) share blood and flesh, he himself participated in their nature,” so that by dying he might crush him who wields the power of death (that ts to say, the devil), ® and release from thraldom those who lay under a life-long fear of death. (For of course tt ts not angels that “‘ he succours,” tt ts ‘‘the offspring of Abra- ham”). ™ He had to resemble his brothers in every respect, in order to prove a merciful and faithful high priest in things divine, to expiate the sins of the 1 aluaros kal capkxos (Eph 61°) is altered into the more conventional capxés kai aluaros by, ée.g., K L f vg syr pesh eth boh Theodoret, Aug. Jerome. 2 avTay, ze. aluaros kal capkds, not wayudrwy, which is wrongly added by D* d syr?*! Eus. Jerome, Theodoret. Th'20.) THE PURPOSE OF GOD 29 People. * It ts as he suffered by his temptations that he is able to help the tempted. It is remarkable (cp. Introd. p. xvi) that the writer does not connect the sufferings of Jesus with OT prophecy, either gener- ally (as, ¢.g., Lk 24° ovxi ratra édei! rabety Tov Xpiordv xrX.), OF with a specific reference to Is 53. He explains them on the ground of moral congruity. Here they are viewed from God’s standpoint, as in 12? from that of Jesus himself. God’s purpose of grace made it befitting and indeed inevitable that Jesus should suffer and die in fulfilling his function as a Saviour (v.10); then (vv.1!£) it is shown how he made common cause with those whom he was to rescue. “Empetev ydp «tA. (v.1°), IIpérewv or mpérov, in the sense of “seemly,” is not applied to God in the LXX, but is not un- common in later Greek, e.g. Lucian’s Prometheus, 8 (ovre Oeois mperov ovte GA\Aws BaotAuxov), and the de Mundo, 3974, 398a (6 Kai mpérov é€oTt Kal Oe@ pddtota dpyudlov—of a theory about the universe, however). The writer was familiar with it in Philo, who has several things to say about what it behoved God to do,? though never this thing; Philo has the phrase, not the idea. According to Aristotle (Vic. Ethics, iv. 2. 2, 1o mpérov 8) mpos airdv, kal év ® kal mepi 6), what is “ befitting” relates to the person himself, to the particular occasion, and to the object. Here, we might say, the idea is that it would not have done for God to save men by a method which stopped short of suffering and actual death. ‘‘ Quand il est question des actes de Dieu, ce qui est convenadble est toujours mécessatre au point de vue métaphysique” (Reuss). In the description of God (for aéré cannot be applied to Jesus in any natural sense) 8v év ta mdvta kat 8: o8 Ta mdvta, the writer differs sharply from Philo, ‘The Alexandrian Jew objects to Eve (Gn 4!) and Joseph (Gn 40!8) using the phrase da rod Geod (Cherudim, 35), on the ground that it makes God merely instrumental ; whereas, 6 @eds airtov, ovK dpyavov. On the contrary, we call God the creative cause (airvov) of the universe, dpyavov dé Adyov Ged SV ot KatecKkevdc On. He then quotes Ex 141% to prove, by the use of zapa, that od 1a 3 Tod Geod GAAG Tap’ airod ws airiov TO cwlecPa. But our author has no such scruples about dua, any more than Aeschylus had (Agamemnon, 1486, dat Atos ravaitiov mavepyéra). Like Paul (Ro 11°) he can say &’ ob ra wdévra of God, adding, for the sake of paronomasia, 6 ov to cover what Paul meant by ef adrov Kai ets airov. Or rather, starting with 6c ov ra wdvra he 1 The &erdev of v.17 is not the same as this det. 2 Thus: mpérer T@ Oem purevew Kal olkodouety ev Wuyn Tas dperds (Leg. alleg. i. 15) 3 When he does use dtd (de officio, 24) it is 6¢ avrod udvov, of creation, 30 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ II. 10. prefers another dua with a genitive, for the sake of assonance, to the more usual equivalent é€ ot or id’ ot. To preserve the assonance, Zimmer proposes to render: ‘um dessentwillen das All, und durch dessen Willen das All.” The ultimate origin of the phrase probably lies in the mystery-cults ; Aristides (His rov Zdparw, 51: ed, Dindorf, i. ‘P. 87), in an invocation of Serapis, writes to this effect, rdvra yap mavraxod dia cod re Kal did ce Hiv ylyverat. But Greek thought i in Stoicism had long ago played upon the use of 6d in this connexion. Possibly dia with the accusative was the primitive and regular expression, as Norden contends.! We call Zeus ‘‘ Zva cal Ala” ws dy ef Néyouwev Sv dv SSuev, says the author of de Mundo (401a), like the older Stoics (see Arnim’s Stotcorum veterum Fragmenta, il. pp. 305, 312), and did with the accusative might have the same causal sense here,? z.¢. “through,” in which case the two phrases 6? év and 6 of would practically be a poetical reduplication of the same idea, or at least=‘‘ by whom and through whom.” But the dominant, though not exclusive, idea of 6: év here is final, ‘‘ for whom” ; the end of the universe, of all history and creation, lies with Him by whom it came into being and exists; He who podeemica is He who has all creation at His command and under His control. The point in adding 8 ov . . . ra rdvra to atrad is that the sufferings and death of Jesus are not accidental; they form part of the eternal world-purpose of God. Philo had explained that Moses was called up to Mount Sinai on the seventh day, because God wished to make the choice of Israel parallel to the creation of the world (Quaest. in Exod. 2416 BovAdpevos éridetEar Ste adros Kal TOV KOcpov ednutovpynoe Kal Td yévos etAero, “H dé dvaxAnots Tov Tpopyrov Sevrepa yéveris Eott THS Tporépas apeivwv). But our author goes deeper; redemption, he reiterates (for this had been hinted at in 1!*), is not outside the order of creation. The distinction between the redeeming grace of God and the created universe was drawn afterwards by gnosticism. There is no conscious repudiation of such a view here, only a definite asser- tion that behind the redeeming purpose lay the full force of God the creator, that God’s providence included the mysterious sufferings of Jesus His Son, and that these were in line with His will. In woddods utods the zodAoé is in antithesis to the one and only a&pxnyds, as in Ro 8%, Mk 1474. For the first time the writer calls Christians God’s sons. His confidence towards the Father is in sharp contrast to Philo’s touch of hesitation in De Confus. Ling. 28 (xav pndérw pévrot tvyxavyn tis détdypews Sv vids Geod mpocayopeverOar . . . Kal yap ei pytw txavol Oeod aides vopilerOar yeyovapev). *Ayaydvta is devoid of any reference to 1 Agnostos Theos, 347 f. (‘‘ Das ist die applikation der logisch- gramma- tischen Theorie tiber den Kasus, der in dltester Terminologie, 4 xar’ airlay mr@o.s, heisst, auf die Physik: die Welt ist das Objekt der durch die héchste alrla ausgeiibten Tatigkeit ”). 2 As in Apoc. 4!! and Zpzst. Artsteas, 16: 6: dv {woroodvrar Ta wdvTa cal ylverat (quoting Zijva cal Ala), II. 10. | THE SUFFERINGS OF JESUS 31 past time. ‘The aorist participle is used adverbially, as often, to denote “‘an action evidently in a general way coincident in time with the action of the verb, yet not identical with it. The choice of the aorist participle rather than the present in such cases is due to the fact that the action is thought of, not as in progress, but as a simple event or fact” (Burton, JZoods and Tenses, 149). It is accusative instead of dative, agreeing with an implied airov instead of airé, by a common Greek assimila- Hons (Copier. “ACW 1? irs aett! 95%7))) The accusativesiand infinitive construction prompted dyaydvra instead of dyayovru. Had dyayovra been intended to qualify dpynydv, roAXovs would have been preceded by tov. The thought is: thus do men attain the dda which had been their destiny (v."), but only through a Jesus who had won it for them by suffering. The mistaken idea that dyayévra must refer to some action previous to reder@oat, which gave rise to the Latin rendering ‘‘ qui adduxerat” (vg) or **multis filiis adductis” (vt), is responsible for the ingenious suggestion of Zimmer that 66a denotes an intermediate state of bliss, where the dixaco: of the older age await the full inheritance of the messianic bliss. It is possible (see below on 11%? 12”) to reconstruct such an idea in the mind of the writer, but not to introduce it here. The general idea in dépxnydv is that of originator or personal source; Touréot, Tov altiov THs Gwrynpias (Chrysostom). It is doubtful how far the writer was determined, in choosing the term, by its varied associations, but the context, like that of 12, suggests that the “pioneer” meaning was present to his mind; Jesus was d&pxnyss tis gwryptas adtéy in the sense that he led the way, broke open the road for those who followed him. This meaning, common in the LXX, recurs in Ac 5%! (dpynyov kai cwrnpa), and suits dyaydovra better than the alternative sense of the head or progenitor—as of a Greek clan or colony. In this sense dpxnyos is applied to heroes, and is even a divine title of Apollo as the head of the Seleucidae (OGJS. 21218, 219%), as well as a term for the founder (=conditor) or head of a philo- sophical school (Athenaeus, xill. 563 E, tov dpynyov tuav tis codias Zyvwva). But the other rendering is more relevant. Compare the confession (in the Acts of Maximilianus) of the soldier who was put to death in 295 a.p. (Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, pp. 340f.): “huic omnes Christiani servimus, hunc sequimur vitae principem, salutis auctorem.” The sufferings of Jesus as apxnyos owtyptas had, of course, a specific value in the eyes of the writer. He did not die simply in order to show mortals how to die; he experienced death trép ravros, and by this unique suffering made it possible for ‘many sons” of God to enter the bliss which he had first won for them. Hence, to “perfect” (reAccGoar) the dpynyss owrtynpias is to make him adequate, 32 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 10, 11 completely effective. What this involved for him we are not yet told; later on (5° 728) the writer touches the relation between the perfect ability of Christ and his ethical development through suffering (see below, v.!*), but meantime he uses this. general term. God had to “perfect” Jesus by means of suffering, that he might be equal to his task as dpxnyéds or dpxtepeds (v.17); the addition of airév to owrnpias implies (see 77°) that he himself had not to be saved from sin as they had. The underlying idea of the whole sentence is that by thus “ perfecting” Jesus through suffering, God carries out his purpose of bringing ‘‘ many sons” to bliss. The verb had already acquired a tragic significance in connexion with martyrdom ; in 4 Mac 7 (dv misrh Pavarov oppayis érehelwoev) it is used of Eleazar’s heroic death, and this reappeared in the Christian vocabulary, as, €. 845 in the title of the Passzo S. Perpetuae (uapriptov THs aylas Ileprerovas kal Tav civ airy TedewOévtwy év ’Adpixn). But, although Philo had popu- larized the idea of reXevrévy=redetoOa, this is not present to our writer’s mind ; he is thinking of God’s purpose to realize a complete experience of forgiveness and fellowship (owrnpia) through the Son, and this includes and involves (as we shall see) a process of moral development for the Son. The writer now (v.1!) works out the idea suggested by moAXods utous. Since Jesus and Christians have the same spiritual origin, since they too in their own way are “sons” of God, he is proud to call them brothers and to share their lot (vy. 118) Bhie leader and his company are a unit, members of the one family of God. It is implied, though the writer does not explain the matter further, that Christ’s common tie with mankind goes back to the pre-incarnate period; there was a close bond between them, even before he was born into the world; indeed the in- carnation was the consequence of this solidarity or vital tie (éé évés, cp. Pindar, Wem. vi. 1, €v dvdpav, &v OeGv yévos). “O dyidLov and ot dyrafduevor are participles used as substantives, devoid of reference to time. Here, as at 13/2, Jesus is assigned the divine prerogative of dyuafew (cp. Ezk 20!” ey@ xvpios 6 dyialwy adrtors, 2 Mac 1%, etc.), ze. of making God’s People His very own, by bringing them into vital relationship with Himself. It is another sacerdotal metaphor ; the thought of 1° (xadapiopov TOV dwapTeav roinodpevos) is touched again, but the full meaning of dyaewv is not developed till 9!°£, where we see that to be “sanctified” is to be brought into the presence of God through the self- saptlifte of Christ; in other words, dyidfeoGar= rpooepyecOar or éyyilewv 7® Ged, as in Nu 16° where the ayo. are those whom God TpoonyayeTo Tpos éavTov. According to (Akiba?) Mechilta, 714 (on Ex 20"), God said to the angels at Sinai, ‘‘Gso down and help your brothers” (O2°"4x"N¥ 3yrDp) 79); yet it was not merely the angels, but God himself, who helped them (the proof-text being Ca 2° !), II. 11-18. | JESUS AND MEN an Av iv aitiav—a phrase only used elsewhere in the NT by the author of the Pastoral epistles—odx ématoydvetat kTA. *Emaoyu- veoOat implies that he was of higher rank, being somehow vids Oeod as they were not. The verb only occurs three times in LXX, twice of human shame (Ps 119°, Is 179), and once perhaps of God (=Nw3) in Job 341%. In Zest. Jos. 2° it is used passively (od yap ws avOpwros éraroyxvverat 6 Oeds). In the gospels, besides Mk 3%4f and Mt 25%°, there are slight traditions of the risen Jesus calling the disciples his &3edpot (Mt 2819, Jn 2017); but the writer either did not know of them or preferred, as usual, to lead biblical proofs. He quotes three passages (vv.!% 15), the first from the 22nd psalm (v.?%) taken as a messianic cry, the only change made in the LXX text being the alteration of diuyynoopat into amayyeA® (a synonym, see Ps 5518). The Son associates himself with his adeAdot in the praise of God offered by their community (a thought which is echoed in 128 13}5), According to Justin Martyr (Dza/. 106), Ps 227% 23 foretells how the risen Jesus stood év pécw Trav ddehpadv atrod, Trav drooré\wy . . . Kal wer abrov dudywr turnoe tov Pedy, ws Kal ev Trois drouynuovevmacw Tv dmrocrd\wy dndodrat yeyernuévov, and in the Acta Joannzs (11) Jesus, before going out to Gethsemane, says, Let us sing a hymn to the Father (év péow 5é atros yevd- fevos). The couplet is quoted here for the sake of the first line; the second fills it out. Our author only uses ékxAynota (12?) of the heavenly host, never in its ordinary sense of the ‘‘ church.” The second quotation (v.18) is from Is 817 écopat memoubds (a periphrastic future) ém’ aéré, but the writer prefixes éyd to éoouo. for emphasis. The insertion of épet by the LXX at the beginning of Is 8!” helped to suggest that the words were not spoken by the prophet himself. The fact that Jesus required to put faith in God proves that he was a human being like ourselves (see 127). In Philo trustful hope towards God is the essential mark of humanity ; e.g. guod det. pot. 38 (on Gn 46), rod dé kara Mwvofy avOpwrov didbeots ux fs eri Tov bvTws dvTa Gedy EXmifovons. The third quotation (v.!%») is from the words which immedi- ately follow in Is 8!8, where the LXX breaks the Hebrew sentence into two, the first of which is quoted for his own purposes by the writer. The maiSia are God’s children, the fellow viot of Christ. It is too subtle to treat, with Zimmer, the three quotations as (a) a resolve to proclaim God, as a man to men; (4) a resolve to trust God amid the sufferings incurred in his mission, and (c) an anticipation of the reward of that mission. On the other hand, to omit the second kai wadw as a scribal gloss (Bentley) would certainly improve the sense and avoid the necessity of splitting up an Isaianic quotation into two, the first of which is not strictly apposite. But «at maw is similarly?! 1 Tt is a literary device of Philo in making quotations (cp. guzs rer. div. 1) 5 34 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 13, 14. used in 10°° ; it is more easy to understand why such words should be omitted than inserted; and the deliberate addition of éy« in the first points to an intentional use of the sentence as indirectly a confession of fellow-feeling with men on the part of the Son. The same words of the 22nd psalm are played upon by the Od. Sol 314: ‘Cand he (z.e. messiah or Truth) lifted up his voice to the most High, and offered to Him the sons that were with him (or, in his hands).” In v.}4 xexouwdvykev (here alone in the NT) takes the classical genitive, as in the LXX. An apt classical parallel occurs in the military writer Polyaenus (S¢ra¢eg. ili. 11. 1), where Chabrias tells his troops to think of their foes merely as avOpwros aipa Kal gapka €xovol, Kal THS aiTHs Pioews uly Kexowwvykdow. The following phrase mapamAynotws (= “similarly,” ze. almost “‘ equally ” or “also,” as, eg., in Maxim. Tyr. vii. 2, kat éoriv kai 6 apywv TOAEWS Mépos, Kal ol apyouevor TaparAnciws) peTésxev . . . va KTA, answers to the thought of #Aarrwpyevov . . . dua 7d waOypa KrA. above. ‘The verb is simply a synonym for kowvwvetvy; in the papyri and the inscriptions peréxew is rather more common, but there is no distinction of meaning -between the two. This idea (tva xrA.) of crushing the devil as the wielder of death is not worked out by the writer. He alludes to it in passing as a belief current in his circle, and it must have had some context in his mind; but what this scheme of thought was, we can only guess. Evidently the devil was regarded as having a hold upon men somehow, a claim and control which meant death for them. One clue to the meaning is to be found in the religious ideas popularized by the Wisdom of Solomon, in which it is pretty clear that man was regarded as originally immortal (118-14), that death did not form part of God’s scheme at the beginning, and that the devil was responsible for the introduction of death into the world (27% 74); those who side with the devil encounter death (epaovow b€ adrov of THs éxeivov pepidos ovres). which they bring upon themselves as a result of their sins Robertson Smith (Zxfosttor*, iii. pp. 76 f.) suggests another ex- planation, viz., that Jesus removes the fear of death by acting as our Highpriest, since (cp. Nu 18°) the OT priests were respon- sible for averting death from the people, ‘‘the fear of death ’ being ‘‘specially connected with the approach of an impure worshipper before God.” This certainly paves the way for v.47, but it does not explain the allusion to the devil, for the illustra- tion of Zech 35! is too remote. Corroborations of this idea are to be found in more quartersthan one. (a) There is the rabbinic notion that the angel of death has the power of inflicting death, according to Pes. Kahana, 32. 1894; Mechilta, 72@ on Ex 20” (where Ps 82° is applied to Israel at Sinai, since obedience to the Torah would have exempted them from the power of the angel of death), the angel of death being identified with the devil. (4) There is also the apocalyptic hope that II, 14, 15.] THE FEAR OF DEATH 35 messiah at the end would crush the power of the devil, a hope expressed in the second-century conclusion (Freer-Codex) to Mark, where the risen Christ declares that ‘‘ the limit (or term, 6 Spos) of years for Satan’s power has now expired.” (c) Possibly the author assumed and expanded Paul’s view of death as the divine punishment for sin executed by the devil, and of Christ’s death as a satisfaction which, by semoving this curse of the law, did away with the devil’s hold on sinful mortals. Theodoret’s explanation (Dz7a/. iii.) is that the sinlessness of Christ’s human nature freed human nature from sin, which the devil had employed to enslave men: éme:d} yap Tiwwpla TOV dpap- THKkdTwv 0 Odvaros Fr, TO 6é cHua TH Kupiaxdv ovk €xov apmaprias kndrAda 6 rapa Tov Geiov vduov 6 Odvaros ddlkws eEjpracev, dvéornoe uev mpOTov Td Tapavduws katacxebév’ &reira 5é kal rots évdixws kaberpyuévors Uréoxero Thy amTaddayHy. The force of the paradox in 814 toG @avdrou (to which the Armenian version needlessly adds airov) is explained by Chrysostom: 6 ob éxparnoev 6 diaBoAos, dia rovTov HrTyOy. As the essence of owrypia is life, its negative aspect naturally involves emancipation from death. “Eye 76 kpdros tod Pavarov means to wield the power of death, z.e. to have control of death. éxetv TO Kparos with the genitive in Greek denoting lordship in a certain sphere, e.g. Eurip. e/ena, 68 (ris ravd’ épupvav dwparwv éxet Kpadros;). “Amadddgn goes with dovdrcias (as in Joseph. Anz. 13. 13 (363), THs td Tols éxPpois adrods dovAcias . . . azad- Aarrew, etc.), which is thrown to the end of the sentence for emphasis, after doo. . . . 7oav which qualifies rovrous. “Evoxou is a passive adjective, equivalent to éveyouevor, “bound by” (as in Demosthenes, 1229), and goes with @0fw @avarov, which is not a causal dative. “Ooo in Hellenistic Greek is no more than the ordinary relative of. Awd wavtds tod CAv, not simply in old age, as Musonius (ed. Hense, xvii.) thinks: kal 16 ye a@Audrarov mov tov Biov Tots yépovow atrd éotiv, 6 Tod Oavarov Pdfos. Aristeas (130, 141, 168) uses dc’ oAov rod hy, but da ravrds Tod énv is an unparalleled (in NT Greek) instance of an attribute in the same case being added to the infinitive with a preposition. There is a classical parallel in the Platonic 61a wavrds rod elvat (Parmenides, 152E); but ro mv had already come to be equivalent to 6 Bios. The enslaving power of fear in general is described by Xenophon in the Cyropaedia, ili. 1. 23f.: ote. ody te paddov Katadovrcvabar avOpwmrovs tov iaxupod pdBov; . . . ovTw TavTwv tov dewav 6 hoBos padiora KatarAynTre: Tas Wuxds. Here it is the fear of death, or rather of what comes after death, which is described. The Greek protest against the fear of death (cp. Epict. ili. 36. 28), as unworthy of the wise and good, is echoed by Philo (guod omnis probus liber, 3, émawvetrat mapa tow 6 TpipeTpov exetvo Tomnoas’ ‘ris eat dovAos, TOU Gavety Appovtis dy ;” as pada cvviddav 7d axdAovfov. “YreAaBe yap, dre ovdey ovTw Sovrodabar méduxe Sidvovav, @s TO ert Gavdtw déos, Evexa TOD Tpds ro fyv ivépov). But the fear persisted, as we see from writers 36 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 15, 16. like Seneca (“‘ optanda mors est sine metu mortis mori,” Z7voades, 869) and Cicero; the latter deals with the fear of death in De Finibus, v. 11, aS an almost universal emotion (“‘fere sic affici- untur omnes”), Lucretius as a rationalist had denounced it magnificently in the De Rerum Natura, which “is from end to end a passionate argument against the fear of death and the superstition of which it was the basis. The fear which he combated was not the fear of annihilation, but one with which the writer of this Epistle could sympathize, the fear of what might come after death; ‘aeternas quoniam poenas in morte timendum est’ (i. 111)” (Wickham). . The fear of death as death (cp. Harnack’s History of Dogma, ili. 180) has been felt. even by strong Christians like Dr. Johnson. But our author has more in view. Seneca’s epistles, for example, are thickly strewn with counsels against the fear of death; he remonstrates with Lucilius on the absurdity of it, discusses the legitimacy of suicide, if things come to the worst, points out that children and lunatics have no such fear (Z/. xxxvi. 12), and anticipates most of the modern arguments against this terror. Nevertheless, he admits that it controls human life to a remarkable extent, even though it is the thought of death, not death itself, that we dread (Zp. xxx 17); he confesses that if you take anyone, young, middle-aged, or elderly, ‘‘you will find them equally afraid of death” (xxii. 14). And his deepest consolation is that death cannot be a very serious evil, because it is the last evil of all (“quod extremum est,” £/. iv. 3). Now the author of IIpds ‘EBpaiovs sees more beyond death than Seneca. ‘‘ After death, the judgment.” The terror which he notes in men is inspired by the fact that death is not the final crisis (9?’). “ Ultra (ze. post mortem) neque curae neque gaudio locum esse,” said Sallust. It was because a primitive Christian did see something “ ultra mortem,” that he was in fear, till his hope reassured him (9*8). It is noteworthy that here (vv.!* 15) and elsewhere our author, not un- like the other 6:dacxados who wrote the epistle of James, ignores entirely the idea of the devil as the source of temptation ; he does not even imply the conception of the devil, as 1 Peter does, as the instigator of persecution. In one of his terse parentheses the writer now (v.16) adds, od yap Symou dyyéAwv émAapBdverar. Arzov is the classical term for ‘‘it need hardly be said” or ‘‘of course,” and émAapBaver bar means ‘‘to succour” (Sir 41! 4 codia viots éavty aviwoerv, Kat érikapBaverar tov Cyrovvrwy avryv). If it meant “seize” or “orip,” Odvaros (z.e. either death, or the angel of death, cp. v.14) might be taken as the nominative, the verse being still a parenthesis. This idea, favoured by some moderns, seems to lie behind the Syriac version (cp. A. Bonus, Zefository Times, xxxiii. pp. 234-236); but érAauBdveoOar here corresponds to II, 16, 17.) THE AID OF JESUS 57 BonPijoa in v.18, and is used in the same good sense as in the other quotation in 8%. The words édA\a onéppatos “ABpadp émudapBdvera, may be a reminiscence of Is 41% where God reassures Israel: oméppa “ABpadu... ov avteAaBounv. The archaic phrase was perhaps chosen, instead of a term like avOpH7wv,! on account of Abraham’s position as the father of the faithful (see 118). Paul had already claimed it as a title for all Christians, irrespective of their birth: od« é “Iovdatos ovde "EAAnv . . . ei O€ tpets Xpiorod, dpa tov “ABpaau omréppa éoreé (Gal 378 2), and our author likes these archaic, biblical peri- phrases. He repeats émiAapPBdverar after “ABpadu to make a rhetorical antistrophe (see Introd. p. lvii). It is a warning against the habit of taking the Greek fathers as absolute authorities for the Greek of IIpds ‘ES8patous, that they never suspected the real sense of értAauBdverat here. To them it meant ‘‘appropriates” (the nature of). When Castellio (Chatillon), the sixteenth century scholar, first pointed out the true meaning, Beza pleasantly called his opinion a piece of cursed impudence (‘‘execranda Castellionis audacia qui émi:AauBdverac convertit ‘opitulatur,’ non modo falsa sed etiam inepta interpretatione”). The mere fact that the Greek fathers and the versions missed the point of the word is a consideration which bears, ¢.g., upon the interpretation of a word like vmécracis in 34 and 11}, The thought of vv.1+ © is now resumed in v.!"; 60ev (a particle never used by Paul) GewWev (answering to épezer) kata mdévra (emphatic by position) rots dseApots dpowwOAvar— resembling them in reality, as one brother resembles another (so Zest. NMaphtali 18 opows pov jv xara ravta “Iwond). In what follows, éXejpov? is put first for emphasis (as the writer is about to speak of this first), and goes like motés with dpxiepeds. “‘Quae verba sic interpretor: ut misericors esset, ideoque fidelis,” Calvin argues. But this sequence of thought is not natural; loyalty to God’s purpose no doubt involved compassion for men, but Christ was aioros as he endured stedfastly the temptations incurred in his reAciwos as dpynyds. He suffered, but he never swerved in his vocation. Nor can mords here mean “reliable” (Seeberg, Der Tod Christi, 17), t.e. reliable be- cause merciful; the idea of his sympathy as an encouragement to faith is otherwise put (cp. 4!4f 121"). The idea of tederdoar in v.19 is being explicitly stated ; the sufferings of Christ on earth had a reflex influence upon himself as Saviour, fitting him for the proper discharge of his vocation. But the vocation is described from a new angle of vision; instead of dpxnyos or 6 ayialwv, Jesus is suddenly (see Introd. p. xxv) called dpytepevs, 1 Cosmas Indicopleustes correctly interpreted the phrase: rovréo7e gwuaros Kal Pux7s AoyiK7js (372 B). 2 The seer in Enoch 4o!"!" has a vision of the four angels who intercede for Israel before God ; the first is ‘‘ Michael, the merciful and longsuffering.” 38 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS penal? evidently a term familiar to the readers (dpxvepéa rHs dpodoyias npav, 32). The prestige of the highpriest in the later Judaism is plain in rabbinic (e.g. Berachoth, Joma) tradition and also in apocalyptic. The Maccabean highpriests assumed the title of iepevs TOU Peod Tod tWiorov (Ass. Mosis, 61; Jubilees, 321), and the ritual of the day of atonement, when he officiated on behalf of the people, was invested with a special halo. This is the point of the allusion here, to the dpxtepevs expiating the sins of the people. Philo had already used the metaphor to exalt the functions of his Logos as a mediator: 6 8 atrés ixérys pev éote tov Ovntov Kypatvovtos del mpos TO apGaprov, mpecPevT7s dé Tod WYEMOVOS mpos TO UrHKoov (Guts rerum div. heres, 42). But, while the term ixérys does imply some idea of intercession, this is not prominent in Philo’s cosmological and metaphysical scheme, as it is in our epistle, which carefully avoids the Philonic idea that men can propitiate God (fovAerat yap airov 6 vopos petLovos peoipacbar picews 7) Kat avUpwror, eyyutépw TporovTa THs Oeias, peOdprov, ei det TaANOes A€yerv, apdoty, iva dia pécov Twos avOpwrot pev itaoKdvrar Gedy, Geos dé Tas xdpitas avOpdrroas brodiakovw Tivi xpwpevos dpéyn Kat xopynyyn, De Spec. Leg. i. 12). Again, Philo explains (de sacerdot. 12) that the highpriest was forbidden to mourn, when a relative died, iva... xpetttwy oiktov yevouevos, GAvros eis det diate}. This freedom from the ordinary affections of humanity was part of his nearer approxi- mation to the life of God (éyyvtépw mpooidvra ris Oetas [gvcews]). But our author looks at the function of Christ as apxvepevs differently ; the first word to be used about him in this connexion is éAejuwy, and, before passing on to develop the idea of wuords, the writer adds (v./8) another word upon the practical sympathy of Christ. In resembling his ddeAdol xara wavra Christ wérovOev weipacbeis. His death had achieved for them an emancipation from the dread of death (v.!*); by entering into glory he had expiated the sins of God’s People, thereby securing for them a free and intimate access to God. But the process by means of which he had thus triumphed was also of value to men; it gave him the experience which enabled him by sympathy to enter into the position of those who are tempted as he was, and to furnish them with effective help. The con- nexion between v.!§ (with its ydp) and v.!7 does not rest upon the idea of Christ as éAenpwv kal motos apxepevs, as though the effective help received from Christ were a constant proof that he expiates sins, 7.e¢. maintains us in the favour and fellowship of God (Seeberg). It rests on the special idea suggested by éXenuwv. ‘His compassion is not mere pity for men racked . . . by pain in itself, however arising; it is compassion for men tempted by sufferings towards sin or unbelief” (A. B. II. I7,18.] THE TEMPTATIONS OF JESUS 39 Davidson). What the writer has specially in mind is the agony in Gethsemane (cp. 57) as the culminating experience of sorrow caused by the temptation to avoid the fear of death or the cross. The adverbial accusative 1a mpds tov Oedv here, as in 5}, is a fairly common LXX phrase (e.g. Ex 41° (of Moses), od d€ aire éon Ta pds TOV Oedv). “INdokecPar Tas dpaptias is also a LXX phrase, an expression for pardon or expiation, as in Ps 654 (ras aceBelas nuav ov ikdoy), which never occurs again in the NT. When the verb (middle voice) is used of God’s dealings with men, it generally takes the person of the sinner as its object in the dative (as Lk 18!%, the only other NT instance of iAdoxeoOar) or else sins in the dative (rats duapriats is actually read here by A 5. 33. 623. 913, Athan. Chrys. Bentley, etc.). This removal of sins as an obstacle to fellowship with God comes under the function of 6 dy.afwy. The thought reappears in 7% and in 1 Jn 2? (kai airos iAaopos éotw). 6 dads (708 God) is the writer’s favourite biblical expression for the church, from the beginning to the end ; he never distinguishes Jews and Gentiles. The introduction of the wepacpot of Jesus (v.'8) is as abrupt as the introduction of the dpyvepevs idea, but is thrown out by way of anticipation. *Ev @ ydp = év tovrw év & (causal) or ort, explaining not the sphere, but the reason of his “help,” mémovev attds metpacbeis—the participle defining the rdécyev (a term never applied to Jesus by Paul): he suffered by his tempta- tions, the temptations specially in view being temptations to avoid the suffering that led to the cross. This is the situation of the readers. ‘They are in danger of slipping into apostasy, of giving up their faith on account of the hardships which it in- volved. Ot zetpafdpnevor are people tempted to flinch and falter under the pressure of suffering. Life is hard for them, and faith as hard if not harder. Courage, the writer cries, Jesus under- stands; he has been through it all, he knows how hard it is to bear suffering without being deflected from the will of God. Grammatically, the words might also read: ‘For he himself, having been tempted by what he suffered, is able to help those who are tempted.” The sense is really not very different, for the particular temptations in view are those which arise out of the painful experience of having God’s will cross the natural inclination to avoid pain. But the zepacpot of Jesus were not simply due to what he suffered. He was strongly tempted by experiences which were not painful at all—e.g. by the re- monstrance of Simon Peter at Caesarea Philippi. As Ritschl puts it, ‘‘Christ was exposed to temptation simply because a temptation is always bound up with an inclination which is at the outset morally legitimate or permissible. It was the impulse, 40 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ [II. 18-III. 1. in itself lawful, of self-preservation which led to Christ’s desire to be spared the suffering of death. And this gave rise to a tempta- tion to sin, because the wish collided with his duty. in his vocation. Christ, however, did not consent to this temptation. He renounced his self-preservation, because he assented to the Divine disposal of the end of his life as a consequence of his vocation” (Rechtfertigung u. Versdhnung, ill. 507; Eng. tr. p. 573). On the suffering that such temptation involved, see below on 5°. Bonbety and tddoxeoOat tats dyaptiats occur side by side in the prayer of Ps 799 (LXX). Are they synonymous here? Is the meaning of 70 iAdoxeoOar Tas duaptias Tod Aaovd that Christ constantly enables us to overcome the temptations that would keep us at a distance from God or hinder us from being at peace with God? (so, e.g., Kurtz and M‘Leod Campbell, Zhe Mature of the Atonement, pp. 172-174). The meaning is deeper. The help conveyed by the sympathy of Jesus reaches back to a sacrificial relationship, upon which everything turns. Hence the ideas of éXehypwv and mords are now developed, the latter in 3°, the former in 4146, 36418 being a practical. application of what is urged in 3, But the writer does not work out. the thought of Christ as morés in connexion with his function as apxvepevs, even though he mentions the latter term at the outset of his appeal, in which the stress falls on the expiatory work of Christ. 1 Holy brothers (dyto = of aryrafduevor, 2"), you who participate in a heavenly calling, look at Jesus then (60ev in the light of what has just been said), at the apostle and highpriest of our confession ; * he zs *‘ faithful” to Him who appointed him. For while ‘* Moses” also was ‘‘ faithful in every department of God's house,” * Jesus ( ovros, as in 10!) has been adjudged greater glory (dds) than (rapa, as 14) Moses, inasmuch as the founder of a house enjoys greater honour (TyLny, a literary synonym for deny) than the house itself. 4(Every house ts founded by some one, but God ts the Sounder of all.) 5 Besides, while “* Moses” was ‘‘ fatth{ul in every department of God’s house” as an attendant—by way of witness to the coming revelation—® Christ ts faithful as a son over God’s house. In v.? 6A@ (om. p!® B sah boh Cyr. Amb.) may be a gloss from v.5, In v.* the emphasis on mAelovos is better maintained by odros ddEys (8 A B CDP uf Chrys.) than by 66&ns ofros (p'#? K L M 6. 33. 104. 326. 1175. 1288 vg) or by the omission of odros altogether (467 arm Basil). In v.4 rdvra has been harmonized artificially with 1° 2!° by the addition of rd (C° L P © 104. 326. 1175. 1128 Athan.). For the first time the writer addresses his readers, and as AdeApot Gyror (only here in NT, for dyfous in 1 Th 5?" is a later insertion), KAyoews émroupaviou pétoxot (64 etc., cp. Ps 119°8 péroyxos eyo clue mavTwv TOV poBoupevor oe, Ep. Arist. 207; de Mundo, 4016). In Ph 3!* the dvw xAjows is the prize conferred at the end upon Christian faith and faithfulness. Here there may be a side allusion to 2! (ddeAdovs adrots xadeiv). In katavojoare (a verb used in this general sense by Z/. Aristeas, 3, mpos 26 III. 1.] JESUS THE APOSTLE 4! mepiepyws Ta Geta Katavoeiv) ktA., the writer summons his readers to consider Jesus as miocrds; but, instead of explaining why or how Jesus was loyal to God, he uses this quality to bring out two respects (the first in vv.**4, the second in vv.>-6) in which Jesus outshone Moses, the divinely-commissioned leader and lawgiver of the People in far-off days, although there is no tone of disparagement in the comparison with Moses, as in the com- parison with the angels. . In the description of Jesus as tov &mdéotodov Kal dpxvepea Tis dpodoylas judy, duoAoyia is almost an equivalent for “‘our re- ligion,” as in 4!4 (cp. 10%8).! ‘Through the sense of a vow (LXX) or of a legal agreement (papyri and inscriptions), it had naturally passed into the Christian vocabulary as a term for the common and solemn confession or creed of faith. “Hyév is emphatic. In “our religion” it is Jesus who is dmdoToAos Kai dpyuepevs, not Moses. ‘This suits the context better than to make the antithesis one between the law and the gospel (Theophyl. od yap tis Kara vopov AaTpeElas apxvepevs Eortiv, GAAA THS HueTepas wicTews). Possibly the writer had in mind the Jewish veneration for Moses which found expression during the second century in a remark of rabbi Jose ben Chalafta upon this very phrase from Numbers (Sifre, § 110): ‘God calls: Moses ‘ faithful in all His house,’ and thereby he ranked higher than the ministering angels themselves.” The use of dmdédotodos as an epithet for Jesus shows “the fresh cre- ative genius of the writer and the unconventional nature of his style” (Bruce). Over half a century later, Justin (in Afol. 11) called Jesus Christ rod warpos mavtwv kal deorotov Geod vids Kai ardatoAos av, and in Afol. 1% described him as adyyeAos Kai dréaTtoAos’ aitos yap admayyéA\Aae Oca det yvwoOHvat, Kal dzoc- TéeAXcTal, pyviowr doa ayyéAXerat (the connexion of thought here possibly explains the alteration of duyyjoopuar into dayyeA@ in He 2). Naturally Jesus was rarely called dyyedos; but it was all the easier for our author to call Jesus drdoroXos, as he avoids the term in its ecclesiastical sense (cp. 2%). For him it carries the usual associations of authority ; ardcrodos is Ionic for mpec- Bevryjs, not a mere envoy, but an ambassador or representative sent with powers, authorized to speak in the name of the person who has dispatched him. Here the allusion is to 23, where the parallel is with the Sinaitic legislation, just as the allusion to Jesus as dpxuepeds recalls the 6 dydfwv of 24+17, On the other hand, it is not so clear that any explicit antithesis to Moses is implied in dpxtepéa, for, although Philo had invested Moses with 1 Had it not been for these other references it might have been possible to take 7. 6. 7. here as=‘‘ whom we confess.” The contents of the duodroyia are suggested in the beliefs of 6'%, which form the fixed principles and stand. ards of the community, the Truth (107°) to which assent was given at baptisra, 42 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [III. 2-4. highpriestly honour ( pracm. et poen. 9» TvyxXavel . . . apxiepwor'vns, de vita Mosis, i. 1, éyevero ‘yap mpovoia Oeov . . . apxeepevs), this is never prominent, and it is never worked out in ‘‘ Hebrews.” The reason why they are to look at Jesus is (v.?) his faithful- NESS TO TrowjoavTe adroy, where movely means “to appoint ” to an office (as I S 12° KUptos 6 moinoas TOV Mwvonv kal tov *“Aapoy, Mk 3} xal éroinoev Sddexa). This faithfulness puts him above Moses for two reasons. First (vv.2-4), because he is the founder of the House or Household of God, whereas Moses is part of the House. The text the writer has in mind is Nu 12? (ovx ovrws 6 Oeparwv pov Mavojs’ év dAw TO oikw prov micros éotwv), and. the argument of v.°, where otkos, like our “house,” includes the sense of household or family,! turns on the assumption that Moses be- longed to the otxos in which he served so faithfully. How Jesus. “founded” God’s household, we are not told. But there was an otxos Geod before Moses, as is noted later in 112%, a line of peo Pvrepot who lived by faith; and their existence is naturally referred to the eternal Son. The founding of the Household is part and parcel of the creation of the ra mavra (17°). Kara- oxevacewv includes, of course (see 9”: 6), the arrangement of the ofxos (cp. Epict. i. 6. 7-10, where xatacxevafw 1s similarly used in the argument from design). The author then adds an edifying aside, in y.4, to explain how the ofxos was God’s (v.? airot), though Jesus had specially founded it. It would ease the connexion of thought if eds; meant (as in 18?) “divine” as applied to Christ (so, e.g., Cramer, M. Stuart), or if otros could be read for Oeds, as Blass actually proposes. But this is to rewrite the passage. Nor can we take airod in v.® as “‘Christ’s” ; there are not two Households, and as (v.4) does not mean “each” (so, 6.2. Reuss). Avrov in vv.25 and must mean ‘‘God’s.” He as creator is ultimately responsible for the House which, under him, Jesus founded and supervises. This was a commonplace of ancient thought. Justin, ¢.g., observes : Mevavdpw Te KOMLKD kal Tots ratra pjoace ravra Ppdfouev* pelfova yap Tov Snucoupyov Tov cKevafouevou dmepivato(Afol. 1°). It had been remarked by Philo (De Plant. 16): do yap 6 krnodpevos Td KTHA TOU KTHUaTOS dpuelywr kal TO memoinkos TOU yeyovdros, TocoUTW BaciNikwrepo dketvor, and in Legume A llegor. ili, 32 he argues that just as no one would ever suppose that a furnished mansion had been completed d&vev TEXY NS kal Onucoupyov, so anyone entering and studying the universe wotep els weylorny oixlay 7 wédty would naturally conclude that fv Kal éoriv 6 Totde Tod mavros Snuroupyds ¢ 6 Beds. The usual way of combining the thought of v.* with the context is indicated by Lactantius in proving the unity of the Father and the Son (dzuzn. zustit, iv. 29): ‘‘ When anyone has a son of whom he is specially fond (quem unice diligat), a son who is still in the house and under his father’s authority (in manu patris)—he may grant him the name and power of lord (nomen 1 Our author avoids (see on 2!) éxxAynala, unlike the author of 1 Ti 3!® who writes év olkw Oeov, tris early éxxAnaola Tod Geod. Xr. 5-6. | AL PLEA’ FOR) LOYALTY 43 domini potestatemque), yet by civil law (civili iure) the house is one, and one is called lord. So this world is one house of God, and the Son and the Father, who in harmony (unanimos) dwell in the world, are one God.” The second (56) proof of the superiority of Jesus to Moses is now introduced by xaé. It rests on the term Oepdmwv used of Moses in the context (as well as in Nu 111! 127-8 etc. ; of Moses and Aaron in Wis 10! 182!) ; @epawy is not the same as dodAos, but for our author it is less than vids, and he contrasts Moses as the Oeparwy év 7T@ oikw with Jesus as the Son ézi r6y olkov, ézi used as in 107! (iepéa péyayv émi Tov olkov Tod Geov) and Mt 2521-23 (éri éAtya Hs muxtos). Moses is “ egregius domesticus fidei tuae ” (Aug. Conf. xii. 23). The difficult phrase eis 75 paptipiov tov AahnOynoonevwy means, like 9%, that the position of Moses was one which pointed beyond itself to a future and higher revelation ; the tabernacle was a oxyjvn tod paptupiov (Nu 12°) in a deep sense. This is much more likely than the idea that the faith- fulness of Moses guaranteed the trustworthiness of anything he said, or even that Moses merely served to bear testimony of what God revealed from time to time (as if the writer was thinking of the words oropa kata otopa AaAjow aitd which follow the above- quoted text in Numbers). The writer now passes into a long appeal for loyalty, which has three movements (39719 41-10 411-18), “The first two are con- nected with a homily on Ps 95"!! as a divine warning against the peril of apostasy, the story of Israel after the exodus from Egypt being chosen as a solemn instance of how easy and fatal it is to forfeit privilege by practical unbelief. It is a variant upon the theme of 27:8, suggested by the comparison between Moses and Jesus, but there is no comparison between Jesus and Joshua ; for although the former opens up the Rest for the People of to-day, the stress of the exhortation falls upon the unbelief and disobedience of the People in the past. 6 Now we are this house of God (ob, from the preceding av’rod), ¢f we wall only keep confident and proud of our hope. * Therefore, as the holy Spirit says : ** Today, when (édv, as in 1 Jn 278) you hear his voice, 8 harden not (uh oxAnpbvyre, aor. subj. of negative entreaty) your hearts as at the Provocation, on the day of the Temptation in the desert, ® where (ob =brov as Dt 81°) your fathers put me to the proof, 10 and for forty years felt what I could do.” Therefore ‘I grew exasperated with that generation, I satd, ‘ They are always astray in thetr heart? ; they would not learn my ways ; 11 s9 (ws consecutive) 7 swore tn my anger ‘ they shall never (el =the emphatic negative ON in oaths) exter my Rest.” 12 Brothers, take care in case there 1s a wicked, unbelieving heart in any of you, moving you to apostatize from the living God. * Rather admonish one another (éavrovs=addAndous) dadly, so long as this word ‘* Today” zs uttered, that none of you may be decetved by sin and ‘‘ hardened.” 4 For we only 44, THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (III. 6-8. participate in Christ provided that we keep firm to the very end the confidence with whivh we started, © this word ever sounding tn our ears : seid oday, when you hear hts voice, harden not your hearts as at the Provocation.” 16 Who heard and yet ‘‘ provoked” him? Was it not all who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? “ And with whom was he exasperated for forty years? Was tt not with those who sinned, whose ‘‘corpses\ fell in the desert”? 38 And to whom “did he swear that they (sc. abrovs) would never enter his Rest”? To whom but those who disobeyed (aretOjoacwy, cp. Ac 19°)? 19 Thus (kat consecutive) we see it was owing to unbelief that they could not enter. In v.° (a) o@ is altered into ds by D* M 6. 424 Lat Lucifer, Ambr. Pris- cillian, probably owing to the erroneous idea that the definite article (supplied by 440. 2005) would have been necessary between of and olkas. (6) édy is assimilated to the text of v.!* by a change to édvrep in 8® AC D° K L W syr! Lucifer, Chrys. etc. (von Soden). (c) After éAmldos the words péxpr téXous BeBalay are inserted from v.!4 by a number of MSS; the shorter, correct text is preserved in p’® B 1739 sah eth Lucifer, Ambrose. V.% introduces the appeal, by a transition from ®. When Philo claims that wappyota is the mark of eee religion - (quis rer. ai. haeres, 4, TOUS pay ovv apabéct ouppipov NOVXLA, tows b€ é emory pens ediepevois Kal apa prrodecrorors dvaryKa.oTatov 7 Trappyaia xrnwa), he means by rappyoia the confidence which 1 is not afraid to pray aloud: cp. 726. 5 (wappycia dé pirias ovyyeves, eel mpos Tiva ay TLs 7) TpOs TOV EavToU Pirov Tappyotdacaito ;), where the prayers and remonstrances of Moses are explained as a proof that he was God’s friend. But here as elsewhere in the NT mappyotia has the broader meaning of “ confidence” which already appears in the LXX (e.g. in Job 27! py exer Twa mappyotar évavtiov avrov). This confidence is the outcome of the Christian éAris (for THs éAidos goes with r7Hv rappyoiay as well as with ro Kavxynpa); here as in 4/6 and 101% > it denotes the believing man’s attitude to a God whom he knows to be trustworthy. The idea of 1d katynpa ths éAmidos is exactly that of Ro 5? (kavyopela er eAmids THs O0Ens Tod Geod), and of a saying like Ps 5}? (kat edppavOntwoav éri coi ravtes ot €AriCovtes emi Ge). Avé in y.” goes most naturally with ph oxAnpuryte (v.8), the thought of which recurs in v.! as the central thread. The alternative, to take it with BXémere in v.}2, which turns the whole quotation into a parenthesis, seems to blunt the direct force of the admonition; it makes the parenthesis far too long, and empties the second 8&6 of its meaning. BdAéwere is no more abrupt in v.!? than in 12%; it introduces a sharp, sudden warning, without any particle like ovy or de, and requires no pre- vious term like 6.0. The quotation is introduced as in ro! by “the holy Spirit” as the Speaker, a rabbinic idea of inspiration. The quotation itself is from Ps 95‘ which in A runs as follows: 1 «@da in this sense is from Nu 14%", a passage which the writer hag in mind. ITI. 9.] A WARNING 45 oHpEpov eav THS Huwvyns avTovd axovoyTe, pn okAnpivy7Te Tas Kapdias bwOv ws ev TH TapamiKpaTpBOoO KATA THV Huepav TOU TELPAaTMOv ev TH epHyw' ob éreipacav! ot matEepes Uporv, eOokimacav pe Kal Woy TA Epya pov. TETTEPAKOVTA ETH TPOTwHXOLCA TH yevea exeivy,? Kat eirov'® aet* rrAavOvtar TH Kapdia, avrot O€ ovK éyvwoav Tas ddovs pov. ws @uooa €v TH Opyy pov, ei eiceXevoovTat eis THY KaTamavoly pov. In vv.® 1°, though he knew (v.!7) the correct connexion of the LXX (cp. v.!"*), he alters it here for his own purpose, taking Tesoapdkovta éty With what precedes instead of with what follows, inserting 6.6 (which crept into the text of R in the psalm) before mpoow Oca, for emphasis, and altering éSoxipacay pe into év doxe- pacia.© The LXX always renders the place-names “ Meriba” .and ‘‘ Massa” by generalizing moral terms, here by zapamuxpac pos and zretpacos, the former only here in the LXX (Aquila, 1 Sam 15°3; ‘Theodotion, Prov 1711). The displacement of teocepdxovta éry was all the more feasible as eidov ra epya pov meant for him the experience of God’s punishing indignation. (Teooapdxovta, is better attested than teooepdxovra (Moulton, ii. 66) for the first century.) There is no hint that the writer was conscious of the rabbinic tradition, deduced from this psalm, that the period of messiah would last for forty years, still less that he had any idea of comparing this term with the period between the crucifixion and 70 A.D. What he really does is to manipulate the LXX text in order to bring out his idea that the entire forty years in the desert were a “‘day of temptation,”® during which the People exasperated God. Hence (in v.°) he transfers the “forty years ” to eiSov Ta Epya pov, in order to emphasize the truth that the stay of the People in the desert was one long provocation of God ; for eidov 7a Epya pov is not an aggravation of their offence 1 x adds me (so T), which has crept (needlessly, for repdfew may be used absolutely as in 1 Co 10%) into the text of Hebrews through x* D° M vg pesh harkl boh arm Apollin. In some texts of Hebrews (p® 8 A B D* M 33. 424** vg Clem. Apollin.) this becomes (under the influence of the literal view of forty years ?) ravTy (éxelvy in C D° K L P syr sah boh arm eth Eus. Cyril, Chrys. ). 3 The Ionic form e?za (B) has slipped into some texts of Hebrews (A D 33. 206. 489. 1288. 1518. 1836). j 4 The LXX is stronger than the Hebrew; it appears to translate not the py of the MT, but o°y (cp. Flashar in Zezts. fiir alt, Wess., 1912, 84-85). 5 édoxiuacav (ue) is read in the text of Hebrews, by assimilation, in x° D° K L vg syr arm eth Apollin. Lucifer, Ambr, Chrys. etc. ze. EAOKI- MACIA was altered into EAOKIMACA. 6 The kard in kara Thy iyuépay (v.8) is temporal as in 11° 727, not ‘‘after the manner of” (‘* secundum,” vg). 46 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _[III. 9-12. (“though they felt what I could do for them”), but a reminder that all along God let them feel how he could punish them for. their disobedience. Finally, their long-continued obstinacy led him to exclude them from the land of Rest. This “ finally” does not mean that the divine oath of exclusion was pronounced at the end of the forty years in the desert, but that as the result of God’s experience he gradually killed off (v.1") all those who had left Egypt. This retribution was forced upon him by the conviction atroi dé ovk éyvwoav Tas ddovs pov (Z.e. would not learn my laws for life, cared not to take my road). The rabbinic interpretation of Ps 95 as messianic appears in the legend (T.B. Sanxhedrim, 98a) of R. Joshua ben Levi and Elijah. When the rabbi was sent by Elijah to messiah at the gates of Rome, he asked, ‘‘ Lord, when comest thou?” He answered, ‘‘ To-day.” Joshua returned to Elijah, who inquired of him: ‘‘What satd He to thee?” Joshua: ‘* Peace be with thee, son of Levi.” Elijah: “‘ Thereby He has assured to thee and thy father a prospect of attaining the world to come.” Joshua: ‘* But He has deceived me, - by telling me He would come to-day.” Elijah: *‘ Not so, what He meant was, To-day, tf you will hear His voice.” The severe view of the fate of the wilderness-generation also appears in Sanh. 110d, where it is proved that the generation of the wilderness have no part in the world to come, from Nu 14° and also from Ps 95 (as 7 swore tn my anger that they should not enter into my Rest). This was rabbi Akiba’s stern reading of the text. But rabbinic opinion, as reflected in the Mishna (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, i. 135 f.), varied on the question of the fate assigned to the generation of Israelites during the forty years of wandering in the desert. While some authorities took Ps 951! strictly, as if the ‘‘ rest”? meant the rest after death, and these Israelites were by the divine oath excluded from the world to come, others endeavoured to minimize the text; God’s oath only referred to the incredulous spies, they argued, or it was uttered in the haste of anger and recalled. In defence of the latter milder view Ps 50° was quoted, and Isa 35". Our author takes the sterner view, reproduced later by Dante (Purgatorio, xviii. 133-135), for example, who makes the Israelites an example of sloth; “‘the folk for whom the sea opened were dead ere Jordan saw the heirs of promise.” He never speaks of men ‘‘ tempting God,” apart from this quotation, and indeed, except in 1117, God’s meipacuds or probation of men is confined to the human life of Jesus. For 8&6 in v.!® Clem. Alex. (Protreff. 9) reads 8 3. MpoowyOifewy is a LXX term for the indignant loathing excited by some defiance of God’s will, here by a discontented, critical attitude towards him. In y.!! kardmauows is used of Canaan as the promised land of settled peace, as only in Dt 12° (ov yap nKate... eis THY KaTaravow) and 1 K 8° (etAoynrds Kiptos onpepov, os édwKxev KaTaravot TS Aa@ airod). The mystical sense is developed in 45, The application (vv.!2f) opens with Bdémere (for the classical pare) ph . . . €ora (as in Col 28 (Brérere py . . . Evra), the reason for the future being probably “ because the verb eiut has no aorist, which is the tense required,” Field, Votes on Trans/la- tion of N.T., p. 38) év te buav—the same concern for individuals III. 12-14. | A WARNING 47 as in 44 10% 1215xapdSia dmotias (genitive of quality—a Semitism here). ’Azvoria must mean more than “incredulity ” ; the assonance with d@roorjvar was all the more apt as dmioria denoted the unbelief which issues in action, év t@ dtootqvai—the idea as in Ezk 208 kal aréotnocav dm éuot, Kat ovk nbéAnoav eigaxovoa pov, though the preposition dé was not needed, as may be seen, ¢.g., in Wis 3!9 (of . . . tov Kupiov drooravres). Our author is fond of this construction, the infinitive with a preposition. “lhe living God” suggests what they lose by their apostasy, and what they bring upon themselves by way of retribution (1081), especially the latter (cp. 412). There is no real distinction between 6cov Cavros and tov Geov Cévtos, for the article could be dropped, as in the case of Oeds zaryp and kvpios “Incovs, once the expression became stamped and current. In v.13 wapakadette . . . Kad Exdotyv Huepay (cp. Zest. Levi 98 nv kad éxdorynv ypépav ovveti~wy we) emphasizes the keen, constant care of the community for its members, which is one feature of the epistle. In dyxpts 06 (elsewhere in NT with aorist or future), which is not a common phrase among Attic historians and orators, aypis is a Hellenistic form of dyps (p!? M) used sometimes when a vowel followed. Xypepov is “ God’s instant men call years” (Browning), and the paronomasia in kadetrat! . . . mapa- kadette led the writer to prefer caXeirat to a term like kypvooerat The period (see 4”) is that during which God’s call and oppor- tunity still hold out, and the same idea is expressed in éy t@ héyeoOar Enpepov «rr. (v.15). é§ budy is sufficiently emphatic as it stands, without being shifted forward before 1s (B D K Ldeete. harkl Theodt. Dam.) in order to contrast Gpets with of matépes Sudy (v.9). As for 4 dpapria, it is the sin of apostasy (12*), which like all sin deceives men (Ro 714), in this case by persuading them that they will be better off if they allow themselves to abandon the exacting demands of God. The responsibility of their position is expressed in tva ph oxdnpuvOq, a passive with a middle meaning ; men can harden themselves or let lower considerations harden: them against the call of God. As Clement of Alexandria (Protrept. ix.) explains: épare tHv dreArv’ opare THY mpotpoTny’ Opare THY TYnHv. Ti di OvV ETL THY Xapw Eis dpynv peTaAAACOOpEV ...; peyddyn yap THs érayyedias adrov 4 xapis, ‘av orpepov THS pwr7s aiTov axovoapev ”* TO b€ onpepov THS Pwvys airod avéerat THY HMEpay, éot av 7 onpepov 6vopdalyrat. In v.14 péroxot tod Xpiotod (which is not an equivalent for the Pauline év Xpror@, but rather means to have a personal interest in him) answers to pétoxot kAjoews émoupaviou in v.! and to petoxous Tvedpatos dyiou in 64; yeydévapev betrays the predilection of the writer for yéyova rather than its equivalent eivar. ’Edvmep 1 The common confusion between at and e led to the variant xadeire (A C). 48 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [III. 14-19. an intensive particle (for édv, v.°) thy dpxny tis broctdcews (genitive of apposition)—~z.e. “ our initial confidence” (the idea of 10%2)—xKatdoxwpev (echoing v.°), The misinterpretation of imootdcews as (Christ’s) ‘‘substance”? led to the addition of avrod (A 588. 623. 1827. 1912 vg). But trdcracrs here as in tt! denotes a firm, confident conviction or resolute hope (in LXX, eg. Ru 122 éorw poe irdcracis rod yevnOjvar pe avdpt, rendering mipn, which is translated by éAzis in Pr 11°), with the associations of steadfast patience under trying ciscontga aie This psychological meaning was already current (cp.aaieCaror 1. . KaTarxuvGGpev nucis ev TH Drootace TavTy), alongside of the physical or metaphysical. What a man bases himself on, as he confronts the future, is his txdoracis, which here in sound and even (by contrast) in thought answers to droorjvat. . It is possible to regard v.!* as a parenthesis, and connect ev TH éyeoOar (v.1°) closely with Tapakaheite or tva ph. . dpaptias (v.18), but this is less natural ; év 7@ A€yeo Oar (“ while it is said,” asin Ps 424 év 7@ A€yeoOar) Connects easily and aptly with AD ee and vyv.!+ 5 thus carry on positively the thought of v.18, viz. that the writer and his readers are still within the sound of God’s call to his oikos to be motos. The pointed questions which now follow (vv.!618) are a favourite device of the diatribe style. Mapamxpatvew (Hesych wapopyilew)? in v.16 seems to have been coined by the LXX to express “rebellious” with a further sense of provoking or angering God; e.g. Dt 3127 rapamixpatvovres Are Ta mpos TOV Hedy (translating 715), and Dt 3216 ev BdeAvypaow atray raperixpavav pe (translating oy3). The sense of “ disobey ” recurs occasionally in the LXX psalter (e.g. 10478, 106"'); indeed the term involves a disobedience which stirs up the divine anger against rebels, the flagrant disobedience (cp. wapaBaivew for M7) in Dt 1%, Nu 27!*) which rouses exasperation in God. *AXN’, one rhetorical question being answered by another (as Lk 178), logically presupposes tuvés, but rives must be read in the previous question. By writing mavtes the writer does not stop to allow for the faith- ful minority, as Paul does(1 Co 107% tives adrv). In the grave conclusion (v.!®) 8° dmortiay (from v.!*) is thrown to the end for the sake of emphasis. But, the author continues (4), the promised rest is still available; it is open to faith, though only to faith (1%), No matter how certainly all has been done upon God’s part (*°), and no matter how sure some human beings are to share his 1 Another early error was to regard it as ‘‘ our substance,” so that 7 dpx7 Ths vrocrdgews meant faith as ‘‘the beginning of our true nature” (a view already current in Chrysostom). 2 In Dt 3278 it is parallel to rapofvvew ; cp. Flashar’s discussion in Ze#t- schrift fiir alt, Wiss., 1912, 185 f. It does not always require an object (God). Iv. 1.] THE REST OF GOD 49 Rest (v.°), it does not follow that we shall, unless we take warning by this failure of our fathers in the past and have faith in God. Such is the urgent general idea of this paragraph. But the argument is compressed ; the writer complicates it by defining the divine Rest as the sabbath-rest of eternity, and also by introducing an allusion to Joshua. That is, he (a) explains God’s xataravors in Ps 95 by the caBBaticpes of Gn 2%, and then (2) draws an inference from the fact that the psalm-promise is long subsequent to the announcement of the caBBariopos. He assumes that there is only one Rest mentioned, the xatazavors into which God entered when he finished the work of creation, to which of warépes tuav were called under Moses, and to which Christians are now called. They must never lose faith in it, whatever be appearances to the contrary. 1 Well then, as the promise of entrance into hts Rest zs still left to us, let us be afraid of. anyone being judged to have missed tt. * For (kai yap=etenim) we have had the good news as well as they (éxeivo.= 3°) ; only, the message they heard was of no use to them, because tt did not meet with faith in the hearers. * For we do ‘‘ enter the Rest” by our faith: according to hts word, ‘© As J swore in my anger, they shall never enter my Rest”’— altnough ‘‘his works” were all over by the foundation of the world. 4 For he says somewhere about the seventh (sc. nuépas) day : **And God rested from all his works on the seventh day.” *And again im this (év rovtw, sc. Térw) passage, “‘they shall never enter my Rest.” 6 Since then zt is reserved (dmoXelrera:, a variant for ckaradeur. v. Ufone some she enter zt,” and since those who formerly got the good news fazled to ‘‘enter” owing to their disobedt- ence, The again fixes a day; ‘‘today”—as he saysin ‘ David” after so long an interval, and as has been already quoted: ** Today, when you hear hts voice, harden not your hearts.” 8 Thus if Joshua had given them Rest, God would not speak later about another day. There ts a sabbath-Kkest, then, reserved (darohelrerat, as in ®) ste// for the People of God (for once “k!ms Lucif.), or Tois dkovoGeiow (1912 vg Theod.-Mops.), or rots dxovovow (1891). The absence of any allusion elsewhere to the faithful minority (Caleb, Joshua) tells decisively against ouyxexpacuévous (‘‘since they did not mix with the believing hearers”); for the writer (see above) never takes them into account, and, to make any sense, this reading implies them. How could the majority be blamed for not associating with believing hearers when ex hypothes? there were none such ? ~The writer now (vv.310) lays emphasis upon the reality of the Rest. ‘‘ We have had this good news too as well as they,” for (yap) we believers do enter into God’s Rest; it is prepared and open, it has been ready ever since the world began—dpa Grohetretat oaBBaticpos TH aS Tod Oeod. Eicepyducba is the emphatic word in v.®: ‘‘ we do (we are sure to) enter,” the futuristic present (“ingrediemur,” vg). When God excluded that unbe- lieving generation from his Rest, he was already himself in his Rest. The xatdmavoig was already in existence; the reason why these men did not gain entrance was their own unbelief, not any failure on God’s part to have the Rest ready. Long ago it had been brought into being (this is the force of katrou in v.°), for what prevents it from being realized is not that any épya of God require still to be done. Kardzavois is the sequel to épya. The creative épya leading up to this xardravois have been com- pleted centuries ago; God enjoys his xatdravo.s, and if his People do not, the fault lies with themselves, with man’s disbelief. Here, as in Ro 378, there is a choice of reading between ofy (x AC M 1908 boh) and ydép (p® B DK LP ¥ 6. 33 lat syr®*! eth Chrys. Lucif. etc.) ; the colourless 5é (syrPes» arm) may be neglected. The context is de- cisive in favour of ydp. Probably the misinterpretation which produced ofp led to the change of elcepxydueba into eloepywuedat (AC 33. 69*: future in vg sah boh Lucif.). The insertion of r#v (the first) may be due to the same interpretation, but not necessarily; p!® B D* om., but B omits the article sometimes without cause (e.g. 71°). The omission of e/ (p'® D* 2. 330. 440. 623. 642. 1288. 1319. 1912) was due to the following ef in eloeNedoovrat. Kairot (with gen. absol., as OP. 898°) is equivalent here to xairovye for which it is av./. in Ac 1727 (A E, with ptc.). ‘‘ Kadrou, ut antiquiores xaizrep, passim cum participio iungunt scriptores aetatis hellenisticae” (Herwerden, Appendix Lexici Graect, 249). KataBody is not a LXX term, but appears in Zp. Arvisteas, i 29 and 2 Mac 29 (ris oAns KaraBorAjs =the entire edifice); in the NT always, except He 11, in the phrase azo or po kataBodjs KOO LOV. The writer then (v.*) quotes Gn 2?, inserting 6 Oeds év (exactly as Philo had done, de poster. Caini, 18), as a proof that the xartd- 1 A similar error of A C in 63, 52 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IV. 5-8. mauois had originated immediately after the six days of creation. In cipyxe wou the mou is another literary mannerism (as in Philo); instead of quoting definitely he makes a vague allusion (cp. 2°). The psalm-threat is then (v.5) combined with it, and (v.®) the deduction anu that the threat (v.”) implies a promise (though not as if v.! meant, ‘‘lest anyone imagine he has come too late for it”—an interpretation as old as Schottgen, and still advo- cated, e.g., by Dods). The title of the 92nd psalm, ‘‘for the sabbath-day,” was discussed about the middle of the 2nd century by R. Jehuda and R. Nehemia; the former interpreted it to mean the great Day of the world to come, which was to be one perfect sabbath, but R. Nehemia’s rabbinical tradition pre- ferred to make it the seventh day of creation on which God rested (see W. Bacher’s Agada der Tannazten’, i. pp. 328-329). The author of the Epistle of Barnabas (15) sees the fulfilment of Gn 2? in the millennium: ‘‘he rested on the seventh day” means that ‘“‘ when his Son arrives he will destroy the time of the lawless one, and condemn the impious, and alter sun and moon and stars ; then he will really rest on the seventh day,” and Christians cannot enjoy their rest till then. Our author’s line is different—different even from the Jewish interpretation in the Vzta Adae et Evae (li. 1), which makes the seventh day symbolize ‘‘ the resurrection and the rest of the age to come; on the seventh day the Lord rested from all his works.” In v.' peta tocottov xpdvoy, like peta taita (v.°), denotes the interval of centuries between the desert and the psalm of David, for év AaveiS means “‘in the psalter” (like év "HAia, Ro 112); the g5th psalm is headed aivos odjs 7G Aaveid in the Greek bible, but the writer throughout (37) treats it as a direct, divine word. Mpoetpynrat (the author alluding to his previous quotation) i is the original; text;(p’ .A.C/D* P 6. 33. 1611. 1908. 2004. 2005 lat syr Chrys. Cyr. Lucif.) ; mpoeipyxey (B 256. 263. 436. 442. 999. 1739. 1837 arm sah boh Orig.) suggests that God or David spoke these words before the oath (v.? comes before v.1!!), while eipnrat (D° K L eth etc. Theophyl.) is simply a formula of quotation. From the combination of Ps 957-8 with Ps 95!! and Gn 2? (vv.3-7) the practical inference is now drawn (v.8"). Like Sirach (46™ Kparauos ev ToAE mous ‘Ingots Navy . . . ds éyévero KaTa TO OVOLA avTOD hub ért owrypia éxrexTav airod), Philo (de mutatione nominum, *Inaoots 6é [€punveverar] cwrnpla Kuptov, eSews Ovopx.a THS holes) had commented on the religious signifi- cance of the name Joshua; but our author ignores this, and even uses the name Tycos freely, since Iycots is never applied by him to Christ before the incarnation (Aquila naturally avoids "Inoods and prefers ‘Iwcova). The author of Ep. Barnabas plays on the fact that “Joshua ” and “Jesus” are the same names: éXrioate él Tov ev capi péAXovTA pavepotobar t iptv “Inoodty (6°), #.e. not on the “ Jesus” who led Israel into the land of rest, but on the true, divine ‘‘Joshua.” Such, he declares, is the inner IV. 8-10. THE REST OF GOD 53 meaning of Is 2816 (és éAmioa én airov Cyoerat eis Tov aidva), But the author of [pds “Efpaious takes his own line, starting from the transitive use of katamavew (Jos 18 kvpios 6 beds tyav Karte Tavoev bas Kal edwkey tuiv THY yyv TavTynv, etc.); not that he reads subtle meanings into the transitive and intransitive usages of xatamavewv, like Philo. Nor does he philosophize upon the relevance of xatdazavois to God. Philo, in De Cherubim (26), explains why Moses calls the sabbath (épunveverar 8 dvamavors) the “sabbath of God” in Ex 20! etc.; the only thing which really rests is God—‘“‘rest (dvd7avAav) meaning not inactivity in good (arpagiav xad@v)—for the cause of all things which is active by nature never ceases doing what is best, but—an energy devoid of laboriousness, devoid of suffering, and moving with absolute ease.” The movement and changes of creation point to labour, but “what is free from weakness, even though it moves all things, will never cease to rest: wore oiketordtatov povy Ged 70 avarraver Oa.” So in De Sacrif. Abelis et Caint, 8, TOV TOTOVTOVY KOTHOV dvev TOvwWV Tada pev cipydtero, vuvt dé Kal cicacl ovvexwv ovderore Ajye [cp. He 1° dépwv te 7a Tavtal, bed yap TO akdpatov dppodiwtatov. All such speculations are remote from our author. He simply assumes (a) that God’s promise of Katdmavots is spiritual; it was not fulfilled, it was never meant to be fulfilled, in the peaceful settlement of the Hebrew clans in Canaan; (0) as a corollary of this, he assumes that it is eschatological. In v.® dpa, as in 128, Lk 1148, Ac 1118, Ro 1017, is thrown to the beginning by an unclassical turn (‘‘musste dem gebildeten Hellenen hochgradig anstossig erscheinen,” Radermacher, 20). LaBBatiopds, apparently! a word coined by the writer, is a Sem- itic-Greek compound. The use of caBBatiopods for xatdmavoers is then (v.!°) justified in language to which the closest parallel is Apoc 14%. “Rest” throughout all this passage—and the writer never refers to it again—is the blissful existence of God’s faithful in the next world. As a contemporary apocalyptist put it, in 4 Es 852; “for you paradise is opened, the tree of life planted, the future age prepared, abundance made ready, a City built, a Rest appointed” (xaréora6y?). In dad trav idiwv, as in 8a Tod iSiou atyatos (1312), idios is slightly emphatic owing to the context; it is not quite equivalent to the possessive pronoun. When Maximus of Tyre speaks of life as a long, arduous path to the goal of bliss and perfection, he describes in semi-mystical language how tired souls, longing for the land to which this straight and narrow and little- frequented way leads, at length reach it and ‘‘rest from their labour” (Dissert. xxiii.). 1 The only classical instance is uncertain; Bernadakis suspects it in the text of Plutarch, de superstzt. 166 A. 54 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IV. 11, 12. The lesson thus drawn from the reading of the OT passages is pressed home (vv.1"!) with a skilful blend of encollragement and warning. U Let us be eager then to ‘enter that Rest,” in case anyone falls into the same sort of disobedience. 1* For the Logos of God ts a living thing, active and more cutting than any sword with double edge, penetrating to the very division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow—scrutinizing the very thoughts and conceptions of the heart. 1° And no created thing is hidden from him ; all things lie open and exposed before the eyes of him with whom we have to reckon (6 \dyos). In v.!! the position of tus, as, ¢.g., in Lk 1818, is due to “the tendency which is to be noted early in Greek as well as in cognate languages, to bring unemphasized (enclitic) pronouns as near to the beginning of the sentence as possible” (Blass, § 473. 1). For wimrew év, cp. Epict. iil. 22. 48, wore tuav elde&y pé Tis. . ev exxXioe tepimimtovta. This Hellenistic equivalent for rimrew eis goes back to earlier usage, e.g. Eurip. Herve. 1091, 1092, év kAvowve Kal ppevav tapdypart méertwxa deve. In Hellenistic Greek irddevyya came to have the sense of rapddevyya, and is used here loosely for “kind” or “sort”; take care of falling into disobedience like that of which these ania vpav yield such a tragic example. The writer, with his fondness for periphrases of this kind, writes év 76 a7 Grodelypate Tis deelas, where év TH airy ameeia, would have served. In passing away from the text about Rest, he drops this last warning reference to the classical example of deca in the far past of the People. The connexion of thought in vv.1!4 is suggested by what has been already hinted in v.}, where the writer pled for anxiety, uy mote doy Tis €€ tuav torepnkévat, He repeats va py... Ts . . . wéoy, and enlarges upon what lies behind the term dox7. Then, after the passage on the relentless scrutiny of the divine Logos, he effects a transition to the direct thought of God (v.!%), with which the paragraph closes. ZmouSdowpev—we have to put heart and soul into our religion, for we are in touch with a God whom nothing escapes ; fav ydp xrX. (v.12). The term Gv echoes Geds Cov in 3!2 (men do not disobey God with impunity), just as Kapodias echoes xapdia movnpa amurtias. God is swift to mark any departure from his will in human thought—the thought that issues in action. ' The personifying of the divine déyos, in a passage which described God in action, had already been attempted. In Wis 1815, for example, the plagues of Egypt are described as the effect of God's Aoyos coming into ‘play : 6 mayTodvvayos cov Adyos amr ovpavav .. . Eidos 6€v THv dvuTOKpLTov eritayynv cov dépwv. In Wis? again, the ¢diAdvOpwrrov Tvevpa copia, which cannot tolerate blasphemy, reacts against it: ore TOV veppav avtod (the blasphemer) pdprus 6 Oeds, kal ris Kapdias airod éxicKxomros d&AnONs, IV. 12. | THE SCRUTINY OF GOD 55 so that no muttering of rebellion is unmarked. Here the writer poetically personifies the revelation of God for amoment. ‘O Adyos tov Peod is God speaking, and speaking in words which are charged with doom and promise (37"). The revelation, how- ever, is broader than the scripture ; it includes the revelation of God’s purpose in Jesus (11*). The free application of 6 Adyos (rod Oeov) in primitive Christianity is seen in 1 P 128, Ja 118%, quite apart from the specific application of the term to the person of Christ (Jn 11!8), Here it denotes the Christian gospel declared authoritatively by men like the writer, an inspired message which carries on the OT revelation of God’s promises and threats, and which is vitally effective. No dead letter, this Adyos! The rhetorical outburst in vv.!%" is a preacher’s equiva- lent for the common idea that the sense of God’s all-seeing scrutiny should deter men from evil-doing, as, ¢g., in Plautus (Captivi, 11. 2. 63, “est profecto deu’, qui quae nos gerimus auditque et uidet”). This had been deepened by ethical writers like Seneca (Z/. Ixxxili. 1, ‘‘ nihil deo clusum est, interest animis nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit”), Epictetus (il. 14. 11, ovx éott Aabety aitov od povov ToodivTa GAN ovde Stavoovpevov 7 évOupovpevov), and the author of the Zpzstle of Arvisteas (132-133: Moses teaches Oru jrovos 6 Geos éote . . . Kat ovbev aitov AavOaver Tov éml yns ywouevwv im dvOpwrwv kpupiws . . . Kav evvonOf tis Kakiav émiteAelv, ok av AdOor, py OTL Kal mpadéas, and 210: the characteristic note of piety is To dvuaAapBavew ort ravra diaravrTos 6 Oeds evepyet Kat ywwokel, Kai obey dv Ado adikoy TojTas 7} KAKOV épyacdpevos avOpwiros), as well as by apocalyptists like the author of Baruch (83°: He will assuredly examine the secret thoughts and that which is laid up in the secret chambers of all the members of man). But our author has one particular affinity. Take Philo’s interpretation of dvetAkev atta péoa in Gn 15}? Scripture means, he explains (guzs rer. div. haeres, 26) that it was God who divided them, 76 ropret TO TvpavTwv EavTod Ady, ds eis THY GévTaTHV aKovnbeis dkunv Siatpav oddérroTe Ajyer. TA yap aicOnra mavra émeidav péxpt TOV aTopwv Kal Acyouevwv dpepav dueECAOn, adw ard TovTwv TA Adyw GewpyTa eis ayvOyTovs Kat dreptypadous poipas dpxetat diatpety ovtos 6 Tove’s. He returns (in 48) to this analytic function of the Logos in God and man, and in De mutatione nominum (18) speaks of jKovnpevov kal 6€dv Aoyov, pactevew Kai avalyretv Exacta ixavov, Still, the Logos is romevs as the principle of differentiation in the universe, rather than as an ethical force ; and when Philo connects the latter with 6 Adyos, as he does in guod deter. pot. 29, Cherub. 9, etc., 6 oyos is the human faculty of reason. Obviously, our author is using Philonic language rather than Philonic ideas. "Evepyns (for which B, by another blunder, has évapyys= 56 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Iv. 12. evidens) is not a LXX term, but denotes in Greek vital activity (cp. Schol. on Soph. Oed. Tyr. 45, Caoas avti évepyerrépas). Neither is rouarepos a LXX term; the comparison of 6 Adyos to a sword arose through the resemblance between the tongue and a “dagger,” though pdyaipa had by this time come to mean a sword of any size, whether long (fouzpata) or short.1 The com- parative is followed (cp. Lk 168) by tmép, as elsewhere by zrapa, and the “cutting” power of 6 Adyos extends or penetrates to the innermost recesses of human nature—édypt peptopod uxfs Kat TVEULATOS,” Gppav Te Kal pueddy (the conj. weA@v =limbs is neat but superfluous, for pveA@v was in the text known to Clem. Alex. guis dives, 41). DK here (as in 11°?) insert re before the first xa‘, but there is no idea of distinguishing the psychical and — the physical spheres ; dppwv . . . pwrveAwy is merely a metaphorical equivalent for Wux7ns Kal mvevuatos. Mepicpds (only in LXX in Jb 1178, 2 Es 618) means here “ division,” not ‘‘ distribution ” (24) ; the subtlest relations of human personality, the very border-line between the wuxy and the mvetpa, all this is open to 6 Adyos. The metaphorical use of pveddy in this sense is as old as Euripides, who speaks of wx mpos axpov pvedov Wuyns (Hippolytus, 255). According to Philo (De Cherubim, 8. 9), the flaming sword of Gn 3% is a symbol either of the sun, as the swiftest of existences (circling the whole world in a single day), or of reason, dguxiwnrérarov yap Kal Oépwov Adbyos Kal dducTa 6 Tov alriov. Learn from the fiery sword, o my soul, he adds, to note the presence and power of this divine Reason, 8s ovdémrore dryyet Kiwwovpmevos orovdn mdaoyn mpos alpeciw pev Trav Kahr, pvynv Oé Tov évartiwv. But there is a still better parallel to the thought in Lucian’s account of the impression made by the address (6 Adyos) of a philosopher: ov yap é& émcrod7js 00d ws éruxev Hudv 6 Adyos Kabixero, Badeta dé Kal Kalpios ) wAnynh éyéveTo, kal udra evardxws évex dels 0 Adyos adrjv, el oldv Te elrely, Suexove Thy WuxHv (Migr. 35). Only, Lucian proceeds to compare the soul of a cultured person to a target at which the words of the wise are aimed. Similarly, in pseudo- Phocylides, 124: dmAov rot Adyos avdpi Touwrepov éart otdypov, and Od. Sol. 12°: for the swiftness of the Word is inexpressible, and like its expression is its swiftness and force, and its course knows no limit. The pepiopot . .. puek@v passage is “a mere rhetorical accumulation of terms to describe the whole mental nature of man” (A. B. Davidson); the climax is xapdia, for what underlies human failure is xapdia movypa dmiotias (3!%), and the writer’s warning all along has been against hardening the heart, 22, obdurate disobedience. Hence the point of kal kpitixds xTA, Kpurixds is another of his terms which are classical, not religious ; it is used by Aristotle (2th. W7k. vi. 10) of 4 ovveors, the in- telligence of man being xprrixy in the sense that it discerns. If * The description was familiar to readers of the LXX, e.g. Pr 54 jKovnuévov MadXNov waxalpas diorduov. * The subtlety of thought led afterwards to the change of mvevmaros into owparos (2. 38. 257. 547. 1245). IV. 12, 13. ] THE SCRUTINY OF GOD 57 there is any distinction between évOupijcewy (éevOuuyjoews C* D* W vt Lucifer) and évvoi@y, it is between impulses and reflections, but contemporary usage hardly distinguished them; indeed evvoca could mean “ purpose” as well as “‘conception.” The two words are another alliterative phrase for ‘‘thought and con- ception,” évvora, unlike évOvunous, being a LXX term. In v.18 Kal odk €otw Ktlots dbavys KTA., kTiots Means anything created (as in Ro 8%), and aérod is ‘‘God’s.” The negative side is followed by the positive, mdvta 8€ yupvd Kal tetTpaxndropeva. The nearest verbal parallel is in En 9° rdvra éveridy cov havepa Kat axaAvmra, where the context points as here to secret sins. The general idea was familiar ; e.g. (above, p. 55) “nihil deo clusum est, interest animis nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit.” Move yap eeote Gew, Wuxi ideiv (Philo, de Abrahamo, 21). But what the writer had in mind was a passage like that in de Cherub. 5, where Philo explains Dt 2979 (ra xpumra kupiw TO Ged, Ta Be pavepa yeverer yvwpiua) by arguing, yevyTos dé ovdels ikavos yvopns adavovs katie €vOvpnpa, povos de 6 Oeds. Hence, he adds, the injunction (Nu 5}®) rv woyiv “ évaytTiov Tov Geov orjoa” with head uncovered ; which means, the soul 76 Kepddavov Soypa YU RY w- Getoayv Kal THY yvopny a Kéxpyntat atrappiacbeioay, tv’ oweot Tals aKpt- Beorarats érixpiOetoa Tov adexacTov Geov krX., the closing description of God being 76 povw yupvav pxqv en duvapevw. For yupva see also M. Aurel. 12? 6 Geds ravta Ta HyewoviKa yuuva Tov bALKOY ayyelwv . . . Opd. Tetpaxndtopéva Must mean something similar, “exposed” or “bared” (‘‘aperta,” vg; wepavepwueva, Hesych.). Though rpaxnAlfw does not occur in the LXX, the writer was familiar with it in Philo, where it suggests a wrestler ‘‘downing” his opponent by seizing his throat. How this metaphorical use of throttling or tormenting could yield the metaphorical passive sense of ‘‘ exposed,” is not easy tosee. The Philonic sense of “‘depressed” or “‘bent down” would yield here the meaning ‘“abashed,” z.e. hanging down the head in shame (‘‘ conscientia male factorum in ruborem aguntur caputque mittunt,’”” Wettstein). But this is hardly ona level with yupvd. The most probable clue is to be found in the practice of exposing an offender’s face by pushing his head back, as if the word were an equivalent for the Latin ‘‘resupinata” in the sense of ‘‘ manifesta,” The bending back of the neck produced this exposure. Thus when Vitellius was dragged along the Via Sacra to be murdered, it was ‘‘reducto coma capite, ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ut visendam praeberet faciem ” (Suet. Vit. Vetell. 17). In the last five words, mpds dv stv 6 Adyos, which are impressive by their bare simplicity, there is a slight play on the term Adyos here and in y.?2, although in view of the flexible use of the term, e.g. in 514 and 131’, it might be even doubtful if the writer intended more than a verbal assonance. ‘The general sense of the phrase is best conveyed by “ with whom we have to reckon.” (a) This rendering, ‘‘to whom we have to account (or, to render our ac- count),” was adopted without question by the Greek fathers from 58 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IV. 18, 14. Chrysostom (aird pédAomev Sodvar eiOivas TOv Tempaypyevwv) ON- wards, and the papyri support the origin of the phrase as a com: mercial metaphor; ¢g. OP. 11885 (A.D. 13) ws mpdos oe Tov rept Tov a yvan| Oerzioy Gl rjiparos] éro| pevov] (s¢. Adyov), and Hibeh Papyti, 53* (246 B.C.) meipO otv dododrds as Tpds GE TOD Adyov ésouevov. (4) The alternative rendering, ‘‘ with whom we have to do,” has equal support in Gk. usage ; e.g. in the LXX phrase Adyos prot mpos oe(I K 214, 2 K g®) and in Je 17? (naxpav eiow Bdwviwr, kal Adyov ovK éxovatv mpds avOpwrov). The former idea is pre- dominant, however, as the context suggests (cp. Ignat. ad Magn. 3, 70 5¢ rovotrov od pds adpKxa 6 Adyos, GAAG mpos Oeov Tov Ta KpUduo. eiddra), and includes the latter. It is plainly the view of the early anti-Marcionite treatise, which has been preserved among the works of Ephraem Syrus (cp. Preuschen, Ze¢tschrift fiir die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1911, pp. 243-269), where the passage is quoted from a text like this: @s cat 6 IlatAos A€yer, Cv 6 Adyos Tov Geod Kat TOMMTEPOS vmrép Tao av pd. xarpav Sioropov, dtikvovpevov HEXpL PEpLo pov Tvevpatos Kal TAPKOS, HEXpL appov TE Kal prehay, Kal KPLTLKOS cor evOupnoewy KOL evvoLw Kapdias’ Kal OUK cor ktiots adavys évwomiov avTod, GAAG wavTa éuhavy éevwdmiov avTod, Ort yupvol Kal TeTpaxnAtcmevor eopev ev Tots 6POadpots adrovd exacros npav Adyov aiT@ aodiddvar. The rendering, ‘ who is our subject, of whom we are speaking” (zpés=with reference to, and ypiv 6 Aoyos as in 514), is impossibly flat. At this point the writer effects a transition to the main theme, which is to occupy him till 1018, z.e. Christ as dpyvepevs. He begins, however, by a practical appeal (vv.!416) which catches up the ideas O1jah noo) 1445 we have a great highpriest, then, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession ; ° for ours ts no high priest who ts incapable (uh Suv. as in 9°) of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted tn every respect like ourselves (sc. mpos hus), yet without sinning. '8 So let us approach the throne of grace with confidence (wera trappnolas, 3°), that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in the hour of need. Méyas is a favourite adjective for dpyepevs in Philo,! but when the writer adds, €xyovres otv dpxiepea peyav SireAnAVOdTA Tors ovpavous, he is developing a thought of hisown. The greatness of Jesus as dpxepevs consists in his access to God not through any material veil, but through the upper heavens; he has pene- trated to the very throne of God, in virtue of his perfect self- sacrifice. This idea is not elaborated till later (cp. 61% 924f), in the sacerdotal sense. But it has been already mentioned in 2% 19, where Jesus the Son of God saves men by his entrance into the full divine glory. Kpara@pev here as in 68 with the genitive 16 pév 5h wéyas apxtepeds (de Somn. i. 38), even of the Logos. IV. 14-16.] THE SYMPATHY OF JESUS 59 (6poroyids, see 31); in Paul it takes the accusative. The writer now (v.!°) reiterates the truth of 2"; the exalted Jesus is well able to sympathize with weak men on earth, since he has shared their experience of temptation. It is put negatively, then posi- tively. XupmaPAoo is used of Jesus! as in Acta Pauli et Theclae, 17 (0s povos cvverdbnoev TAaVWLEvM Koop); See below, on 10*4, Origen (tz Matt. xiii. 2) quotes a saying of Jesus: 81a tovs doGev- odvtas noOévovv Kal dua Tovs rewdvras ézeivwv Kal dia Tos SupavtTas édiwwy, the first part of which may go back to Mt 817 (atrés ras doGeveias éAaBev); cp. also Mt 255%. Philo uses the term even of the Mosaic law (de spec. leg. ii. 13, TO 5€ Grrdpws ExovTe ouve- mdaOyoe), but here it is more than “to be considerate.” The aid afforded by Jesus as dpxiepevs is far more than official; it is inspired by fellow-feeling tats doOevetats fav. ‘‘ Verius sentiunt qui simul cum externis aerumnis comprehendunt animi affectus, quales sunt metus, tristitia, horror mortis, et similes” (Calvin). These doOévera are the sources of temptation. °“H cdpé dofevys, as Jesus had said to his disciples, warning them against tempta- tion. Jesus was tempted xata mdvra (21718) KaG’ dpodrnta (a psychological Stoic term; the phrase occurs in OF. ix. 120274 and BG UV. 1028*, in second- -century inscriptions) xwplis dpaprtias, without yielding to sin. Which isa real ground for encourage- | ment, for the best help is that afforded by those who have stood where we slip and faced the onset of temptation without yielding _ to it. The special reference is to temptations leading to apostasy or disobedience to the will of God. It is true that Xwpis dpaprias does exclude some temptations. Strictly speaking, xara rdvra is modified by this restriction, since a number of our worst tempta- tions arise out of sin previously committed. But this is not in the writer’s mind at all. He is too eager, to enter into any psychological analysis. Philo deduces from Ly 4° (udvov ok dvrixpus dvadiddoxwy, bre 6 mpods arAnGerav dpxrepeds kal wh Pevdwruuos auéroxos auaprnudtrwv éorly) that the ideal highpriest is practically sinless (de Vzc¢tzmzs, 10) ; but this is a thought with which he wistfully toys, and the idea of the Logos as unstained by contact with the material universe is very different from this conception of Jesus as actually tempted and scatheless. Nor would the transference of the idea of messiah as sinless account for our writer’s view. To him and his readers Jesus is sinless, not in virtue of a divine prerogative, but as the result of a real human experience which proved successful in the field of temptation. Hence (v.!®) mpocepyxdpeba. ody peta mappynoias. Philo (guzs rer. div. haeres, 2) makes rappycia the reward of a good conscience, which enables a loyal servant of God to approach him frankly. 1 Of God in 4 Mac 5” kara plow juiv cuumabel vomoberav 6 rob Ktlorns, but in the weaker sense of consideration. It is curious that 4 Mac., like Hebrews, uses the word twice, once of God and once of men (cp. 4 Mac 13” otrws 5h rolvuy Kabeorynkulas THs PradeAdlas cuptabovons). 60 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [Iv. 16 But here (cp. LAE. 11. 786) rappycia is not freedom of utterance so much as resolute confidence (cp. on 3°). Our writer certainly includes prayer in this conception of approaching God, but it is prayer as the outcome of faith and hope. Seneca bids Lucilius pray boldly to God, if his prayers are for soundness of soul and body, not for any selfish and material end: ‘‘audacter deum roga; nihil illum de alieno rogaturus es” (Z/. x. 4). But even this is not the meaning of zappyoia here. The Roman argues that a man can only pray aloud and confidently if his desires are such as he is not ashamed to have others hear, whereas the majority of people “whisper basest of prayers to God.” Our author does not mean “ palam” by rappncia. Our approach (mpocepxopyefa: the verb in a sense of. applying to a court or authority, e.g. in OP. 1119° mpoonAGopev TH Kpatiory Bovdyn, BGU. 1022) is T@ Opova THs xdpitos, for grace is NOW enthroned (see 2%), For the phrase see Is 16° d:0p$w6n- cera per éA€ovs Opdvos. Our author (cp. Introd. p. xlvii), like those who shared the faith of apocalyptic as well as of rabbinic piety, regarded heaven as God’s royal presence and also as the oxnvyn where he was worshipped, an idea which dated from Is 61! and Ps 29 (cp. Mechilta on Ex 151"), though he only alludes incidentally (127%) to the worship of God by the host of angels in the upper sanctuary. He is far from the pathetic cry of Azariah (Dn 3%8): &« éorw év TO Kaipd TovTw . . . ovdE TOTS TOU KapT@oa. évwmiov gov Kal evpety eXeos. He rather shares Philo’s feeling (de Exsecrat. 9) that ot dvacwlouévor can rely upon the compassionate character of God (évi wey émvetkeia Kal xpyorornre Tov TapaKaAdoupevov cvyyvwopnV mpd Tiwplas det TLHEvTos), though he regards this mercy as conditioned by the sacrifice of Jesus. The twofold object of the approach is (a2) AapBdvew €Xeos, which is used for the passive of éAe® (which is rare), and (4) xdpuw edptoxew xTA., an echo of the LXX phrase (e.g. Gn 68) eipioxew xapiv évavtiov Kupiov (rov Geov). In the writer’s text (A) of the LXX, Prov 8!" ran ot dé éué fyrovvres etpyoovor xdpiv.) Eis eUkatpov BonPeray recalls rots meipalopevors BonOjoar in 218; it signifies ‘‘for assistance in the hour of need.” Evxaipos means literally “‘seasonable,” as in Ps 1047? (dotvar trHv tpodny adrots evxaipov), ‘‘fitting” or “opportune” (Zp. Aristeas, 203, 236). The “sympathy” of Jesus is shown by practical aid to the tempted, which is suitable to their situation, suitable above all because it is timely (evxapoyv being almost equivalent to év xaipa * Aristotle argues that xdpis or benevolence must be spontaneous and disinterested ; also, that its value is enhanced by neceSsitous circumstances (Zor on xdpus, Kael iw ) EXov Aéyerat xdpiv Vroupyety Seoudvy wh avril TwWOS, pnd’ wa re a’T@ TH vrovpyodvrt adn Wy’ éxelvyp Th: meyadn & ay 7 opddpa » deouevy, 7} peyahwv kal xaher@yv, } év Katpots Tovourots, 7) udvos } wpGros 7 waduora, Red, ii. 7. 2), IV. 16-V. 1.] JESUS AS PRIEST 61 xpetas, Sir 8°). Philo (de sacrificantibus, 10) shows how God, for all his greatness, cherishes compassion (€Acov kat otkrov AapBave Tov ev éevdeiais aropwratwv) for needy folk, especially for poor proselytes, who, in their devotion to him, are rewarded by his help (xapzév ctipapevor THS ert Tov Gedv Katadvyys THY amr avtod Bonbaav). But the best illustration of the phrase is in Aristides, Eis rov Sdapamw 50: a yap Oy was tTUs év wavTt Kaip@ BonOov Karci, Sapam. How widely even good cursives may be found supporting a wrong reading is shown by the evidence for mpocepxduceda: 6. 38. 88. 104. 177. 206%. 241. 255. 263. 337. 378. 383. 440. 462. 467. 487. 489. 623. 635. 639. 642. O15. 919. 920. 927. 1149. 1245. 1288. 1518. 1836. 1852. 1872. 1891. 2004. For eos (the Hellenistic neuter, cp. Cronert’s Memoria Graeca Herculanensts, 1761), the Attic é\eov (€\eos, masc.) is substituted by L and a few minuscules (Chrys. Theodoret). Bom. etpwyev. He now (5!-!°) for the first time begins to explain the qualifi- cations of the true dpyvepevs. (a) First, he must be humane as well as human : 1 Ruery highpriest who ts selected from men and appointed to act on behalf of men in things divine, offering gifts and sacrifices for stn, * can deal gently with those who err through tgnorance, since he himself ts beset with weakness — 8 which obliges him to present offerings for his own sins as well as for those of the People. (4) Second, he must not be self-appointed. 4 Also, tt ts an office which no one elects to take for himself ; he ts called to it by God, just as Aaron was. The writer now proceeds to apply these two conditions to Jesus, but he takes them in reverse order, beginning with (4). 5 Similarly Christ was not ratsed to the glory of the priesthood by himself, but by Him who declared to him, ** Thou art my son, to-day have I become thy father.” 8 Just as elsewhere (év érépy, sc. Tomy) he says, “* Thou art a priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek,”’ He then goes back to (a): 7 In the days of his flesh, with bitter cries and tears, he offered prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save him from death ; and he was heard, because of his godly fear. *® Thus, Son though he was, he learned by (ag? Gv=dmd tovrwv &) all he suffered how to obey, ® and by being thus perfected he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, ™ being desig- nated by God highpriest ‘‘ with the rank of Melchizedek.” Mas yap dpxrepeds (dealing only with Hebrew highpriests, and only with what is said of them in the LXX) é& év@pd7wy apPavdpevos (Nu 8° AdBe Trois Aeveiras ék pécov vidv *Iopayd) xabioratat—passive, in the light of 778 (6 voxos yap avOparous kabiotnow dpxepets €xovtas doGéverav) and of the Philonic usage (e.g. de vit. Mosts, ii. 11, TO wéAXovTe Gpyxrepet Kabioracba). The middle may indeed be used transitively, as, e.g., in Eurip. Supplic. 522 (7dAepov S€ TovTov ovK éyw Kabiorapat), and is so taken here by some (e.g. Calvin, Kypke). But ra apds rov Oedv is an adverbial accusative as in 21’, not the object of xa@iorara: in an active sense. In 8wpd te kal Qucias, here as in 8° and 9%, the 62 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [v. 1, 2. writer goes back to the LXX (A) rendering of 1 K 8% (xai 7d Sépov Kat Tas Ovoias). The phrase recurs in £f. Aristeas, 234 (ov Sépots obd€ Ovotas), and is a generic term for sacrifices or offer- ings, without any distinction. The early omission of re (B D> K Lat boh pesh) was due to the idea that @voias should be closely connected with épaptudy (Ef ut offerat dona, et sacrificia pro peccatis,” vg). Instead of writing «is ro mpoo pepewy, our author departs from his favourite construction of eis with the infinitive and writes iva mpoopépy, in order to introduce pertpromabeiv Suvdpevos. This, although a participial clause, contains the lead- ing idea of the sentence. The dpyvepeds is able to deal gently with the erring People whom he represents, since he shares their do0évera, their common infirmity or liability to temptation. — MetptomraQety in v.? is a term coined by ethical philosophy. It is used by Philo to describe the mean between extravagant grief and stoic apathy, in the case of Abraham’s sorrow for the death of his wife (76 d pecov mpd Tov akpwv EXdmevov petprorabety, De Abrah. 44); so Plutarch (Consol. ad Apoll. 22) speaks of rips Kata pvow év Towovrois peTplowabeias. But here it denotes gentleness and forbearance, the moderation of anger in a person who is provoked and indignant—as in Plut. de Cohib. ira, 10, dvacTnocat d€ Kal oHoat, Kal deicacbar Kal KapTepnoal, TpadTyTOs €or. kal ouyyvwuns Kal perptorafeias. Josephus (Anzé. xii. 3. 2) praises this quality in Vespasian and Titus (erpiorabyodvtwv), who acted magnanimously and generously towards the unruly Jews; Dionysius Halicarnassus accuses Marcius (Azz. 8. 529) of lacking 10 evdiaAAaKtov Kat perpiorabeés, drdte du dpyns TO yévoiro, Andsoon. The term is allied to zpadrys. The sins of others are apt to irritate us, either because they are repeated or because they are flagrant; they excite emotions of disgust, impatience, and exasperation, ‘and tempt us to be hard and harsh (Gal 61). The thought of excess here is excessive severity rather than excessive leniency. ‘The objects of this petptomafety are Tois &yvoodow Kal TAavwpEvots, Z.¢€., people who sin through yield- ing to the weaknesses of human nature. For such offenders alone the piacula of atonement-day (which the writer has i in mind) availed. Those who sinned ékouciws (107°), not dxovoiws, were without the pale; for such presumptuous sins, which our writer regards specially under the category of deliberate apostasy (3! 10”6), there is no pardon possible. The phrase here is practi- cally a hendiadys, for rots é€ dyvolas tAavwpévors: the People err through their adyvou. Thus dyvoety becomes an equivalent for dpaprave (Sir 23” etc.), just as the noun dyvénua comes to imply sin (cp. 97 and Jth 57° «i péev éorw ayvonua ev 7d Aad TovTw Kal dpaptavover eis Tov Pedy airav, with Tebt. Pap. 1244 (118 B.c.) and 5°—a proclamation by king Euergetes and queen Cleopatra V. 2-5. ] JESUS AS PRIEST 63 declaring ‘“‘an amnesty to all their subjects for all errors, crimes,” etc., except wilful murder and sacrilege). In the AMZartyr. Pauli, 4, the apostle addresses his pagan audience as advdpes of dvtes ev TH ayvwcia Kal TH wavy Tavry. (a) Strictly speaking, only such sins could be pardoned (Lv 4? 57}: >", Nu 1577*!, Dt 17!*) as were unintentional. Wilful sins were not covered by the ordinary ritual of sacrifice (1076, cp. Nu 12). (4) The term wrep{xetpat only occurs in the LXX in Ep. Jer. 23. 57 and in 4 Mac 12° (rd deouad mepixeluevov), and in both places in its literal sense (Symm. Is 611°), as in Ac 28%. But Seneca says of the body, ‘‘ hoc quoque natura ut quemdam vestem animo circumdedit” (Z/zs¢. 92), and the meta- phorical sense is as old as Theocritus (231% 14 gedye & dad xpos UBpw ras épyas mepixelwevos). The dpxvepeds, therefore (v.°), requires to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the People, cams wept tod aod otw Kal mepi éautod. This twofold sacrifice is recognized by Philo (de vit. AZosis, 11. 1), who notes that the holder of the tepwovvn must ért redelors tepots beseech God for blessing avT@ Te Kal THs dpxouevors, The regulations for atonement-day (Lv 1617) provided that the dpyepevs sacrificed for himself and his household as well as for the People (kal rpoodée. ’Aapav tov pOcxXov TOV TEpl THS GpapTias aitod Kal efiAdoerar Tept avrod Kai TOU OiKOV avTOD . . . Kal TEpl TaoYS TLVaywyys vidv IopayA). But our author now turns from the idea of the solidarity between priest and People to the idea of the priest’s commission from God. Thv tyyy (in v.4) means position or office, as often, eg. éritporos Aap Bava Tavryv THv Tyuyy (t.e. Of supervising the house- hold slaves), Arist. Pol. 1. 7, typas yap Aéyomev etvar Tas apyas, tb. ili. Io, wept TOV apytepewv Os T HpSavtTo kal tiow éfeote THs TYAS ravTns petaAapBavew, Joseph. Ant. xx. 10. I. "ANNA (sc. Aap- Bave) kadovpevos, but takes it when (or, as) he is called. The terseness of the phrase led to the alteration (C® L) of dAAa@ into ddd’ 6 (as in v.>). Kaddomep cat “Aapdv. In Josephus (Azz. iii. 8. 1), Moses tells the Israelites, viv & airds 6 Oeds ’Aapdva tis TLLHS TaUTNS akLov ExplvEe Kal TOUTOV TpyTat Lepéa. aepl (before apapti@v in v.%) has been changed to Uzep in C* D¢ K L etc, (conforming to 51). There is no difference in meaning (cp. mepl, Mt 26%= trep, Mk. and Lk.), for epi (see 10% 8 18 96 7311) has taken over the sense of izrep. For xaOdorep (x* A B D* 33) in v.4, x° DOK LP WY 6. 1288. 1739 read the more obvious xa@daep (C ? syr>*! Chrys. Cyr. Alex. Procopius: xa@ws). In v.5 odx éautév €ddfacev, while the term dda was specially applicable to the highpriestly office (cf. 2 Mac 147 d0ev adedd- pevos THY Tpoyovikny ddgav, A€yw 57) THY apxLepwovvyv), the phrase is quite general, as in the parallel Jn 8°4 The following yevy- Ojvar is an epexegetic infinitive, which recurs in the Lucan writings (Lk 15472, Ac 151°) and in the earlier Psalter of Solo- 64 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 5-7. mon (27840 etc.). After &\X’ we must supply some words like autTov éddgacev. The argument runs thus: We have a great dpxtepeiis, Jesus the Son of God (41), and it is as he is Son that he carries out the vocation of dpyepev’s. There is something vital, for the writer’s mind, in the connexion of d&pyepevs and Yiés. Hence he quotes (v.5) his favourite text from Ps 2’ before the more apposite one (in v.®) from Ps 110‘, implying that the position of divine Son carried with it, in some sense, the role of dpxiepeds. This had been already suggested in 13 where the activities of the Son include the purification of men from their sins. Here the second quotation only mentions iepevs, it is true; but the writer drew no sharp distinction between tepeds and dpyxepevs. In Kata THs Tag Medxuoedéx, taéis for the writer, as 7!° proves (kata THY dpororyTa MeAxiedex), has a general meaning ;? Jesus has the rank of a Melchizedek, he is a priest of the Melchizedek sort or order, though in the strict sense of the term there was no Taéis or succession “of Melchizedek priests. Tdfis in the papyri is often a list or register ; in OP. 12664 (A.D. 98) év rage. means ‘‘in the class” (of people). It had acquired a sacerdotal nuance, ¢.g. Michel 735!*°* (the regulations of Antiochus I.), doris Tre av votépur xpovun taéiv AdBy Tavryv, and occasionally denoted a post or office (ez¢,.hebt.)P'297°, A:D. 123); "Os «tA. Some editors (eg. A. B. Davidson, Liinemann, Peake, Hollmann) take vv.7!° as a further proof of (4). But the writer is here casting back to (a), not hinting that the trying experiences of Jesus on earth proved that his vocation was not self-sought, but using these to illustrate the thoroughness with which he had identified himself with men. He does this, although the parallel naturally broke down at one point. Indeed his conception of Christ was too large for the categories he had been employing, and this accounts for the tone and language of the passage. (a) Jesus being xwpis duaptias did not require to offer any sacrifices on his own behalf; and (4) the case of Melchizedek offered no suggestion of suffering as a vital element in the vocation of an dpxepevs. As for the former point, while the writer uses mpocevéyxas in speaking of the prayers of Jesus, this is at most a subconscious echo of zpoodépe in vy.t3 ; there is no equivalent in Jesus to the sacrifice offered by the OT apyxvepevs, Tept EavTod . . . Tept Guaptiov. The writer starts with his parallel, for €v rats 1épars THs GapKos adrov corresponds to mepixeitar doGeverav (v.2); but instead of developing the idea of sympathy in an Official (werproradety Suvdpevos xrXr.), he passes to the deeper idea that Jesus qualified himself by a moral discipline 1As in 2 Mac 938 émricrodhy éxovocay ixernplas rdiw, Ep. Arist. 69, Kpnmtdos éxovea Taku. can Vi47.| THE SUFFERINGS OF JESUS \65 to be dpxvepevs in a pre-eminent sense. He mentions the prayers and tears of Jesus here, as the faith of Jesus in 2!%, for the express purpose of showing how truly he shared the lot of man on earth, using Sejoets Te Kal ikernpias, a phrase which the writer may have found in his text (A) of Jb 407 @ dejoes Kai ixerypias, but which was classical (e.g. Isokrates, de Pace, 46, modAas ixerypias Kat denoes rovovpevor). “Ixernpia had become an equiva- lent for ixeota, which is actually the reading here in 1 (denoas Te kal txecias). The phrase recurs in a Ptolemaic papyrus (Brunet de Presle et E. Egger’s Papyrus Grecs du Musée du Louvre, 277°), xalpev oe G€id peta Seyoews Kai tixerecas, though in a weakened sense. The addition of petad xpauyfs (here a cry of anguish) isxupas Kat Saxptwv may be a touch of pathos, due to his own imagination,! or suggested by the phraseology of the 22nd psalm, which was a messianic prediction for him (cp. above, 2}*) as for the early church; the words of v.® in that psalm would hardly suit (kexpagoyar yyéepas mpos oe Kal ovK« eicaxovon), but phrases like that of v.° (zpos oé éxéxpagav Kat éowOnoav) and v.* (év ra Kekpayeval pe TpOs aiTov éryjKoveév pov) might have been in his mind. Tears were added before long to the Lucan account of the passion, at 224 (Epiph. Azcor. 31, dAAG “Kai exAavoev” KEiTaL év tT kata Aovkay evayyediw év Tois ddvopfwrors avtvypadors). It is one of the passages which prove how deeply the writer was ‘impressed by the historical Jesus ; the intense faith and courage and pitifulness of Jesus must have deeply moved his mind. He seeks to bring out the full significance of this for the saving work of Jesus as Son. His methods of proof may be remote and artificial, to our taste, but the religious interest which prompted them is fundamental. No theoretical reflection on the qualifica- tion of priests or upon the dogma of messiah’s sinlessness could have produced such passages as this. Later Rabbinic piety laid stress on tears, ¢.g. in Sohar Exod. fol. 5. 19, ** Rabbi Jehuda said, all things of this world depend on penitence and prayers, which men offer to God (Blessed be He!), especially if one sheds tears along with his prayers”; and in Synopsis Sohar, p. 33, n. 2, ‘‘ There are three kinds of prayers, entreaty, crying, and tears. Entreaty is offered in a quiet voice, crying with a raised voice, but tears are higher than all.” In dmé tis edAaPelas, the sense of edAaBeia in 1278 and of evAaBetofar in 117 shows that dad here means “on account of” (as is common in Hellenistic Greek), and that dz rijs etAa Betas must be taken, as the Greek fathers took it, ‘on account of his reverent fear of God,” fro sua reverentia (vg), “because he had 1 Like that of Hos 12‘, where tears are added to the primitive story (Gn 326) of Jacob’s prayer (évicxvoev pera ayyédou Kal Aduvvdcbn* éxavoay Kal éde7jAnody ov). In 2 Mac 11° the Maccabean army pera ddupudy kal daxpiwv ixérevov Tov KUptov. 5 66 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS PWeuryta. God in reverence” (Tyndale; ‘fin honoure,” Coverdale). The writer is thinking of the moving tradition about Jesus in Geth- semane, which is now preserved in the synoptic gospels, where Jesus entreats God to be spared death: “ABBa 6 rarnp, rdvra dvwvaTd cou wapéveyKe TO moTHpLov amr éuov rovro (Mk 14%). This repeated supplication corresponds to the “ bitter tears and cries.” Then Jesus adds, aAX’ od ri éy® GerXw, GAAG ti ov. This is his evAa Bea, the godly fear which leaves everything to the will of God. Such is the discipline which issues in taxon. Compare Ps. Sol 68 kai xvpuos elonxovae mpocevyny mavTos év PoBw Geod. (a) The alternative sense of ‘‘ fear” appears as early as the Old Latin version (d=exauditus a metu). This meaning of evAaBela (Beza: ‘‘ liberatus ex metu”’) occurs in Joseph. Amt. xi. 6. 9, evAaBelas abri (Esther) drodvwr. Indeed evAaBela (cp. Anz, 359) and its verb evAaBeto@ar are common in this sense; cp. ¢.g. 2 Mac 816 uh xaramdayivat rots deculors unde evraBetoOar Thy... wodrutAnbelav: Sir 41° wh evrAaBod kptua davdrov: Wis 178 odrot KarayéAacrov evhdBeray évdcovv, But here the deeper, religious sense is more relevant to the context. ‘‘ In any case the answer consisted . . . in courage given to face death. . . . The point to be emphasized is, not so much that the prayer of Jesus was heard, as that it eeded to be heard” (A. B. Bruce, p. 186). . (4) Some (e.g. Linden in Studien und Kritiken, 1860, 753 f., and Blass, § 211) take dé rijs evAaBelas with what follows ; this was the interpretation of the Peshitto (‘‘ and, although he was a son, he learned obedience from fear and the sufferings which he bore”’). But the separation of did rijs evAaBelas from ag Gv and the necessity of introducing a xal before the latter phrase point to the artificiality of this construction. In v.° katwep @y vids (xkaizep being used with a participle as in 75 1217) means, “Son though he was,” not “son though he was.” The writer knows that painful discipline is to be expected by all who are sons of God the Father; he points out, in 125f, that every son, because he is a son, has to suffer. Here the remarkable thing is that Jesus had to suffer, not because but although he was vids, which shows that Jesus is Son in a unique f sense; as applied to Jesus vids means something special. As divine vids in the sense of 11, it might have been expected that he would be exempt from such a discipline. “Os... éuaev . . . bmakoyy is the main thread of the sentence, but kaiwep dv vids attaches itself to é€ua0ev «rd. rather than to the preceding participles mpogvevéyxas and eicaxouvobeis (Chrys. Theophyl.). With a daring stroke the author adds, €uabev ad’ dv émabe thy Staxonv. The paronomasia goes back to a common Greek phrase which is as old as Aeschylus (A4gam. 177f.), who de- scribes Zeus as tov wdde pddos Oévta xupiws éxew, and tells how (W. Headlam)— “The heart in time of sleep renews Aching remembrance of her bruise, And chastening wisdom enters wills that most refuse ”— V. 8, 9.] THE OBEDIENCE OF JESUS \67 which, the poet adds, is a sort of ydpis Biawos from the gods. This moral doctrine, that waos brings pafos, is echoed by Pindar (Jsthim. 1. 40, 6 movyjcas b€ vow Kat mpopdGeav pépet) and other writers, notably by Philo (de vit. Mos. lil. 38, rovrous ov Adyos aX’ épya maioever’ mabovres elovT au 70 ewov dipevdes, érrel padovtes ovk éyvwoav: de spec. leg. ili. 6, ty €xk Tov mabey paby KTA.: de somn. il. 15, 0 wabav axpiBas ahaa 6tt Tov Geod (Gn 501%) éorw). But in the Greek authors and in Philo it is almost invariably applied to ‘‘ the thoughtless or stupid, and to open and deliberate offenders” (Abbott, Dzat. 32082), to people who can only be taught by suffering. Our writer ventures, therefore, to apply to the sinless Jesus an idea which mainly referred to young or wilful or undisciplined natures. The term 6iraxoy only occurs once in the LXX, at 2 S 22°6 (kai traxon cov érAnbuvey pe, A), where it translates may. The general idea corresponds to that of 105 below, where Jesus enters the world submissively to do the will of God, a vocation which involved suffering and self- sacrifice. But the closest parallel is the argument of Paul in Ph 2°8, that Jesus, born in human form, éramretvwoev éavtov yevopevos imykoos (sc. TH GEG) wéxpt Gavarov, and the conception of the traxoy of Jesus (Ro 51%”) in contrast to the zapaxoy of Adam. What our writer means to bring out here, as in 2!f, is the practical initiation of Jesus into his vocation for God and men. ‘Wherever there is a vocation, growth and process are inevi- table. . . . Personal relations are of necessity relations into which one grows ; the relation can be fully and practically constituted | only in the practical exercise of the calling in which it is involved. | So it was with Christ. He had, so to speak, to work Himself | into His place in the plan of salvation, to go down among the brethren whom He was to lead to glory and fully to identify Himself with them, not of course by sharing their individual vocation, but in the practice of obedience in the far harder vocation given to Him. That obedience had to be learned, not because His will was not at every moment perfect ... but simply because it was a concrete, many-sided obedience” (W. Robertson Smith, Zxpositor*, ii. pp. 425, 426). TedewwOets in v.® recalls and expands the remark of 2! that God “ perfected” Jesus by suffering as tov dpynyov tis owrypias airav, and the argument of 217-18 The writer avoids the technical Stoic terms mpoxorrev and mpoxo7y. He prefers treAecovy and reAeiwors, not on account of their associations with the sacerdotal consecration of the OT ritual, but in order to suggest the moral_ri which enabled Jesus to offer a perfect self- sacrifice, and also perhaps with a side-allusion here to the death-association of these terms. a 68 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 9-11. Philo (de Abrah, 11) observes that nature, instruction, and practice are the three things essential mpds TedevdryTa Tot Brod, ovre yap didacKadlay dvev dicews } doxhoews TercLwOjvat Suvvarov ore piots él wépas doriv éNOeiv ikavy diya Tov wabetv. Aittos cwtyplas was a common Greek phrase. Thus Philo speaks of the brazen serpent as airios cwrypias yevouevos TavTehovs trois Oeacapevors (de Agric. 22), Aeschines (2x Ctesiph. 57) has THs pev guTyplav TH TOE TOvS Heovs aitiovs yeyevyevous, and in the de Mundo, 3984, the writer declares that it is fitting for God airiov te yiveoOar Tots ert THS ys TwTypias. LwTypia aiwvios is a LXX phrase (Is 451”), but not in the sense intended here (cp. 28). The collocation of Jesus learning how to obey God and of thus proving a saviour tots dmakovouvow abt is remarkable. At first sight there is a clue to the sense in Philo, who declares that ‘the man who is morally earnest,” receiving God’s kingdom, ‘does not prove a source of evil to anyone (atrios yiverat), but proves a source of the acquisition and use of good things for all who obey him” (waou rots tryxdots, de Abrah. 45). This refers to Abraham, but to the incident of Gn 23%, not to that of Melchizedek ; Philo is spiritualizing the idea of the good man as king, and the trnxoo are the members of his household under his authority. The parallel is merely verbal. Here by taow tois bTakovougw adt the writer means of mictevioavres (4°), but with a special reference to their loyalty to Christ. Disobedience to Christ or to God (338 4% 1!) is the practical expression of disbelief. It is a refusal to take Christ for what he is, as God’s appointed dpxvepeds. The writer then adds (v.!°) mpocayopeubets bd Tod Oeod dpxiepeds Kata Thy Taf Medxtoedéx, in order to explain how, thus commissioned, he brought the cwrypia aiwvios. The paragraph is thus rounded off, like that of vv.>°® with a reference to the Melchizedek priesthood, which the writer regards as of profound importance, and to which he now proposes to advance. Though zpocayopevw is not used in this sense (“ hail,” “‘designate”) in the LXX, the usage is common in Hellenistic writings like 2 Maccabees (1° 47 10%) and Josephus (eg. « Apion. i. 311). But the Melchizedek type of priesthood is not discussed till 62° 71%, The interlude between 51° and 6° is devoted to a stirring exhortation ; for this interpretation of the Son as priest is a piece of yv@o.s which can only be imparted to those who have mastered the elementary truths of the Chris- tian religion, and the writer feels and fears that his readers are still so immature that they may be unable or unwilling to grasp the higher and fuller teaching about Christ. The admonition has three movements of thought, 511-14, 61-8, and 6919, 1l On this point I (hutv, plural of authorship, as 2°) have a great deal to say, which it ts hard to make intelligible to you. or (kal yap=etenim) you have V. 11, 12.] BACKWARDNESS 69 grown dull of hearing. ™ Though by this time you should be teaching other people, you still need someone to teach you once more the rudimentary prin- ciples of the divine revelation. You are in need of milk, not of solid food. 13 (For anyone who ts fed on milk ts unskilled in moral truth ; he ts) a mere babe. 14 Whereas solid food zs for the mature, for those who have their Jaculttes trained by exercise to distinguish good and evil.) 61 Let us pass on then to what 7s mature, leaving elementary Christian doctrine behind, instead of laying the foundation over again with repentance from dead works, with faith in God, * with instruction about ablutions and the laying on of hands, about the resurrection of the dead and eternal punishment. * With God's permission we will take this step. Mept 08 (Ze. on apxiepeds Kata THV Tagéw M.) Todds KTA. (v.12), The entire paragraph (vv.!4-!*) is full of ideas and terms current in the ethical and especially the Stoic philosophy of the day. Thus, to begin with, zodvs (sc. ore) 6 Ndyos iS a Common literary phrase for ‘‘there is much to say”; e.g. Dion. Hal. ad Amm. i. 3, TOAVS yap 6 epi aitav Adyos, and Lysias 7% Pancleonem, 11, doa pev ovv advo. éppyOy, moAds av ein por Adyos SenyctoOat. IloAvs and dvcepynvevros are separated, as elsewhere adjectives are (e.g. 21”). For the general sense of Sucepyyveutos Néyew, see Philo, de migrat. Abrah, 18, 7s Ta pev GAXa paxpotépwv 7) Kata Tov mapovTa Katpov detrat Adywv Kal bepHereov, and Dion. Halic. de Comp. Vill. wept dv Kai modts 6 Adyos Kai Babeia 7 Oewpia. Avoeppjvevtos occurs In an obscure and interpolated passage of Philo’s de Somniis (i. 32, dXéxtw tue Kai dvoepunve’tw Oéa), and Artemidorus (Oxeirocr. ili. 67, ot Ovetpou . . . motkiror Kal zoAXots Sucepuynvevtor) uses it of dreams. “Emel xrA. (explaining duvcepyn- vevtot) for the fault lies with you, not with the subject. Nw@pds only occurs once in the LXX, and not in this sense (Pr 22” avipdor vwOpois, tr. FWM); even in Sir 4% 111? it means no more than slack or backward (as below in 61%). It is a common Greek ethical term for sluggishness, used with the accusative or the (locative) dative. With dxoy it denotes dulness. The literal sense occurs in Heliodorus (v. 10: éy® pev ov nobdunv... Taxa pév tov Kal dt HAtkiav vwOpdtepos dv tiv axojv' vooos yap dAAwy te kal dtav TO yHpas), and the metaphorical sense of dxoat is illustrated by Philo’s remark in guzs ver. div. haer. 3: év aidxots avdpiacw, ois Ota péev eortiv, axoat 0’ odk everow. Why (kai ydp, v.12), the writer continues, instead of being teachers you still need a teacher. For xpeta with the article and infinitive (tod 8i8dcoKxeww? xrA.), cp. the similar use of xpéwv in OP. 1488%, In what follows, td, the masculine singular, gives a better sense than riva, the neuter plural. ‘‘ Ye again have need of (one) to teach you what are the elements” (sah boh); but it 1 —* inserts dxujv (Mt 15)6) between ydp and éorw: ‘‘he is s¢z// a mere babe.” Blass adopts this, for reasons of rhythm. - 2 1912 and Origen read (with 462) diddoxeo@ar, and omit vas. 79 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 12. is the elementary truths themselves, not what they are, that need to be taught. Ta orotxeta here means the ABC or elementary principles (see Burton’s Ga/atians, pp. 510f.), such as he men- tions in 61:7, He defines them further as tis apxis tav Noyiwy Neos, where ta Aoyia Geod means not the OT but the divine revelation in general, so that ra o. t. dpyns corresponds to the Latin phrase “prima elementa.” The words é¢ethovtes elvar SuddoKadou simply charge the readers with backwardness. ‘The expression, ‘to be teachers,’ affirms no more than that the readers ought to be ripe in Christian knowledge. Once a man is ripe or mature, the qualification for teaching is present ” (Wrede, p. 32). The use of the phrase in Greek proves that it is a general expression for stirring people up to acquaint them- selves with what should be familiar. See Epict. 2nchir. 51, motov oby ért OuddoKadov mpoodokas; ... OvK Ere ef peipaxtov, GAAG avnp non téAeos. It was quite a favourite ethical maxim in antiquity. ‘Thus Cyrus tells the Persian chiefs that he would be ashamed to give them advice on the eve of battle: ofda yap tpas TavTa émioTapevous Kal peweAeTnKOTas Kal doKodytas Oa TéAoUS oldmep éyw, wate Kav aArAous cikdTws Gv dSidacKorre (Cyrop. iii. 3. 35). Similarly we have the remark of Aristophanes in Plato, Sympos. 1894, éy® ov reipdcopar duty elonynoacbar tiv dvvopw airov, tuets O€ TOV GAAwY diddoKador évecbe, and the reply given by Apollonius of Tyana to a person who asked why he never put questions to anybody: 6re petpaxioy dv eLytnca, viv dé ov xp77 fnrety aAAd diddoKxev & evpynxa (Philostratus, Vita Apoll. i. 17). Seneca tells Lucilius the same truth: ‘‘ quousque disces ? iam et praecipe (Z/. 33°). Thus the phrase here offers no support whatever to any theories about the readers of Lpdos “EBpaious being a group of teachers, or a small, specially cultured com- munity. The author, himself a duddcxados, as he is in possession of this mature yvéovs, is trying to shame his friends out of their imperfect grasp of their religion. That is all. Teyévate xpetay éxovtes is a rhetorical variant for ypefay éyere, due to the writer’s fondness for yeyova. If there is any special meaning in the larger phrase, it is that detected by Chrysostom, who argues that the writer chose it deliberately: rouvrécrw, duets nOeAncare, tpets €avtovs eis ToUTO KaTeaTHGaTE, eis TaTHV THY xpeiav. They are responsible for this second childhood of theirs. The comparison } of milk and solid food is one of the most common in Greek 1 Origen (PAz/ocalia, xviii. 23) uses this passage neatly to answer Celsus, who had declared that Christians were afraid to appeal to an educated and intelligent audience. He quotes 5! as well as 1 Co 3%%, arguing that in the light of them it must be admitted jets, don divauis, rdvra mpdrromev vmép Tod ppoviuwy avipay yevécOar Tov cvAAOYov NuGY* Kal TA ev Nuly uddoTa Kaa kal Oeia Tore TOAMGmev Ev Tots mpds TO Kowdv diardyos Pépeww els wécor, br ebropodmev cuverav axpoaTar, V. 12-14. ] IMMATURITY 71 ethical philosophy, as in Epictetus, €.g. 11, 16. 39, ov OéAes 980 as Ta Tratdia droyahaxrirOijvat kal amrecOat Tpopiys OTEPEWT EAs, and ili. 24. 9, ov dmroyadakticoyev 45n of’ éavrovs, and parti- cularly in Philo. A characteristic passage from the latter writer is the sentence in de agric. 2: éret dé vytio péev eott yada Tpody, tedelors O€ TA EK TUPOV TEupaTa, Kal Wuxns yaAakTwdes pev av cley tpopat Kara THY TaLduKyy HAtKiay TA THS éyKuKALov povotKs mpomraevpata, TéeActat O€ Kal avdpacww éeumpemeis ai da Ppovncews Kal cwppoctvys Kal ardons aperns bpnynoes. Our writer adopts the metaphor, as Paul had done (1 Co 3!:2), and adds a general aside (vv.}8- 14) in order to enforce his remonstrance. He does not use the term yvéots, and the plight of his friends is not due to the same causes as operated in the Corinthian church, but he evidently regards his interpretation of the priesthood of Christ as mature instruction, oteped tpopy. “O petéxwv yddaKtos is one whose only food (ueréxewv as in 1 Co 10!” etc.) is milk; dmetpos is “inexperienced,” and therefore “ unskilled,” in Adyou B:Kato- auvyns—an ethical phrase for what moderns would call “ moral truth,” almost as in Xen. Cyrop. 1. 6. 31, avnp didacKxados ta&v malowv, Os édldacKev Apa Tovs Tatdas THY OiKatocvvynv KTA., Or in M. Aurelius xi. 10, xii. 1. Thus, while 8txavoodvy here is not a religious term, the phrase means more than (a) “ incapable of talking correctly ” (Delitzsch, B. Weiss, von Soden), which is, no doubt, the mark of a vymos, but irrelevant in this connexion : or (4) “incapable of understanding normal speech,” such as grown-up people use (Riggenbach). Tedetwy 8€ «rd. (v.14), The clearest statement of what contemporary ethical teachers meant by réXeos as mature, is (cp. p. 70) in Epict. Lxchirid. 51, ‘how long (cis wotov ére xpovov) will you defer thinking of yourself as worthy of the very best ...? You have received the precepts you ought to accept, and have accepted them. Why then do you still wait for a teacher (d:ddc0xadov mpoodoxas), that you may put off amending yourself till he comes? You are a lad no longer, you are a full-grown man now (ovx éru ef pecpaxiov, dAAG avip non TéAeos). . . . Make up your mind, ere it is too late, to live ws TéAeLov Kal mpoxomTovTa.” Then he adds, in words that recall He 121f: “and when you meet anything stiff or sweet, glorious or inglorious, remember that viv 6 dywv Kat ydn mdpeott Tao "OdAvumia.” As Pythagoras divided his pupils into vim. and TéAevot, SO Our author distinguishes between the immature and the mature (cp. 1 Co 2° év rots reXelous, 3! vyriows). In 8a thy ééw (vg. “ pro consuetudine ”) he uses és much as does the writer of the prologue to Sirach (ixavyy €fw repuroinodpevos), for facility or practice. It is not an equivalent for mental faculties here, 1 «* Firma quaedam facilitas quae apud Graecos &1s nominatur” (Quint. Insttt. Orat. 10. 1). 72 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 14-VI. 1. but for the exercise of our powers. These powers-or faculties are called ra aioc@nthpia. AicPyryjprov was a Stoic term for an organ of the senses, and, like its English equivalent ‘‘ sense,” easily acquired an ethical significance, as in Jer 419 ra aic@nrypia Ts Kapodias pov. The phrase Yeyupvacpevo, aioOnripra may be illustrated from Galen (de dign. puls. lll, 2, Os pev yap av evaro Onro- TATOV puow TE Kal TO aio Onrnpov EXD YEYYEVAT HEVOV iKQVOS . 6 . oUTos av apiaTos ein yvdpwv TOV évTOs broKepevoy, and de complexu, ii. : AeXoyicpevov pev éotw avdpds Tos oyispors ods elpyKa Kal yeyvpvacpeva THV aicOnow év ToAA TH Kata pépos euzrerpia. KTA.), yeyupvacpeva being a perfect participle used predicatively, like meputevrevny in Lk 13°, and yeyupvacpéevoy above. Compare what Marcus Aurelius (iii. 1) says about old age; it may come upon us, bringing not physical failure, but a premature decay of the mental and moral faculties, e.g., of self-control, of the sense of duty, kai 60a To.atra Aoyopod ovyyeyupvacpéevov mavy xpylet. Elsewhere (il. 13) he declares that ignorance of moral distinctions (dyvova ayaav Kat kax@v) is a blindness as serious as any inability to distinguish black and white. The power of moral discrimina- tion (pds SudKptow Kadod Te kal kaxod) is the mark of maturity, in contrast to childhood (cp. eg. Dt 1°9 wav madiov véov datis ovK oldev o7jpepov ayabov 7 KaKkov). Compare the definition of TO HOiKov in Sextus Empiricus (Hyp. Pyrrh. ill. 168): Omep OoKet mept THY dudKplorw TOV Te KaAQV Kal KaKO@V Kat adiapdpwv KaTa- yiyveo bat. In spite of Resch’s arguments (7exte u. Untersuchungen, xxx. 3. 112f.), there is no reason to hear any echo of the well-known saying attributed to Jesus: yivecOe dé ddxiwoe Tparefirar, Ta mev amodoKkipagovres, Td Se Kaddv KaTéXovres. Avs—well then (as in 121% 28)—ént rév tededtyTa hepdpeba (61). It is a moral duty to grow up, and the duty involves an effort. The reAewrns in question is the mature mental grasp of the truth about Christ as dpyvepevs, a truth which the writer is disappointed that his friends still find it difficult to understand. However, 6:4 Tov xpovov they ought to understand it. He has every reason to expect an effort from them, and therefore he follows up his remonstrance with a word of encouragement. Instead of the sharp, severe tone of vv.!f, he now speaks more hopefully. The connexion is not easy. We expect “however” instead of “well then.” But the connexion is not made more easy by regarding 61 as a resolve of the writer: ‘‘since you are so im- mature, I am going on myself to develop the higher teaching.” It would be senseless for a teacher to take this line, and it is not facilitated by reading depouefa. The plural is not the literary plural as in 54. The writer wishes to carry his readers along with him. ‘‘If you want anyone to instruct you over again in VI. 1.] A CALL TO THOUGHT 73 rudimentary Christianity, I am not the man; I propose to carry you forward into a higher course of lessons. Come, let us advance, you and I together.” The underlying thought, which explains the transition, is revealed in the next paragraph (vv.**), where the writer practically tells his readers that they must either advance or lose their present position of faith,! in which latter case there is no second chance for them. In spite of his un- qualified censure in 5!%, he shows, in 6%, that they are really capable of doing what he summons them to try in 61, ze. to think out the full significance of Jesus in relation to faith and forgiveness. Only thus, he argues, can quicken the faint pulse of your religious life. ‘‘ Religion is something different from mere strenuous thinking on the great religious questions. Yet it still remains true that faith and knowledge are inseparable, and that both grow stronger as they react on one another. More often than we know, the failure of religion, as a moral power, is due to no other cause than intellectual sloth” (E. F. Scott, p. 44). After the parenthesis of 51% 14, the writer resumes the thought with which he started in 51!* ‘‘you must make an effort to enter into this larger appreciation of what Christ means.” “Agevtes . pepapeda is a phrase illustrated by Eurip. Androm. 392- 303, THY apxiVv adets | xpos tHv TeXevTiV borépay ovcav depyn: by adevres the writer means “leaving behind,” and by depupeba “let us advance.” “Adinue might even mean ‘to omit” (“not mentioning”); it is so used with Adyoy (=to pass over without mentioning), ¢.g. in Plutarch’s az sent respublica gerenda sit, 18, GAN aerres, ci BovAe, TOV aGrooravta THs Todurelas AOyov éxelvo oKoTamev Oy KTA., and even independently (cp. Epict. iv. 1. 15, Tov pev Kaicapa mpos 76 mapov adomev, and Theophrastus, prooem., aes TO mpoorpidlea Oat Kal ToAA TEpt TOD TpaypLaros déyev). In what follows, tov THs dpxiis tod Xptotod Adyov is a variant for ra ororyeta THS apxns TOV Aoyiwy Tod Geod (512). Tod Xprorod is an objective genitive; the writer is not thinking of injunctions issued by Christ (so Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church, p. 344). Blass follows L in reading Aouzrov after Aoyov—needlessly. The use of the 6enédtov metaphor after tis dpxfs was natural ; it occurs in Epictetus (il. 15. 8, od GéAes THY apynv oTjoat Kal TOV GeweAcov) and in Philo (de spec. leg. 11. 13, dpxnv tavtnv Baddo- pevos Womrep Oeyedvov tia). Indeed the OewéArcov metaphor is particularly common in Philo, as, e.g., in the de vita contempl. 476 (é€yxpareay 5é dorep TWA GeweAtov mpoxataBarrdpuevor Wuy7s). This basis (OepéAvov) of Christian instruction is now described ; the contents are arranged in three pairs, but, as the middle pair are not distinctively Christian ideas (v.?), the writer puts in 1 Compare the motto which Cromwell is said to have written on his pocket-bible, ‘‘ qui cessat esse melior cessat esse bonus.” 74 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 2. Si8axynv or Sidaxqs. The Oenédcov of instruction consists of petavolas . . . Kal miorews (genitives of quality), while ddaxny, which is in apposition to it (‘‘I mean, instruction about”), controls the other four genitives. Metdvora and mioris, Barticpot and ém@éots xeipOv, dvdotacis and xpipa aidvioy, are the funda- mental truths. Merdvoi! dro is like peravoety aad (Ac 8%), and miotis emt Gedy like micrevey eri (e.g. Wis 12? iva dradAayertes TIS Kakias TicTevowmev eri oé, KUpLe). These two requirements were foremost in the programme of the Christian mission. The other side of repentance is described in 9!* récw paAdAov 76 alpa Tot Xpirrov . . . KaGaptet tiv ovveidnow Hudv aro vexpdv Epywv eis TO ANatpevew Geo Cov, where the last word indicates that vexpa épya mean the conduct of those who are outside the real life and service of God. Practically, therefore, vexpa epya are sins, as the Greek fathers assumed; the man who wrote 11% (feov... | djaptias) would hardly have hesitated to call them such. He has coined this phrase to suggest that such ¢pya have no principle of life in them,? or that they lead to death. The origin of the phrase has not been explained, though Chrysostom and Oecu- menius were right in suggesting that the metaphor of 9!* was derived from the contamination incurred by touching a corpse (see Nu 191% 311%). Its exact meaning is less clear. The one thiug that is clear about it is that these éeya vexpa were not habitual sins of Christians ; they were moral offences from which a man had to break away, in order to become a Christian at all. They denote not the lifeless, formal ceremonies of Judaism, but occupations, interests, and pleasures, which lay within the sphere of moral death, where, as a contemporary Christian writer put it (Eph 2!), pagans lay vexpol tots wapartwpacw Kal Tals dpapriaus. The phrase might cover Jewish Christians, if there were any such in the community to which this homily is addressed, but it is a general phrase. Whatever is evil is vexpov, for our author, and épya vexpa render any Christian wioris or Aatpevery impossible (cp. Exposttor, Jan. 1918, pp. 1-18), because they belong to the profane, contaminating sphere of the world. In v.? 88axyv is read, instead of 8:8ax%s, by B syr™ and the Old Latin, a very small group—yet the reading is probably 1 According to Philo (de Adbrah. 2, 3), next to hope, which is the d&pyn perovolas ayabGy, comes 7 él duapravopuévors werdvoia Kal BedXtlwots. Only, he adds (zdzd. 4), repentance is second to redevérys, Waorep Kal dvdcouv cuparos n mpds vyelay é& doGevelas weraBor\y . . . 1 8 amd Twos xpdvov Bedriwors tdiov ayabdov evpvods Wuxijs éore wh Tots wadixots émimevovons aN adporépos kal dvdpos dvTws ppovjuaciy émifnrovens evd.ov kardotacw [Wuxijs] kal TH pavracia Tav Kad@v émirpexovons. 2 Cp. the use of vexpés in Epict. iii. 23. 28, xal why dv un radra éurog 6 Tod pirocdpov Abyos, vexpds éoTt kal ards Kalo Aéywv. This passage indicates how vexpés could pass from the vivid application to persons (Mt 8”, Lk 15%, cp. Col 28), into a secondary application to their sphere and, conduct. VI. 2.] ELEMENTARY CHRISTIANITY 75 original; the surrounding genitives led to its alteration into d.daxyns. However, it makes no difference to the sense, which reading is chosen. Even didayns depends on Oeuédtov as a qualifying genitive. But the change of didaxynv into didaxjs is much more likely than the reverse process. Avdaynv follows Barricpav like kécpos in 1 P 3° (évdvcews ipwatiwy Kdopos). Bamrticpot by itself does not mean specifically Christian baptism either in this epistle (9!°) or elsewhere (Mk 74), but ablutions or immersions such as the mystery religions and the Jewish cultus required for initiates, proselytes, and worshippers in general. The singular might mean Christian baptism (as in Col 2!2), but why does the writer employ the plural here? Not because in some primitive Christian circles the catechumen was thrice sprinkled or immersed in the name of the Trinity (Didache 71°), but because ancient religions, such as those familiar to the readers, had all manner of purification rites connected with water (see on 107%), The distinctively Christian uses of water had to be grasped by new adherents. ‘That is, at baptism, e.g., the catechumen would be specially instructed about the differ- ence between this Christian rite, with its symbolic purification from sins of which one repented, and (a) the similar rites in connexion with Jewish proselytes on their reception into the synagogue or with adherents who were initiated into various cults, and (4) the ablutions which were required from Christians in subsequent worship. ‘The latter practice may be alluded to in 1072 (AeAovopévor 76 THpa VoaTt Kafaps). Justin (Afol. i. 62) regards these lustrations of the cults as devilish caricatures of real baptism: kal 76 Aouvtpoy 41) TotTo aKxovoavTes ol Saipoves . . . evnpyyoav Kat pavrilew éavtods Tovs eis TA iepa aitov émiBaivovras Kal mpootevat avtois péeAAovras, AouBas Kal Kvioas amroreAodvTas teAXcov O€ Kai AoverOar emidvras mpiv éADeiv eri Ta tepd, evOa ispuvta, evepyovot. The émé@éors xerpdv which often followed baptism in primitive days (e.g. Ac 8!" 19°), though it is ignored by the Didache and Justin, was supposed to confer the holy Spirit (see v.4). Tertullian witnesses to the custom (de daptismo, 18, de carnis resurrectione, 8), and Cyprian corroborates it (Zf. Ixxiv. 5, ‘‘manus baptizato imponitur ad accipiendum spiritum sanctum”). The rite was employed in blessing, in exorcising, and at ‘‘ordination,” afterwards at the reception of penitents and heretics; here it is mentioned in connexion with baptism particularly (2 REZ. vi. 4940). The subject is discussed in monographs like A. J. Mason’s 7he Relation of Confirmation to Baptism (1891), and J. Behm’s Die Handauflegung im Orchristenthum (1911). The final pair of doctrines is dvactdcews vexpay kal Kpipatos (21415 927) giwviou (as in Ac 24-25), Te is added after davac- 76 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ [VI. 2-4. tacews mechanically (to conform with the preceding re) by 8 AC K L Lat arm syr™! Pe", just as it is added after Barticpov by harkl. In the rather elliptical style and loose construction of the whole sentence, ‘‘ notwithstanding its graceful rhythmical struc- ture,’ it is possible to see, with Bruce (p. 203), “an oratorical device to express a feeling of impatience” with people who need to have such g7iucipia mentioned. At any rate the writer hastens forward. VV. is not a parenthesis (“I will do this,” ze. go over such elementary truths with you, “if God permits,” when I reach you, 1373); the todro refers to the advance proposed in v.}, and after mowjoopev the author adds reverently, “if God permits,” édvirep é€mitpémy 6 eds, almost as a contemporary rhetorician — might say in a pious aside: éav dé odly 76 Sarpoviov nuas (Dion. Halicarn. De Admir. Vi dicendi in Dem. 58), or Ocdv pas prAratrovrwy dowels TE Kat avdcovs (De Composit. Verborum, 1). The papyri show that similar phrases were current in the correspondence of the day (cp. Deissmann’s Pib/e Studies, p. 80), and Josephus (47. xx. 11. 2) uses Kav TO Oelov émitper 7. woujcopev (8 BK LN 1. 2. 5. 6. 33. 69. 88, 216. 218. 221. 226, 242. 255- 337- 429. 489. 919. 920. 1149. 1518. 1739. 1758. 4827. 1867. 2127. 2143. Lat sah boh Chrys.) has been changed into roujowuev by A C D P arm, etc., though the latter may have been originally, like gepdue@a in v.1, an ortho- graphical variant, o and w being frequently confused. 4 For in the case of people who have been once enlightened, who tasted the heavenly Gift, who participated tn the holy Spirit, > who tasted the goodness of God’s word and the powers of the world to come, © and then fell away—zit is impossible to make them repent afresh, since they crucify the Son of God in their own persons and hold him up to obloguy. * For “‘land” which absorbs the rain that often falls on tt, and bears ‘‘ plants” that are useful to those for whom tt zs telled, recetves a blessing from God ; ® whereas, tf tt (sc. h yh) ‘‘ pro- duces thorns and thistles,” tt ¢s reprobate and on the verge of being cursed—its fate ts to be burned. Vv.*® put the reason for toéto toijoopey (v.3), and vv." 8 give the reason for éAdvatov . . . dvakxawwifew eis petdvoray (vv.4), "Adivatov ydp «TX. (v.*); there are four impossible things in the epistle: this and the three noted in wv.!8 10 and 116, Tots... aiavos (+ 5*) is a long description of people who have been initiated into Christianity; then comes the tragic kat mapatreu= évtas. What makes the latter so fatal is explained in (v.°) dvacTaupotvTas . . . TapaderypatiLovtas. Logically mddw dva- kawilew eis petdvoray ought to come immediately after &8dvatov yép, but the writer delayed the phrase in order to break up the sequence of participles. The passage is charged with an austerity which shows how seriously the writer took life. Seneca quotes (Zp. xxili. g-11) to Lucilius the saying of Epicurus, that “it is irksome always to be starting life over again,” and that “they live badly who are always beginning to live.” The reason is: “quia VI. 4.] A WARNING oy. semper illis imperfecta vita est.” But our writer takes a much more sombre view of the position of his friends. He urges them to develop their ideas of Christianity. ‘You need some one to teach you the rudimentary lessons of the faith all over again,” he had said. “Yes,” he now adds, “and in some cases that is impossible. Relaying a foundation of repentance, etc. ! That cannot be done for deliberate apostates.” The implication is that his readers are in danger of this sin, as indeed he has hinted already (in 37-4"), and that one of the things that is weakening them is their religious inability to realize the supreme significance of Jesus. To remain as they are is fatal; it means the possibility of a relapse altogether. ‘Come on,” the writer bids them, ‘‘for if you do not you will fall back, and to fall back is to be ruined.” The connexion between this passage and the foregoing, therefore, is that to rest content with their present elementary hold upon Christian truth is to have an inadequate grasp of it; the force of temptation is so strong that this rudi- mentary acquaintance with it will not prevent them from falling away altogether, and the one thing to ensure their religious position is to see the full meaning of what Jesus is and does. This meaning he is anxious to impart, not as an extra but as an essential. The situation is so serious, he implies, that only those who fully realize what Jesus means for forgiveness and fellowship will be abie to hold out. And once you relapse, he argues, once you let go your faith, it is fatal; people who de- liberately abandon their Christian confession of faith are beyond recovery. Such a view of apostasy as a heinous offence, which destroyed all hope of recovery, is characteristic of IIpdés ‘EBpaiovs. It was not confined to this writer. That certain persons could not repent of their sins was, ¢.g., an idea admitted in rabbinic Judaism. ‘Over and over again we have the saying: ‘For him who sins and causes others to sin no repentance is allowed or possible’ (Aboth v. 26; Sanhedrin, 1074). ‘He who is wholly given up to sin is unable to repent, and there is no forgiveness to him for ever’ (Midrash Tehillim on Ps 1 ad fin.).”1 There is a partial parallel to this passage in the idea thrown out by Philo in de agricultura, 28, as he comments upon Gn 9%; “Noah began to till the earth.” Evidently, says Philo, this means that he was merely working at the dpxav of the subject. ’Apxy 8, 6 trv tadatdv Adyos, jue Tod TavTos, ds dv Hulce pos TO TéAos adeotyKvia, ov pi Tpooyevomevov kal TO dp~acbar moXXAakis peyara toAAod’s EBrAaWev. His point is that it is dangerous to stop short in any moral endeavour. But our author is more rigorous in his outlook. His warning is modified, however. (a) It is put in the form of a general statement. 1C. G. Montefiore, in Jewish Quarterly Review (1904), p. 225. 78 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 4. (4) It contains a note of encouragement in v.’; and (c) it is at once followed up by an eager hope that the readers will dis- appoint their friend and teacher’s fear (v.°). In the later church this feature of IIpds “EBpaiovs entered into the ecclesiastical question of penance (cp. ZRL. ix. 716, and Journal of Theo- logical Studies, iv. 321 f.), and seriously affected the vogue of the epistle (cp. Introd. p. xx). The fourfold description of believers (* 5*) begins with drag gwtiobévras, where @wricPévras corresponds to AaPetv rHv ériy- vwow tHS GAnOeias (107°), in the general sense of LXX (eg. Ps 11818 4 dyAwos TOV Adywv Gov puwrtiet, Kal TuveTel vyTiovs), te. “enlightened” in the sense of having their eyes opened (Eph 18) to the Christian God. Subsequently, earlier even than © Justin Martyr, the verb, with its noun ¢dwriopds, came to be used of baptism specifically (cp. HARE. viii. 54, 55). “Amagé is pre- fixed, in contrast to mdduw (v.°); once for all men enter Christi- anity, it is an experience which, like their own death (9?7) and the death of Jesus (9”8), can never be repeated. In kadév yeuoa- pévous Geo pia (‘experienced how good the gospel is ”) the con- struction resembles that of Herod. vii. 46, where the active voice is used with the accusative (6 d¢ Oeds yAukdy yedoas Tov aidva, hbovepos év adt@ evpioxerar éwv), and the adj. is put first: ‘the deity, who let us taste the sweetness of life (or, that life is sweet), is found to be spiteful in so doing.” The similar use of the middle here as in Pr 29° and Jn 2° probably points to the same meaning (cp., however, Déat. 2016-2018), 7.¢., practically as if it were o7e «rd. (cp. Ps 348 yevoacGe xal idere Ore xpyoros 6 xvptos, 1 P 23), in contrast to the more common construction with the genitive (v.* 2°). The writer uses genitive and accusa- tive indifferently, for the sake of literary variety ; and xadov here is the same as xaAov in 514, Teucapevous «rd. recalls the parti- ality of Philo for this metaphor (e.g. de Abrah. 19; de Somnitis, i, 26), but indeed it is common (cp. eg. Jos. Azz. iv. 6. 9, daa€ TO véov yevoapevov Levixdv CHicpav drdAyjotws attdv éveopeiro) throughout contemporary Hellenistic Greek as a metaphor for experiencing. Probably yevoapévous . . . éroupaviou, petdxous . dyiou, and kahdv yeuocapévous aidvos are three rhetorical expressions for the initial experience described in Gag dwtiobév- tas. ‘‘The heavenly Gift” (rs dwpeds rs érovpaviov) may be the Christian salvation in general, which is then viewed as the impartation of the holy Spirit, and finally as the revelation of the higher world which even already is partly realized in the experi- ence of faith. Note that dwrioGévras is followed by yevoapévous xtX., as the light-metaphor is followed by the food-metaphor in Philo’s (de fuga et invent. 25) remarks upon the manna (Ex 1615. 16); 4 Oeia cvvragis airy tiv Spatixny Woxnv huriler re VI. 5, 6.] NO SECOND REPENTANCE 79 Kat Ou“ov Kat yAvKaiver . . . Tovs duwavTas Kal wewvavras Kado- kayabias epndivovoa. Also, that Suvdpers te péANovTos aidvos? in- cludes the thrilling experiences mentioned in 24. The dramatic turn comes in (v.°) kat mapameodvtas. Ilaparimrev is here used in its most sinister sense; it corresponds to droorjva (312), and indeed both verbs are used in the LXX to translate the same term 5yp. The usage in Wis 69 (i Tapatéoyte) 127 (rovs twapatimtoovtas) paves the way for this sense of a deliberate renunciation of the Christian God, which is equivalent to éxovaiws dpapravev in 10%, The sin against the holy Spirit, which Jesus regarded as unpardonable, the mysterious dpapria mpds Gavarov of 1 Jn 5!6, and this sin of apostasy, are on the same level. The writer never hints at what his friends might relapse into. Anything that ignored Christ was to him hopeless. *AdUvaTor (sc. €or) is now (v.®) taken up in dvaKxowifew (for which Paul prefers the form dvaxawotv), a LXX term (e.g. Ps 51!*) which is actually used for the Christian start in life by Barnabas (6! dvaxawioas nuads év TH adéoer TOY dyapridy), and naturally of the divine action. Mddw is prefixed for emphasis, as in Isokr. Aveopag. 3, THs €xOpas THs pds Tov Baciréa wadw GVAKEKQLWLO LEVYS. There have been various, vain efforts to explain the apparent harshness of the statement. Erasmus took ddvvaroy (like d=difficile) as ‘‘ difficult” ; Grotius said it was impossible ‘‘ per legem Mosis’’; others take dvaxawlt{ew to mean ‘‘ keep on renewing,” while some, like Schoettgen, Bengel, and Wickham, fall back on the old view that while men could not, God might effect it. But even the last-named idea is out of the question. If the writer thought of any subject to dvaxawlfewv, it was probably a Christian d:ddoxados like himself; but the efforts of such a Christian are assumed to be the channel of the divine power, and no renewal could take place without God. There is not the faintest suggestion that a second repentance might be produced b God when human effort failed. The tenor of passages like 10% and 1217 tells finally against this modification of the language. A similarly ominous tone is heard in Philo’s comment on Nu 30! in guod deter. pot. insid. 40: ghoouev Oidvoiay . . . EKBeBARTOa Kaltxnpav Oeod, iris H yovds Oelas ov mapedééaro 7) mapadetauévyn Exovolws adOis €EnuBdwoe .. . H 8 adrak Siatevx- Oeioa Kal Storxicbeioa ws domovdos wéxpt TOU mavrods aldvos éxrerdtevrat, els Tov dpxatov olkov éraveNOety ddvvaroica. The reason why a second repentance is impossible is given in dvactaupodytas . . . wapaderypartiLovtas, where dvacravpodvras is used instead of oravpotvras, for the sake of assonance (after dvaxawilev), but with the same meaning. *Avacravpoiv simply means “‘to crucify,” as, é.g., in Plato’s Gorgias, 28 (tots atrod émdav 1 Tertullian’s translation, ‘‘ occidente iam aevo” (de Pudicitia, 20) shows that his Greek text had omitted a line by accident : NOYZ0YPHMAAYN AMEIZTEMEAA ONTOSAIWNOCKAI, t.e. Sur[duers te wédA]ovTos aldvos, 80 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 6. maioas TE Kal yuvaixka TO éxxXaTov dvacravpwO 7 KatamitTwOF) ; Thucyd. i. r10 (Ivdpws . . . rpodocia Anpbeis averravpwn) ; Josephus (Azz. xi. 6. 10, dvaoravpioa. tov Mapdoxator), etc. The dva =sursum, not rursum, though the Greek fathers (e.g. Chrys. rt b€ éorw dvactavpotvtas; avwlev rad otavportvtas), and several of the versions (e.g. vg ‘“‘rursum crucifigentes”), took it in the sense of re-crucify. ‘Eaurots: it is ‘key crucifixion of Jesus. “The thought is that of wilfulness rather than of detriment ” (Vaughan). In the story of Jesus and Peter at Rome, which Origen mentions as part of the Acts of Paul (27 Joh. xx. 12), the phrase, ‘‘to be crucified over again” occurs in a different sense (Zexte u. Unters. xxx. 3, pp. 271-272). Kalo KUptos avTw elev’ eloépxouce els THY ‘Padunv oravpwOivat. Kal 6 Hérpos elev av’rs* Kipie, waduv oravpotca; elev atr@* val, Ilérpe, madw oravpodua, Origen, quoting this as “Avw0ev wéA\w oravpodedar, holds that such is the meaning of dvacravpoty in He 6°, The meaning of the vivid phrase is that they put Jesus out of their life, they break off all connexion with him ; he is dead to them. ‘This is the decisive force of cravpotofa: in Gal 614. The writer adds an equally vivid touch in kat mapadserypatifovtas (= 7dv vidv Jeod Kataratjoas KTX., 10%)—as if he is not worth their loyalty! Their repudiation of him proclaims to the world that they consider him useless, and that the best thing they can do for themselves is to put him out of their life. NMapadery- patifew is used in its Hellenistic sense, which is represented by ridévar eis mapaderypa in the LXX (Nah 3°). Possibly the term was already associated with impaling (cp. Nu 25* rapaderypdricov avrovs Kvpiw),! but our author does not use it in the LXX sense of “make an example of” (by punishing) ; the idea is of exposing to contemptuous ignominy, in public (as in Mt 1%). The Bithynians who had renounced Christianity proved to Pliny their desertion by maligning Christ—one of the things which, as he observed, no real Christian would do (‘‘ quorum nihil posse cogi dicuntur qui sunt re vera Christiani”’). ‘‘Ommnes .. . Christi male dixerunt.’”” When the proconsul urges Polykarp to abandon Christianity, he tells the bishop, Aowddpnrov roy Xpiordv (Aart. Polyk. ix. 3). The language of Mpés ‘EBpatovs is echoed in the saying of Jesus quoted in Afost. Const, vi. 18: obrol elot wept dv Kal 6 KUptos TiKpOs Kal droTéuws arepijvaro héywv Sri elol Wevddxpioroa Kal Wevdodu- ddoxara, of BLacdnunoavres TO wrvedua THs Xdpiros Kai dromrvcavrTes Thy wap avrod dwpeav wera THY xdpy, ols ovk aheOjoerat ode é€v TH aldu roUTWw ove év Tp médANovtt. In Sir 31° (Bamrifduevos awd vexpod cal madw arropevos avtod, rl @pednoev TH AovTpy avdrod ;) the allusion is to the taboo-law of Nu 191! 22; the parallel is verbal rather than real. But there is a true parallel in Mongolian Buddhism, which ranks five sins as certain ‘‘to be followed by a hell of intense sufferings, and that without cessation . . . patricide, matricide, killing a Doctor of Divinity (z.e. a lama), bleeding Buddha, sowing hatred among priests. . . . Drawing blood from the body of Buddha is a figurative expression, after the manner of He 6°” (J. Gilmour, Among the Mongols, Pp: 233, 234). 1 In alluding to the gibbeting law of Dt 21%, Josephus (Be//. Jud. iv. 5. 2) speaks of dvacraupotv. " VI. 6-8. | A PARABLE FROM NATURE 81 In the little illustration (vv.7-8), which corresponds to what Jesus might have put in the form of a parable, there are reminiscences of the language about God’s curse upon the ground (Gn 3}”- 38) ; eTLKATAPATOS yn . . . akavOas kal tpiBdorovs avareAct, and also of the words in Gn 11? kat é&nveyxev ) yn Poravyy xdprov, though the writer uses éxdépew for dvareAAcy, and prefers tixrew to éxpépe (in v.’), The image of a plot or field is mentioned by Quintilian (Zustit. Orat. v. 11. 24) as a common instance of the rapafPoAy : ‘fut, si animum dicas excolendum, similitudine utaris terrae quae neglecta spinas ac dumos, culta fructus creat.” The best Greek instance is in Euripides (Hecuba, 592 f.: ovKcovv devov, ei yn pev kakn | TvxXovCa Kaipod Oedbev ed ordxvv pépet, | xpyoTH 8 duaproic’ Ov xpeov avriy tvxety | Kaxdv didwor Kaprov KTA.). Modca of land, as, ¢.g., In Dt 1111 yy . . . €k Tov veTOD Tov Oipavod wieraL Vdwp: Is 551% etc. As etOetos generally takes eis with the accusative, it is possible that tixrouoa was meant to go with éxewots. Tewpyetrat, of land being worked or cultivated, is a common term in the papyri (e.g. Syl. 429° Ta Te ywpia ei yewpyetrar) as well as in the LXX. (a) Origen’s homiletical comment (PAzJocalia, xxi. 9) is, Ta yuvdueva bard Tob Ocot repdoria olovel verds éorww* ai dé mpoapécers ai dudgopoat olovel | yeyewpyn- pévn yh éorl kal ) Huernuevyn, mid TH Pioet ws yh TUyXdvovca—an idea similar to that of Jerome (¢ractatus de psalmo xcvt., Anecdota Maredsolana, ili. 3. 90: ‘* apostolorum epistolae nostrae pluviae sunt spiritales. Quid enim dicit Paulus in epistola ad Hebraeos? Terra enim saepe venientem super se bibens imbrem, et reliqua”). (4) The Mishna directs that at the repetition of the second of the Eighteen Blessings the worshipper should think of the heavy rain and pray for it at the ninth Blessing (Berachoth, 51), evidently because the second declares, ‘* Blessed art thou, O Lord, who restorest the dead” (rain quickening the earth), and the ninth runs, ‘‘ Bless to us, O Lord our God, this year and grant usa rich harvest and bring a blessing on our land.” Also, ‘‘ on the occasion of the rains and good news, one says, Blessed be He who is good and does good” (Berachoth, 9”). Cp. Marcus Aurelius, v. 7, evxH’A@nvalwy’ toov, door, & pire Zed, xara Tis dpovpas THs’ AOnvalwy kal Tov wediwy. MetadapBaver ( = participate in) is not a LXX term, but occurs in this sense in Wis 189 etc. ; edAoylas occurs again in 12!” (of Esau the apostate missing his evAoy/a), and there is a subtle suggestion here, that those alone who make use of their divine privileges are rewarded. What the writer has in mind is brought out in v.!; that he was thinking of the Esau-story here is shown by the reminiscence of dypod dv niAdynoev Kupios (Gn 2777), The reverse side of the picture is now shown (v.8). Commenting on Gn 3}8 Philo fancifully plays on the derivation of the word tplBodos (like ‘‘ trefoil”): Exacrov 6¢ rv raddy rpiBdria elpynxer, érerdh TpirTd éotw, até re Kal 7d mointikdv Kal Td €x ToUTwy dmorédecpa (leg. alleg. 3°). He also compares the eradication of evil desires in the soul to a gardener or farmer burning down weeds (de Agric. 4, wav7’ éxxdw, éxreu® .. . Kal ém- katow kal Tas plfas aita&y équeio’ dxpt Tay voTdTw THs ys Proyds purjv) ; but in our epistle, as in Jn 15°, the burning is a final doom, not a process of severe discipline. 6 82 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 8, 9. *AddKios is used as in 1 Co g?/; the moral sense breaks through, as in the next clause, where the meaning of eis kaitou may be illustrated by Dt 2922 and by Philo’s more elaborate description of the thunderstorm which destroyed Sodom (de Aérah. 27); God, he says, showered a blast ody vdaros adda rvpds upon the city and its fields, by way of punishment, and everything was consumed, ézrel de 74, év pavepe Kal brep yis daravra KaTavadwoev n Pré, in Kal THY ynv airy éxave ... Urép tod pnd adfis Mies Kaprrov éveyKely 7) xAonhopycat 76 maparav SovyOyvar. The metaphor otherwise 1s inexact, for the reference cannot be to the burning of a field in order to eradicate weeds; our author is thinking of final punishment (=xkpiwaros atwviov, 67), which he associates as usual with fire (1076 27 1229), The moral applica- tion thus impinges on the figurative sketch. The words katdpas éyyds actually occur in Aristides (Ovat. in Rom. 370: 70 pev mpoxwpetv avtots & €BovrovTo, dunxavov Kal katdpas éyyvs).! There is no thought of mildness in the term éyyvs, it being used, as in 813, of imminent doom, which is only a matter of time. Mean- while there is the éxdoy7 (107"). Later on, this conception of unpardonable sins led to the whole system of penance, which really starts from the discussion by Hermas in the second century. But for our author the unpardon- able sin is apostasy, and his view is that of a missionary. Modern analogies are not awanting. Thus, in Dr. G. Warneck’s book, The Living Forces of the Gospel (p. 248), we read that “the Battak Christians would have even serious transgressions forgiven; but if a Christian should again sacrifice to ancestors or have anything to do with magic, no earnest Christian will speak in his favour ; he is regarded as one who has fallen back into heathenism, and therefore as lost.” 9 Though I say this, beloved, I feel sure you will take the better * course that means salvation. God is not unfair; he will not forget what you have done, or the love you have shown for his sake in ministering, as you still do, to the satnts. “ It ¢s my heart's desire that each of you would prove equally keen upon realizing your full (wdnpogoplay, 10%) hope to the very end, so that instead of being slack you may imitate those who inherit the promises by their steadfast faith. The ground for his confident hope about his “ dear friends” (Tyndale, v.%) lies in the fact that they are really fruitful (v.”) in what is the saving quality of a Christian community, viz. brotherly love (v.!°). The God who blesses a faithful life (v.7) will be sure to reward them for that; stern though he may be, in punishing the disloyal, he never overlooks good service. Only (vv.1; 1%), 1Cp. Eurip. Azppolytus, 1070: alat, rpds Frap* Saxpbwv éyyds rbde. 2 For some reason the softer linguistic form xpelocova is used here, as at 10*4, in preference to xpelrrova. VI. 9, 10.] ENCOURAGEMENT 83 the writer adds, put as much heart and soul into your realization of what Christianity means as you are putting into your brotherly love; by thus taking the better course, you are sure of God’s blessing. As dyamntot indicates (the only time he uses it), the writer’s affection leads him to hope for the best; he is deeply concerned about the condition of his friends, but he does not believe their case is desperate (v.*). He has good hopes of them, and he wishes to encourage them by assuring them that he still believes in them. We may compare the remarks of Seneca to Lucilius, Zf. xxix. 3, about a mutual friend, Marcellinus, about whom both of them were anxious. Seneca says he has not yet lost hope of Marcellinus. For wisdom or philosophy ‘‘is an art ; let it aim at some definite object, choosing those who will make progress (profecturos) and withdrawing from those of whom it despairs—yet not abandoning them quickly, rather trying drastic remedies when everything seems hopeless.” Elsewhere, he encourages Lucilius himself by assuring him of his friend’s confidence and hope (£/. xxxii. 2: ‘“‘habeo quidem fiduciam non posse te detorqueri mansurumque in proposito”), and, in con- nexion with another case, observes that he will not be deterred from attempting to reform certain people (Z/. xxv. 2): ‘I would ~ rather lack success than lack faith.” In kai (epexegetic) éxdpeva (sc. mpdypata) owtnyplas, éxdpeva, thus employed, is a common Greek phrase (cp. eg. Marc. Aurel. i. 6, 60a tovadra THs EdAnveriis aywyns éxoueva: Musonius (ed. Hense), x; Eyrety - maudelas éxopeva (v.20. éxdpuevov): Philo, de Agric. 22, Ta dé KapTeplas kal cwppootvys . . . é€xdueva) for what has a bearing upon, or is connected with ; here, for what pertains to and therefore promotes owrypia (the opposite of Kardpa and xado.s). The reason for this confidence, with which he seeks to hearten his readers, lies in their good record of practical service (tov épyouv duav xrd.) which God is far too just to ignore. (i), all, they had some fruits as well as roots of Christianity (v.10). *EmaSéo8ar is an infinitive of conceived result (Burton’s Moods and Tenses, 37%¢5 Blass, § 391. 4), instead of tva c. subj., aS, 6.8%, in 1 Jn 1°, or gore c. infinitive; cp. Xen. Cyrop. IV. 1. 20, dixaros et ReivialtenGae! The text of 10d Epyou bpav Kat Tis dydéans was soon harmonized with that of 1 Th 1° by the in- sertion of rot kdémov after kai (so D° K L 69*. 256. 263. 1611%. 2005. 2127 boh Theodoret, etc.). The relative qv after dydans has been attracted into the genitive js (as in 92°). One practi- cal form of this S:axovety is mentioned in 10% 94, Here eis 76 Gvopa adtod goes closely with S:aKxovyoavtes xTA., as well as with évedeigaobe, in the sense of “for his sake.” In /irke Aboth, 1 See Dolon’s remark in the Rhesus of Euripides (161, 162): odxodv roveis Mev Xp, wovoidvTa 5 dkiov pcbdv péper Oar, 84 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 10, 11. 216 R. Jose’s saying is quoted, ‘‘ Let all thy works be done for the sake of heaven” (literally ow), i.e. eis dvoua, as here and in Ign. Rom. 93 7 aydrn Tov éxkAnoLov Tov de~apevwv pe eis Gvopa "Incotd Xpicrod). Tots dytous, the only place (except 1374) where the writer uses this common term for “ fellow-Christians” ; God will never be so unjust as to overlook kindness shown to “his own.” The personal affection of the writer comes out not only in the dyamyrtot of v.9, but again (v.1!) in the deep ém@upodpey, a term charged with intense yearning (as Chrysostom says, tratpuK7js dtAooropyias), and in the individualizing €xaoroy (cp. 3!* 3%). He is urgent that they should display thy atéthy omoudyv with regard to their Christian é\mis as they display in the sphere of their Christian dyday. ‘This does not mean that he wishes them to be more concerned about saving their own souls or about heaven than about their duties of brotherly love; his point is that the higher knowledge which he presses upon their minds is the one security for a Christian life at all. Just as Paul cannot assume that the warm mutual affection of the Thessalonian Christians implied a strict social morality (see below on 13+), or that the same quality in the Philippian Christians implied moral dis- crimination (Ph 1°), so our author pleads with his friends to complete their brotherly love by a mature grasp of what their faith implied. He reiterates later on the need of ¢iAadeAdia (131), and he is careful to show how it is inspired by the very devotion to Christ for which he pleads (10!%?4), MAnpodopia (not a LXX term) here is less subjective than in 10?2, where it denotes the complete assurance which comes from a realization of all that is involved in some object. Here it is the latter sense of fulness, scope and depth in their—édAmis.1 This is part and parcel of the reAewdrys to which he is summoning them to advance (61). The result of this grasp of what is involved in their faith will be (v.!2) a vigorous constancy, without which even a kindly, unselfish spirit is inadequate. For évSetkvuc@at omoudiy compare Herodian’s remark that the soldiers of Severus in 4.D. 193 wacav évedeiKvuvTO mpobupiay Kal _omoudiy (ii. To. 19), Magn. 53° (ill. B.C.), drddecéuv TOLOvpEVvos THS Tepl Ta péyiota roves, and Syll. 342% (i. B. c.) Thy peylotnv évdeikvuTat orovdyy eis THY vmrép THS mraz pidos awtnpiav. ‘The Greeks used the verb as we use “display,” in speaking of some inward quality. This ardour has to be kept up dxpt tédous (cp. pseudo-Musonius, Z/¢. 1, in Hercher’s Zpistolog. Graect, 401 f.: typodtvras d& Hv exovor viv mpobecw axpt téXovs dirocopjcat); it is the sustained interest in essential Christian truth which issues practically in paxpo@upia (v.12), or in the confident attitude of hope (3° '4). 1 For édmldos, ricrews is read in W 1867. VI. 11, 12.] EXAMPLES OF FAITh 85 Aristotle, in Ret. ii. 19. 5, argues that 05 apxh Sivara yevéoOa, Kal TO TéNos* ovdeV yap ylyverat ovd apxerat ylyverOar Tov ddvvdtwy, a paradox which really means that ‘‘if you want to know whether the end of any course of action, plan, scheme, or indeed of anything—is possible, you must look to the beginning : beginning implies end: if it can be begun, it can also be brought to an end” (Cope). In v.!# the appeal is rounded off with tva ph vwbpot yévnode, that you may not prove remiss (repeating vw6poi from 51!, but in a slightly different sense: they are to be alert not simply to understand, but to act upon the solid truths of their faith), pipntat 8€ xrA. Hitherto he has only mentioned people who were a warning; now he encourages them by pointing out that they had predecessors in the line of loyalty. This incentive is left over for the time being; the writer returns to it in his panegyric upon faith in chapter 11. Meanwhile he is content to emphasize the steadfast faith (aiorews kai paxpoOupias, a hendiadys) that characterizes this loyalty. Maxpo$upia means here (as in Ja 5”) the tenacity with which faith holds out. Compare Menander's couplet (Kock’s Com. Attic. Fragm. 549), avOpwros av pndérote THY ahumiav | airod Tapa Gear, GANG THY paxpobupiay, and Zest. Jos. 2? pwéya pdppakov eotw 7 paxpoOvpia | kal TOAAG ayaba Sidwow 7 bropovy. But this aspect of rioris is not brought forward till 10%", after the discussion of the priest- hood and sacrifice of Christ. In kAnpovopotvtwy tas émayyedias the writer implies that hope is invariably sustained by a promise or promises. He has already mentioned 9 érayyeda (4!). KAnpovopety tas émayyeAias can hardly mean ‘“‘get a promise of something”; as the appended 814 tiotews kal paxpobupias sug- gests, it denotes ‘coming into possession of what is promised.” This is proved by the equivalent émétuye tis émayyetas in v.), Taking Abraham as the first or as a typical instance of steadfast faith in God’s promises, the writer now (vv.13-!%) lays stress not upon the human quality, but upon the divine basis for this undaunted reliance. Constancy means an effort. But it is evoked by a divine revelation ; what stirs and sustains it is a word of God. From the first the supreme Promise of God has been guaranteed by him to men so securely that there need be no uncertainty or hesitation in committing oneself to this Hope. The paragraph carries on the thought of vv.4!-!2; at the end, by a dexterous turn, the writer regains the line of argument which he had dropped when he turned aside to incite and reprove his readers (511*), 13 Kor in making a promise to Abraham God ‘‘ swore by himself” (since he could swear by none greater), 14 “‘ J will indeed bless you and multiply you.” 15 Thus zt was (z.e. thanks to the divine Oath) that Abraham by his steadfast- ness obtained (so 11**) what he had been promised. 38 For as’ men swear by 1 To make the connexion clear, some inferior texts (C D° K L 6, 33. 104. 1610, etc.) add pév, 86 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 18, 14. a greater than themselves, and as an oath means to them a guarantee that ends any dispute, ™ God, in his desire to afford the heirs of the Promise a special proof of the solid character of his purpose, interposed with an oath ; '8 so that by these two solid facts (the Promise and the Oath), where zt ¢s impossible for God to be false, we refugees might have strong encouragement (rapdxhnow, see on 12°) fo sezze the hope set before us, }° anchoring the soul to tt safe and sure, as it “enters the inner” Presence © behind the veil,” As usual, he likes to give a biblical proof or iltdetabod (Wyss) God’s famous promise to Abraham, but the main point in it is that God ratified the promise with an oath. Our author takes the OT references to God’s oath quite naively. Others had felt a difficulty, as is shown by Philo’s treatise de Abrahamo (46): ‘* God, enamoured of this man [z.e. Abraham], for his faith (zicrw) in him, gives him in return a pledge (iorw), guaranteeing by an oath (rhv d¢ Spxov BeBalworr) . the gifts he had promised . . . for he says, ‘I swear by myself’ (Gn 22!6)— and with him a word is an oath—for the sake of confirming his mind more steadfastly and immovably than ever before.” But the references to God’s oaths were a perplexity to Philo; his mystical mind was embarrassed by their realism. In de sacrif. Abelis et Catni (28, 29) he returns to the subject. Hosts of people, he admits, regard the literal sense of these OT words as inconsistent with God’s character, since an oath implies (uaprupla Oeod mepl mpadyuaros aupisByroupévov) God giving evidence in a disputed matter ; whereas Oe ovdev ddnrov ov5e dudisBnrovmevov, God’s mere word ought to be enough: 6 dé Oeds kal Aéywv miords éeoriv, wore Kai tovs Ndyous abroad BeBatirnros Evexa pndév Spxwv diadépery. He inclines to regard the OT references to God’s oaths as a condescension of the sacred writer to dull minds rather than as a condescension upon God’s part. In Leg. Allegor. ili. 72 he quotes this very passage (Gn 2276 17), adding : ed Kal 7d 8pxw BeBardoar Thy dmboxeow kal Spx Oeomperret* opas yap bre od Kal’ érépov duvvter Oeds, ovdev yap avrod Kpeirrov, adda Kad’ éauTod, bs eort wdvTwy dpicros. But he feels bound to explain it. Some of his contemporaries had begun to take exception to such representations of God, on the ground that God’s word required no formal confirmation—it confirmed itself by being fulfilled—and that it was absurd (drozov) to speak of God swearing by himself, in order to bear testimony to himself.! Philo (22d. 73) attempts to meet this objection by urging that only God can bear testimony to himself, since no one else knows the divine nature truly ; consequently it is appropriate for him to add confirmation to his word, although the latter by itself 1s amply deserving of belief. In Berachoth, 32. 1 (on Ex 32)%), it is asked, ‘‘ What means 73? R. Eleazar answered: ‘Thus saith Moses to God (Blessed be He!), ‘Lord of all the world, hadst thou sworn by heaven and earth, I would say, even as heaven and earth shall perish, so too thine oath shall perish. But now thou hast sworn by thy Great Name, which lives and lasts for ever and ever; so shall thine oath also last for ever and ever.’ ” Exe (v.18) with infin. =édvvaro as usual. “Quocev.... et pyy...etdoyjow. Both the LXX (Thackeray, pp. 83, 84) and the papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 205 f.) show that ¢? pny after duvvew in oaths is common as an asseveration ; in some cases, as here, the classical form 4 pyv, from which ei pyv arose by itacism, is textually possible. The quotation (v.1*) is from the promise made to Abraham after the sacrifice of Isaac (Gn 2216-17); KaT €“avTod w@pooa... eb pyv evAoyav evAoynow oe, Kal 7h 1 This is the point raised in Jn 815+ . VI. 15-17. | THE OATH OF GOD 87 Oivwv tAnbvvG Td orépua cov. The practical religious value of God’s promise being thus (v.!5) confirmed is now brought out for the present generation (vv.!6&—another long sentence). Kata tod petLovos, z.¢. by God. Which, Philo argues, is irreverent: doeBets av vomobetev of Packovtes duvivar kata Oeod (Leg. Adlegor. lil. 73), since only swearing by the Name of God is permissible (cp. Dt 618), But our author has no such scruples (see above). And he is quite unconscious of any objection to oaths, such as some early Christian teachers felt (e.g. Ja 5!2); he speaks of the practice of taking oaths without any scruples. ‘‘Hic locus... docet aliquem inter Christianos jurisjurandi usum esse legiti- mum... porro non dicit olim fuisse in usu, sed adhuc vigere pronuntiat” (Calvin). “AvtiAoyias, dispute or quarrel (the derived sense in 77 xwpls mdaons dvTiWoyias, there is no disputing). Eis BeBaiowouw only occurs once in the LXX (Ly 2573), but is a current phrase in the papyri (cp. Deissmann’s Azble Studies, 163 f.) for ‘‘ by way of guarantee”; it is opposed to eis a6érnou, and used here as in Wis 619 rpocoy7) d¢ vouwv BeBaiwars adOap- aias. In Philo (see on v.18) it is the oath which is guaranteed ; here the oath guarantees. The general idea of v.!’ is that of OGIS. (ii. B.C.), daws ay eis TOV Gravta ypovov dkivyta Kal dpera- Gera péevynt Ta Te mpos Tov Geov Tipia Kal Ta mpos Tov "AOnvatov piravOpwra, "Ev 6 (=610, Theophylact), such being the case. Nepisodtepov, which goes with émdetgar, is illustrated by what Philo says in de Abrahamo, 46 (see above): ‘‘abundantius quam sine juramento factum videretur” (Bengel). It is an equivalent for mepiocorepas, which, indeed, B reads here. “EmSetgar (cp. Elephantine-Papyri [1907] 17 (iv. B.c.) émideEarw de “Hpaxdeidns Ori av eyxaAne Anuntpiat évavriov avdpav tpidv): the verb, which is only once used of God in the LXX (Is 37% viv d¢ érédecéa eEepnuaoat €Ovy xrX.), means here “‘to afford proof of.” The writer uses the general plural, tots kAypovopors THs émayyeXtas,! instead of the singular “‘ Abraham,” since the Promise in its mystical sense applied to the entire People, who had faith like that of Abraham. The reference is not specifically to Isaac and Jacob, although these are called his cuykAnpovépor in 11% In 1d d&petdbetov tis BouAfs Our author evidently chooses Bovdyjs for the sake of the assonance with Boudédpevos. “Awetd- Qeros is a synonym for dxivyros (cp. above on v.!? and Schol. on Soph. Aztig. 1027), and, as the papyri show, had a frequent connexion with wills in the sense of ‘“irrevoc- able.” Here, in connexion with fovdA7s, it implies final determination (cp. 3 Mac 51+ 1%); the purpose had a fixed 1 Eusebius once (Dem. iv. 15. 40) omits ris érayyeNlas, and once (zbzd. V, 3. 21) reads 77s Bacidelas, either accidentally or with a recollection of a2 88 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 17-19. character or solidity about it. The verb éepeoitevoey (‘‘inter- vened”) does not occur in the LXX, and is here used intransi- tively, instead of, as usual (cp. eg. Dion. Halic. Amt. ix. 59. 5; OGTIS. 437% etc.), with some accusative like ovv@jxas. In Jos. Ant. vii. 8. 5 it is used intransitively, but in the sense of ‘inter- ceding” (mewrOets 3 6 “IdaBos Kat THY dvdyKnv adbrod KarorkTetpas euecitevoe mpos Tov Bactrea). ‘The oath is almost certainly that just mentioned. Less probable is the interpretation (Delitzsch, Hofmann, M. Stuart, von Soden, Peake, Seeberg, Wickham) which regards the oath referred to in vv.!6* as the oath in the writer’s favourite psalm, 110*: + , \ > 4 apooev Kupios kat ov petapednOjoerar \ OTe \ > \ 2A \ \ 4 4 Xb el tepeds eis Tov aidva Kata tTHv Tagw MedAyioddex. This oath does refer to the priesthood of Jesus, which the writer is about to re-introduce (in v.2°); but it is not a thought which is brought forward till 72% 21: 28; and the second line of the couplet has been already quoted (5°) without any allusion to the first. In v.18 katabedyew and édmlis are connected, but not as in Wis 14° (Noah=7 éAmis tod Kocpov éri oyxedias, Katapvyoica). Here, as é\mis means what is hoped for, z.e. the object of expecta- tion, ‘the only thought is that we are moored to an immoveable object” (A. B. Davidson). The details of the anchor-metaphor are not to be pressed (v.!®); the writer simply argues that we are meant to fix ourselves to what has been fixed for us by God and in God. To change the metaphor, our hope roots itself in the eternal order. What we hope for is unseen, being out of sight, but it is secure and real, and we can grasp it by faith. (a) Philo (Quaest. tn Exod. 22) ascribes the survival and success of the Israelites in Egypt dca tiv él Tov cwripa Oedv Katapvyny, bs é& drépwv Kal aunxdveyv émiméupas tiv evepyéri dSivauw épptoaro rovs ixéras. (6) Tév is inserted in v.’8 before Oedv (by x* AC P 33. 1245. 1739. 1827. 2005 Ath. Chrys. ), probably to harmonize with 6 @edés in v.17 (where 1912 omits 6). But dedv (‘‘one who is God”) is quite apposite. Mapdkd\ynow goes with kpatijoat (aor. =“ seize,” rather than “hold fast to,” like xparetv in 41*), and ot kataguydvtes stands by itself, though there is no need to conjecture ot xara duynv évres = in our flight (so J. J. Reiske, etc.). Is not eternal life, Philo asks, 7) mpos TO bv Katrapvyy (de fuga, 15)? In tis mpoxepevns eAniSos, mpoxeywevns must have the same sense as in 122; the colloquial sense of “aforesaid,” which is common in the papyri (eg. OP. 1275 eis ryv mpoximevny kopnv), would be flat. *Aopahf te Kat BeBaiay reflects one of the ordinary phrases in Greek ethics which the writer is so fond of employing. Cp. VI. 19.] THE ANCHOR OF HOPE 89 Plutarch, de comm. not. 1061¢, Kacrou maca Katddnis ev TO cope Kal puny TO dopahes € EXOUTA Kal i BeBavov xTA. : Sextus Empir. adv. log. 1. 374, és TO brroruG€pevov 7 bmroriGerar BéBaov eo kat aopadés: and Philo, gus rer. div. 62, katddrAndus aodadrns kal BeBaia. The a@yxupa of hope is safe and sure, as it is fixed in eternity. All hope for the Christian rests in what Jesus has done in the eternal order by his sacrifice. Chrysostom’s comment on the ‘‘anchor” metaphor is all that is needed : womep yap ) dyxupa éaprnGeioa Tod mrolov, ovk adinoev aiTd mepipéper Oat, Kay pvplor mapacadevwow avewor, adr’ eEaprnPeioa Edpaiov tore?’ otrw Kal 4 é\mis. The anchor of hope was a fairly common metaphor in the later Greek ethic (¢.g. Heliod. vii. 25, raca éAzldos Adee twavTolws avésmacrat, and Epict. Fragm. (30) 89, ov're vatv é& évds ayxuplov obre Blov éx mids éArldos dpyutoréov), but our author may have taken the religious application from Philo, who writes (de Somnzis, i. 39), ob xph Karemrnxévar Tov édAmidse Gelas cuppaylas €popmovvra (lies moored to). He does not use it as a metaphor for stability, however, like most of the Greeks from Euripides (¢.g. Helena, 277, dyxupa 5 4} mov ras TUXas Gxet wdvyn) and Aristophanes (¢.g. Anzghts, 1244, erry tis édmrls éor éd’ Fs dxovueba) onwards, as, ¢.g., in the most famous use of the anchor-metaphor,” that by Pythagoras (Stob. Eclog. 3: mdotros dodevhs dykupa, ddfa é7t doOeveotépa . .. Tlves odv AyKvpat Suvaral; gppdvyers, peyaropuxia, avdpla* ravras ovfels Yeruwv ganevet), Suddenly he breaks the metaphor,’ in order to regain the idea of the priesthood of Jesus in the invisible world. Hope enters the unseen world ; the Christian hope, as he conceives it, is bound up with the sacrifice and intercession of Jesus in the Presence of God, and so he uses language from the ritual of Lv 162! about Aaron “ passing inside the veil,” or curtain that screened the innermost shrine. To this conception he returns in g** after he has described the vital functions of Jesus as tepevs (6202), For at last he has reached what he regards as the cardinal theme of his homily. The first paragraph (7!), which is one long sentence in Greek, applies and expands eis tév aidva, the first note of Melchizedek’s priesthood being that it is per- petual, thus typifying the priesthood of Jesus. The next is (741°), that it is prior and superior to the levitical priesthood ; this is 1The comparison between hope and a voyage in de Abrahamo, 9, is different: 6 d¢ éArifwy, ws avrd SynAol Totvoua, éAdAuns, Epiéuevos pev del Tov Kadov, wimw 8 épixécOar tovrov deduynuévos, GAN €orxws Tots mréovowv, of omevdovres els Niywévas KaTalpewy Oaratrevovow évopuloacbar wh Svuvduevor, This is nearer to the thought of Ro 8+, 2 For the anchor as a symbol on tombs, pagan and Christian, see Le Blant’s Zzscr. Chrét. de Gaule, ii. 158, 312. Contrast with He 6'% )® the bitter melancholy of the epitaph i in the Greek Anthology (ix. 49): éAmls kal ov, Tixn, méya xalpere’ Tov Ayu’ eEBpov: | ovdev euol x’ duty walfere Tovs per’ éué. 8 A similar mixture of metaphor in Z/. Aristeas, 230 (cé pev od Suvardy éoTt Wraicat, Taor yap xdpiras Eomapkas al BXacrdvovow evvorav, h TA méy.oTo, Tov drwy KaTicxvovTa mwepitauBdver THy pmeylorny dopddecav), and Philo, de praemtts, 2 (radrns 8 & moGras ordbpos early édmis, ) myyh THv Blur). go THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ VI. 20-VII. 1. implied in the former claim, but the writer works it out faueiiony from the allusion to tithes. 20 There (dou for the classical 87a) Jesus entered for us in advance, when he became highpriest ‘‘ for ever with the rank of Melchizedek.” For ‘* Melchizedek, the king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God,” who ‘‘ met Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him” — 2who had ‘a tenth part (Sexdrnyv, sc. wotpav) of everything” assigned him. by Abraham—this Melchizedek zs (sc. dv) primarily a *‘ king of righteousness” (that ts the meaning of his name); then, besides that, ‘‘king of Salem” (which means, king of peace). * He has neither father nor mother nor gene- alogy, nether a beginning to his days nor an end to his life, but, resembling the Son of God, continues to be ‘‘ priest” permanently. This paragraph and that which follows (vv.*!) are another little sermon, this time on the story of Gn 14!820, In 620-73- the writer starts from the idea that Jesus is dpyvepedts eis Tov ai@va Kata THY rab Medyioedéx, and shows how the Melchizedek priesthood was eis roy aidva, ze. explaining Ps 110* from Gn 1418-20, Eioy\Oev in 679 is explained later, in 91. Mpdé8popos recalls dpxnyds (21°), with its suggestion of pioneering. The term is only used in the LXX of the days éapos, mpodpopot orapvAns (Nu 137%), or of early fruit (®s rpodpopos ovKov, Is 28%) ; the present sense occurs, however, in Wis 128, where wasps or hornets are called the mpé8pouot of God’s avenging host. The thought here is of Christ entering heaven as we are destined to do, after him, once like him (5%) we are “ perfected.” Vv.13 in ch. 7 are another of the writer’s long sentences: obtos 6 Meh- xtoedex . . . pever Lepeds eis TO Senvexés is the central thought, but the subject is overloaded with quotations and comments, including a long pev. . . 8€ clause. The length of the sentence and the difficulty of applying péver tepedrs eis 7d dunvecés to Melchizedek have led some editors to make Jesus the subject of the sentence: otros (Jesus) yap (6 MeAxivedéx . . . TO vid Oeod) pever tepeds eis tov aidva. But the otros, as v.* shows, is Melchizedek, and the theory is wrecked upon v.8, for it is quite impossible to take éxet xr. as “in the upper sanctuary (se. eorw) there is One of whom the record is that He lives.” There is a slight but characteristic freedom at the very outset in the use of the story, ¢.g. in 6 ouvaytiaas xtA. The story implies this, but does not say it. It was the king of Sodom who é&jAOe eis cuwdvrnow avTa pera TO trootpéar adtov ard THs Komns, but as Melchizedek is immediately said to have brought the conquering hero bread and wine, our writer assumed that he also met Abraham. An interesting example of the original reading being preserved in an inferior group of MSS is afforded by 6 ovvaytyaas (C* LP). The variant bs cuvayrncas (8X ABC? D K W 33. 436. 794. 1831. 1837. 1912), which makes a pointless anacolouthon, was due to the accidental reduplication of C Wi 1°23) MELCHIZEDEK Ql — (OCCYN for OCYN), though attempts have been made to justify this reading by assuming an anacolouthon in the sentence, or a parenthesis in és . . . ’AB8padp, or carelessness on the part of the writer who began with a relative and forgot to carry on the proper construction. Some curious homiletic expansions have crept into the text of vv.*. After Baothkéwy two late minuscules (456. 460) read 8ru édlwtev rods d\Xopbdous kal uaa Awr pera waons aixuarwatas, and after avrév, D* vt 330. 440. 823 put Kal (’ABpadp) eVoynoGels br atrod. The latter is another (cp. 1173) of the glosses which were thrown up by the Latin versions. In v.? éu€picey is substituted for the édwxev of the LXX (which reappears in v.*), in order to make it clear that Abraham’s gift was a sort of tithe. Tithes were not paid by the Hebrews from spoils of war; this was a pagan custom. But such is the interpretation of the story in Philo, eg. in his fragment on Gn 1438 (Fragments of Phila, ed. J. Rendel Harris, P. 72): TO yap TOU Tohewov dpioreia SSuot TO lepet Kat TOS TS viKns dmapxas. LepompeTrEecTaTy de Kat aywwtarn TATwV aTrapYav n dexarn dua. TO mavTéXevov elvat Tov apiOpov, ah ov Kal Tols tepedor Kal vewKOpots ai dexarau _mpoordger vOpov Kapmav wat Opepparov darodibovrat, dpfavros THS amapyns “ABpaap, Os Kat Tod yévous apynyéerys eorriv. Or again in de congressu, 17, where he describes the same incident as Abraham offeririg God ras dexdtas xapiorypia THs viKns. The fantastic interpretation of the Melchizedek episode is all the writer’s own. What use, if any, was made of Melchizedek in pre-Christian Judaism, is no longer to be ascertained. Apparently the book of Jubilees contained a reference to this episode in Abraham’s career, but it has been excised for some reason (see R. H. Charles’ note on Jub 13”). Josephus makes little of the story (Amz. i. 10.2). He simply recounts how, when Abraham returned from the rout of the Assyrians, drjvrnce 5° alr ge 6 TOv LodomiTSv Bacideds els rémov Tiva dv Kadovor Iledlov Bacidixdv’ vba 6 Tis DorAuwa wodews vrodéxerat Baoieds avrov Medxuoedéxns. onualyer dé rodTo Bacwreds Sikaos* Kal hv dé TOLOUTOS Sporoyouperens, ws dua Tavrnv avrov Thy ailriay Kal iepéa yeveo Bat TOU Geo}. Thy MEévToL Zoruua bar epov éxd decay * Tepoo éhupa. EXOPIYNTE dé obros 6 Medxioedéxns TH ’ABpd wou oTpAT@ fév.a kal Tony apboviay Tay émiTnoelwv mapéoxe, Kal mapa Thy ebuxlar avrov 7 émaveiv Hptaro kal Tov Oedv evdoyetv Umoxetplous adr Towoavra Tovs €xPpovs. "ABpduou dé SiddvTos kal Thy dexarny energie. Ths helas adr@, mpordéxerat thy dow xTd. In the later Judaism, however, ' more interest was taken in Melchizedek (cp. M. Friedlander in Revue des | Etudes Juives, v. pp. 1f.). Thus some applied the r1oth psalm to Abraham (Mechilta on Ex 157, r. Gen. 55. 6), who was ranked as the priest after the order © of Melchizedek, while Melchizedek was supposed to have been degraded because he (Gn ’14)9) mentioned the name of Abraham before that of God! This, as Bacher conjectures, represented a protest against the Christian view of Melchizedek (Agada der Tannatten*, i. p. 259). It denotes the influence of IIpds ‘Efpalovs. Philo, as we might expect, had already made more of the episode than Josephus, | and it is Philo’s method of interpretation which gives the clue to our writer’s use of the story. Thus in Leg. Alleg, iii. 25; 26. he points out (a) that Mehxuoedex paoshet Te THs elphvns—Larhu Todro yap Epynveverar—kal lepéa éavrod metolnxev} 6 Oeds (in Gn 1438), and allegorizes the reference into a panegyric upon the peaceful, persuasive influence of the really royal mind. He then (4) does the same with the sacerdotal reference. ’AAW’ 1 The same sort of perfect as recurs in IIpds ‘Efpatous (e.g. 78 and 11%), 92 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ VII. 2, 3. Oo wer Medxioedéx avri tdatos olvoy mpocpepérw kal moriférw Kal axpariféra Yuxds, va kardoyxero. yévwvrat Ocig wéOn vndarewrépa vijwews airis. lepers yap é€ore Ndyos KAjpov éxwv Tov bvTa Kal VWyAGs TeEpl avTod Kal UrepoyKws Kal peyadorperas Noytfduevos* Tob yap bWicrou early iepeds, quoting Gn 14'8 and hastening to add, ovx é7e éori tis dAXNos odX UYroros. Philo points out thus, the symbolism of wine (not water) as the divine intoxication which raises the) soul to lofty thought of God; but our author does not even mention the food) and drink, though later on there was a tendency to regard them as symbolizing | the elements in the eucharist. His interest in Melchizedek lies in the parallel | to Christ. This leads him along a line of his own, though, like Philo, he sees immense significance not only in what scripture says, but in what it does nord say, about this mysterious figure in the early dawn of history. In vy.!:? the only points in the original tale which are specially noted are (a) that his name means Baotdeds Stxaoodyys ; (6) that Zadnp, his capital, means eipyyy ; and (c) inferentially that this primitive ideal priest was also a king. Yet none of these is developed. Thus, the writer has no interest in identifying. Sarnp. All that matters is its meaning. He quotes tepeds Toi Geod rod tWicrov, but it is tepevs alone that interests him. The fact about the tithes (@ kal Sexdtyv dnd tdvtwv eépépioev “ABpadp) is certainly significant, but it is held over until v.42. What strikes him as far more vital is the silence of the record about the birth and death of Melchizedek (v.’). Atkatoodvy as a royal character- istic (see Introd. pp. xxxiif.) had been already noted in con- nexion with Christ (18°); but he does not connect it with eipyvy, as Philo does, though the traditional association of dixatoovvy Kai eipyjvy With the messianic reign may have been in his mind. In the alliteration (v.°) of dmdrwp, duyjtwp, dyeveaddyntos, the third term is apparently coined by himself; it does not mean “of no pedigree,” nor ‘‘ without successors,” but simply (cp. v.®) ‘‘de- void of any genealogy.” Having no beginning (since none is mentioned), M. has no end. ‘Amwdtwp and éujtwp are boldly lifted from their pagan associations. In the brief episode of Gn 148-20, this mysterious Melchizedek appears only as a priest of God; his birth is never mentioned, neither is his death; unlike the Aaronic priests, with whom a pure family descent was vital, this priest has no progenitors. Reading the record in the light of Ps rio‘, and on the Alexandrian principle that the very. silence of scripture is charged with meaning, the writer divires in Melchizedek a priest who is permanent. This method of interpretation had been popularized by Philo. In guod det. pot. 48, e.g., he calls attention to the fact that Moses does not explain in Gn 4 what was the mark put by God upon Cain. Why? Because the mark was to prevent him from being killed. Now Moses never mentions the death of Cain dia waons ris vopobecias, suggesting that ®o7ep 7 peprderpevy 2KvAXa, KaKOV dOdvaroy é €OTLW adpootvy. Again (de Ebriet. 14) elrre yap Tov Tus “Kal yap adnOds adeApy pov éotw éx watpds, “adN’ odk ék pytpds” (Gn 20!2)— VII. 3. | MELCHIZEDEK AS PRIEST 93 Abraham’s evasive description of Sarah—is most significant ; she had no mother, z.e. she had no connexion with the material world of the senses. ’Amdrwp and duijrwp were applied to (a) waifs, whose parents were un- known ; or (4) to illegitimate children ; or (c) to people of low origin ; or (d) to deities who were supposed to have been born, like Athené and Hephaestus, from only one sex. Lactantius (dzwzm. zmstzt. i. 7) quotes the Delphic oracle, which described Apollo as dujrwp, and insists that such terms refer only to God (zézd. iv. 13). ‘*As God the Father, the origin and source of things, is without parentage, he is most accurately called drdrwp and durjrwp by Trismegistus, since he was not begotten by anyone. Hence it was fitting that the Son also should be twice born, that he too should become dmdrwp and dufjrwp.” His argument apparently? is that the pre-existent Son was duhrwp and that He became admdrwp by the Virgin-birth (so Theodore of Mopsuestia). Lactantius proves the priesthood of Christ from Ps 1104 among other passages, but he ignores the deduction from the Melchizedek of Gn 14 ; indeed he gives a rival derivation of Jerusalem as if from lepdv Zodouwr. Theodoret, who (D2a/. ii.) explains that the incarnate Son was du7jrwp, with respect to his divine nature, and dyeveaddéynros in fulfilment of Is 53°, faces the difficulty of Melchizedek with characteristic frankness. Melchizedek, he explains, is described as dmdrwp, duijrwp, simply because scripture does not record his parentage or lineage. Hi d\nOds drdtwp jv Kal dujrwp, odk av jv elkav, GAN GdAjOea. "Hedy dé od ioe tair’ Exer, dAAA KaTa Thy Tijs Oelas T'papijs olkovoulav, delkvvor THs adnOelas Tov rvrov. In his commentary he explains that péves lepevs els TO Ounvexés means Ty lepwovvyy ob mapéreuwer els matoas, Kabdmrep’ Aapwy kal "ENedgap kal Piveés. "Adwpowwnevos in v.®? means “resembling,” as, eg., in Lp. Jerem.” yexpo éppysévy &v oxore dpwpotwvrat ot Geoi atrav, though it might even be taken as a strict passive, “‘made to resemble” (z.e. in scripture), the Son of God being understood to be eternal, Eis 16 Sunvexés is a classical equivalent for eis rov aidva, a phrase which is always to be understood in the light of its context. Here it could not be simply ‘‘ad vitam”; the foregoing phrases and the fact that even the levitical priests were appointed for life, rule out such an interpretation. The writer now (vv.*!°) moralizes upon the statement that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek and received his blessing, which proves the supreme dignity of the Melchizedek priesthood, and, inferentially, its superiority to the levitical. 4 Now mark the dignity of this man. The patriarch ‘* Abraham paid” him ‘‘a tenth” of the spoils. ° Those sons of Levi, who receive the priestly office, are indeed ordered by law to tithe the people (that ts, their brothers), although the latter are descended from Abraham; ® but he who had no levitical (€& abrév=éx Tav vidv Aevel) genealogy actually tithed Abraham and ‘* blessed” the possessor of the promises! ™(And there ts no question that tt is the infertor who zs blessed by the superior.) *® Again, it ts mortal men in the one case who receive tithes, while tn the other zt ts one of whom the witness ts that “he lives.” *° In fact, we might almost say that even Levt the receiver of tithes paid tithes through Abraham ; ° for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. 1 Jn iv. 25 he says that ‘‘as God was the Father of his spirit without a mother, so a virgin was the mother of his body without a father.” 94 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ [VII. 4-8. @cwpette (v.4) is an oratorical imperative as in 4 Mac 14% (ewpetre 5¢ m&s roddrdoxds éoTw H THs piroreKvias oTopyy) ; mydixos is a rare word, often used for 7Atkos after vowels, though not in Zec 2° (rod idety ryAlkov 76 wAdTos airis éorw), where alone it occurs in the LXX. The otros (om. D* 67**. 1739 Blass) repeats the otros of v.... We have now a triple proof of the inferiority of the levitical priesthood to Melchizedek. (a) Mel- chizedek, though not in levitical orders, took tithes from and gave a blessing to Abraham himself (vv.*7); (4) he is never recorded to have lost his priesthood by death (v.§); and (c) in- deed, in his ancestor Abraham, Levi yet unborn did homage to Melchizedek (% 19). Té& dxpo@ivia (v.4), which this alone of NT. writers has occasion to use, explains the wavra of v.?; it is one of the classical terms for which he went outside the LXX. ‘O matpidpyys is thrown to the end of the sentence for emphasis. In v.® iepatetay is chosen instead of iepwovvnv for the sake of assonance with Aevet. The LXX does not distinguish them sharply. The general statement about tithing, kata tov vopov (the évroAy of Nu 1870 21), is intended to throw the spontaneous action of Abraham into relief; dmodexatody of “tithing” persons occurs in 1 § 85! but usually means ‘‘to pay tithes,” like the more common 8exarody (v.°), the classical form being dexareveuw. In v.° the perfect edNoyyxe is like the Philonic perfect (see above). In describing the incident (de Abrahamo, 40), Philo lays stress upon the fact that 6 péyas tepevs tod peyiotov Geod offered érivixca and feasted the conquerors ; he omits both the blessing and the offering of tithes, though he soon allegorizes the latter (41). Moulton calls attention to “‘the beautiful parallel in Plato’s Afo/. 28c, for the characteristic perfect in Hebrews, describing what stands written in Scripture,” holding that ‘‘ Sco. év Tpolg rereXevrijxact (as is written in the Athenians’ Bible) is exactly like He 7® 11178.” But these perfects are simply aoristic (see above, p. 9I, note). V.” is a parenthetical comment on what blessing and being blessed imply; the neuter (€\atrtov) is used, as usual in Greek (cp. Blass, § 138. 1), in a general statement, especially in a collective sense, about persons. Then the writer rapidly summarizes, from vv.!4, the contrast between the _levitical priests who die off and Melchizedek whose record (saprupovpevos in scripture, cp. 115) is “he lives” (unre was téXos . . . peve eis TO Sunvecés). Finally (vv.% 1°), he ventures (ds ézos eizely, a literary phrase, much affected by Philo) on what he seems to feel may be regarded as a forced and fanciful remark, that Levi was committed 8 “ABpadp (genitive) to a position of respectful deference towards the prince-priest of Salem. In v.> xatwep €XnduOdtas éx THs doptos “ABpadp (the Semitic expression for descendants, chosen here in view of what he was. going to say in VII. 9-11. | THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD 95 v.10 éy +H dagvi tod matpds) is another imaginative touch added in order to signalize the pre-eminent honour of the levitical priests over their fellow-countrymen. Such is their high authority. And yet Melchizedek’s is higher still ! (a) In v.® * forte legendum, 6 6¢ wip yeveadoyovmevos abrov Sedexdrwe Tov "ABpadu, ipsum Abrahamam” (Bentley). But é a’réy explains itself, and the stress which av’rév would convey is already brought out by the emphatic position of ’ABpadu, and by the comment kal rdv Exovra xTrd. (6) In v.4 kat is inserted after @, in conformity with v.27, by s AC D¢ K L P syrhkl arm, etc. For &moSexartovy in v.° the termination (cp. Thackeray, 244) dzodexa- row is read by B D (as xaracknvoity in Mt 13°"). In v.® the more common (117) aorist, evAdynoe, is read by AC P 6. 104. 242. 263. 326. 383. 1288. 1739. 2004. 2143, Chrys. for evAdynke. He now (vv.!*) turns to prove his point further, by glancing at the text from the 110th psalm. ‘It is no use to plead that Melchizedek was succeeded by the imposing Aaronic priest- hood; this priesthood belonged to an order of religion which had to be superseded by the Melchizedek-order of priesthood.” He argues here, as already, from the fact that the psalter is later than the pentateuch; the point of 7! is exactly that of 47. Ul Further, if the levitical priesthood had been the means of reaching per- fection ( for tt was on the basts of that priesthood that the Law was enacted for the People), why was it still necessary for another sort of priest to emerge ““ wth the rank of Melchizedek,” instead of simply with the rank of Aaron (?2 for when the priesthood ts changed, a change of law necessarily follows) ? 13 He who zs thus (t.e. ‘‘ with the rank of M.”) described belongs to another tribe, no member of which ever devoted himself to the altar ; \4 for tt is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah, and Moses never mentioned priesthood in connexion with that tribe. © This becomes all the more plain when (el=éwel) another priest emerges ‘‘resembling Melchizedek,” 8 one who has become a priest by the power of an indissoluble (dxaradvrov, z.e. by death) Life and not by the Law of an external command ; ™ for the witness to him ts, ‘* Thou art priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek.” 18 4 previous command ts set aside on account of its weakness and uselessness 19 ( for the Law made nothing perfect), and there is introduced a better Hope, by means of which we can draw near to God. Et pév odv (without any dé to follow, as in 84) tedelwors (‘‘ perfection” in the sense of a perfectly adequate relation to God ; see v.19) 81a THs AevertiKis tepwotvns xTrA. Aeveitixys IS a rare word, found in Philo (de fuga, » Acvitixy wovn), but never in the LXX except in the title of Leviticus ; tepwavvy does occur in the LXX, and is not distinguishable from tepareéa (v.5). In the parenthetical remark 6 dads yap em adtis vevopobérnTat, aitis was changed into airy (6. 242. 330. 378. 383. 440. 462. 467. 489. 491. 999. 1610. 1836 Theophyl.), or airy (K L 326. 1288, etc. Chrys.) after 8° (where again we have this curious passive), and vevoyo0erjtat altered into the pluperfect évevoyoférnro (K L, etc.) The less obvious genitive (cp. Ex. 3477 éi yap tav Adywv TovTwv TéHepwar cot SiabyKynv Kal TO “Iopaydr) éw adtijs 96 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS |VII. 11-18. is not “in the time of,” for the levitical priesthood was not in existence prior to the Law; it might mean ‘‘in connexion with,” since ézi and zrepi have a similar force with this genitive, but the incorrect dative correctly explains the genitive. The Mosaic vouos could not be worked for the Aads without a priesthood, to deal with the offences incurred. The idea of the writer always is that a vouwos or dtabyjxy depends for its validity and effective- ness upon the tepevs or iepets by whom it is administered. Their personal character and position are the essential thing. Every con- sideration is subordinated to that of the priesthood. Asa change in that involves a change in the voyos (v.!”), the meaning of the parenthesis in v.!! must be that the priesthood was the basis for the vounos, though, no doubt, the writer has put his points in vv.1) 2 somewhat intricately ; this parenthetical remark would have been better placed after the other in v.!*, as indeed van d. Sande Bakhuyzen proposes. ‘Three times over (cp. v.!®) he puts in depreciatory remarks about the Law, the reason being that the Law and the priesthood went together. It is as if he meant here: ‘the levitical priesthood (which, of course, implies the Law, for the Law rested on the priesthood).” The inference that the vduos is antiquated for Christians reaches’ the same end as Paul does by his dialectic, but by a very different route. *Aviotac@at (= appear onthe scene, as v.!°) and Aéyeo@ar refer to Ps 1r1o*, which is regarded as marking a new departure, with far-reaching effects, involving (v.!*) an alteration of the vépos as wellas of the tepwotvyn. In kaiod ... éyerPar the ov negatives the infinitive as py usually does; “Aapév, like Kava (Jn 217), has become indeclinable, though Josephus still employs the ordinary genitive “Aap@vos. In v.!" perdeots, which is not a LXX term, though it occurs in 2 Mac 1174, is practically equivalent here (cp. 1277) to d&Oérnors in v.18 A close parallel occurs in de Mundo, 6, vomos pev yap nptv icoxivis 6 eds, ovdepiay émoexo~ pevos SiudpOwow 7 perdaGecwy, and a similar phrase is employed by Josephus to describe the arbitrary transference of the highpriest- hood (Azz. xii. 9. 7, tro Avotov meobeis, werabetvar Thy Tiny amo TAaUTNS THS oikias eis ETEpor). We now (vv.!54) get an account of what was meant by od KaTa Thy tdéw “Aapwy or érepos (“another,” in the sense of “a different”) tepeds in v.'1; Jesus, this tepets xara rv tag MeAxice- déx, came from the non-sacerdotal tribe of Judah, not from that of Levi. °Ed’ dy is another instance of the extension of this metaphorical use of ézi from the Attic dative to the accusative. The perfect petéoxnkev may be used in an aoristic sense, like €oxnka, Or simply for the sake of assonance with mpocéoyykev, and it means no more than perécyev in 214; indeed perécyev is read here by P 489. 623%. 1912 arm, as mpocéoyey is (by A C VII. 14-17.] THE SUPERIOR PRIESTHOOD 97 33- 1288) for mpooécyyxev. The conjecture of Erasmus, zpocéo- Tykev, is ingenious, but mpooéxew in the sense of “attend” is quite classical. The rule referred to in eis fv pudny (e& 7s hvdjs, arm ?), Ze. €x pudgjs eis nv (as Lk 10!) xrA. is noted in Josephus, Ant, XxX. 10. 1, warpiv éote pndéva tov Oeod tiv apyrepwovvyny AapBavew 7 Tov €€ aiparos Tov *Aapavos. No tribe except Levi supplied priests. (Mpdédndov in v.!4 is not a LXX term, but occurs in this sense in 2 Mac 317 (& dv rpddyAov éyivero) and 1459, as well as in Judith 8%.) In Zest. Lev? 814 it is predicted (cp. Introd. p. xlviii) that Baowreds ex tod “lovda dvacrycerat Kal tomoe tepatretay veay: but this is a purely verbal parallel, the Bacwrevs is Hyrcanus and the reference is to the Maccabean priest-kings who succeed the Aaronic priesthood. *Avatéd\ew is a synonym for davicracOa (v.), as in Nu 241, though it is just possible that dvaréraAxey is a subtle allusion to the messianic title of “AvaroAy in Zec 6!2; in commenting on that verse Philo observes (de confus. ling. 14): Todvrov pev yap mpeoBvrarov vidv 6 Tov dAwv avéretAe maryp. (For tepéwy the abstract equivalent iepwotvvys, from v.!%, is substituted by D*° K L.) The title 6 KUptos ypav is one of the links between the vocabulary of this epistle and that of the pastorals (1 Ti 114, 2 Ti 18). As the result of all this, what is it that becomes (v.!°) sepicodtepoy (for repiradrepws) katddyndov?! The provisional character of the levitical priesthood, or the perdfeots voxove? Probably the jatter, though the writer would not have distinguished the one from the other. Inv. xara thy dpordtyTa linguistically has the same sense as ddwpowwpevos (v.®), In v.1® capkivns (for which gapkixys is substituted by C° D K W 104. 326. 1175, etc.) hints at the contrast which is to be worked out later (in 9114) between the external and the inward or "spiritual, the sacerdotal évroAy being dismissed as merely capxivy, since it laid down physical descent as a requisite for office. Hereditary succession is opposed to the inherent personality of the Son(=91*), The dis- tinction between capxtxds (= fleshly, with the nature and qualities of odpé) and cdpxwos (fleshy, composed of odpé) is blurred in Hellenistic Greek of the period, where adjectives in -wos tend to take over the sense of those in -txos, and wice versa. In v.17 paptupetrat (cp. paptupovpevos, v.°) is altered to the active (10!) paptupee by CD K L 256. 326. 436. 1175. 1837. 2127 syr™ vg arm Chrys. The petdQeorts of v.12 is now explained negatively (aérnats) and positively (émetoaywyn) in vv.!8 1% *A@érnats (one of his juristic metaphors, cp. 97°) yiverat (ze. by the promulgation of Ps 1104) mpoayotons (cp. LALA. ill. 247, Ta rpoayovta Wapiopara : mpodyew is 1 KardénXor is the classical intensive form of 57Aov, used here for the sake of assonance with the following xard. 7 98 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ | VII. 17-19" not used by the LXX in this sense of “ fore-going ”) évtoAjs (v.16) Sa 16 ads (unemphatic) dobevés Kat dvwhedds (alliteration). "Avwhedés iS a Word common in such connexions, e.g. Lp. Arast. 253, orep avuedts kal ddryewov éoti: Polyb. xi. 25° alndov xat avwodedés. The uselessness of the Law lay in its failure to secure an adequate forgiveness of sins, without which a real access or fellowship (éyytLew 7 06) was impossible ; ob8év éreetwoer, it led to no absolute order of communion between men and God, no teXelwots. The positive contrast (v.!%) is introduced by the strik- ing compound érewwaywyy (with yiverac), a term used by Josephus for the replacing of Vashti by Esther (Azz. xi. 6. 2, oBévvve Oat yap TO Tpos THY mpoTHpav piAdaropyov Erépas erELDaywy}, Kal TO TpOs eKeEl- vnv evvouy arooTMpevov KaTa puKpoV ylyverbat THS cvvovoys) ; there is no force here in the ée, as if it meant “ fresh” or ‘ further.” The new éAmis is kpetttwv by its effectiveness (618) ; it accomplishes what the vépos and its tepwovvy had failed to realize for men, viz. a direct and lasting access to God. In what follows the writer ceases to use the term éAzis, and concentrates upon the éyyifew T@ Oe, since the essence of the éAzis lies in the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus the Son. With this allusion to the xpeirrwy éAzis, he really resumes the thought of 61*19; but he has another word to say upon the superiority of the Melchizedek priest, and in this connexion he recalls another oath of God, viz. at the inauguration or consecration mentioned in Ps r1o*, a solemn divine oath, which was absent from the ritual of the levitical priesthood, and which ratifies the new priesthood of Jesus as permanent (vv.?0-22), enabling him to do for men what the levitical priests one after another failed to accomplish (vv.?9-®5), 20 4 better Hope, because tt was not promised apart from anoath. Previous priests (ol uév=levitical priests) became priests apart from any oath, ™ but he has an oath from Him who said to him, ‘“* The Lord has sworn, and he will not change his mind, thou art a priest for ever.” ® And this makes Jesus surety for a superior covenant. ** Also, while they (ol uév) became priests in large numbers, since death prevents them from continuing to serve, ** he holds his priesthood without any successor, since he continues for ever. *® Hence for all time he ts able to save those who approach God sph lt him, as he ts always living to intercede on thetr behalf. The long sentence (vv. 7s) closes with * Ingods in an peichade position. After kat xa@’ dcov ob xwpis dpxwpocias, which connect (sc. rodro yivera) with ereraywy? Se ehrridos, there is a long explanatory parenthesis oi pév yap . . . eis Tov aidva, exactly in the literary style of Philo (e.g. guis rer. div. 17, ed’ dcov yap olpat ktA,—vovs pev yap... aicOnoi.s—ért tocodrov xrd.). In v.20 dpxwpoota (oath- taking) i is a neuter plural (cp. Sy//. 59329, OGJS. 2298") which, like dvrwuooia, has become a feminine singular of the first declension, and eioiv yeyovdres is simply. an analytic form VII. 20-22.] THE SUPERIOR PRIESTHOOD 99 of the perfect tense, adopted as more sonorous than yeyovacr. As we have already seen (on 618), Philo (de sacrific. 28-29) discusses such references to God swearing. ‘Thousands of people, he ob- serves, regard an oath as inconsistent with the character of God,who requires no witness to his character. ‘‘ Men who are disbelieved have recourse to an oath in order to win credence, but God’s mere word must be believed (6 dé Geds cat A€ywv tioTds éorww) ; hence, his words are in no sense different from oaths, as far as assurance goes.” He concludes that the idea of God swearing an oath is simply an anthropomorphism which is necessary on account of human weakness. Our author takes the OT language in Ps rro# more naively, detecting a profound significance in the line épocev kUptos kal ov peTapednOyjoetar (in the Hellenistic sense of “ regret ” = change his mind). The allusion is, of course, to the levitical priests. But Roman readers could understand from their former religion how oaths were needful in such a matter. Claudius, says Suetonius (Vzt. Claud. 22), “‘in co-optandis per collegia sacerdotibus neminem nisi juratus (7.e. that they were suitable) nominavit.” The superfluous addition of kata thy Ta&tv MeAyiledéx was soon made, after els Tov at@va, by x» AD K L P vt SyrPeshbkl boh eth Eus (Dem. iv. 15. 40), etc. Napapévery means to remain in office or serve (a common euphemism in the papyri). The priestly office could last in a family (cp. Jos. Amz. xi. 8. 2, Tis tepatiKys Tiynns peyiotys ovons Kal év TO yever Tapapevovoys), but mortal men (drobvycKovres, v.8) could not wapapevewy as priests, whereas (v.74) Jesus remains a perpetual tepeds, 31d 76 prevew ( = mdvToTe Lav, v.”°) adtév(Superfluous as in Lk 24 81a. 76 atrov eivat). *AtapdéBatoy, a legal adjective for “inviolable,” is here used in the uncommon sense of non-transferable (boh Chrys. ov« éxer duddoxov, Oecumenius, etc. ad.é80xov), as an equiva- lent for wy rapaBaivovear cis dAdov, and contrasts Jesus with the long succession of the levitical priests (wAcéovés). The passive sense of ‘‘not to be infringed” (cp. Justin Martyr, Apo/. i. 43, ciuappevyv papev arapdBatov tavryv elvar, where the adjective =ineluctabile) or “unbroken” does not suit the context, for Jesus had no rivals and the word can hardly refer to the invasion of death. Like yeyupvacpeéva in 514, also after éyewv, it has a pre- dicative force, marked by the absence of the article. Philo (guts rer. atv. heres, 6) finds a similar significance in the etymology of kUptos as a divine title: Kvpios pev yap rapa Td Ktpos, 6 87 BéBavov early, €ipytat, kat evavTiTyTa af3 , Le / xXapitas éyyvov py éeriAdby, 25 Push Sipeeye ee N RAMAL C2 OS cOwkey yap THY WuxX7V aUTOD U7rEp Tov. 3 \ > 4, 3 / c / dyada éyyvouv dvarpefer duaptwrds, Kal axapiotos év dtavoia éyxaraXciiper puodpevov. Our author might have written peoirys here as well as in 8°; he prefers éyyvos probably for the sake of assonance with yéyover or even éyyiCouev. AS peovreveryv means to vouch for the truth of a promise or statement (cp. 6”), so éyyvos means one who vouches for the fulfilment of a promise, and therefore is a synonym for pecitys here. The conclusion (v.”°) is put in simple and effective language. Eis 7 mayteNés is to be taken in the temporal sense of the phrase, as in BM iii. 161!! (A.D. 212) ard rod viv eis TO mavteXes, being simply a literary variant for mavrore. The alternative rendering ‘‘ utterly ” suits Lk 13" better than this passage. This full and final tepwodvn of Jesus is the kpetrrwv éXris (v.19), the reAeéwors which the levitical priesthood failed to supply, a perfect access to God’s Presence. His intercession (évrvyxdvew, sc. Oe as in Ro 8% ds Kat évrvyxaver brép Hpdv) has red blood in it, unlike Philo’s conception, e.g. in Vit. Afos. iii. 14, dvayKatov yap Hv tov tepwpuevov (the highpriest) t@ Tod Kocpov watpi rapaxAyTw xpno bar reAecoTaTw THY apeTHy vid (7.2. the Logos) wpds Te duvnoriav dpapypatwv Kal xopnyiav apbovuratwv dyaby, and in guis rer. div. 42, where the Logos is ixérns tov @vytod Kypaivovtos adel mpos TO ddOaprov rapa dé Td hivre mpos eveAmioriav TOU pHTore Tov tAew Oeov mepioety TO tovov epyov. The function of intercession in heaven for the People, which originally (see p. 37) was the prerogative of Michael the angelic guardian of Israel, or generally of angels (see on 1!4), is thus transferred to Jesus, to One who is no mere angel but who has sacrificed himself for the People. The author deliberately excludes any other mediator or semi-mediator in the heavenly sphere (see p. xxxix). A triumphant little summary (vv.7%?8) now rounds off the argument of 61972 ; 26 Such was the highpriest for us, saintly, innocent, unstained, far from all contact with the sinful, lifted high above the heavens, ™ one who has no need, like yonder highpriests, day by day to offer sacrifices first for their own sins and then for (the preposition is omitted as in Ac 2618) those of the People— he did that once for all in offering up himself. ™* For the Law appoints human beings tn thetr weakness to the priesthood ; but the word of the Oath {which came after the Law) appoints a Son who ts made perfect for ever. VII. 26. | JESUS AS PRIEST IOI The text of this paragraph has only a few variants, none of any import- ance. After jptiv in v.** cai is added by A B D 1739 syrPesh hkl Eusebius (‘* was exactly the one for us”). In v.?” it makes no difference to the sense whether mpocevéyxas (8 A W 33. 256. 436. 442. 1837. 2004. 2127 arm Cyr.) or aveveykas (BC D K L P etc. Chrys.) is read; the latter may have been suggested by avadépetv, or mpocevéykas may have appealed to later scribes as the more usual and technical term in the epistle. The technical distinction between a@vadépew (action of people) and mpocgépew (action of the priest) had long been blurred ; both verbs mean what we mean by “offer up” or ‘* sacrifice.” In v.28 the original tepe?s (D* 1 r vg) was soon changed (to con- form with d&pxuepets in v.*") into dpxvepets. The reason why tepeds and iepets have been used in 7!* is that Melchizedek was called iepevs, not dpxvepevs. Once the category is levitical, the interchange of dpy:epevs and tepevs becomes natural. The words tovodtos yap uty empemev (another daring use of expemev, Cp. 21) dpxrepeds (v.26) might be bracketed as one of the author’s parentheses, in which case éotos xrA. would carry on mwdvtote Lav... adtav. But ds in Greek often follows totodtos, and the usual construction is quite satisfactory. [dp is intensive, as often. It is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody, but there is a certain sequence of thought in oovos xrA., where the positive adjective dcvos is followed by two negative terms in alliteration (Gkakos, duiaytos), and xexwpiopevos ard Tay &paptwdGv is further defined by SndAdtepos t&v odpavdy yevspevos (the same idea as in 414 dveAnAvOdra tots ovpavovs). He is dcvos, pious or saintly (cp. LRE. vi. 743), in virtue of qualities like his reverence, obedience, faith, loyalty, and humility, already noted. “Akakos is innocent (as in Job 8”, Jer 111%), one of the LXX equivalents for OM or OVA, not simply = devoid of evil feeling towards men; like dplavtos, it denotes a character xwpis duaprias. *Apiovtos is used of the untainted Isis in OP. 1380 (é& Ildvrw dpiavros). The language may be intended to suggest a contrast between the deep ethical purity of Jesus and the ritual purity of the levitical highpriest, who had to take extreme precautions against outward defilement (cp. Lv 211!°15 for the regulations, and the details in Josephus, Avzé. ili. 12. 2, wa wovov dé repli Tas iepovpyias kaapovs civar, orrovddley S€ Kal repi THY abtav diaitay, ws adtiy dpeumrrov evar’ Kal Ova tavrnv tiv airiay, ol THY lepatiKyy oToArV hopowvres dwwpor Te eiot Kai wept mdvTa Kafapol Kal vypdAror), and had to avoid human contact for seven days before the ceremony of atonement-day. ‘The next two phrases go together. Kexwpuo- pévos amd Tay dpapTwdéy is intelligible in the light of 978; Jesus has dzaé sacrificed himself for the sins of men, and in that sense his connexion with duaprwAof is done. He is no levitical high- priest who is in daily contact with them, and therefore obliged to sacrifice repeatedly. Hence the writer at once adds (v.?”) a word to explain and expand this pregnant thought; the sphere in which Jesus now lives (6nAdrepos xrA.) is not one in which, 102 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VII. 27-28. as on earth, he had to suffer the contagion or the hostility of | dpaptwrot (12) and to die for human sins. ‘“‘He has outsoared the shadow of our night; Envy and calumny and hate and pain... Can touch him not and torture not again; From the contagion of the world’s slow stain He is secure.” This is vital! to the sympathy and intercession of Jesus; it is in virtue of this position before God that he aids his people, as teredewwpuevos, and therefore able to do all for them. His priesthood is, in modern phrase, absolute. As eternal dpxvepeds in the supreme sense, and as no longer in daily contact with sinners, Jesus is far above the routine ministry of the levitical apxtepets. The writer blends loosely in his description (v.?’) the annual sacrifice of the highpriest on atonement-day (to which he has already referred in 5°) and the daily sacrifices offered by priests. Strictly speaking the dpyepets did not require to offer sacrifices xa’ 7u¢pav, and the accurate phrase would have been xar’ eviautrov. According to Lv 619-8 the highpriest had indeed to offer a cereal offering morning and evening ; but the text is uncertain, for it is to be offered both on the day of his consecration and also 61a zravros. Besides, this section was not in the LXX text of A, so that the writer of Hebrews did not know of it. Neither had he any knowledge of the later Jewish ritual, according to which the highpriest did offer this offering twice a day. Possibly, however, his expression here was suggested by Philo’s statement about this offering, viz. that the highpriest did offer a daily sacrifice (guts rer. div. 36: tas evdeAcxets Ovoias . . . Hv TE brép EavtGy ot iepeis rporpéepovar THS TeuiddrAews Kal THY trép TOU eOvous tav Sdvetv duvav, de spec. leg. ili. 23, 6 dpxvepeds . . . edyas dé kal Ovoias teAGY Kal Exdotnv Hyépav). It is true that this offering bwép éautav was not a sin-offering, only an offering of cereals ; still it was reckoned a @voia, and in Sir 4514 it is counted as such. Toéto ydp éwotyoev refers then to his sacrifice for sins (978), not, of course, including any sins of his own (see on 58); it means birép Tav dpaptiv Tob hao’, and the writer could afford to be technically inexact in his parallelism without fear of being misunderstood. ‘‘Jesus offered his sacrifice,” ‘Jesus did all that a highpriest has to do,”—this was what he intended. The Greek fathers rightly referred todto to émeita t&v tod aod, as if the writer meant ‘‘¢/zs, not that mpdtepov.” It is doubtful if he had such a sharp distinction in his mind, but when he wrote todto 1 Thus Philo quotes (de “ug. 12) with enthusiasm what Plato says in the Theatetus ; odr dmodéoOa Ta kaxd Svvardv—idrevaytiov ydp Te TE ayab@ det elvar dvdyxn—otre év Delos adra idpicAat VII. 28. | THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS 103 he was thinking of tév rod Aaod, and of that alone. An effort is sometimes made to evade this interpretation by confining ka Huepay to ds odk €xet and understanding ‘‘yearly” after ot dpxtepets, as if the idea were that Christ’s daily intercession required no daily sacrifice like the annual sacrifice on atonement- day. But, as the text stands, dvdykny is knit to xa’ 7yépav, and these words must all be taken along with domep ot dpxtepets (€xover). Be ihe the common assurance of the votaries of Serapis, ¢. £: BCU. ae peee ii. 385 (ii/ili A.D.), TO mpoockivnud cov Tol® Kar’ Exdorny hucpay Tapa TY Kuply Dapamde kal rots cvvvéors Geots. A deep impression is made by the words éaurév dvevéyxas, “pro nobis tibi uictor et uictima, et ideo uictor, quia uictima, pro nobis tibi sacerdos et sacrificium, et ideo sacerdos, quia sacrificium” (Aug. Conf. x. 43). What is meant by this the writer holds over till he reaches the question of the sacrifice of Jesus as dpxtepeds (9). As usual, he prepares the way for a further idea by dropping an enigmatic allusion to it. Meantime (v.°8) a general statement sums up the argument. Ka8iornow is used as in 1 Mac. 10”? (cesorasensy TE OHMLEpOV ApxLepea Tov €vovs cov), and doGéveray recalls 52 (zepixerrar dobéverav), in the special sense that such weakness involved a sacrifice for one’s personal sins (irép tév idiwy duapridv). Whereas Jesus the Son of God (as opposed to dvOpwrovs aobeveis) was appointed by a divine order which superseded the Law (era Tov vonov = vy.1!-19), and appointed as one who was Tete\etwpévos (in the sense of 21°) eis Tov aid@va. It is implied that he was appointed dpxuepeds, between which and fepevs there is no difference. The writer now picks up the thought (722) of the superior S.ia0ykn which Jesus as dpxtepeds in the eternal oxnvy or sanctuary mediates for the People. This forms the transition between the discussion of the priesthood (5-8) and the sacrifice of Jesus (g'-10!”). The absolute sacrifice offered by Jesus as the absolute priest (vv.!°) ratifies the new dva0jxn which has superseded the old (vv.7-!) with its imperfect sacrifices. 1 The point of all this ts, we do have such a highpriest, one who ts ‘* seated at the right hand” of the throne of Majesty (see 1*) im the heavens, 2 and who offictates in the sanctuary or ‘‘true tabernacle set up by the Lord ‘ and not by man. * Now, as every highpriest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, he too must have something to offer. ‘Were he on earth, he would not be a priest at all, for there are priests already to offer the gifts prescribed by Law (© men who serve a mere outline and shadow of the heavenly—as Moses was instructed when he was about to execute the building of the tabernacle: ‘‘ see,” God said, ‘‘ that (sc. 8rws) you make everything on the pattern ici: Sib upon the mountain”). °® As it is, however, the divine service he has obtained ts supertor, owing to the fact that he mediates a supertor covenant, enacted with superior promises. The terseness of the clause jv éanftev 6 Kipios, odk avOpwos (v.?) is 104 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VIII.1, 2. spoiled by the insertion of kat before obx (AK LP vg boh syr arm eth Cosm.). In v.4 ov becomes ydp in D¢ K L syr>*! arm Chrys. Theod., and a similar group of authorities add lepéwy after évrwv. Tév is prefixed needlessly to véuov by 8 DK LP Chrys. Dam. to conform to the usage in 75 922; but the sense is really unaffected, for the only legal regulation con- ceivable is that of the Law. In v.® viv and vuvt (97%) are both attested ; the former is more common in the papyri. The Hellenistic (from Aristotle onwards) form rérevxev (X° B D° 5. 226. 467. 623. 920. 927. 1311. 1827. 1836. 1873. 2004. 2143, etc.: or téruxev, 8° A D* K L) has been corrected in PV 6. 33. 1908 Orig. to the Attic rervxnxev. Before xpetttovds, kat is omitted by D* 69. 436. 462 arm Thdt. Kedédaroy (“the pith,” Coverdale), which is nominative absolute, is used as in Cic. ad Aftic. v. 18: “et multa, immo omnia, quorum xepadaovr,” etc., Dem. xili. 36: €ore 37, & advdpes "A@nvaiot, Keparaov ardvtwy Tov cipnuevwy (at the close of a speech) ; Musonius (ed. Hense, 67 f.) Biov kat yevécews raidwy Kowwviay Kepadaov civat ydpov, etc. The word in this sense is common throughout literature and the more colloquial papyri, here with él tots Neyouevors (concerning what has been said). In passing from the intricate argument about the Melchizedek priesthood, which is now dropped, the writer disentangles the salient and central truth of the discussion, in order to continue his exposition of Jesus as highpriest. ‘Such, I have said, was the dpxtepevs for us, and such is the dpytepevs we have—One who is enthroned, év tots odpavots, next to God himself.” While Philo spiritualizes the highpriesthood, not unlike Paul (Ro 12!*), by arguing that devotion to God is the real highpriesthood (ro yap Geparrevtixov yévos dvabnud éorte Oeodv, tepdyevov tiv pmeyadnv dpxiepwovvynv aiTd wove, de Fug. 7), our author sees its essential functions transcended by Jesus in the spiritual order. The phrase in v.? tav dytwv Nevtoupyds, offers two points of interest. First, the linguistic form Aecrovpyés. The e form stands between the older y or my, which waned apparently from the third cent. B.c., and the later ce form; “ Aeroupyds sim. socios habet omnium temporum papyros praeter perpaucas recentiores quae sacris fere cum libris conspirantes Arovpyos Acroupyia scribunt” (Cronert, Memoria Graeca Hercul. 39). Then, the meaning of rév adyiwv. Philo has the phrase, in Leg. Ad/eg. ili. 46, To.ovtos O€ 0 GeparrevTis Kai AeToupyos TOV aylwv, where Tv dyiwv means “‘sacred things,” as in de /ug. 17, where the Levites are described as priests ois 7) t@v dyiwv dvaxetrar Aerovpyia. This might be the meaning here. But the writer uses ra ayia else- where (9§% 1o!® 131!) of “the sanctuary,” a rendering favoured by the context. By ra dyva he means, as often in the LXX, the sanctuary in general, without any reference to the distinction (cp. 928) between the outer and the inner shrine. The LXX avoids the pagan term tepov in this connexion, though 76 dyrov itself was already in use among ethnic writers (e.g. the edict of VIII. 2-5. | THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS 105 Ptolemy U1., kat xafidptoo év tov dyiw.= “in sacrario templi,” Dittenberger, OGZS. 56°"). Itis here defined (xai epexegetic) as the true or real oxynvh, Hv! emngev 6 KUptos (a reminiscence of Nu 24° oxnval as éernfev Kipuos, and of Ex 337 kai AaBov Mwvojs tiv oKynviv avrov érnfev). The reality and authenticity of the writer’s faith come out in a term like d&\nOivds. What he means by it he will explain in a moment (v.°). Meanwhile he turns to the Nettoupyla of Jesus in this ideal sanctuary. This dpyxuepeds of ours, in his vocation (v.°, cp. 51), must have (dvaykatov, sc. éotiv) some sacrifice to present before God, though what this offering is, the writer does not definitely say, even later in 974. The analogy of a highpriest carrying the blood of an animal inside.the sacred shrine had its obvious limitations, for Jesus was both dpyrepevs and offering, by his self-sacrifice. Mpocevéyxy is the Hellenistic aorist subjunctive, where classical Greek would have employed a future indicative (Radermacher, 138). The writer proceeds to argue that this Netroupyla is far superior to the levitical cultus (vv.44). Even in the heavenly sanctuary there must be sacrifice of some kind—for sacrifice is essential to communion, in his view. It is not a sacrifice according to the levitical ritual; indeed Jesus on this level would not be in levitical orders at all. But so far from that being any drawback or disqualification to our dpxtepeds, it is a proof of his superiority, for the bible itself indicates that the levitical cultus is only an inferior copy of the heavenly order to which Jesus belongs. Instead of contrasting at this point (v.4) 74 8@pa (sacrifices, as in 114) of the levitical priests with the spiritual sacrifice of Jesus, he hints that the mere fact of these sacrifices being made émt ys is a proof of their inferiority. This is put into a paren- thesis (v.°); but, though a grammatical aside, it contains one of the writer’s fundamental ideas about religion (Eusebius, in Praep. Evang. xii. 19, after quoting He 8°, refers to the similar Platonic view in the sixth book of the Republic). Such priests (otrwes, the simple relative as in 9? 10% !! 125) Xatpedouor (with dative as in 13!°) Grodelypart kal okid TO éroupaviwy (cp. 923). “Yzodevyya here as in 9” is a mere outline or copy (the only analogous instance in the LXX being Ezk 42! 76 idderypa. Tod olkov) ; the phrase is practically a hendiadys for ‘‘a shadowy outline,” a second-hand, inferior reproduction. The proof of this is given in a reference to Ex 2519: Kabas Kkexpnpdtiota. Mwuvofs— xpypati~w,”? as often in the LXX and the papyri, of divine 1 #v is not assimilated, though #s might have been written ; the practice varied (cp. ¢g. Dt 5°! év ry yn ty eyo didwut, and 12) & TH yn n Kupsos dldworr), 2 Passively in the NT in Ac 10”, but the exact parallel is in Josephus, Ant. iii. 8. 8, Mwiiofjs . . . els Thy oxnvijy elowwy éxpnuarlfero mepl dv édetro mapa Tov Geod. 106 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ VIII. 5. revelations as well as of royal instructions—pédAdAwv émutedety thy oxnvyy. The subject of the grou is God, understood from kexpnpdtiorat, and the ydp! introduces the quotation, in which the writer, following Philo (Zeg. Adleg. iil. 33), as probably codex Ambrosianus (F) of the LXX followed him, adds mdvta. He also substitutes 8etxOévta for dederyyévov, which Philo keeps (kara 7d wapadetypa TO Sederypevov Got év TO Oper TavTa Toijoets), and retains the LXX rumov (like Stephen in Ac 7**). The idea was current in Alexandrian Judaism, under the influence of Platonism, that this oxyvj on earth had been but a reproduction of the pre-existent heavenly sanctuary. Thus the author of Wisdom makes Solomon remind God that he had been told to build the | temple (vdov . .. Kai Q@vovacrnpiov) as pipnua oKxnvyns ayias HV mpoytoipwacas am apxyns (9°), where oxyvy ayia is plainly the heavenly sanctuary as the eternal archetype. This idealism > determines the thought of our writer (see Introd. pp. xxxif.). Above the shows and shadows of material things he sees the real order of being, and it is most real to him on account of Jesus being there, for the entire relationship between God and man depends upon this function and vocation of-Jesus in the eternal sanctuary. Such ideas were not unknown in other circles. Seneca (Zf. Iviii. 18-19) had just explained to Lucilius that the Platonic ideas were ‘‘ what all visible things were created from, and what formed the pattern for all things,” quoting the Parmenides, 132 D, to prove that the Platonic idea was the ever- lasting pattern of all things in nature. The metaphor is more than once used by Cicero, e.g. Zusc. iil. 2. 3, and in de Officizs, iii. 17, where he writes: ‘‘ We have no real and life-like (solidam et expressam effigiem) likeness of real law and genuine justice ; all we enjoy is shadow and sketch (umbra et imaginibus). Would that we were true even to these! For they are taken from the excellent patterns provided by nature and truth.” But our author’s thought is deeper. In the contemporary Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch the idea of Ex 25% is developed into the thought that the heavenly Jerusalem was also revealed to Moses along with the patterns of the oxnv7 and its utensils (4*) ; God also showed Moses ‘‘ the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of which the sanctuary of the present time was to be made” (Charles’ tr.). The origin of this notion is very ancient; it goes back to Sumerian sources, for Gudea the prince-priest of Lagash (¢c. 3000 B.C.) receives in a vision the plan of the temple which he is commanded to build (cp. A. Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT, pp. 62f.). It is to this fundamental conception that the author of IIpds ‘EBpaious recurs, only to elaborate it in an altogether new form, which went far beyond Philo. Philo’s argument (Leg. Ad/eg. iii. 33), on this very verse of Exodus, is that Bezaleel only constructed an imitation (utunuara) of ra dpxéruta given to Moses; the latter was called up to the mountain to receive the direct idea of God, whereas the former worked simply dd oxids TOv yevoudvwv. In de Plant. 6 he observes that the very name of Bezaleel ($x byz) means ‘‘one who works in shadows” (év oxtais movav); in De Sommnits, i. 35, he defines it as ‘in the shadow of God,” and again contrasts Bezaleel with Moses: 6 mév ola cxids breypadero, 6 5’ ob oxids, 1 Put before gno1, because the point is not that the oracle was given, but what the oracle contained. , VIII. 6.] THE SUPERIOR COVENANT 107 avras 6¢ ras dpxerUmous ednmotpye: pices. In Vet. Mos. iii. 3 he argues that in building the oxnv7 Moses designed to produce kaOdmep am’ dapxerirrou ypapns Kal vonrdv mapaderyudrwv alcOnra pienuata ... 6 wey ody rvtros To0 mapadelyparos éverppayifero TH diavolg Tov mpopijrov ... Td 0 dmoré- Aecua pds Tov TUrov ednutoupyeEtro. He then continues (v.® viv 8é, logical as in 28 926, answering to et pév in v.4) the thought of Christ’s superior ettoupyia by describing him again (cp. 7?) in connexion with the superior S.aOHxyn, and using now not éyyvos but pectryns. Meoirys (see on Gal 3!°) commonly means an arbitrator (e.g. Job 9%, Rein. P. 44° [A.D. 104] 6 kataoraGeis Kpiryjs pecitys) or intermediary in some civil transaction (OP. 1298!) ; but this writer’s use of it, always in connexion with 81a@jxy (915 1274)! and always as a description of Jesus (as in 1 Ti 25), implies that it is practically (see on 722) a synonym for éyyuos. Indeed, linguistically, it is a Hellenistic equivalent for the Attic peréyyvos, and in Diod. Siculus, iv. 54 (rodrov yap peoityny yeyovora Tov Sporoyov év Kodxors ernyyeAPau BonOycev aity tapacrovdovpervy), its meaning corresponds to that of €yyvos. ‘The sense is plain, even before the writer develops his ideas about the new dcaOyx«n, for, whenever the idea of re- conciliation emerges, terms like peotrys and peourevery are natural. Meoirys kai duadAaxtys is Philo’s phrase? for Moses (Vit. Mos. ji. 19), And as a dafyxy was a gracious order of religious fellowship, inaugurated upon some historical occasion by sacrifice, it was natural to speak of Jesus as the One who mediated this new daOyxn of Christianity. He gave it (Theophyl. peoirys xat dérns) ; he it was who realized it for men and who maintains it for men. All that the writer has to say meantime about the diabyxn is that it has been enacted (v.®) émt kpetttoow émayyeXlats. This passive use of vowoetetv is not unexampled ; cf. eg. OGZS. 493° (ii A.D.) Kal Tatra pev tyety dpOds Kai Kad@s . . . vevopo- GernoOw. It 's implied, of course, that God is 6 vopoGeray (as in LXX Ps 837). What the ‘ better promises ” are, he now proceeds to explain, by a contrast between their da04xn and its predecessor. The superiority of the new d:a6yxy is shown by the fact that God thereby superseded the éca0yxy with which the levitical cultus was bound up; the writer quotes an oracle from Jeremiah, again laying stress on the fact that it came after the older d:aOyKy (vv.718), and enumerating its promises ascontained in a new d:aOnxy, 1In these two latter passages, at least, there may be an allusion to the contemporary description of Moses as ‘‘ mediator of the covenant” (‘‘ arbiter testamenti,” Ass. A/osts, i. 14). The writer does not contrast Jesus with Michael, who was the great angelic mediator in some circles of Jewish piety (cp. Jub 1%, Test. Dan 6). 2 Josephus (Am¢. xvi. 2. 2) says that Herod rév rap ’Ayplrra ricly émifnroupévav peoitys fv, and that his influence moved mpds ras evepyeotas ob Bpadivovra rov Aypirmav. “Idcedor wev yap adrov SindAagev dpyifdpevor. 108 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (WII. y= 1 For tf that first covenant had been faultless, there would have ia no occasion for a second. ® Whereas God does find fault with the people of that covenant, when he says: ‘* The day ts coming, satth the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9 Tt will not be on the lines of the covenant I made with their father Fh on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt's Lana ; for they would not hold to my covenant, so L left them alone, saith the Lord. 10 This zs the covenant I will make with the house of Israel when that (‘the day” of v.8) day comes, saith the Lord ; ZT will set my laws within their mind, inscribing them upon thetr hearts ; I will be a God (eis Gedy, z.é. all that men can expect a God to be) ¢o them, and they shall be a People to me ; 1 one citizen will no longer teach his fellow, one man wzll no longer teach his brother ror adekpov atrov, z.é. one another, Ex 107), saying, “* Know the Lord.” for all shall know me, low and high together. 12 7 will be merciful to their tniqguitzes, and remember thetr sins no more. 13 By saying “a new covenant,” he antiquates the first. And whatever ts antiquated and aged ts on the verge of vanishing. The contents of the prediction of a kawh 8:a8qKn by God, and the very fact that such was necessary, prove the defectiveness of the first da6yxn. The writer is struck by the mention of a new dvabyxn even in the OT itself, and he now explains the significance of this. As for 1 mpdty (sc. duabyjxn) éxeivy, ei . . . Gpepmros (if no fault could have been found with it), obk éy Seutépas éLntetto témos. Aeutépas is replaced by érépas in B* (so B. Weiss, Blass) ; but, while érepos could follow mp&ros (Mt 21°), devTepos is the term chosen in 10%, and B* is far too slender evidence by itself. Zyrtetv TémOv is one of those idiomatic phrases, like etpely rorov and Aafety térov, of which the writer was fond. The force of the ydp after pepdpduevos is: ‘and there was occasion for a second d:afyxn, the first was not dpepmros, since,” etc. It need make little or no difference to the sense whether we read autois (N° B D° L 6. 38. 88. 104. 256. 436. 467. 999. 1311. 1319. 1739. 1837.1845. 1912. 2004. 2127 Origen) or avrovs (N* A D* K P W 33 vg arm), for peudouevos can take a dative as well as an accusative (cf. Arist. AAez. 1. 6. 24, Kopw6iors & ob péuderar 7d “Tov: Aesch. Prom. 63, ovdeis évdixws éuwarro por) in the sense of *€censuring”’ or “ finding fault with,” and peppoprevos naturally ROG with atrots or atrovs. The objection to taking adtots with Aéyer ! 1 weudduevos is then ‘f by way of censure,” and some think the writer purposely avoided adding av’rjv. Which, in view of what he says in v.}, is doubtful ; besides, he has just said that the former diabnkn was not d&meumros. VIII. 8. | THE ORACLE OF JEREMIAH 109 is that the quotation is not addressed directly to the people, but spoken at large. Thus the parallel from 2 Mac 2? (peppa- pevos avrots elev) 1s not decisive, and the vg is probably correct in rendering ‘“vituperans enim eos dicit.” The context ex- plains here as in 48 and 1178 who are meant by airovs. The real interest of the writer in this Jeremianic oracle is shown when he returns to it in 101618; what arrests him is the promise of a free, full pardon at the close. But he quotes it at length, partly because it did imply the supersession of the older dia6yxn and partly because it contained high promises (vv.!1?), higher than had yet been given to the People. No doubt it also contains a warning (v.°), like the text from the g5th psalm (3), but this is not why he recites it (see p. xl). The text of Jer 38°!-34 (3151-84) as he read it in his bible (¢.e. in A) ran thus: >. \ e / ” 14 , idod yuepar epxovTa, A€yer Kupuos, \ Py Ay A »” "Tt nv \ A > al 50 6 An kal diabyoopar TO otkw ‘IopanA Kat T@ oikw ‘Iovda diabyKyv / KQLVV, 3 ‘\ LN , aA , an , SA ov kata THv dwaOyKny Hv Suefeunv Tots TaTpacw avTov év nuépa ertAaBopevov pov THs xeEtpos adrav eEayayeiv adrovs éx yns Aiytirron, e task Keg > 7 > A 8 6% STL AUTO. ovK evepervay ev TH diaOyKy pov, > + > / 3 n A , Kayo NuéeX\noa avTav, dyno Kupvos. g 97 e , a 7 fal 4 > , 6te attn 7 StabyKyn Hv Siabjoopa TO oixw “Iopanr peTa TAs Huepas exelvas, Pyow Kipvos, did0vs vopovs pov eis THY Sidvoray airy A , lal Kal érypayw avtovs émi Tas Kapdias ait, Kal owopat avTous \ A Kal €gopat adrots eis Oedv. \ 2 Nae , > / Kal avTol e€govTat por eis Aaov. \ > ‘\ 1 8 5 Z ¢ \ > \ 3 A kai ov py! diddagwow EexacTos Tov adeAov avrod , ¢ \ A aA Kal ExagTos TOV TANnTLov aiTod éywv' yvOOu Tov Kuproy, oT. mavtes idyoovow pe Grd pKpov ews peyadov airar, 9 an aA dtu tXews Evopar Tats adixlats avTov Kal TOV GpapTiav aiTav ov py pvnocOd ert. Our author follows as usual the text of A upon the whole (e.9. Aéyec tor onoly in v.*!, kayo in v.8*, the omission of mou after duabjxn and of ddcw after didovs in v.**, od uh StddEwowy for ov diddEovow in v.*4 and the omission of avr after uxpod), but substitutes ouvrehéow éml rdv olkov (bis) for d1a6%- gouat TH olkw in v.*1, reads Aéyer for pyolv in v.* and v.%, alters dvebéunvy into ézolnoa (Q*), and follows B in reading kal éml x. a’r&v before the verb (v.*3), and moXirny . . ddedpdv in v.*4, as well as in omitting cal dy. adrovs (A x) in the former verse; in v.*4 he reads eldjcovcw (x Q) instead of 1 9d yw only occurs in Hebrews in quotations (here, 10!7 13°); out of about ninety-six occurrences in the NT, only eight are with the future. IIo THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ VIII. 8-10. idjoovow, the forms of oféa and eldov being repeatedly confused (cp. Thackeray, 278). These minor changes may be partly due to the fact that he is quoting from memory. In some cases his own text has been conformed to other versions of the LXX; eg. A D ¥ boh restore pov in v.19, x* K vg Clem. Chrys. read xapdlav (with 8 in LXX), though the singular! is plainly a con- formation to dlavowy (‘* Fiir den Plural sprechen ausser A D'L noch B, wo nur das C in € verschrieben und daraus emt xapdia eavrwy geworden ist, und P, wo der Dat. in den Acc. verwandelt,” B. Weiss in Zexte u. Unter- suchungen, xiv. 3. 16, 55); B W arm revive the LXX (B) variant ypdww ; the LXX (Q) variant wAngiov is substituted for woAlrnv by P vg syrb*! eth 38. 206. 218. 226. 257. 547. 642. 1288. 1311. 1912, etc. Cyril, and the LXX (B Q 8) at’rdy restored after ucxpod by D° L syr boh eth, etc. On the other hand, a trait like the reading émoiyoa in the LXX text of Q* may be due to the influence of Hebrews itself. The addition of kal rév avourdy adrdy after or before kal r&v duapridv airav in v.!* is a homiletic gloss from 10’, though strongly entrenched in 8 AC DK LP W6. 104. 326, etc. vg pesh arm Clem. Luvtehéow Srabyxny, a literary LXX variant for roujow diabyxny, recalls the phrase ovvreAdoar diabyxyy (Jer 418 (348)), and, as 124 (véas S:a0nxyns) shows, the writer draws no distinction between xaos and véos (v.8). In v.® the genitive absolute’ (émAaBopevou pou) after ipépa, instead of ev 7 éreAaBduyy (as Justin correctly puts it, Déad. xi.), is a Hellenistic innovation, due here to trans- lation, but paralleled in Bar 278 év npépa évretAapevov cov ava) ; in dtu (causal only here and in v.!°) . . . évéwewav, the latter is our “‘abide by,” in the sense of obey or practise, exactly as in Isokrates, xara tdv Xodictav, 20: ols ei Tis emt Tdv rpagewy éupeiverey. Bengel has a crisp comment on adrot . . . xadye here and on écopat.. . kat adrot (“correlata . . . sed ratione inversa ; populus fecerat initium tollendi foederis prius, in novo omnia et incipit et perficit Deus”); and, as it happens, there is a dramatic contrast between jpéAnoa here and the only other use of the verb in this epistle (2°). In v.19 880us, by the omission of daca, is left hanging in the air; but (cp. Moulton, 222) such participles could be taken as finite verbs in popular Greek of the period (cp. ¢.g. xeporovnbets in 2 Co 81%). The xawh S:a8qxy is to be on entirely fresh lines, not a mere revival of the past; it is to realize a knowledge of God which is inward and intuitive (vy.10-11), There is significance in the promise, kat égouar atrots . els Nady. A dvabyxy was always between God and his people, and this had been the object even of the former dcabyxn (Ex. 67); now it is to be realized at last. Philo’s sentence (even if we are sluggish, however, He is not sluggish about taking to Himself those who are fit for His service ; for He says, ‘I will take you to be a people for myself, and I will be your God,’” De Sacrif. Abelis et Caint, 26) is an apt comment; but our author, who sees the new dca6y«7y fulfilled in Christianity, has 1 That él takes the accusative here is shown by 10'8; xapdlas cannot be the genitive singular alongside of an accusative, VIII. 10-13. | OLD AND NEW cant his own views about how such a promise and purpose was attainable, for while the oracle ignores the sacrificial ritual altogether, he cannot conceive any pardon apart from sacrifice, nor any dvafyxyn apart from a basal sacrifice. These ideas he is to develop in his next paragraphs, for it is the closing promise of pardon! which is to him the supreme boon. Meanwhile, before passing on to explain how this had been mediated by Jesus, he (v.18) drives home the truth of the contrast between old and new (see Introd., p. xxxix). Ev 1@ Néyew (same construc- tion as in 2°)—when the word kawhy (sc. dvabyxnv) was pro- nounced, it sealed the doom of the old daéyKy. Nadadw (wewadatwxe) in this transitive sense (“he hath abrogat,” Tyndale) is known to the LXX (Job 95, La 34, both times of God in action); ynpdoxew is practically equivalent to papatverOa, and implies decay (see Wilamowitz on Eur. Herak/es, 1223). The two words éyyds (as in 6°) &paviopod, at the end of the paragraph, sound like the notes of a knell, though they have no contem- porary reference ; the writer simply means that the end of the old duabyxyn was at hand (p. xxii). The new would soon follow, as it had done év vid (11). The verb adavifeww (-erOat) is applied to legis- lation (e.g., Lysias, 868, tiv tuérepay vopobectay adavilovras) in the sense of abolition, lapsing or falling into desuetude, Dion. Hal. Ant. iii. 178, ds (ze. Numa’s laws) dgancOjvar ovwvéByn ro xpovw, the opposite of ddavilew being ypadew (2did. ix. 608, KaTa TOUS VOmOUS, ovs od vewoTl denoe ypadew drat yap éypadycay, Kal ovdels avTovs Hpavile xpdvos), and the sense of disappearance in ddavigpes appears already in the LXX (4g. Jer 2887 nat éorat BaBvAwy eis &havic pov). But the new dayjx7 1s also superior to the old by its sacrifice (91"-), sacrifice being essential to any forgiveness such as has been promised. The older dva0y«y had its sanctuary and ritual (vv.2-), but even these (vv.®.) indicated a defect. 1 The first covenant had indeed tts regulations for worship and a material sanctuary. 7 A tent was set up (katackevdf{w as in 3°), the outer tent, con- taining the lampstand, the table, and the loaves of the Presence; this 7s called the Holy place. * But behind (werd only here in NT of place) the second vetl was the tent called the Holy of Holtes, * containing the golden altar of incense, and also the ark of the covenant covered all over with gold, which held the golden pot of manna, the rod of Aaron that once blossomed, and the tablets of the covenant ; © above thts were the cherubim of the Glory overshadowing the mercy-seat—matters which (z.e. all in 7) zt zs tmpossible Jor me to discuss at present tn detail, 1 With rv auapriwy airav ob wh wvnoOG ért compare the parable of R. Jochanan and R. Eliezer on God’s readiness to forget the sinful nature of his servants: ‘‘ There is a parable concerning a king of flesh and blood, who said to his servants, Build me a great palace on the dunghill. They went and built it for him. It was not thenceforward the king’s pleasure to remember the dunghill which had been there” (Chagiga, 16 a. i, 27). 112 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _—s—[IX. 1. The kaw? Sca6qxy of 87-18 had been realized by the arrival of Christ (9!!); hence the older d:a6jxn was superseded, and the writer speaks of it in the past tense, etye. As for } mparn (sc. dvafyxn) of which he has been just speaking (818), the antithesis of the entire passage is between 4 mpdty SiaOjKy (vv.t!°) and Kah SrabyjKy (vv.!1-22), as is explicitly stated in v.& The xai (om. B 38. 206%. 216%. 489. 547. 1739. 1827 boh pesh Origen) before % mpwérn emphasizes the fact that the old had this in common with the new, viz. worship and a sanctuary. This is, of course, out of keeping with the Jeremianic oracle of the new diadyxn, which does not contemplate any such provision, but the writer takes a special view of dia6y«y which involves a celestial counterpart to the ritual provisions of the old order. The former dvadyxn, then, embraced 8tkadparta, ze. regula- tions, as in Lk 16 and 1 Mac 221: 22 (ikews tv Karadelrew vomov Kal OlKalwpata TOV VosLov TOD Baciréws OvK aKovTOpEOa, apedAOety tiv atpiav nyov), rather than rights or privileges (as, ¢.g., OP. 1119 rév éfaipérwy THs Hperépas tatpidos Sdixavwpdrov), arrangements for the cultus. Aatpetas grammatically might be accusative plural (as in v.®), but is probably the genitive, after dixatHpara, which it defines. Aarpeia or (as spelt in W) Aarpia (cp. Thackeray, 87) is the cultus (Ro 9+), or any specific part of it (Ex 12% 27). The close connexion between worship and a sanctuary (already in 8% 3) leads to the addition of 16 te (as in 13 6°) &yvov Kkoopixdy. By 1d dyvov the author means the entire sanctuary (so, e.g., Ex 36%, Nu 3°8), not the innermost sacred shrine or aya aywwv. This is clear. What is not so clear is the meaning of koopixdy, and the meaning of its position after the noun without an article. Primarily xoopexds here as in Ti 2!2 (ras KoopuKas ériMupias) is an equivalent for ért ys (8%), te. mundane or material, as opposed to émoupdnov or od tavtys THs kticews (v4), A fair parallel to this occurs in Zest. Jos. 178, du THY KoopiKHY pov Odgav. But did our author use it with a further suggestion? It would have been quite irrelevant to his purpose to suggest the “‘public” aspect of the sanctuary, al- though Jews like Philo and Josephus might speak of the temple as koopixds in this sense, Ze. in contrast to synagogues and mpocevxat, which were of local importance (Philo, ad Catum. to1g), or simply as a place of public worship (e.g. Jos. Bel/. iv. 5. 2, THS KoopiKns OpyoKeias KaTapxovTas, mpooKuvoupEevous TE Tos €k THS Olkovpevys wapaBddAovow eis tiv wodw). Neither would our author have called the sanctuary xoopuxds as symbolic of the xdcpos, though Philo (Vit. Moszs, iii. 3-10) and Josephus (Anzé. ill. 6. 4, Ul. 7. 7, Exacta yap TovTwy eis aropiunow kal Siatvzwow tov dAwv) also play with this fancy. He views the sanctuary as a dim representation of the divine sanctuary, not Ix. 1-4.] THE FIRST SANCTUARY 113 of the universe. Yet he might have employed kocpixdv in a similar sense, if we interpret the obscure phrase pvorypiov Koope- Kov ékkAynolas in Did. 111! (see the notes of Dr. C. Taylor and Dr. Rendel Harris in their editions) as a spiritual or heavenly idea, “‘ depicted in the world of sense by emblematic actions or material objects,” “‘a symbol or action wrought upon the stage of this world to illustrate what was doing or to be done on a higher plane.” Thus, in the context of the Didache, marriage would be a pvorypiov Koopixdv (cp. Eph 5°?) of the spiritual rela- tion between Christ and his church. This early Christian usage may have determined the choice of xoopxdv here, the sanctuary being Kkoopixédv because it is the material representation or parabolic outward expression of the true, heavenly sanctuary. But at best it is a secondary suggestion; unless xoopixdy could be taken as “ornamented,” the controlling idea is that the sanctuary and its ritual were external and material (ducawpara gapkos, Xelporrontov, xetporrointa). The very position of koopuKdv denotes, as often in Greek, a stress such as might be conveyed in English by ‘‘a sanctuary, material indeed.” The é&yiov is now described (v.2"), after Ex 25-26. It con- sisted of two parts, each called a oxynvy. The large outer tent, the first (4 mpdéry) to be entered, was called “Aya (neut. plur., not fem. sing.). The phrase, Ars Aéyetar “Ayia! would have been in a better position immediately after 4 ampdry, where, indeed, Chrysostom (followed by Blass) reads it, instead of after the list of the furniture. The lampstand stood in front (to the south) of the sacred table on which twelve loaves or cakes of wheaten flour were piled ( mpoOeo1s tOv dptwy=oi apror THs mpobécews), the Hebrew counterpart of the well-known lectis- ternia: } tTpdwefa ... dptwv is a hendiadys for ‘‘the table with its loaves of the Presence.” Such was the furniture of the outer oxnvyn. Then (vv.%-5) follows a larger catalogue (cp. Joma 2*) of what lay inside the inner shrine (@yta dytwy) behind the curtain (Ex 2716) which screened this from the outer tent, and which is called Sevrepov kataméracpa, Sevtepov, because the first was a curtain hung at the entrance to the larger tent, and kataméracpa, either because that is the term used in Ex 26°£ (the particular passage the writer has in mind here), the term elsewhere being usually kaAvppa Or éeriomactpov (Ex 26°° etc.), or because Philo had expressly distinguished the outer curtain as xdAvypa, the inner as kataméracpa (de vita Mosis, ili. 9). This inner shrine con- tained (v.*) xpucodv Ouptarijpioy, z.e. a wooden box, overlaid with gold, on which incense (@vyéapa) was offered twice daily by the priests. The LXX calls this @vovacrypiov tot Ovpidparos (Ex 30110), but our writer follows the usage of Philo, which is also, 174 "Ayia (B arm) is an attempt to reproduce exactly the LXX phrase. [14 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. . [Ix. 4. on the whole, that of Josephus, in calling it @vpuarypioy (so Symm. Theodotion, Ex 30! 318); @vyaryprov, in the non-biblical papyri, denotes articles like censers in a sanctuary, but is never used in the LXX of levitical censers, though Josephus occasion- ally describes them thus, like the author of 4 Mac 744 The ordinary view was that this @uprarnprov stood beside the Auxvia and the sacred tpdmefa in the outer sanctuary. Both Philo (e.g. guis rer. div. 46, Tpiav ovtTwy év Tois dyiows oKevedv, AvXVLAS, tpamelns, Ovpwarnpion : de vita Mos. ll. g f., in the outer tent, TO. Aourra Tpia oKEUn... pEecov pev TO Gupcarnplov . .. THY Oe AvyXViaV . 9 O€ tTparela) and Josephus (Azz. il. 6. 4 f.; cp. vill. 4. 1 for the reproduction in Solomon’s temple) are quite explicit on this. Indeed no other position was possible for an altar which required daily service from the priests ; inside the ayia tov dyiwv it would have been useless. But another tradition, which appears in the contemporary (Syriac) apocalypse of Baruch (67), placed the altar of incense! inside the Gyta ayiwy, a view reflected as early as the Samaritan text of the pentateuch, which put Ex 30}? (the description of the altar of incense) after 26%, where logically it ought to stand, inserting a 77 985 in Ex 4027 (where the altar of incense is placed “‘ before the veil”). The earliest hint of this tradition seems to be given in the Hebrew text of 1 K 6”, where Solomon is said to have overlaid with gold ‘‘the altar that is by the oracle” (ze. the ayia dyiwv). But our author could not have been influenced by this, for it is absent from the LXX text. His inaccuracy was rendered possible by the vague language of the pentateuch about the position of the altar of incense, amévaytt TOU KaTameTdopatos TOU OvTOS:érl THS KUBwTOD TaY papTUpLOY (Ex 30°), where dzévavts may mean “opposite” or ‘close in front of” the curtain—but on which side of it? In Ex 37 the tpamefa, the Avxvia, and the altar of incense are described successively after the items in the ayia dyiwy ; but then the LXX did not contain the section on the altar of incense, so that this passage offered no clue to our writer. In Ex 40° it is merely put évavtiov THs KiBwrod. This vagueness is due to the fact that in the original source the sketch of the oxnvy had no altar’ of incense at all; the latter is a later accretion, hence the curious position of Ex 301° in a sort of appendix, and the ambiguity about its site. After all it is only an antiquarian detail for our author. It has been suggested that he regarded the dyia rdv dylwy, irrespective of the veil, as symbolizing the heavenly sanctuary, and that he therefore thought it must include the altar of incense as symbolizing the prayers of the saints. But there is no trace of such a symbolism elsewhere in the epistle ; it is confined to the author of the Apocalypse (8°), The suggestion that he meant éyouca 1 Whether the language means this or a censer is disputed. IX. 4, 5.] THE SACRED ARK 115 to express only a close or ideal connexion between the inner shrine and the altar of incense, is popular (e.g. Delitzsch, Zahn, Peake, Seeberg) but quite unacceptable ; éxovoa as applied to the other items could not mean this, and what applies to them applies to the @uysarjpiov. Besides, the point of the whole passage is to distinguish between the contents of the two compartments. Still less tenable is the idea that @vurarypiov really means ‘‘censer” or ‘*incense pan.” This way out of the difficulty was started very early (in the peshitta, the vulgate), but a censer is far too minor a utensil to be included in this inventory ; even the censer afterwards used on atonement-day did not belong to the dyia Tov ayiwy, neither was it golden. What the oxnv7 had was merely a brazier (wvupeiov, Lv 16!*). Since it is not possible that so important an object as the altar of incense could have been left out, we may assume without much hesitation that the writer did mean to describe it by Oumaryprov,? and that the irregularity of placing it on the wrong side of the curtain is simply another of his inaccuracies in describing what he only knew from the text of the LXX. In B the slip is boldly corrected by the transference of (kal) xpucodv Ouuscarjpiov to v.*, immediately after dprwv (so Blass). The second item is thy kiBwrdv tis d1a0AKns covered with gold all over (dvtoev: Philo’s phrase is évdoGev xat éEwbev, de Lbriet. 21), a chest or box about 4 feet long and 24 feet broad and high (Ex 251%), which held three sacred treasures, (a) the golden pot (ordépvos, Attic feminine) of manna (Ex 16°84) ; (4) Aaron’s rod 4 BXactioaca (in the story of Nu17!!, which attested the sacerdotal monopoly of the clan of Levi); and (c) at mdkes ris Sra0jKns (Ex 2516 3118), 7.¢. the two stone tablets on which the decalogue was written (wAdkas diabyKns, Dt 99; evéBadrov tas wAdkas eis THY x.Bwrov, 10°), the decalogue summarizing the terms of the da6yxn for the People. In adding ypvo7 to crapvos the writer follows the later tradition of the LXX and of Philo (de congressu, 18); the pot is not golden in the Hebrew original. He also infers, as later Jewish tradition did, that the ark contained this pot, although, like Aaron’s rod, it simply lay in front of the ark (Ex 16% 34, Nu 171°), He would gather from 1 K 8° that the ark contained the tablets of the covenant. He then (v.°) mentions the yxepouBety (Aramaic form) or xepouBeip (Hebrew form) 8¢§ys, two small winged figures (Ex 2518-20), whose pinions extended over a rectangular gold slab, called té thacriptov, laid on the top of the ark, which it fitted exactly. They are called cherubim Adéys, which is like MeyaAwowvys (1° 8!) a divine title, applied to Jesus in Ja 21, but here used as in Ro 94. The cherubim on the tkaoryprov represented the divine Presence as accessible in mercy ; the mystery of this is suggested by the couplet in Sir 498 @® : TeCexinr, Os eldev dpaciww Adéns nv trédakey aitd él appatos yepouBeip. The change from év 7 to éxovea is purely stylistic, and éyovoa in both instances means ‘‘ containing.” 2 xpucotv Ousarypov lacks the article, like orduvos xpvoj. 116 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS ___ [IX. 5. Philo’s account of 16 ttaornpvoy is given in de vita Mosis, iii. 8, 7 Ol KiBwros . . . KEexpvowpéevn ToAVTEADS EvOobEV TE Kai cEwOer, ns ériBeua woavel TOMA TO AEeyOpevoy ev tepais BiBrAos tAaoTHprov . . . Omep €oixey elvar tp Borov Pvoikdtepov pev THS tAew TOV Heov duvaews. Lower down, in the same paragraph, he speaks of TO ériBena TO Tpocayopevdpevov tAacrTyptov, and 16 thaoTHpLoy is similarly used in De Cherub. 8 (on the basis of Ex 251%). The émiOeua or covering of the ark was splashed with blood on atonement-day; perhaps, even apart from that, its Hebrew original meant “means of propitiation,” and was not incorrectly named thacrtyptoy (cp. Deissmann in £&B2. 3027-3035), but our author simply uses it in its LXX sense of ‘‘ mercy-seat.” He does not enter into any details about its significance; in his scheme of sacrificial thought such a conception had no place. Philo also allegorizes the overshadowing wings of the cherubim as a symbol of God’s creative and royal powers protecting the cosmos, and explains Ex 25?" as follows (Quaest. in Exod. 25%): 7a peév ovv mept THY KiBwTrov Kata pépos eipytac’ det 5€ avAANLdnV avabev avahaBovta Tod yvwpioa xdpw Ttivwv Taira éote cUuBora dveSedAOciv: nv O€ Tadtta cupBodskd’ KLBwrds Kal Ta ev aiTH Onoavprlopeva vopipa Kal emt tavtns TO tAacTypiov Kal Ta eri Tod itAaoTypiov Xaddaiwv yAarTn AeyOpeva XEpovBip, imep Oe TovTwY KaTa TO pécov hovi Kal Aoyos Kat trepavw 6 Né€ywv xtX. But our author does not enter into any such details. He has no time for further discussion of the furniture, he observes; whether he would have allegorized these items of antiquarian ritual, if or when he had leisure, we cannot tell. The only one he does employ mystically is the kata- métacpa (1079), and his use of it is not particularly happy. He now breaks off, almost as Philo does (guzs rer. div. 45, rohiv 8 évra Tov Tepl éexdorov Adyov trepOereov eicvadbis) On the same subject. Kata pépos is the ordinary literary phrase in this connexion (e.g. 2 Mac 2%; Polybius, i. 67. 11, repi dv ody oldy re dua. TS ypadys Tov Kata pepos arododvat Adyov, and Poimandres [ed. Reitzenstein, p. 84 | Tept @v 6 Kata pepos NOyos éorl TOAVs). Odx ot as in r Co 11”, Worship in a sanctuary like this shows that access to God was defective (vv.%8), as was inevitable when the sacrifices were external (vv.810), Having first shown this, the writer gets back to the main line of his argument (8%), viz. the sacrifice of Jesus as pre-eminent and final (v.14), 8 Such were the arrangements for worship. The priests constantly enter the first tent (v.*) in the discharge of their ritual duties," but the second tent zs entered only once a year by the highpriest alone—and it must not be with-— out blood, which he presents on behalf of (cp. 58) himself and the errors of the People. * By this the holy Spirit means that the way into the Holiest Presence was not yet disclosed so long as the first tent ® (which foreshadowed the present age) was still standing, with its offerings of gifts and sacrifices which cannot (uh as in 4”) possibly make the conscience of the worshipper IX. 6-8. | THE CULTUS 117 perfect, © since they relate (sc. obcat) merely to food and drink and a variety of ablutions—outward regulations for the body, that only hold till the period of the New Order. In v.° 81 wavtés = continually, as in BAZ. i. 428 (i1 B.c.) of ev oikw mavtes cou diaravtTos pvelay movovmevor. Etiotaow (which might even be the present with a futuristic sense, the writer placing himself and his readers back at the inauguration of the sanctuary : ‘‘ Now, this being all ready, the priests will enter,” etc.) émuteNodvtes (a regular sacerdotal or ritual term in Philo) Natpetas (morning and evening, to trim the lamps and offer incense on the golden altar, Ex 272! 307% etc. ; weekly, to change the bread of the Presence, Lv 248, Jos. Avz. iii. 6. 6). The ritual of the inner shrine (v.%) is now described (v.’, cp. Joma 5%) ; the place is entered by the highpriest diag toé évwautod, on the annual day of atonement (Lv 167% 34, Ex 301°): only once, and he must be alone (xévos, Lv 1617), this one individual out of all the priests. Even he dare not enter xwpis atyatos (Lv 16!4%), ze. without carrying in blood from the sacrifice offered for his own and the nation’s a&yvonpdtev. In Gn 43)? dyvénpa is “an oversight,” but in Jg 5% Tob 33, 1 Mac 13%, Sir 237 ayvojpara and “sins” are bracketed together (see above on 5”), and the word occurs alone in Polyb. xxxvili. 1. 5 as an equivalent for “ offences ” or “errors” in the moral sense. ‘There is no hint that people were not responsible for them, or that they were not serious; on the contrary, they had to be atoned for. ‘Ymép xrd.; fora similarly loose construction cp. 1 Jn 2? (od epi qerépwy [auaptidv] Se povov, GAG Kal wept dAov Tod Kdc pov). Rabbi Ismael b. Elischa, the distinguished exegete of i-ii A.D., classified sins as follows (Jos. Joma 5°): Transgressions of positive enactments were atoned for by repentance, involving a purpose of new obedience, according to Jer 2273 (‘* Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your back- slidings”). The day of atonement, however, was necessary for the full pardon of offences against divine prohibitions: according to Lv 16% (‘On that day shall the priest make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins”). An offender whose wrongdoing deserved severe or capital punishment could only be restored by means of sufferings : according to Ps 89*? (‘‘ Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes”). But desecration of the divine Name could not be atoned for by any of these three methods; death alone wiped out this sin (Jer 244). The author now (v.8) proceeds to find a spiritual significance in this ceremonial. An oévtos is used of a divine meaning as in 1227, here conveyed by outward facts. In 1 P 1! the verb is again used of the Spirit, and this is the idea here; Josephus (Ant. iil. 7. 7, SnAot dé kai tov HALoV Kal TiY GeANHVHY TGV Gapdoviyov éxatepos) uses the same verb for the mystic significance of the jewels worn by the highpriest, but our author’s interpretation of the significance of the oxyvy is naturally very different from that 118 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 8-10. of Josephus, who regards the unapproachable character of the advurov or inner shrine as symbolizing heaven itself (Amv. iii. 6. 4 and 7. 7, 6 rots tepetow Av GBatov, ws oipavds avetto TH Oe@.. . dua TO Kal TOV ovpavoy dveriBatov elvat avOpwois). For 686v with gen. in sense of “way to,” cp. Gn 3% (ryv odov tod EvAou ris Cwns), Tg 514 (eis 600v rod sive: Tév dyiwy here (like ra dyia in vy.12 25, cp. 13!) as in 10! means the very Presence of God, an archaic liturgical phrase suggested by the context. The word davepodoba was not found by the writer in his text of the LXX ; it only occurs in the LXX in Jer 40 (33)®, and the Latin phrase “iter patefieri” (e.g. Caesar, de Bello Gall. iii. 1) is merely a verbal parallel. In tis mpdtns oxnvis éxovons otdow (v.°), the writer has chosen oraow for the sake of assonance with éveoryxKdra, but éyewv ordow is a good Greek phrase for “‘to be in existence.” The parenthesis nts | mapaBodh (here = rvzros, as Chrysostom saw) eis Tov Katpov Tov eveoTnKdTa Means that the first oxyvy was merely provisional, as it did no more than adumbrate the heavenly reality, and provisional eis (as in Ac 4 eis tHv atptov) Tov Kalpov Tov evertyKoTa, 7.€. the period in which the writer and his readers lived, the period inaugurated by the advent of Jesus with his new 8:a04xyn. This had meant the supersession of the older duabyxyn with its sanctuary and SiKkotwpata, which only lasted péxpt Katpod SropAdcews. But, so long as they lasted, they were intended by God to foreshadow the permanent order of religion ; they were, as the writer says later (v.7°), bod8etypata tay év tots odpavots, mere copies but still copies. This is why he calls the fore-tent a wapaBohy. For now, as he adds triumphantly, in a daring, imaginative expression, our dpyxvepeds has passed through his heavenly fore-tent (v.14), and his heavenly sanctuary corre- sponds to a heavenly (ze. a full and final) sacrifice. In the levitical ritual the highpriest on atonement-day took the blood of the victim through the fore-tent into the inner shrine. Little that accomplished! It was but a dim emblem of what our high- priest was to do and has done, in the New Order of things. When readers failed to see that #tTis ... éveornxdta was a parenthesis, it was natural that xa’ #v should be changed into xa6’ dv (D¢° K L P, so Blass). The failure of animal sacrifices (9°!) lies kara ouveiSnow. As the inner consciousness here is a consciousness of sin, ‘‘con- science” fairly represents the Greek term ovveidynots. Now, the levitical sacrifices were ineffective as regards the conscience of worshippers; they were merely émi Bodpac kal mopacw kal S.add- pots Bamtiopots, a striking phrase (cp. 13°) of scorn for the mass of 1 Sc. #v. The construction was explained by the addition of xaééornxev after éveotnxdra (80 69. 104. 330. 436. 440. 462. 491. 823. 1319. 1836, 1837. 1898. 2005. 2127, etc.). IX. 10.] THE CULTUS 11g minute regulations about what might or might not be eaten or drunk, and about baths, etc. Food and ablutions are intelligible ; a book like Leviticus is full of regulations about them. But wopacw? Well, the writer adds this as naturally as the author of Ep. Aristeas does, in describing the levitical code. ‘‘I suppose most people feel some curiosity about the enactments of our law mepi te TOV Bpwrav Kal rotav” (128); it was to safeguard us from pagan defilement that ravrofev nuds mepréppagev ayveias kal dia Bpwrdv kai rotdv (142), ért tv Bpwrdv Kal rordv amapgapevovus evOéws TéTe ovyxpnoGar KeAever (158). It is curious that this de- fence of the levitical code contains an allusion which is a verbal parallel to our writer’s disparaging remark here; the author asserts that intelligent Egyptian priests call the Jews ‘‘men of God,” a title only applicable to one who oéBerat tov xara dAnbeav Oedv, since all others are dv@pwrot Bpwrav Kat rorav Kat oxérns, 7 yap raca didbeots atrav éri ratra katadevyer. Tots dé rap’ nudav év ovdevi ratta AeAdyiotat (140. 141). Libations of wine accompanied certain levitical sacrifices (e.g. Nu 515 615-17 287£), but no ritual regulations were laid down for them, and they were never offered independently (cp. £472. 4193, 4209). It is because the whole question of sacrifice is now to be restated that he throws in these disparaging comments upon the 8epd te kat Ouotar and their ac- companiments in the older oxnyy. Such sacrifices were part and parcel of a system connected with (v.!°) external ritual, and in con- cluding the discussion he catches up the term with which he had opened it: all such rites are 8ixaidpata capKds, connected with the sensuous side of life and therefore provisional, yéxpt katpod Siopb6- cews émikeipeva. Here émixeiweva is “prescribed,” as in the descrip- tion of workmen on strike, in Zedt. P. 26!" (114 B.C.) éykaraXeczrov- Tas THVv érikepevynv acxoAtav. Aropfwo.s means a “reconstruction ” of religion, such as the new d:a6yx7 (81%) involved ; the use of the term in Polybius, iii, 118. 12 (zpos Tas Tov ToALTEvpaTwv SLopAadcets), indicates how our author could seize on it for his own purposes. The comma might be omitted after Bawticpots, and Stkatdpara taken closely with pévov: ‘‘ gifts and sacrifices, which (udvov xr, in apposition) are merely (the subject of) outward regulations for the body,” émf being taken as cumulative (Lk 37°)—‘‘ besides,” etc. This gets over the difficulty that the levitical offerings had a wider scope than food, drink, and ablutions; but ézi is not natural in this sense here, and éwi . . . Bamriopois is not a parenthetical clause. The insertion of kai before dicausyara (by 8° B D¢ etc. vg hkl Chrys.), =‘‘even” or ‘‘in particular” (which is the only natural sense), is pointless. Atkawpaow (D° K L vg hkl) was an easy conformation to the previous datives, which would logically involve émixeimévors (as the vg implies: ‘‘et justitiis carnis usque ad tempus correctionis impositis”’), otherwise étxelueva would be extremely awkward, after duvvdmevar, in apposition to dwpa re kal Aveta Now for the better sanctuary and especially the better sacri- fice of Christ as our dpxvepeds (vv.1-28) ! 120 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS |IX. 11. But when Christ arrived as the highpriest of the bliss that was to be, he passed through the greater and more perfect tent which no hands had made (no part, that is to say, of the present order), 1* not (ovdé=nor yet) Zaking any blood of goats and calves but his own blood, and entered once for all into the Holy place. He secured an eternal redemption. ™ For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on defiled persons, give them a holiness that bears on bodily purity, 4 how much more shall (xa@apret, logical future) the blood of Christ, who in the spirit of the eternal offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve a living God.” This paragraph consists of two long sentences (vv.1)+ 12, 15. 14), The second is an explanation of aiwviay Autpwowy eipdpevos at the close of the first. In the first, the sphere, the action, and the object of the sacrifice are noted, as a parallel to vv.° 7; but in vv.13. 14 the sphere is no longer mentioned, the stress falling upon the other two elements. The writer does not return to the question of the sphere till v.21 Xpiotds S€ mapayerduevos (v.11), But Christ came on the scene,! and all was changed. He arrived as dpxtepeds, and the author carries on the thought by an imaginative description of him passing through the upper heavens (no hand-made, mun- dane fore-court this!) into the innermost Presence. It is a more detailed account of what he had meant by €xovtes dpytepéa péyav SreAnAuOdra Tods odpavods (4!*). Xeporroijtou, like xerpotrotnta (v.74), means ‘“‘ manufactured,” not “fictitious” (as applied to idols or idol-temples by the LXX and Philo). Tout €orw od radtys Tis kticews reads like the gloss of a scribe, but the writer is fond of this phrase tour’ €or, and, though it adds nothing to od xerpo- moutou, it may stand. Kriots, in this sense of creation or created order, was familiar to him (e.g. Wis 517 19°). MeAdévtwv, before dya0ay, was soon altered into yevouévwy (by B D* 1611. 1739. 2005 vt syr Orig. Chrys.), either owing to a scribe being misled by wapayevomevos Or Owing to a pious feeling that weAAovrwy here (though not in 10!) was too eschatological. The dyafa were. péAAovra in a sense even for Christians, but already they had begun to be realized; e.g. in the AUtpwois. This full range was still to be disclosed (2° 13!4), but they were realities of which Christians had here and now some vital experience (see on 6°). Some editors (e.g. Rendall, Nairne) take rv yevouévwr dyabGy with what follows, as if the writer meant to say that ‘‘ Christ appeared as highpriest of the good things which came by the greater and more perfect tabernacle (not made with hands—that is, not of this creation).” This involves, (a) the interpretation of ovdé as=‘‘ not by the blood of goats and calves either,” the term carrying on mapavyevduevos ; and (2) dud in a double sense. There is no objection to (4), but (a) is weak; the bliss and benefit are mediated not through the sphere but through what Jesus does in the sphere of the eternal oxnyy. Others (e.g. Westcott, von Soden, Dods, Seeberg) take da rfjs 1 Tlaparyevduevos (as Lk 124, Mt 3! suggest) is more active than the re¢a- vépwrat of v.76, IX. 11-13.] THE NEW AND TRUE SACRIFICE 121 oxnvys with Xpirrés, ‘Christ by means of the . . . sanctuary.” This sense of did is better than that of (a) above, and it keeps did the same for vv.!! and }*,_ But the context (rapayevduevos . . . elojOev) points to the local use of did in dua THs . . . OKs, rather than to the instrumental; and it is no objection that the writer immediately uses 6:4 in another sense (60 atuaros), for this is one of his literary methods (cp. dé with gen. and accus. in 2)? 29. 10 718. 19. 23. 24. 25). Continuing the description of Christ’s sacrifice, he adds (v.}%) ovdé Be aipatos tpdywv (for the People) kat pédcxev (for himself), which according to the programme in Lv 16 the priest smeared on the east side of the iAacrypiov. The later Jewish procedure is described in the Mishna tractate Joma, but our author simply draws upon the LXX text, though (like Aquila and Symmachus) he uses pocywv instead of yiwapwy. Ard is graphically used in 31a Tod idtou aiparos, as in 8 atywatos Tpdywv Kat pdoxwv, but the idea is the self-sacrifice, the surrender of his own life, in virtue of which! he redeemed his People, the aia or sacrifice being redemptive as it was his. The single sacrifice had eternal value, owing to his personality. The term épdmaég, a stronger form of amaé, which is unknown to the LXX, is reserved by our author for the sacrifice of Jesus, which he now describes as issuing in a Av’Tpwors—an archaic religious term which he never uses else- where; it is practically the same as daodttpwors (v.15), but he puts into it a much deeper meaning than the LXX or than Luke (168 238), the only other NT writer who employs the term. Though he avoids the verb, his meaning is really that of 1 P 118 (€AutpwOyre Tiniw aipwate os duvod audmov Kal doriiov Xpicrod) or of Ti 214 (ds édwxey Eavtdv irép judy, va AvTpwoHTa NUas amd maons avopuias Kal kabapion éavTd Aadv EpLovarov). In this compressed phrase, aiwviav AVTpwoLw evpdpevos, (a) alwvlay offers the only instance of alwvios being modified in this epistle. (4) Hipd- frevos, in the sense of Dion. Hal. Ant. v. 293 (otre diaddayas eUparo Trois dvdpaov Kai ké0odov), and Jos. Amt. i. 19. I (wdmmov ddégav aperis meyddns evpdpevov), is a participle (for its form,? cp. Moulton, i. p. 51), which, though middle, is not meant to suggest any personal effort like ‘‘ by himself,” much less ‘‘ for himself”; the middle in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean what the active meant. What he secured, he secured for us (cp. Aelian, Var. H7st. iii. 17, kal avrots cwrnplay evpayro). The aorist has not a past sense; it either means ‘‘to secure” (like evpdmevor in 4 Mac 38 and émicxewdevor in 2 Mac 11%), after a verb of motion (cp. Ac 251%), or ‘‘ securing” (by what grammarians call ‘‘ coincident action”). The last three words of v.!2 are now (vv.!% 14) explained by an a fortiori argument. Why was Christ’s redemption eternal ? What gave it this absolute character and final force? In y.}8 1 The é:a here as in dia mvevparos alwvlov suggest the state in which a certain thing is done, and inferentially the use becomes instrumental, as we say, ‘‘ he came 2 power.” 2 The Attic form evpduevos is preferred by D* 226. 436. 920. 122 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (IX. 18. tpdywav Kat tavpwy reverses the order in ro‘, and ravpwv is now substituted for pooywv. The former led to ravpwr kal tpdywv being read (by the K LP group, Athanasius, Cyril, etc.), but “the blood of goats and bulls” was a biblical generalization (Ps 5018, Is 114), chosen here as a literary variation, perhaps for the sake of the alliteration, though some editors see in tavpwv a subtle, deliberate antithesis to the feminine Sdpadts. According to the directions of Nu 19% a red cow was slaughtered and then burned ; the ashes (i) omdd0s tis Sapddews) were mixed with fresh water and sprinkled upon any worshipper who had touched a dead body and thus incurred ceremonial impurity, contact with the dead being regarded as a disqualification for intercourse with men or God (see above on 61). This mixture was called idwp pavriopod. The rite supplies the metaphors of the argument in vy.14 15; it was one of the ablutions (v.!°) which restored the contaminated person (tods kekowwpévous) to the worshipping community of the Lord. The cow is described as dywpoy, the purified person as xa@apds ; but our author goes ouside the LXX for kexowwpevous, and even payrifew is rare in the LXX. “The red colour of the cow and the scarlet cloth burnt on the pyre with the aromatic woods, suggest the colour of blood; the aro- matic woods are also probably connected with primitive ideas of the cathartic value of odours such as they produce” (R. A. S. Macalister in ZRZ. xi. 36a). The lustration had no connexion whatever with atonement-day, and it was only in later rabbinic tradition that it was associated with the functions of the high- priest. According to Pestkta 40a, a pagan inquirer once pointed out to Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai the superstitious character of such rites. His disciples considered his reply unsatisfactory, and afterwards pressed him to explain to them the meaning of the ashes and the sprinkling, but all he could say was that it had been appointed by the Holy One, and that men must not inquire into His reasons (cp. Bacher’s Agada d. Pal. Amoréer, i.556; Agada der Tannaiten*, i. 37, 38). Our author does not go into details, like the author of Z~. Barnadas (8), who allegorizes the ritual freely in the light of the Jewish tradition; he merely points out that, according to the bible, the rite, like the similar rite of blood on atonement-day, restored the worshipper to out- ward communion with God. “Ayidé£er means this and no more. The removal of the religious tabu upon persons contaminated by contact with the dead was familiar to non-Jews. The writer goes back to the OT for his illustration, but it would be quite intelligible to his Gentile Christian readers (cp. Marett’s Zhe Evolution of Religion, pp. 115 f.; ERE. iv. 434, x. 456, 483, 485, 501), in a world where physical contact with the dead was a placua. Philo’s exposition (de spec. legebus, i. rept Ovévrwy, I f.) of the rite is that the primary concern is for the purity of the soul; the attention needed for securing that the victim is duwpor, or, as he says, mavred@s IX. 13, 14. | THE BLOOD OF CHRIST 123 Lovuwv auéroxov, is a figurative expression for moral sensitiveness on the part of the worshipper ; it is a regulation really intended for rational beings. Ov Tay Ovonévwv dpovtis éotw ... addAa TOV OuvdvTwv, va wept pndév mdBos Knpaivwot. The bodily cleansing is only secondary, and even this he ingeni- ously allegorizes into a demand for self-knowledge, since the water and ashes should remind us how worthless our natures are, and knowledge of this kind is a wholesome purge for conceit! Thus, according to Philo, the rite did purge soul as well as body: dvayxatoy rovs pwéddovras Poirav els TO lepdv emi perovolg Ovolas 7d Te TGua pardpivecOar kal Thy Wuxhv mpd Tov gwuaros. Our author does not share this favourable view (cp. Seeberg’s Der Tod Christi, pp. 53f.; O. Schmitz’s Dze Opferanschauung des spiteren Judentums, pp. 281f.). He would not have denied that the levitical cultus aimed at spiritual good ; what he did deny was that it attained its end. Till a perfect sacrifice was offered, such an end was unattainable. The levitical cultus ‘‘ provided a ritual cleansing for the community, a cleansing which, for devout minds that could penetrate beneath the letter to the spirit, must have often meant a sense of restoration to God’s community. But at best the machinery was cumbrous : at best the pathway into God’s presence was dimly lighted” (H. A. A. Kennedy, Zhe Theology of the Epistles, p. 213). Our author does not explain how the blood of goats and bulls could free the worshiper from ceremonial impurity; the cathartic efficacy of blood is assumed. From the comparative study of religion we know now that this belief was due to the notion that ‘‘the animal that has been consecrated by contact with the altar becomes charged with a divine potency, and its sacred blood, poured over the impure man, absorbs and disperses his impurity” (Marett, Zhe Evolution of Religion, p. 121). But in pds “Efpaiovs, (a) though the blood of goats and bulls is applied to the people as well as to the altar, and is regarded as atoning (see below), the writer offers no rationale of sacrifice. Xwpis aivatexxvotas ov yiverar dears. He does not argue, he takes for granted, that access to God involves sacrifice, z.e. blood shed. (2) He uses the rite of Nu 19 to suggest the cathartic process, the point of this lustration being the use of “ water made holy by ,being mingled with the ashes of the heifer that had been burnt.” ‘The final point is reached,” no doubt (Marett, of. cit. 123), “when it is realized that the blood of bulls and goats cannot wash away sin, that nothing external can defile the heart or soul, but only evil thoughts and evil will.” Yet our writer insists that even this inward defilement requires a sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ’s blood. This is now (v.!*) urged in the phrase €autéy mpoonveykev, Where we at last see what was intended by mpoodepe tt in 8°, Weare not to think of the risen or ascended Christ presenting himself to God, but of his giving himself up to die as a sacrifice. The blood of Christ means his life given up for the sake of men. He did die, but it was a Voluntary death—not the slaughter of an unconscious, reluctant victim ; and he who died lives. More than that, he lives with the power of that death or sacrifice. This profound thought is further 124 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (Ix. 14, developed by (a) the term &pwpoy, which is in apposition to éavtov ; and (A) by 8a mvedpatos aiwviou, which goes with mpoo%- veyxev. (a) Paul calls Christians, or calls them to be, duwpor ; but our writer, like the author of 1 P (11%), calls Christ duwpos asavictim. It is a poetic synonym for duepyros, taken over as the technical term (LXX) for the unblemished (039) animals which alone could be employed in sacrifice ; here it denotes the stainless personality, the sinless nature which rendered the self- sacrifice of Jesus eternally valid. Then (4) the pregnant phrase dia mvevpatos aiwviov, which qualifies éavréy mpoonveyxey, Means that this sacrifice was offered in the realm or order of the inward spirit, not of the outward and material; it was no dixaiwpa capkos, but carried out da mrvevparos, Ze. in, or in virtue of, his spiritual nature. What the author had called {wy dxaradvros (716) he now calls mvedpa aidvov. The sacrificial blood had a mystical efficacy; it resulted in an eternal AUtpwois because it operated in an eternal order of spirit, the sacrifice of Jesus purifying the inner personality (t7v cvveldnow) because it was the action of a personality, and of a sinless personality which belonged by nature to the order of spirit or eternity. Christ was both priest and victim; as Son of God he was eternal and spiritual, unlike mortal highpriests (716), and, on the other side, unlike a mortal victim. The implication (which underlies all the epistle) is that even in his earthly life Jesus possessed eternal life. Hence what took place in time upon the cross, the writer means, took place really in the eternal, absolute order. Christ sacrificed himself épdmag, and the single sacrifice needed. no repetition, since it possessed absolute, eternal value as the action of One who belonged to the eternal order. He died—he had to die—but only once (g—10}8), for his sacrifice, by its eternal significance, accomplished at a stroke what no amount of animal sacrifices could have secured, viz. the forgiveness of sins. It is as trivial to exhaust the meaning of tvedpa aidvioy in a contrast with the animal sacrifices of the levitical cultus as it is irrele- vant to drag in the dogma of the trinity. Atwviouv closely describes avedpatos (hence it has no article). What is in the writer’s mind is the truth that what Jesus did by dying can never be exhausted or transcended. His sacrifice, like his 81a6yxn, like the Avtpwois or owrypia which he secures, is atdvios or lasting, because it is at the heart of things. It was because Jesus was what he was by nature that his sacrifice had such final value; its atoning significance lay in his vital connexion with the realm of absolute realities ; it embodied all that his divine personality meant for men in relation to God. In short, his self-sacrifice “‘was something beyond which nothing could be, or could be conceived to be, as a response to God’s mind and requirement IX. 14.] THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 125 in relation to sin... an intelligent and loving response to the holy and gracious will of God, and to the terrible situation of man” (Denney, Zhe Death of Christ, p. 228). A later parallel from rabbinic religion occurs in the Midrash Tehillim on Ps 31: ‘‘ formerly you were redeemed with flesh and blood, which to-day is and to-morrow is buried ; wherefore your redemption was temporal (ayy nb1x3). But now I will redeem you by myself, who live and remain for ever ; where- fore your redemption will be eternal redemption (oy n>wa, cp. Is 45}7).” One or two minor textual items may be noted in v."4, avevpatos] J. J. Reiske’s conjecture dyvevuaros (purity) is singularly prosaic. Atwviov (x* A B D° K L syr’g 5*! arm Ath) is altered into the con- ventional dylov by x° D* P 35. 88. 206. 326. 547, etc. lat boh Chrys. Cyril. Liturgical usage altered tpa@v into 7udv (A D* P 5. 38. 218. 241. 256. 263. 378. 506. 1319. 1831. 1836*. 1912. 2004. 2127 vt syr’2 boh Cyr.), and, to fwvr., kal ddnOuw@ (a gloss from 1 Th 1°) is added in A P 104 boh Chrys, etc. In the closing words of v.!* ka@apiet is a form which is rare (Mt 3!2, Ja 48?) in the NT, so rare that xafapioe is read here by 206, 221. 1831 Did. Ath. It is a Hellenistic verb, used in the inscriptions (with do) exactly in the ceremonial sense under- lying the metaphor of this passage (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 216f.). The cleansing of the conscience (cp. v.°) is d&md vexpdv épywy, from far more serious flaws and stains than ceremonial pollution by contact with a corpse (see above, and in 61). As Dods puts it, ‘‘a pause might be made before épywv, from dead— (not bodies but) works.” The object is eis 75 Natpedew Od Love. The writer uses the sacerdotal term (8°) here as in 10? and 1278, probably like Paul in a general sense; if he thought of Chris- tians as priests, z.e. as possessing the right of access to God, he never says so. Religion for him is access to God, and ritual metaphors are freely used to express the thought. When others would say “fellowship,” he says “worship.” It is fundamental for him that forgiveness is essential to such fellowship, and for- giveness is what is meant by “ purifying the conscience.” As absolute forgiveness was the boon of the new dia6yxn (812), our author now proceeds (vv.15!-) to show how Christ’s sacrifice was necessary and efficacious under that 8a@jxy. ya Hy THE FORTIETH PSALM 135 if sins ‘(for the blood of bulls and goats cannot possibly remove sins !). Hence, on entering the world he says, ‘* Thou hast no destre for sacrifice or offering ; it ts a body thou hast prepared for me— 6 in holocausts and sin-offerings (wept duaprias as 1311) thou takest no delight. 7 So (rére) L said, ‘ Here I come—in the roll of the book this 7s written of me— I come to do thy will, O God.’” 8 He begins by saying, ‘‘ Thou hast no desire for, thou takest no delight in, sacrifices and offerings and holocausts and sin-offerings” (and those are what are offered in terms of the Law), ° he then (r6re) adds, ‘* Here I come to do thy will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And it ts by thts ‘‘ will” that we are consecrated, because Jesus Christ once Jor all has ‘‘ offered” up his ‘‘ body.” This is the authors final verdict on the levitical cultus, “rapid in utterance, lofty in tone, rising from the didactic style of the theological doctor to the oracular speech of the Hebrew prophet, as in that peremptory sentence: ‘It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.’ The notable thing in it is, not any new line of argument, though that element is not wanting, but the series of spiritual intuitions it contains, stated or hinted, in brief, pithy phrases” (A. B. Bruce, PP 373) 374): In okay... obk eixdva Ta Tpaypdrov (v. 1) the writer uses a Platonic phrase (Cratylus, 306 E, eixovas rév mpary- parwv) ; €eiKov (= aAnGea, Chrysostom) is contrasted with oxia as the real expression or representation of substance is opposed to the faint shadow. The addition of trav rpayparwy (= Tov péAAovtwy ayafdv) emphasizes this sense; what represents solid realities is itself real, as compared to a mere oxid. The péddovta dyabd (914) are the boons and blessings still to be realized in their fulness for Christians, being thought of from the stand- point of the new daOyxy, not of the Law. The Law is for the writer no more than the regulations which provided for the cultus ; the centre of gravity in the Law lies in the priesthood (711) and its sacrifices, not in what were the real provisions of the Law historically. The writer Se RT eT ane itself. When he does so, as here, if is in this special ritual and the new d.ad7xn, ze. the inadequate and the adequate piheotd an what really bulks i in his view is the contrast between eo ‘forms of relationship-to ~“God> Once the former was superseded, ~the Law collapsed, and under the new 8.ajxy there is no new Law. Even while the Law lasted, it was shadowy and ineffective, i.e. aS a means of securing due access to God. And this is the point here made against the Law, not as Paul conceived it, but as the system of atoning animal sacrifices, ; The text of v.! has been tampered ‘with at an early stage, though the variants affect the grammar rather than the general sense. Unless Svvatat Go 136 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [xX. 1, 2. (DHKLW¥2. 5. 35. 88. 181. 206. 226. 241. 242. 255. 326: 383. 429. 431. 547. 623. 794. 915. 917. 927. 1311. 1518. 1739. 1827. 1836. 1845. 1867. 1873. 1898. 2143 lat boh Orig. Chrys. Thdt. Oec.) is read for dvvavrat, ¢ véuos is a hanging nominative, and an awkward anacolouthon results. Hort suggests that the original form of the text was: Kka@ v Kar’ éviaurov Tas adras Ouclas mporpépovowy, al els Td Oinvexes ovdérore SUvavTat Tos TporEpXomévous redeoat. As in 9%, xaé’ jv (dropped out by a scribe accidentally, owing to the resemblance between KAOHN and KAOEN) would connect with a previous noun (here oxidv), dt similarly fell out before €1 (€1c), and ac was changed into alc in the three consecutive words after évavrév. This still leaves 6 véuos without a verb, however, and is no improvement upon the sense gained either (a) by treating 6 vépos as a nominative absolute, and dvvayra as an irregular plural depending on al understood! from @valats ; or (6) by simply reading dvvarat (so Delitzsch, Weiss, Westcott, Peake, Riggenbach, Blass), which clears up everything. A desire to smooth out the grammar or to bring out some private interpretation may be underneath changes like the addition of atrév after @vaiats (& P), or the substitution of adrady for abrats (69. 1319), or the omission of avrais altogether (2. 177. 206. 642. 920. 1518. 1872), as well as the omission of ds (A 33. 1611. 2005) or als altogether, like the Syriac and Armenian versions, and the change of TeAev@oan (reAeOou, Blass) into ka@apioat (D vt). Npoopépovow is an idiomatic use of the plural (Mt 27° reOyy- xaow, Lk 129 airotovv), ‘ where there is such a suppression of the subject in bringing emphasis upon the action, that we get the effect of a passive, or of French om”, German man” (Moulton, i. 58). The allusion is to the yearly sacrifice on atonement-day, for rpoodepovow goes with kat évautdv, the latter phrase being thrown forward for the sake of emphasis, and also in order to avoid bringing eis 1d Sinvexés too near it. Eis 76 dunvexés also goes with mpoodépovow, not (as in v.14) with reAcodv. OdS¢roTeE here as in v.11 before 8uva(v)rat (never elsewhere in the epistle) is doubly emphatic from its position. The constant repetition of these sacrifices proves that their effect is only temporary; they cannot possibly bring about a lasting, adequate relationship to God. So our author denies the belief of Judaism that atone- ment-day availed for the pardon of the People, a belief explicitly put forward, e.g.,in Jub 517-38 (“If they turn to Him in righteous- ness, He will forgive all their transgressions, and pardon all their sins. It is written and ordained that He will show mercy to all who turn from their guilt once a year”). He reiterates this in v.2, where émet (as in 9?6=alioquin) is followed by odx, which implies a question. ‘Would they not, otherwise, have ceased to be offered?” When this was not seen, either odx was omitted (H* vg? syr 206. 1245. 1518 Primasius, etc.), leaving év out of its proper place, or it was suggested—as would never have occurred to the author—that the OT sacrifices ceased to be valid 1It is inserted by A** 31. 366. 472. 1319 syrb*! arm. If the relative pronoun were assimilated, z.e. if afs (D* H L 5. 88. 257. 547, etc.) were read for ds, the accidental omission of ai would be more intelligible. X. 2-4.) SACRIFICE PERFECT AND IMPERFECT 137 when the Christian sacrifice took place. In odx av ématoavto mpoopepdspevat (for construction see Gn 118 ératvcavro oixodo- povvtes) the av is retained (see on 976). KekaBaptopévous has been altered into kexa@dppevous (L), but xafapifw, not the Attic kaaipw, is the general NT form. If our author spelt like his LXX codex, however, xexafepurpéevovs would be original (cp. Thackeray, 74). ZuveiSnors is again used (9%) in connexion with ‘the worshipper(s),” but the writer adds dépaptiéy (ze. sins still needing to be pardoned). For the genitive, compare Philo’s fine remark in guod det. pot. 40, ixerevopmev otv Tov Gedy oi cuveonoer TOV oiketwy GdiKnuaTwv éeyxopevol, KoAdoaL padov nas 7 mapetvat. In v.? dévadpvynows means that public notice had to be taken of such sins (“‘commemoratio,” vg). There is possibly an echo here of a passage like Nu 5!° (@vcla pynpoodtvou dvapupvjocKovoa auaptlav), quoted by Philo in de Plant. 25 to illustrate his statement that the sacrifices of the wicked simply serve to recall their misdeeds (UromipynoKovoa Tas ExdoTwv ayvolas Te Kal diamaprias). In vita Mosis, iii. 10, he repeats this ; if the sacrificer was ignorant and wicked, the sacrifices were no sacrifices (.. . o¥ Avow duaprnudrwy, adn brburvnow épydtovrar), What Philo declares is the result of sacrifices offered by the wicked, the author of Hebrews declares was the result of all sacrifices; they only served to bring sin to mind. So in de Victims, 7, etnOes yap Tas Ovolas tiréuvnow apaprnudrwyv adrAa wn ANOnv avrdv xaracxevafeyv—what Philo declares absurd, our author pronounces inevitable. The ringing assertion of v.* voices a sentiment which would appeal strongly to readers who had been familiar with the classical and contemporary protests (cp. “AZ, ill. 770%), against ritual and external sacrifice as a means of moral purification (see above on g}%). “Adatpetvy, a LXX verb in this connexion (e.g. Num 14}8 adgatpav avopuias Kai adixias Kal dpaptias), becomes adeAety in L (so Blass), the aoristic and commoner form; the verb is never used elsewhere in the NT, though Paul once quotes Is 279 6rav ddeAwpar Guaptias (Ro 1127), All this inherent defectiveness of animal sacrifices necessitated a new sacrifice altogether (v.° 60), the self-sacrifice of Jesus. So the writer quotes Ps 407%, which in A runs as follows: Ovoiay Kat mpoodopav ovK 7OéAnoas, copa b€ Katypticw pot’ dAokavTwpata Kal wept dpaptias ovk élnrycas. ToTe elzrov’ idov HK, (ev xepadrid. BiBrtov yéypamrat epi euod) Tov mommoat TO OéAnpd cov, 6 Oeds pov, HBovdAnOnv. Our author reads evddxnoas for éfnrijoas,' shifts 6 Oeds (omitting mov) to 1 Which is replaced in the text of Hebrews by © (éxf{nrjoes) 623*. 1836. The augment spelling yvdéxnoas reappears here as occasionally at v.8 in a small group (A C D* W, etc.), and the singular Ovclay x. rpoogopdy is kept at v.8 by x D°K LW, etc. 138 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [x. 4-9, a position after movjoa1, in order to emphasize 76 GX gov, and by omitting éBovrHOny (replaced by W in v.”), connects Tod rojoat closely with #xw. A recollection of Ps 511% ef 70é\noas Ouvclav . . . ddAoKavTa@para ovK EevSoKHoELS may have suggested evdéxnoas, which takes the accusative as often in LXX. KegaNls is the roll or scroll, literally the knob or tip of the stick round which the papyrus sheet was rolled (cp. Ezek 2° xepandls BiBXlov). This is taken as an avowal of Christ on entering the world, and the LXX mistranslation in gpa is the pivot of the argu- ment. The more correct translation would be dria dé, for the psalmist declared that God had given him ears for the purpose of attending to the divine monition to do the will of God, instead of relying upon sacrifices. Whether éria was corrupted into o@ua, or whether the latter was an independent translation, is of no moment; the evidence of the LXX text is indecisive. Our author found céua in his LXX text and seized upon it; Jesus came with his body to do God’s will, #e. to die for the sins of men. The parenthetical phrase év kepadtd. BiBXtou yéypamto. mepi énod, which originally referred to the Deutero- nomic code prescribing obedience to God’s will, now becomes a general reference to the OT as a prediction of Christ’s higher sacrifice ; that is, if the writer really meant anything by it (he | does not transcribe it, when he comes to the interpretation, vv.*f), Though the LXX mistranslated the psalm, however, it did not alter its general sense. The Greek text meant practicallv what the original had meant, and it made this interpretation on application possible, namely, that there was a sacrifice which answered to the will of God as no animal sacrifice could. Only, our author takes the will of God as requiring some sacrifice. The point_of his argument is not a contrast between animal saltter SM hook obelisaSe to the will of God; it is a contrast between the death of an-animal which Cannot enter into the meaning of what is being done, and the death of Jesus which means the free acceptance by him of all that God requires for the expiation of human sin. ‘To do the will-of God is, for-our author, a sacrificial action, which involved for Jesus an atoning death, and this is the thought underlying his exposition and application of the psalm (vv.80)~ In v.8 évérepoy is above” or “higher up” in the quotation (v.6). The interpretation of the oracle which follows is plain; there are no textual variants worth notice,! and the language is clear. Thus eipynxev in v.® is the perfect of a completed action, =the saying stands on record, and dvatpet has its common juristic sense of “ abrogate,” the opposite of torn. The rusia eee is: Jesus entered the world fully conscious that the-Various sacrifices of the ] aw Were unavailin aS means of atonement, and ready-to sacrifice himself_in order 1 The vocative 6 Geds is sometimes repeated after mofioar by x° L 104. 1288. 1739 vg syst and pesh etc,, or after gov (é.g. I. 1311 harl, arm). X. 9, 10. ] THE FINAL SACRIFICE 139 to carry out the redeeming will of God. God’s will was to bring-his People into close fellowship with himself (2!°); this necessitated a sacrifice such as that-which the cdyua of Christ could alone provide. The triumphant conclusion is that this divine will, which had no interest in ordinary sacrifices, has been fulfilled in the mpoogopd of Christ; what the Law could not do (v.1) has been achieved by the single self-sacrifice of Christ ; it is by what he suffered in his body, not by any animal sacrifices, that we are jytacpevo (v.1°), Jesus chose to obey God’s will; but, while the Psalmist simply ranked moral obedience higher than any animal sacrifice, our writer ranks the moral obedience of Jesus as redeemer above all such sacrifices. ‘Christ did not come into the world to be a good man: it was not for this that a body was prepared for him. He came to be a great High Priest, and the body was prepared for him, that by the offering of it he might put sinful men for ever into the perfect religious relation to.God” (Denney, Zhe Death of Christ, p. 234). 4¥1n conclusion (11-18) the writer interprets (1!) a phrase which he has not yet noticed expressly, namely, that Christ sat down at the right hand of God (1°-1*); this proves afresh that his sacrifice was final. Then, having quoted from the pentateuch and the psalter, he reverts to the prophets (1518), citing again the oracle about the new da6y«7 with its prediction, now fulfilled, of a final pardon. Again, while every priest stands daily at his service, offering the same sacrifices repeatedly, sacrifices which never can take sins away—"™ He offered a single sacrifice for sins and then ‘‘ seated himself” for all time ‘‘at the right hand of God,” * to wait ‘‘ until hts enemtes are made a footstool for his feet.” 4 For by a single offering he has made the sanctified perfect for all time. % Besides, we have the testimony of the holy Spirit ; for after saying, 16 << This ts the covenant I will make with them when that day comes, satth the Lord, I will set my laws upon their hearts, inscribing them upon their minds,” he adds, 7 ** 4nd their sins and breaches of the law I will remember no more.” 18 Now where these are remitted (decors, as 9°"), an offering for sin extsts (sc. ésr.) no longer. One or two textual difficulties emerge in this passage. In v.!! tepevs was altered (after 51 8%) into dpxvepevs (A C P 5. 69. 88. 206. 241. 256. 263. 436. 462. 467. 489. 623. 642. 794. 917. 920. 927. 999. 1836. 1837. 1898 syrbkl* sah arm eth Cyr. Cosm.). In v.! aités (K L 104. 326 boh Theod. Oec. Theophyl.) is no improvement upon ofros. A curious variant (boh Ephr.) in the following words is éavrév wlavy brép apuapridy mpocevéyKas Ouclav. In v.4 boh (‘‘ for one offering will complete them, who will be sanctified, for ever”) appears to have read mid yap mporpopd (so Bgl.) reAewwoet KTr. In v.16 trav Stavorev is read by K L ¥ drsyr sah boh arm. The decisive consideration in favour of tepeds (v.1!) is not that 140 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [xX. 11-14, the dpxvepevs did not sacrifice daily (for the writer believed this, see on 727), but the adjective mas. Mepedetv is a literary synonym for ddpatpety (v.4); there is no special emphasis in the verb here any more than, ¢.g., in 2 Co 3}, for the (Zeph 3) zepueiXe xvpios 7a Gdukypata cov) metaphorical idea of stripping no longer attached to the term, and the wepé had ceased to mean “ entirely ” or “altogether.” The contrast between this repeated and in- effective ritual of the priests and the solitary, valid sacrifice of Jesus is now drawn in v.!%, where ets Td Sinvexés goes more effectively with éxd@icev than with mpooevéyxas Ouciav, since the idea in the latter collocation is at once expressed in v.14 At the opening of the writer’s favourite psalm (1101) lay a promise of God to his Son, which further proved that this sacrifice of Christ was final : elev 6 KUpLos TO KUpiw pov Kabov éx defdv pov a Oe ~ A éws Gv 00 Tois €xOpovs cov bromdd.ory TOV TOOOV COV. Kafov—a unique privilege ; so Christ’s priestly sacrifice must be done and over, all that remains for him being to await the sub- mission and homage of his foes. As for the obedient (5%), they. are perfected “finally,” ze. brought into the closest relation to God, by what he has done for them; no need for him to stand at any priestly service on their behalf, like the levitical drudges ! The contrast is between éxd@icev and éornxey (the attitude of a priest who has to be always ready for some sacrifice). Who the foes of Christ are, the writer never says. This militant metaphor was not quite congruous with the sacerdotal metaphor, although he found the two side by side in the rroth psalm... If he inter- preted the prediction as Paul did in 1 Co 15%", we might think of the devil (2!*) and such supernatural powers of evil; but this is not an idea which is worked out in Mpés “EBpatous. The conception belonged to the primitive messianic faith of the church, and the writer takes it up for a special purpose of his own, but he cannot interpret it, as Paul does, of an active reign of Christ during the brief interval before the end. Christ must reign actively, Paul argues. Christ: must sit, says our writer. The usual variation between the LXX éx Sefvav and ev Sefug is reproduced in IIpés ‘EBpaiovs: the author prefers the latter, when he is not definitely quoting from the LXX as in 17%. As this is a reminiscence rather than a citation, év defi¢ is the true reading, though éx def:Hv is introduced by A 104 Athanasius. The theological significance of the idea is discussed in Dr. A. J. Tait’s monograph on 7he Heavenly Session of our Lord (1912), in which he points out the misleading influence of the Vulgate’s mistranslation of 10! (‘‘ hic autem unam pro peccatis offerens hostiam in sempiternum sedit ”’?) upon the notion that Christ pleads his passion in heaven. 1In Clem. Rom. 36° ® they are of gaidot kal dvritagoduevan TY OeAjuaTi avrov. X. 15-19. ] THE FINAL APPEAL I4I After reiterating the single sacrifice in v.14 (where tos dytafo- pévous is “the sanctified,” precisely as in 21), he adds (v.!5) an additional proof from scripture. Maptupet 8€ jptvy kal Td mvedpa 76 dytov, a biblical proof as usual clinching the argument. ‘Hyiv is “you and me,” “us Christians,” not the literary plural, as if he meant “what I say is attested or confirmed by the inspired book.” Maptupety is a common Philonic term in this connexion, e.g. Leg. Alleg. iil. 2, waptupet dé Kai év érépous A€ywv xrA. (intro- ducing Dt 4°9 and Ex 17); similarly in Xen. Alem. i. 2. 20, paptupet b€ Kal Tav Tontdv 6 Agywv. The quotation, which is obviously from memory, is part of the oracle already quoted upon the new dabyxn (8°12); the salient sentence is the closing promise of pardon in v.!’, but he leads up to it by citing some of the introductory lines. The opening, peta yap 1d eipyxévar, implies that some verb follows or was meant to follow, but the only one in the extant text is Néyeu kuptos (v.16). Hence, before v.17 we must understand something like paprupet or Aé€yet or mpooebnkev kat pnow (Oecumenius) or tére eipnxev, although the evidence for any such phrase, eg. for dorepov A€yer (31. 37. 55. 67. 71. 73. 80. 161) is highly precarious. In v.17 pyyoOjcopar has been corrected into pvnoc Oo by &° D° K LP, etc., since prno0d was the LXX reading and also better grammar, the future after od py being rare (cp. Diat. 2255, and above on 8!!). The oracle, even in the LXX version, contemplates no sacrifice whatever as a condition of pardon; but our author (see above, p. 131) assumes that such an absolute forgiveness was conditioned by some sacrifice.’ The writer now (10!%-1279) proceeds to apply his arguments practically to the situation of his readers, urging their privileges and their responsibilities under the new order of religion which he has just outlined. In 10!%31, which is the first paragraph, encouragement (vv.!%25) passes into warning (761), 19 Brothers (adedpol, not since 3) !*), szzce we have confidence to enter the holy Presence in virtue of the blood of Jesus, * by the fresh, living way which he has inaugurated for us through the veil (that ts, through his flesh), *\ and since we have ‘‘a great Priest over the house of God,” * let us draw near with a true heart, in absolute assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean from a bad conscience, and our bodies washed in pure water; * let us hold the hope we avow without wavering ( for we can rely on him who gave us the Promzse) ; °4 and let us consider how to stir one another up to love and good deeds—* not ceasing to meet together, as ts the habit of some, but admonishing one another (sc. éavrovs, as 3)%), al/ the more so, as you see the Day coming near. The writer (€xovtes ov) presses the weighty arguments of 620_r0l8 but he returns with them to reinforce the appeal of 31-416 ; after 10!%21 the conception of Jesus as the tepevs falls more into the background. The passage is one long sentence, 142 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (X. 19, 20. EXOVTES LA Tpogepxwipeba ... KaTéxopmev .. . Kal KaTAvodpey "Exovtes otv (as in 4!4) since the way is now open (9°) through the sacrifice of Jesus, whose atoning blood 1 is for us the means of entering God’s presence; mappynoiav, “a fre sure intraunce” (Coverdale), echoing 4" But the writer fills out the appeal of 41416 with the idea of the sanctuary and the sacrifice which he had broken off, in 5’*, to develop. Though the appeal still is Tpocepxspeba (23 = 438), the special motives are twofold : (a) wappyoia for access in virtue of the sacrifice of Jesus (vv.19 20), and (4) the possession of Jesus as the supreme tepeds (v.21), (a) The religious sense of mappyaia emerges in the early gloss inserted after Sir 187°: / , > , 4 Kpeltoowv mappnoia ev Seordtn pove Kpeloowv rappnota &v dernéty pévy vexpa Kapdta vexpov avréxer Oat. Here zappynoia means confident trust, the unhesitating adherence of a human soul to God as its only Master, but our author specially defines it as wappyota eis (cp. 2 P 111 4 eicodos eis rh aimviov Bactireiav) eicodov (with gen. as 6ddv in g§, but not a synonym for 6éor), z.e. for access to (trav dyiwv) the holy Presence,. év TO alate ‘Inood (qualifying etcodov).! This resumes the thought of 97426 1019-12 (éy aiware as in 9*5), Compare for the phrase and general idea the words on the self-sacrifice of Decius Mus in Florus, 1. 15. 3: “‘quasi monitu deorum, capite uelato, primam ante aciem dis manibus se devoverit, ut in confertissima se hostium tela iaculatus nouum ad uictoriam iter sanguinis sui semita aperiret.” This eicodos trav ayiwy év TO aipare Incod is further described in v.29; we enter by (7v, with “8Sov.. . . Cdcav in apposition) a way which Jesus has inaugurated by his sacrifice (gi8: 24. 25), ‘This way is called recent or fresh and also living. In mpéopartos, as in the case of other compounds (e.g. KeAauvedys), the literal sense of the second element had been long forgotten. (cp. Holden’s note on Plutarch’s Zhemistocles, 24); mpodadaros simply means “fresh,” without any sacrificial allusion (‘ freshly- killed”). Galen (de fipp. et Plat, plac. iv. 7) quotes the well- known saying that Avrn éori dd€a zpdcdharos xaxod mrapovoias, and the word (z.e. 76 dpriws yevopevov, véov, veapdv, Hesychius), as is plain from other passages like Arist. Magna Moralia, 12036 (6 ék THs mporparou pavracias axpatys xTA.), and Eccles 19 (ovx« éorw Tav mpdcharov vo tov HALov), had no longer any of the specific sacrificial sense suggested etymologically by its second part. It is the thought of éy@és in 13%, though the writer means 1 Hence the idea is not put in quite the same way as in Eph 3 2 (év @ Exouev Thy mappyolay kal rhy mpocaywyhv). In Sir 25% unde Pia5) yuvouxl movnpe eovolay, & A read mappyolay for B’s éEovgiay, which proves how deeply the idea of liberty was rooted in wappyela, X. 20-24. ] THE VEIL 143 particularly (as in 14? 9§") to suggest that a long period had elapsed before the perfect fellowship was inaugurated finally ; it is mpoodaros, not dpxatos. Zaocav means, in the light of 775 (cp. Jn 14°), that access to God is mediated by the living Christ in virtue of his sacrificial intercession ; the contrast is not so much with what is transient, as though C@cav were equivalent to péevovcay (Chrysostom, Cosm. 415a), as with the dead victims of the OT cultus or ‘the lifeless pavement trodden by the highpriest” (Delitzsch). He entered God’s presence thus 814 tod katarre- tdopatos (619 9%), todr eat tod capkés attod—a ritual expression for the idea of 6% Ad is local, and, whether a verb like eioeh Ov is supplied or not, 8:4 7. x. goes with évexatvoev, the idea being that Jesus had to die, in order to bring us into a living fellowship with God; the shedding of his blood meant that he had a body (105!) to offer in sacrifice (cp. g!4). The writer, however, elaborates his argument with a fresh detail of symbolism, suggested by the ritual of the tabernacle which he has already described in 9%. There, the very existence of a veil hanging between the outer and the inner sanctuary was interpreted as a proof that access to God’s presence was as yet imperfectly realized. The highpriest carried once a year inside the veil the blood of victims slain outside it; that was all. Jesus, on the other hand, sheds his own blood as a perfect sacrifice, and thus wins entrance for us into the presence of God. Only, instead of saying that his sacrificial death meant the rending of the veil (like the author of Mk 15%5), ze. the supersession of the OT barriers between God and man, he allegorizes the veil here as the flesh of Christ ;. this had to be rent before the blood could be shed, which enabled him to enter and open God’s presence for the people. It is a daring, poetical touch, and the parallelism is not to be prosaically pressed into any suggestion that the human nature in Jesus hid God from men éyv tats tpépats tis gapkés attod, or that he ceased to be truly human when he sacrificed himself. The idea already suggested in facav is now (4) developed (in v.24) by (€xovtes) kai tepéa péyav emt tov otkov Tod beod, another echo of the earlier passage (cp. 31° 414), tepeds péyas being a sonorous LXX equivalent for dpxvepeds. Then comes the triple appeal, mpocepympeba . . . KaTéxwpev .. . Kal KaTavod@pev . . The metaphor of mpovepxspeda kth. (v.*), breaks down upon the fact that the Israelites never entered the innermost shrine, except as represented by their highpriest who entered once a year év aipate dddotpiw (9” 25), which he took with him in order to atone for the sins that interrupted the communion of God and the people. In Mpds “EBpatous the point is that, in virtue of the blood of Christ, Christians enjoy continuous fellowship with 144 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X.. 24-29, God; the sacrifice of Christ enables them to approach God’s presence, since their sins have been once and for all removed. The entrance of the OT highpriest therefore corresponds both to the sacrifice of Christ and to that access of Christians which the blood of Christ secures. On the one hand, Christ is our high- priest (v.21); through his self-sacrifice in death the presence of God has been thrown open to us (vv. 2°), This is the primary thought. But in order to express our use of this privilege, the writer has also to fall back upon language which suggests the entrance of the OT highpriest (cp. v.!® év 16 atari “Inood with 9%). He does not mean that Christians are priests, with the right of entry in virtue of a sacrifice which they present, but, as to approach God was a priestly prerogative under the older order, he describes the Christian access to God in sacerdotal metaphors. Mpocepywpe8a is one of these. It is amplified first by a petd clause, and then by two participial clauses. The approach to God must be whole-hearted, peta ddnOuvfs xapdias,! without any hesitation or doubt, év wAnpodopia (61!) miotews.? This thought of wiorts as man’s genuine answer to the realities of divine revelation, is presently to be developed at length (10%8f), Meantime the writer throws in the double participial clause, pepavtiopevor . . . kalapg. The metaphors are sacer- dotal ; as priests were sprinkled with blood and bathed in water, to qualify them for their sacred service, so Christians may approach God with all confidence, on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice, since they have been fepavtiopevor (7.¢e. sprinkled and so purified from—a frequent use of the verb) dmé cuverdjoews movnpas (= avveidyoews duaptiav, 10%) in their hearts (tds KapdSias —no external cleansing). Then the writer adds, kat NeAoucpévor To odpa Batt kabapo, suggesting that baptism corresponded to the bathing of priests (e.g. in Lev 164). Once and for all, at baptism (cp. 1 P 37), Christians have been thus purified from guilty stains by the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice. What room then can there be in their minds for anything but faith, a confident faith that draws near to God, sure that there is no longer anything between Him and them? The distinctive feature which marked off the Christian Bantiopds from all similar ablutions (6? 9!) was that it meant something more than a cleansing of the body; it was part and parcel of an inward cleansing of the xapda, effected by 16 atya 1 The phrase év addnOuwy Kapdig occurs in Zest. Dan 5° (v./. xaOap@) and in Is 38° (év. x. d.). 2 There is a verbal parallel in the account of Isis-worship given by Apuleius (Metamorph. xi. 28: ‘‘ ergo igitur cunctis adfatim praeparatis . . . principalis dei nocturnis orgiis inlustratus, plena tam fiducta germanae rehgionis obsequium diuinum frequentabam ”). More specifically, by the afua pavriopod of 12%. X. 23.] PURITY 145 THs SuaOyKys (v.29).1 Hence this as the vital element is put first, though the body had also its place and part in the cleansing ex- perience. The xapdéa and the c@ya are a full, plastic expression for the entire personality, as an ancient conceived it. Ancient religious literature ? is full of orders for the penitent to approach the gods only after moral contrition and bodily cleansing, with a clean heart and a clean body, in clean clothes even. But, apart from other things, such ablutions had to be repeated, while the Christian Bawtiopds was a single ceremony, lying at the source and start of the religious experience. And what our author is think- ing of particularly is not this or that pagan rite, but the OT ritual for priests as described in Ex 297%, Ly 825 145 etc. (cp. Joma 3). Three specimens of the anxious care for bodily purity in ancient religious ritual may be given. First (i) the ritual directions for worship in Syd/. 567 (ii A.D.) : mp@rov wev kal Td wéyorov, xEtpas Kal yvwunv Kabapods Kal wy.ets bmdpxovras Kal undév avrots decvdv suverddras. Second (ii) the stress laid on it by a writer like Philo, who (guod deus sit tmmutadzlis, 2), after pleading that we should honour God by purifying ourselves from evil deeds and washing off the stains of life, adds: kal yap etnOes els uev Ta lepd wh éfetvar Badifew, ds dv uh mpdrepov Novoduevos HPatdpiyyntrar Td cua, evxerOo dé Kal Ovew émcxerpety Ere knrdwpuevyn kal wedupyévy diavolg. His argument is that if the body requires ablutions (mepippavrnplos Kat Ka@apolois ayvevriKois) before touching an external shrine, how can anyone who is morally impure draw near (rpooedBety To Oe) the most pure God, unless he means to repent? ‘O mév yap mpos Te pndev emetepyacas bat kaxdv kal Ta Tadaa éxvipac- Oat Sixardoas yeynOws mpootres [cp. He 10% 72], 6 5’ dvev rovrwy SuoKdBapros . ov apiurtdcbw* AjoeTat yap ovdérore Tov Ta ev pvXols THs Stavolas dpwvra [cp. He 433] kat rots ddvros avrijs éurepirarodvra, Or again in de Plant. 39: cwpara Kal Puxas kabnpdpevor, TH “ev NovTpols, TA dé vouwv Kal madelas dpO7js pevuact. In de Cherub. 28 he denounces the ostentatious religion of the worldly, who in addition to their other faults, ra wév cdyara dovtpots Kal Kabapolos aroppimrovrat, Ta Oe Wuyis éxviyacbar raOn, ols KarappuTalverar 6 Bios, obre Bovdovrat odre émirndevovcr, are very particular about their outward religious practices 3 but careless about a clean soul. Finally, (iii) there is the saying of Epictetus (iv. 10, 3): émel yap éxetvor (z.e. the gods) pice KaBapol kal KI PAT ot, ép door ny yikaoww avrots ol dv@pwro. Kata Tov Ndyor, émrl TocovTOY Kal ToU Kabapod Kal Tod Kabaplov eiclv avOexrixkol. For the exceptional pepavriopuévor (8* A C D*), 8° D° etc. have substituted éppavricpévoe (so Theodoret). The AedXovcuévae of 8 B D P is the more common xow7 form of the Attic AeNoupévar (A C D° etc.). The next appeal (v.?%), karéxwpev tiv dpodoylay Tis éAmidSos (to which &* vg pesh eth add the gloss of 7yuév), echoes 414 11S afua ths SuabjKns ev @ ipyidoOn, as 1 Co 61! adAd amedovoacbe, ddA nya Onre. 2 Cp. Engen Fehrle’s Die Kultische Keuschhett tm Altertum (1910), pp. 26 f., isa Sir J. G. Frazer’s Adonis, Attis, Osiris (1907), pp. 407 f. $ According to a recently discovered (first century) inscription on a Palestinian synagogue (cp. Revue Liblique, 1921, pp. 247 f.), the synagogue was furnished with rév evGva (for hospitality, cp. below, 13°) kal ra xpnorH- oa TH LOdTwr (baths for ritual ablutions). 10 146 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 28, 24. (kpatOpev THS Sporoyias) and 3° (éav tHv wappyciav Kal TO Kadynpa tHS eAmidos . . . Katdoxwpev). ‘This hope for the future was first confessed at baptism, and rests upon God’s promise! (as already explained in 61718), It is to be held d&kAus, a term applied by Philo to the word of a good man (6 yap tod oovdaiov, gyal, Adyos Spkos Eotw, BEBaros, dxrwys, devdeararos, épnpEeropevos GAnOeia, de Spec. Leg. ii. 1); in Irenaeus it recurs in a similar connexion (i. 88, ed. Harvey: 6 tov Kxavdéva ris ddnGeias axdui év éautd Katéxwv, dv ia Tov Barricparos elAndpe) The old Wycliffite version translates finely: ‘‘ hold we the confessioun of oure hope bowynge to no side.” The close connexion between pepavtiopévor KTA. and deovopévor «7A. makes it inadvisable to begin the second appeal with kat Nehoucpévor 75 oOpa date Kabapd (Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Lachmann, Lunemann, von Soden, B. Weiss, etc.) A more plausible suggestion, first offered by Theodoret and adopted recently by Hofmann and Seeberg, is to begin the second appeal after wiotews, making xatexOpev carry pepaytiopevor . . . Kabapd. This yields a good sense, for it brings together the allusions to the baptismal confession. But the ordinary view is more probable; the asyndeton in xareyopev is impressive, and if it is objected that the xarexauev clause is left with less content than the other two, the answer is that its eschatological outlook is reiterated in the third clause, and that by itself its brevity has a telling force. Besides, éyovtes «th. (19-21) introduce katex@pev as well as mpocepy wea. The third appeal (#* 25) turns on love (cp. 61°), as the first on faith, and the second on hope. The members of the circle or community are to stir up one another to the practice of Chris- tian love. Since this is only possible when common worship and fellowship are maintained, the writer warns them against following the bad example of abandoning such gatherings; kat katavodmev &dAyAous, for, if we are to Karavoeiy Christ (31), we are also bound to keep an eye on one another eis mapoguopév dyats Kal kah@v epywy (7.e. an active, attractive moral life, inspired by Christian love). This good sense of mapofuopds as stimulus seems to be an original touch; in Greek elsewhere it bears the bad sense of provocation or exasperation (cp. Ac 15%), although the verb zapogdvvew had already acquired a good sense (eg. in Josephus, Anz. xvi. 125, mapogdvac tiv edvorav: in Pr 68 to Gt un exAvopevos, tapoéuve dé kal Tov Pidov gov dv éveyujow: and in Xen. Cyrop. vi. 2. 5, kat tovrovs éraivav te mapwévve). Pliny’s words at the close of his letter to Caninius Rufus (iii. 7) illus- trate what is meant by zapogvouds in this sense: ‘Scio te stimulis non egere; me tamen tui caritas evocat ut currentem 1 An instance of this is quoted in 114, X. 24. | CHURCH FELLOWSHIP 147 quoque instigem, sicut tu soles me. “Aya6j) & épis, cum invicem se mutuis exhortationibus amici ad amorem immortalitatis exacuunt.” How the wapogvopds is to be carried out, the writer does not say. By setting a good example? By definite exhorta- tions (mapaxadodvres, v.2°, like 131)? Mi éyxatahelmovres—do not do to one another what God never does to you (13°), do not leave your fellow-members in the lurch (the force of éyxaraAcirewv, especially in the xowy)—thv émouvaywyhy éautdv (reflexive pro- noun in the genitive = 7pGv). “Emouvaywyy in the kow7 (cp. Deiss- mann’s Light from the East, 102 f.) means a collection (of money), but had already in Jewish Greek (e.g. 2 Mac 27 éws av ovvadyy 6 eds éricvvaywynv Tov Aaov) begun to acquire the present sense of a popular “ gathering.” KaOus €Bos (sc. €or) tuviv. But who are these? What does this abandonment of common fellowship mean? (a) Perhaps that some were growing ashamed of their faith ; it was so insignificant and unpopular, even dangerous to anyone who identified himself with it openly. They may have begun to grow tired of the sacrifices and hardships involved in membership of the local church. This is certainly the thought of 10°! and it is better than to suppose (4) the leaders were a small group of teachers or more intelligent Christians, who felt able, in a false superiority, to do without common worship; they did not require to mix with the ordinary members! The author in any case is warning people against the dangers of individualism, a warning on the lines of the best Greek and Jewish ethics, e.g. Isokrates, ad Demon. 13, Tia 7d Satpoviov det pev, padtora Sé peta THs @oAews, and the rabbinic counsel in Taanith, 11. 1 (“ whenever the Israelites suffer distress, and one of them withdraws from the rest, two angels come to him and, laying their hands upon his head, say, this man who separates himself from the assembly shall not see the consolation which is to visit the congregation”), or in Hillel’s saying (Pirke Aboth 2°): “Separate not thyself from the congregation, and trust not in thyself until the day of thy death.” The loyal Jews are described in Ps.-Sol 1738 as ol ayarévres cvvaywyas doiwy, and a similar thought occurs also (if “his” and not “my” is the correct reading) in Od. Sol 3?: ‘‘ His members are with Him, and on them do I hang.” Any early Christian who attempted to live like a pious particle without the support of the community ran serious risks in an age when there was no public opinion to support him. His isolation, what- ever its motive—fear, fastidiousness, self-conceit, or anything else —exposed him to the danger of losing his faith altogether. These are possible explanations of the writer’s grave tone in the pas- sage before us. Some critics, like Zahn (§ 46), even think that (c) such unsatisfactory Christians left their own little congrega- tion for another, in a spirit of lawless pique, or to gratify their 148 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 25, 26. own tastes selfishly ; but éauréy is not emphatic, and in any congregation of Christians the duties of love would be pressed, Separatist tendencies were not absent from the early church; thus some members considered themselves too good to require common worship, as several warnings prove, eg. in Barn 41 pn kal’ Eavtods évduvovres povalere Os dn Sedikatwpevor, GAN eri TO avTO cuvepyopevoe ouvlyTelre Epi TOU Ko] TvudéepovTos) and Ign. Eph. 5° (6 otv py épxopmevos eri 7d aitd otros nbn brepnpavet kal €avrov dvéxpivev). But in our epistle (d) the warning is directed specially against people who combined Christianity with a number of mystery-cults, patronizing them in turn, or who with- drew from Christian fellowship, feeling that they had exhausted the Christian faith and that it required to be supplemented by some other cult. ‘At first and indeed always there were naturally some people who imagined that one could secure the sacred contents and blessings of Christianity as one did those of Isis or the Magna Mater, and then withdraw” (Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, bk. ili. c. 43; cp. Reitzenstein’s Hellen. Mysterienreligionen, 94). This was serious, for, as the writer realized, it implied that they did not regard Christianity as the | final and full revelation ; their action proved that the Christian faith ranked no higher with them than one of the numerous Oriental cults which one by one might interest the mind, but which were not necessarily in any case the last word on life. The argument of the epistle has been directed against this mis- conception of Christianity, and the writer here notes a practical illustration of it in the conduct of adherents who were hold- ing aloof, or who were in danger of holding aloof, from the common worship. Hence the austere warning which follows. Such a practice, or indeed any failure to “draw near” by the way of Jesus, is an insult to God, which spells hopeless ruin for the offender. And evidently this retribution is near. Christians are to be specially on their guard against conduct that means apostasy, for Bdéwere (how, he does not say) éyyiLoucay (as in Ro 131") thy fpéepay (here, as in 1 Co 338, without éxeivy or tod xvpiov). This eschatological setting distinguishes the next warning (vv.?8!) from the earlier injow 6 For tf we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the Truth, there ts no longer any sacrifice for sins left, * nothing but an awful outlook of doom, that ‘‘burning Wrath” which will “consume the foes’ (see v.18) of God. * Anyone who has rejected the law of Moses ‘‘ dies” without mercy, “* on the evidence of two or of three witnesses.” ™ How much heavier, do you suppose, will be the punishment assigned (t.e. by God) to him who has spurned the Son of God, who has profaned ‘‘ the covenant-blood” (9) with which he was sanctified (10), who has insulted the Spirit of grace? ® We know who sata, ‘* Vengeance ts mine, I will exact a requital”: and again (wdduw, as in X. 26.| APOSTASY 149 218), ‘* The Lord will pass sentence on his people.” * Tt tis an awful thing to Jall into the hands of the living God. Apostasy like withdrawal from the church on the ground already mentioned, is treated as one of the deliberate (€xousiws) sins which (cp. on 57), under the OT order of religion, were beyond any atonement. Wilful offences, like rebellion and blasphemy against God, were reckoned unpardonable. ‘In the case of one who, by his sin, intentionally disowns the covenant itself, there can be no question of sacrifice. He has himself cut away the ground on which it would have been possible for him to obtain reconciliation” (Schultz, OZ Theology, ii. 88). There is an equivalent to this, under the new 8:a04Kn, our author declares. To abandon Christianity is to avow that it is in- adequate, and this denial of God’s perfect revelation in Jesus Christ is fatal to the apostate. In éxouciws dpaptévtav par (7), Exovoiws is put first for the sake of emphasis, and dyaprovrwv means the sin of droorjva: ard Geod Ldvtos (31") or of zapa- mimrew (6°), the present tense implying that such people persist in this attitude. “Exouoiws is the keynote to the warning. Its force may be felt in a passage like Thuc. iv. 98, where the Athenians remind the Boeotians that God pardons what is done under the stress of war and peril, cal yap tév dxovolwy dpaptn- parwv Katadvyyv elvat tovs Bwovs, and that it is wanton and presumptuous crimes alone which are heinous. Philo (w7¢. Mos. i. 49) describes Balaam praying for forgiveness from God on the ground that he had sinned im’ dyvoias aAX’ od Kal? Exovorov yveipnv. The adverb occurs in 2 Mac 143 (‘AAkimos . . . Exovoiws d€ pepoAvopevos). The general idea of the entire warning is that the moral order punishes all who wantonly and _ wilfully flout it ; as Menander once put it (Kock’s Com. Attic. Hragm. 700): , ‘ 3 / > xv , vomos puraxGeis oddev eoriv 7 vopos* ce x \ \ , ‘\ / 6 py prdraxGels Kal vouos Kat dyptos. Our author expresses this law of retribution in personal terms drawn from the OT, which prove how deeply moral and reverent his religious faith was, and how he dreaded anything like pre- suming upon God’s kindness and mercy. The easy-going man thinks God easy going; he is not very serious about his religious duties, and he cannot imagine how God can take them very seriously either. ‘ We know” better, says the author of [pds “E@paiovs! Christianity is described (in v.*°) as ro AaBety THY éeriyvwow ts aAnGeias, a semi-technical phrase of the day, which recurs in the Pastoral Epistles (though with éA6ety eis instead of AaBetiv). It is not one of our author’s favourite expressions,! but the phrase + Here it is an equivalent for the phrases used in 6*°; there is no dis- tinction between émlyvwors and yvwors (Peo0) any more than in the LXX, and 150 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 26-29. is partly used by Epictetus in its most general sense (AaBwv tis Tapa THS PioEews péTPA Kal Kavovas eis éexiyvwow THS GAnOeias KTA., ii. 20. 21), when upbraiding the wretched academic philosophers (of dradaimwpor Axadnuaixol) for discrediting the senses as organs of knowledge, instead of using and improving them. All that renegades can expect (v.27) is goBepd tus (= quidam, deepening the idea with its touch of vagueness) ékdoxy (a sense coined by the writer for this term, after his use of éxdéxeoOar in 1018) kpioews, for they have thrown over the only sacrifice that saves men from xptots (927). This is expanded in a loose? reminiscence of Is 261! (Zyros Anpierar adv awaidevtov, Kal viv wUp Tods trevavTious éderat), though the phrase aupds fAdos recalls Zeph 119 (38) ev mupt Cnrov adrov karavadAwiyoerat Taca 7 yn. The contemporary Jewish Apocalypse of Baruch (48° 4°) contains a similar threat to wilful sinners : “Therefore shall a fire consume their thoughts, and in flame shall the meditations of their reins be tried; for the Judge shall come and will not tarry— | because each of earth’s inhabitant knew when he was trans- gressing.” The penalty for the wilful rejection (4@etjaas) of the Mosaic law ? was severe (Dt 17717), but not more severe than the penalty. to be inflicted on renegades from Christianity (vv.?83!), The former penalty was merciless, xwpis oixtippav (to which, at an early period, xai daxpvwy was added by D, most old Latin texts, and syr™). It is described in a reminiscence of Dt 17° éxt duciv paptuow 7 éri tpioly paptvow aroGavetrar 6 adrobvycKwy (i.e. the apostate who has yielded to idolatry). The witnesses executed the punishment for the sin of which they had given evidence (Dt 177, Ac 757f, Jn 87, Sanhedrim 64), but this is not before the writer’s mind; émi with the dative simply means “on the ground of (the evidence given by).” In méow Soxette rd. (v.29), doxetre is intercalated as in Aristoph. Acharn. 12 (ras totr éeverr€é pov Soxeis tHv Kapdiav ;), and Herm.: Szm. ix. 28. 8 (ei ra €Ovy Tovs SovAous aitav KoArAdlovow, éedv tis dpvnonta Tov KUpLov éavToOd, TL Soxeire moujoet 6 KUpios tyuiv;). TIldow (cp. g!*) introduces an ad7Gea had been already stamped by Philo (e.g. de Justctia, 6, where the proselyte is said weravacrds els dd\7jOecav) as a term for the true religion, which moulds the life of those who become members of the People. Compare the study of the phrase by M. Dibelius in W7 Studien fiir G. Heinrici (1914), . 176-189. Pe Probably it was the awkwardness of {7\os, coming after rupdés, which led to its omission in W. Sah reads simply ‘‘ the flame of the fire.” 2 According to the later rabbinic theory of inspiration, even to assert that Moses uttered one word of the Torah on his own authority was to despise tite Torah (Sifre 112, on Nu 15%), " X. 29, 30.] RENEGADES I51 argument from the less to the greater, which was the first of Hillel’s seven rules for exegesis, and which is similarly used by Philo in de Fuga, 16, where, after quoting Ex 2115, he adds that Moses here practically denies that there is any pardon for those who blaspheme God (ei yap oi tots Ovntods KaxnyopyoavTes yovets ardyovta tiv emi Gavdtw, Tivos agiovs xpi) vopile Timwpias Tors Tov dAwY maTépa Kai mointnv BAaodynpety tropevovtas ;). There is also a passage in de Spec. Legibus (ii. 254, 255) where Philo asks, “If a man pi rpoonkdvtws duvds is guilty, méons agvos Tinwpias 6 Tov GvTws dvTa Hedy dpvodpmevos ;” Tiu.wpla originally meant vengeance. Aradéper dé riwwpla kal xddacws* 7 bev yap Kédaots TOO mdcxovTos Evexa eoTrw, 7 5€ Tiuwpla Tod wotodvros, wa dmomA\npw0y (Arist. Rhetorzc, i. 10. 11; see Cope’s Lutroduction, p. 232). But it became broadened into the general sense of punishment, and this obtained in Hellenistic Greek. The threefold description of what is involved in the sin of apostasy begins: 6 tov vidv tod Oeod Katamatioas, another ex- pression for the thought of 6°, which recalls Zec 123 (AéOov KaTamaTovpevov Tac Tos COverw' Tas 6 KaTaTaTOv aditny éurailwv éumaigerar). Karamaretvy opxia was the phrase for breaking oaths (Ziad, 41°"); with a personal object, the verb denotes con- tempt of the most flagrant kind. Another aspect of the sin is that a man has thereby xouvdv ! Fyynodpevos the sacrifice of Jesus ; his action means that it is no more to him than an ordinary death (‘“‘communem,” 2), instead of a divine sacrifice which makes him a partaker of the divine fellowship (see p. 145). Where Christ is rejected, he is first despised; outward abandonment of him springs from some inward depreciation or disparagement. The third aspect, xai 75 mveipa tis xdpttos (not tov vouov Mavoéws) evuBpioas, suggests that the writer had in mind the language of Zec 1210 (éxyed . . . mvedua yxapiTos Kal oiktipyod), but mvedpa xdpitos (contrasted here, as in Jn 117, with the vouos Mwveéws) is a periphrasis for rvedua aytov (64), xdpis being chosen (416 12!) to bring out the personal, gracious nature of the power so wan- tonly insulted.? *EvuBpifew is not a LXX term, and it generally takes the dative. (Ev © hyrdoby after ynodpevos is omitted by A and some MSS of Chrysostom.) The sombre close (vv.* 8!) of the warning is a reminder that the living God punishes renegades. oBepév (v.3!) re-echoes the doBepa of v.27, and the awful nature of the doom is brought out by two quotations adapted from the OT. “Epot ékdixnors, 1 Once in the LXX (Pr 157%) in this sense, 2In Zest. Jud, 187 the rvetua ydprros poured out upon men is the Spirit as a gracious gift of God. But in He 10”, as in Eph 4®, it is the divine Spirit wounded or outraged, the active retribution, however, being ascribed not ta the Spirit itself but to God. 152 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 80, 81 éya dvtamodécw, is the same form of Dt 32% as is quoted in Ro 1219; it reproduces the Hebrew original more closely than the LXX (ev tuepa exdicjoews avtarodwow), perhaps from some current Greek version, unless the author of Hebrews borrowed it from Paul.t Some of the same authorities as in 81? indeed add, from Ro 12!%, Néyer kdpios (8° A D° K L arm Theodoret, Damasus, etc.). Kpwvet Kiptos tov AXadv abroad is from Dt 32°6. The thought of the original, in both passages, is God avenging his people on their foes and championing them, not punishing them ; but here this fate is assigned to all who put themselves outside the range of God’s mercy in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ ; they fall under God’s retribution. T6 épmecetv eis xetpas Qeod is a phrase used in a very different sense in 2 S 24*, Sir 218; here it means, to fall into the grasp of the God who punishes the disloyal ? or rebels against his authority. Thus the tyrant Antiochus is threatened, in 2 Mac 731, od pi dtadiyns Tas xetpas Tod Peod. As in 312, Lavros is added to @eod to suggest that he is quick and alive to inflict retribution. ‘The writer is impressively reticent on the nature of God’s tyswpia, even more reticent than Plato, in one of the gravest warnings in Greek literature, the famous passage in the Leges (904, 905) about the divine dixn: Tavrys THs OiKyS OUTE TU pay mote ovte ef aAXOS atvy7s yevomevos emevenrar mepuyever Bau ded" nv macy Sucdy dtahepovTws eragav TE ob rdfavres Xpeav TE ecevra Beir ar 70 Tapamrav. ov yep. dmednOynon wore tr abrhs® ovxX ovrw opuKpos ov dvon Kare TO THS YS. Babos, otd" tdnrds yevomevos eis TOV otpavov avarrTnoy, Telos O€ adTOY THY TpOTHKOVT AY Tyuswplay eit evOdde pevwy eite Kat év Aldov duaropevbeis. Plato altered the Homeric term dixy Geav to suit his purpose; what meant “ way ” or “habit,” he turned into a weighty word for “justice.” The alteration is justified from his “ preaching # point of view, and the solemn note of the Greek sage’s warning is that of He 1076 ; you cannot play fast and loose with God. Yet, as at 6°, so here: the writer swiftly turns from warning to encouragement, appealing to his readers to do better than he feared, and appealing to all that was best in them. ‘ Why throw away the gains of your fine record in the past? You have not long to wait for your reward. Hold on for a little longer.” This is the theme of vy.82-39 ; ’ Paul cites the saying to prove that private Christians need not and must not take revenge into their own hands, since God is sure to avenge his people on their adversaries. Which is close to the idea of the original. Our author uses the text to clinch a warning that God will punish («pive?= ‘ punibit,” not ‘*judicabit”’) his people for defying and deserting him. 2 So the martyr Eleazar protests in 2 Mac 6°, as he refuses to save his life by unworthy compromise: el yap kal émt rod wapévros éfehoduae ry é& avOpwruv Tinwplav, ddAd Tas TOO mavToKpdTopos XeEtpas ore fdv otre drobavas ex pevgouat. X. 32, 33.] A FINE RECORD 153 82 Recall the former days when, after you were enlightened (pwricbévtes, as 64), you endured a hard struggle of suffering, ® partly by being held ut yourselves to obloguy and anguish, partly by making common cause with those who fared in this way ; * for you did sympathize with the prisoners, and you took the confiscation of your own belongings cheerfully, conscious that elsewhere you had higher, you had lasting possessions. *© Now do not drop that con- fidence of yours ; tt (Hrs, as in 23) carries with tt a rich hope of reward. 386 Steady patience 7s what you need, so that after doing the will of God you may (like Abraham, 6!°) get what you have been promised. * For ‘in a little, a very little” now, ‘* The Coming One (9%) will arrive without delay. 88 Meantime my just man shall live on by his faith ; af he shrinks back, my soul takes no delight in him.” 39 We are not the men to shrink back and be lost, but to have faith and so to win our souls. The excellent record of these Christians in the past consisted in their common brotherliness (6!°), which is now viewed in the light of the hardships they had had to endure, soon after they became Christians. The storm burst on them early; they weathered it nobly; why give up the voyage, when it is nearly done? It is implied that any trouble at present is nothing to what they once passed through. “Avapipynoxeobe S€ tas mpdtepov Hpépas (v.°2): memory plays a large part in the religious experi- ence, and is often as here a stimulus. In these earlier days they had (vv.°? 83) two equally creditable experiences (todto pév . . . touto $é¢, a good classical idiom); they bore obloquy and hard- ship manfully themselves, and they also made common cause with their fellow-sufferers. By saying &Anow mabypdtwv, the writer means, that the rafyuara made the &@Anors which tested their powers (2!°). “A@Anovs—the metaphor is athletic, as in 12! —came to denote a martyr’s death in the early church; but no such red significance attaches to it here. Apparently the per- secution was not pushed to the last extreme (124); all survived it. Hence there can be no allusion to the “ludibria ” of Nero’s outburst against the Roman Christians, in (v.*%) Oeatpifdpevor, which is used in a purely figurative sense (so Géarpov in 1 Co 4°), like éxOearpiZew in Polybius (e.g. iil. gt. 10, dudrep EneAXov . . . exOeatprety 5é Tovs ToAeuiovs pvyouaxotvras). The meaning is that they had been held up to public derision, scoffed and sneered at, accused of crime and vice, unjustly suspected and denounced. All this had been, the writer knew, a real ordeal, particularly because the stinging contempt and insults had had to be borne in the open. “Orayv pév ydp tis dvedignrat Kal’ Eavtov, Aurnpov pev, TOAAG Se rA€ov, Stay ert ravtwy (Chrysostom). They had been exposed to dve8ropots te kat OAipeor, taunts and scorn that tempted one to feel shame (an experience which our author evidently felt keenly), as well as to wider hardships, both insults and injuries. All this they had stood manfully. Better still, 154 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 83, 34. | their personal troubles had not rendered them indisposed to care for their fellow-sufferers, tév ottws (7.e. in the wafjpara) dvaotpedopevwy (1318), They exhibited the virtue of practical sympathy, urged in 13°, at any risk or cost to themselves (kotvwvot . . « yevnbevtes with the genitive, as in LXX of Pr 28%, Is 17%). The ideas of v.3° are now (v.*+) taken up in the reverse order (as in 517). Kal yap tots Seoplors cuvenayoate, imprisonment being for some a form of their ra@yuara.. Christians in prison had to be visited and fed by their fellow-members. For cupraety (cp. 44) as between man and man, see Zest. Sym. 3° kat ourov cuprabel Td POovovpevw: Test. Benj. 44 ro dobevotvri ovpracyxer : Ign. Rom. 64 cupraGeirw por: and the saying which is quoted in Meineke’s Frag. Comic. Graec. iv. 52, ék tov mabetv ylyvwoxe Kal TO ovprabeiv’ kal gol yap aAXAos ovptabycerat tafwv. They had also borne their own losses with more than equanimity,! with actual gladness (etd xapas, the same thought as in Ro 5°, though differently worked out), yuedoxovtes (with accus. and infinitive) €xew éautots (= duds, which is actually read here by Cosmas Indicopleustes, 348a@; éavrovs is not emphatic any more than éavrav in v.25) kpetocova (a favourite term of the author) Grapéuwv (Ac 2%) kat pevoucay (1314, the thought of Mt 67°). Thy dpray)y Tov bmapxévtav Sudv (cp. Polybius, iv. 17. 4, apmrayas brapxovTwv) implies that their own property had been either confiscated by the authorities or plundered in some mob-riot. Note the paronomasia of trapyévrwy and trapéw, and the place of this loss in the list of human evils as described in the Laches, 195 E (eire tO Oavaros elite vooos cire aroBoAn xpynydtwv eorat). There is no question of retaliation; the primitive Christians whom the author has in view had no means of returning injuries for injuries, or even of claiming redress. Thus the problem raised and solved by contemporary moralists does not present itself to the writer; he does not argue, as, ¢.g., Maximus of Tyre did in the next century (D¢ssert. ii.), that the good man should treat the loss of property as a trifle, and despise the futile attempts of his enemies to injure him thus, the soul or real self being beyond the reach of such evil-doers. The tone is rather that of Tob 47! (un PoBod, wadlor, dre érrwxetoapev’ vmdpxet gol moka, Edy PoBnOns rdv Oéov xTX.), except that our author notes the glow (wera xapds) of an enthusiastic unworldliness, which was more than any Stoic resignation or even any quiet acquiescence in providence; he suggests in €avrovs that, while others might seize and hold their property, they themselves had a possession of which no one could rob them. Seneca (Z/. ix. 18-19) quotes the famous reply of the philosophic Stilpo to Demetrius Poliorketes, who asked him, after the siege and sack of Megara, if he had lost anything in the widespread ruin, Stilpo answered that he had suffered no loss; ‘‘ omnia bona mecum sunt.” That is, Seneca explains, he did not consider anything as ‘‘ good” which could be taken from him. This helps to illustrate what the author of IIpés ‘ES8palovs means. As Epictetus put it, there are more losses than the loss of property (ii. 10. 14, 1 This is not conveyed in mpocedéEac@e, which here, as in 11, simply means ‘‘ accepted,” not ‘‘ welcomed.” X. 34, 35.] PERSECUTION 155 GAG Set oe Képua drrordécat, va fnuwOijs, d\dov <6’ > ovbdevds drwreva Knucot Tov dvOpwroyr ;). A similar view pervades the fine homiletic misinterpretation of Dt 6° in Berachoth 9° ‘‘Man is bound to bless [God] for evil as for good, for it is said, Thou shalt love Jahweh thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength. With all thy heart means, with both yetzers, the good and the bad alike: w#th all thy soul means, even if he deprive thee of thy soul: wzth all thy strength means, with all thy posses- sions.” A similar view is cited in Sifre 32. Apollonius, in the last quarter of the second century, declares: ‘‘ We do not resent having our goods taken from us, because we know that, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s ” (Conybeare, Monuments of Early Christianity, p. 44). No persecution known to us in the primitive church answers to the data of this passage. But some sidelights are thrown upon it by Philo’s vivid account of the earlier anti-Semite riots in Alexandria. He notes that even those who sympathized with the persecuted were punished: trav & os aAGGs rerovOdtwv diror Kal ovyyevels, OTt povoy Tais TOY TpoonKOvTWY GYEPOpats GUVTA- ynoav, amiyyovto, éuactuyovvTo, érpoxilovTo, Kal peTa Tacas Tas aixias, 6cas édUvaTo ywpyoat TA TwHMaTA avrois, 7H TEAEVTAia Kal épedpos Tiuwpia otavpos nv (in Flaccum, 7: m. b. neither here nor in 11°5f does the author of IIpds ‘EBpafovs mention the cross as a punishment for sufferers). Philo (zd¢d. 9) continues: wevia xaArerov perv, Kal padich dray KatacKkevalynta: mpos €xOpav, eAartov dé rys eis. TA THpata UBpews, Kav 7 Bpaxuvtary. He repeats this (10), telling how Flaccus maltreated Jews who had been already stripped of their property, iva of yey tropevdor Sirrdas cupdopas, meviav Ouov Kal THv év ToIs owHpacw UBpW, Kal ot pev SpdvTes, womep év Tos Peatpixors pipois KabvTrepKpivoyto Tovs mac xoVTAS. Three items of textual corruption occur in v.*4, (a) Seoplois (p!#® A D* H 33. 104. 241. 424**, 635. 1245. 1288. 1739. 1908. I912. 2005 r vg syrbkl boh arm Chrys.) was eventually corrupted into decmots (uov) in 8 D° Y 256. 1288* etc. vt eth Clem. Orig.), a misspelling (z.¢. decuots) which, with pou added to make sense, contributed to the impression that Paul had written the epistle (Ph 17, Col 418). Compare the text implied in the (Pelagian ?) rologue to Paul’s epp. in vg: ‘‘nam et vinctis compassi estis, et rapinam et vestrorum cum gaudio suscepistis.” (6) éavrovs (p® x A H lat boh Clem. Orig. etc.) suffered in the course of transmission ; it was either omitted (by C) or altered into éavrots (D K LY, etc., Chrys.) or év éaurots (1. 467. 489. 642. 920. 937. 1867. 1873), the dative being an attempt to bring out the idea that they had in their own religious personalities a possession beyond the reach of harm and loss, an idea pushed by some editors even into éavrovs, but too subtle for the context. (c) twaptv was eventually defined by the addition of év (tots) ovpavots (from Ph 37°?) in xe De H** © 6. 203. 326. 506. 1288. 1739 syr arm Chrys. etc, The reminder of vy.°2-34 is now (8-89) pressed home. My} droPddynte obv Thy Tappyolav bua, as evinced in peta xapas .. . ywvdoxovtes ktX. The phrase occurs in Dio Chrys. Orat. 34% (Seb0ixa py TeA€ws aroBdAnre THVv appyotav) and elsewhere in the 156 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 35, 36. sense of losing courage,. but wappyoia retains its special force (3°) here, and doBddAew is the opposite of xaréyew (“nolite itaque amittere,” vg). The zappyoia is to be maintained, Ftts éxer peyddnv pioOarodociay (as 1176), it is so sure of bringing its reward in the bliss promised by God to cheerful loyalty. Compare the saying of the contemporary rabbi Tarphon: ‘“ faith- ful is the Master of thy work, who will pay thee the reward of thy work, and know thou that the recompense of the reward of the righteous is for the time to come” (/irke Aboth 2}%).. Epictetus makes a similar appeal, in iv. 3. 3 f., not to throw away all that one has gained in character by failing to maintain one’s philosophical principles when one has suffered some loss of property. When you lose any outward possession, recollect what you gain instead of it (ri dvr’ adrod meptmotyn) ; otherwise, you imperil the results of all your past conscientiousness (Soa viv mpocéxers ceauTe@, wédANets Exxelv Aravta Tara Kal dvarpémev). And it takes so little to do this; a mere swerve from reasonable principle (sxpas amrogrpopjs Tov Adyou), a slight drowsiness, and all is lost (4r7\Oev wavra ra béxpt viv cuver\eyuéva). No outward possession is worth having, Epictetus continues, if it means that one ceases to be free, to be God’s friend, to serve God willingly. I must not set my heart on anything else; God does not allow that, for if He had chosen, He would have made such outward goods good for me (dya6a mweroujKer airda dv éuol), Maximus of Tyre again argued that while, for example, men might be willing to endure pain and discomfort for the sake and hope of regaining health, ‘‘if you take away the hope of good to come, you also take away the power of enduring present ills” (ef dpéAos Tid édrlda Tov wéNAovTWY ayadav, dpaipjoets Kal TIWad alpeciv TOY TapdyTwY kax@v, Dzss. xxxiil). To retain the Christian wappyoia means still Smopéver, no longer perhaps in the earlier sense (S7epetvate, v.°*), and yet some- times what has to be borne is harder, for sensitive people, than any actual loss. Such obedience to the will of God assumes many phases, from endurance of suffering to sheer waiting, and the latter is now urged (v.*°). “Ymopovijs yap exete xpetav (512) iva Td O€Anpa Tod Oeod towjoavtes (Suggested by 107®) kopionobe thy émayyeAlay (612 10%), ‘Though the purpose of tropovy is contained in the clause wa. . . érayyeXiav, yet the function of this clause in the sentence is not telic. Its office is not to express the purpose of the principal clause, but to set forth a result (conceived, not actual) of which the possesion of topovy is the necessary condition” (Burton, WZ Moods and Tenses, 93). ‘Yrouovy and trouévew echo through this passage and 121-7, the idea of tenacity being expressed in 10°8—1149 by aiotts. “Yrouovn here as in the LXX (cp. Diéat. 3548a-c) implies the conviction of ‘‘ hope that the evil endured will be either remedied or proved to be no evil.” KopionoOe does not mean to get back or recover, nor to gather in, but simply as in the xow7 to receive, to get what has been promised (rhv émayyeXiay) rather than to get it as our due (which is the idea of pucfarodociav), though X. 36-38. | THE PATIENCE OF HOPE 157 what is promised is in one sense our due, since the promise can only be fulfilled for those who carry out its conditions (6!°), And it will soon be fulfilled. ‘‘ Have patience; it is not long now.” Again he clinches his appeal with an OT word, this time from the prophets (vv.°7 98), "Ere yap (om. p!8) puxpov (sc. €orev) Scov Saov. In de mutat. nomin. 44, Philo comments upon the aptness and significance of the word vaé in the promise of Gn 17)9 (ri yap evTpEeTecTE POV 7 Tayada € ETLVEVELV bea Kal TAXEWS OmorXoyety ; ). Our author has a similar idea in mind, though he is eschatological, as Philo is not. “Ogov égoy is a variant in D (on Lk 53) for 6Acyor. The phrase occurs in Aristoph. Wasps, 213 (té ok drrexouunOjoay dgov dcov otiAnv), and elsewhere, but here it is a reminiscence of the LXX of Is 267° (uixpov doov door). Hence, although puxpdy daov is also used, as by Philo, the omission of the second écov in the text of Hebrews by some cursives (e.g. 6. 181. 326. 1836) and Eusebius is unjustified. The words serve to introduce the real citation, apparently suggested by the term émoporis (v.*9), from Hab 2° 4 éay torepyon, vrdpevov airov, OTe épxopevos H&E Kal Ov 1.9 Xpovion’ €av VrooTetAynTat, ovK EvdoKEl H WuXH pov év adTa' 6 dé Sikatos €x mictews pov Cyoerat, especially as the LXX makes the object of patient hope not the fulfilment of the vision, ze. the speedy downfall of the foreign power, but either messiah or God. (a) The author of Hebrews further adds 6 to /EPXSpEvOS, applying the words to Christ; (4) changes 08 ph xpovion into ob xpovec:! (¢) reverses the order of the last two clauses, and (d) shifts pou in front of ék miotews, as in the A text of the LXX. In the MSS of Hebrews, pov is entirely omitted by p!® DH K L P W cop eth Chrys. etc., to conform the text to the Pauline quotation (Ro 11’, Gal 31), while the original LXX text, with pov after riorews, is preserved in D*¥ d syr?*"**' etc, This text, or at any rate its Hebrew original, meant that the just man (ze. the Israelite) lived by God being faithful to his covenant with the nation. In Mpés “EBpatous the idea is that the just man of God is to live by his own tiotis or loyalty, as he holds on and holds out till the end, timidity meaning daddeva (v.°9), while the Coy promised by God as the reward of human loyalty is the outcome of wiortis (€k wiotews). But our author is interested in morts rather than in ¢w7. The latter is not one of his categories, in the sense of eternal life; this idea he prefers to express otherwise. What he quotes the verse for is its combination of God’s speedy recompense and of the stress on human ziortts, which he proceeds to develop at length. The note struck in 6 Sé€ Suxatds pou also echoes on and on through the following passage (11* "ABeX . . . €paptupyOy etvar Bikatos, 117 NOe... 1This second future, or xpovlce, p'® x* D*, is read by some editors (e.g. Tregelles, W-H, B. Weiss). 158 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 88-XI. 1. THS KaTa Tiot Sixarocdvys, 11° ipydoavro Stxarocdvyy, 12!) Kapmdv drodi8worv Sikaroodvns, 12” mvetpacr Sixatwy teTeheropévov). The aim of (c) was to make it clear, as it is not clear in the LXX, that the subject of bmooreiAntar was 6 Sikatos, and also to make the warning against apostasy the climax. Kat édv brootei\ntar— not simply in fear (as, e.g., Dem. adv. Pant. 630, pydev troored- Adpevov pnd aloyvvopevov), but in the fear which makes men (cp. Gal 2}”) withdraw from their duty or abandon their convictions— od e0Soket 4 ux pou év att. It isa fresh proof of the freedom which the writer uses, that he refers these last seven words to God as the speaker; in Habakkuk the words are uttered by the prophet himself. Then, with a ringing, rallying note, he expresses himself confident about the issue. “Hpets S€ odx éopeév Strootohis (predicate genitive, as in 1211, unless dvdpes or é« is supplied) ets dmaderav, GAAG Tlotews els TepiToinow Wuxjs (=Lhoera, v.58), Mepimoinots occurs three times in the LXX (2 Ch 141%, Hag 29, Mal 3!”) and several times in the NT, but never with wuxjfs, though the exact phrase was known to classical Greek as an equivalent for saving one’s own life. ‘“YzoordXn, its antithesis, which in Jos. BJ. il. 277 means dissimulation, has this new sense stamped on it, after brooretAntar. The exhortation is renewed in 12!*, but only after a long paean on mlotis, with historical illustrations, to prove that wioris has always meant hope and patience for loyal members of the People (11**°). The historical résumé (11**°), by which the writer seeks to kindle the imagination and conscience of his readers, is prefaced by a brief introduction (111 *): 1 Now faith means we are confident of what we hope for, Dieses of what we do not see. *Tt was for this that the men of old won thetr record, * It is by fatth we understand that the world was fashioned by the word of God, and thus the visible was made out of the invisible. Calvin rightly protested against any division here, as an in- terruption to the thought: ‘“‘quisquis hic fecit initium capitis undecimi, perperam contextum abrupit.” The following argu- ment of 11/49 flows directly out of 10°5°9: tyouovy is justified and sustained by wio7ts, and we have now a Adyos rapaxAnoews on pipntal tav dua aictews Kal pakpoOvuias KAnpovopovvTwy Tas érayyeAias (61%). Hitherto the only historical characters who have been mentioned have been Abraham, Melchizedek, Moses, Aaron, and Joshua; and Abraham alone has been mentioned for his ziores ; now a long list of heroes and heroines of riore is put forward, from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs. But first (vv.? 3) a general word on faith. “Eotty S€ miotts KTA. (v. a) ES is needless to put a comma after miots, 2.¢., “there is such a thing as faith, faith really exists.” Hiyé at the beginning of a XI. 1.] WHAT FAITH MEANS | 159 sentence does not necessarily carry this meaning ; cp. e.g. Wis 7) ciul pev Kaya Ovynrds, Lk 8" éorw Se atrn 7 rapaBoAn (Jn 21% and 1 Jn 5!’ etc.). “Eorw here is simply the copula, miots being the subject, and éAmLopévwy bmdctacts the predicate. This turn of phrase is common in Philo, who puts éo7r: first in descriptions or definitions (e.g. Leg. Allegor. ill. 75, éors 8 orevaypos opodpa Kal émirerapéevy AVN: guod deus immut. 19, gate Oe Edy pev airnois adyabdv mapa Geod xrr.). Needless difficulties have been raised about what follows. ‘Yméctacvs is to be understood in the sense of 3/4 “une assurance certaine” (Ménégoz) ; “faith is a sure confidence of thynges which are hoped for, and a certaynetie of thynges which are not seyne” (Tyndale), the opposite of iroordAy. In the parallel clause, mpdypatwv éXeyxos ob BXeTro-~ pévwv (which in Attic Greek would have been dv dy ris px dpa), grammatically rpdypatwv might go with éAmfopevey instead of with BAetopévwy, for the sake of emphasis (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, von Soden, etc.); the sense would be unaffected, but the balance of the rhythm would be upset. “EXeyxos is used in a fresh sense, as the subjective “conviction” (the English word has acquired the same double sense as the Greek); as Euthymius said, it is an equivalent for tpayudrwv dopdtwy tAnpo- gopia (so syr arm eth). The writer could find no Greek term for the idea, and therefore struck out a fresh application for éXeyxos. As for édmlopévev .. . oF Bdetropevwy (3 yap Brézret ths, ti eAmiler; ei 5& 0 ob BA€ropev eArriLopey du tropovis arexdexopueba, Ro 8% 25), the unseen realities of which faith is confident are almost entirely in the future as promised by God, though, as the sequel shows, Ta od. BXewspeva (e.g. vv. ™ ® 27) are not precisely the same as ra éAmiloueva. It cannot be too emphatically pointed out that the writer did not mean to say: (a) that faith gave substance or reality to unseen hopes, though this is the interpretation of the Greek fathers (Chrysostom, for example, argues : éreion Ta ev eArridu dvuTocrata elvat Soxel, 4 miatis b6- otracw avrois xapilerar’ padrdov dé od yxapilerar GAN aito éorw ovocia avrdv). When the writer declares that it is by faith we understand that the world was created, he does not mean that faith imparts reality to the creation; nor, when he says, eg., the patriarchs lived in the expectation of a celestial Fatherland, that they thereby made this more real to themselves. No doubt this was true in a sense; but the author’s point is that just because these objects of hope were real, because, e.g., God had prepared for them a City, therefore they were justified in having faith. It is faith as the reflex of eternal realities or rewards ‘promised by God which is fundamental in this chapter, the faith by which a good man lives. (4) Similarly, faith is not the éXeyxos of things unseen in the sense of “‘ proof,” which could only mean 160 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS {XI. 1. that it tests, or rather attests, their reality. The existence of human faith no doubt proves that there is some unseen object which calls it out, but the writer wishes to show, not the reality of these unseen ends of God—he assumes these—but the fact and force of believing in them with absolute confidence. Such erroneous interpretations arise out of the notion that the writer is giving an abstract definition of wiotts, whereas he is describing it, in view of what follows, as an active conviction which moves and moulds human conduct. The happiest description of it is, ‘seeing Him who is invisible” (v.?’); and this idea is applied widely ; sometimes it is belief in God as against the world and its forces, particularly the forces of human injustice or of death, sometimes belief in the spirit as against the senses, sometimes again (and this is prominent in 115) belief in the future as against the present. In the papyri (e.g. in OP. il. pp. 153, 176, where in the plural it= ‘* the whole body of documents bearing on the ownership of a person’s property . deposited in the archives, and forming the evidence of ownership”) daée- Tagis means occasionally the entire collection of title-deeds by which a man establishes his right to some property (cp. Moulton in Manchester Theological Essays, i. 174; Exposttor, Dec. 1903, pp. 438f.); but while this might suggest the metaphor, the metaphor means ‘‘confident assurance.” The original sense of substance or reality, as in the de Mundo, 4 (ovAANBSnvy be rv @ dép. pavracudtwr Td pév éore kat’ éudaow Ta Oe Kad’ brécraciv), survives in Dante's interpretation (Paradiso, xxiv. 61f.). He quotes the words asa definition of faith : ‘* Fede é sustanzia di cose sperate, e >) ] ed argumento delle non parventi, adding that he understands this to be its ‘‘quidity” or essence. But the notion that faith imparts a real existence to its object is read into the text. Faith as vréoraors is “‘ realization” of the unseen, but ‘‘ realization” only in our popular, psychological sense of the term. The legal or logical sense of EXeyXos, as proof (in classical Greek and elsewhere, e.g. Jos. B/. iv. 5. 4, iw 8 ovr Eheyxos Tus THv Karyyopoupévwy, obre TeKurpiov) is out of place here. The existence of human faith is in one sense a proof that an invisible order exists, which can alone explain men acting as they do év miore, But the writer assumes that, and declares that wicris lives and moves in the steady light of the unseen realities. The sense of ‘‘ test,” as in Epictetus, iii, 10. 11 (€v0d5 6 &eyxos Tod mpdyuaros, 7) Soxiyuacla rod Piiocogobvros), is as impossible here as that of ‘‘rebuke”; the force of mioris in 113-4 rests on its subjective sense as an inner conviction, which forms a motive for human life, and this determines the meaning of vmrécracts and \eyxos as applied to it in the introductory description. This connexion of faith with the future is emphasized by Philo inde Migratione Abrahami, 9, commenting on Gn 12! ww cot detEw. It is dew, not deckvupt, he points out—eis paptupiay tistews Nv eriotevoey Woxn Ged, odK ek Tov drorekcopaTuy éeriderkvupevy TO €vdxapioTov, GAN ex mpoadokias TOV peAdOvTOV .. . vopicaca non Tapetvar Ta py wapdvta Sua THY Tod troc XO- XI. 1-3. ] FAITH AND CREATION 161 pévov BeBadrnta riotw [cp. He 10%], dyafov réXeov, a&OXAov evpyra. Faith thus relies upon God’s promise and eagerly ex- pects what is to come; indeed it lives for and in the future. So our writer uses miotis, almost as Paul used éAmis (psycho- logically the two being often indistinguishable). Nor is this riots a novelty in our religion (v.”), he adds, év tadty yap éuaptupyOnoay (78) ot mpeoButepo. “Ev=81d (tadtys) as in 4° 6'° 972 1019; SY fis éuaptupyOy (v.4), paptupndévtes Bid THs mlotews (v.%9), OF mpeoBurepor (= ot marépes, 11) never bears this exact sense else- where in the NT, the nearest! parallel being Mt 152= Mk 735 (rv mwapadoow tov mpecButepwv). Philo (de Abrahamo 46), indeed, noting that Abraham the man of faith is the first man called wpeoBurepos in scripture (Gn 241), reflects that this is significant ; 6 yap dAnOeia tpeaBurepos ovK év pryjKer xpdvwv GAN’ ev éraiveT@ Kai TeAciw Biw Oewpetrar. Aged worldly people can only be called longlived children, tov d€ dpovyjcews Kai codias Kal Tis mpos Oedv riatews épacbevta éyou Tis Gv évdixws eivar mpec BvreEpov. But our author weaves no such fancies round the word, though he probably understood the term in an honorific sense (cp. Philo, de Sobrietate, 4, mpecBitepov . . . Tov yépws kal TYynns aévov évonale). For épaptupndycay in this sense of getting a good report, cp. B. Latyschev’s Juscript. Antiguae Orae Septent. i. a176f guaprupnbn tovs imép gPidias Kuwdvvous . . . mapafsorcvod- pevos: Syl. 366% (i A.D.) dpxuréxrovas paptupybévras imd Tis oeuvorarns [BovAys], and the instances quoted in Deissmann’s Bible Studies (265). Before describing the scriptural record of the mpeoButepo., however, the writer pauses to point out the supreme proof of mioTis aS mpaypdtev éNeyxos oF BdeTopévwv. The very world within which they showed their faith and within which we are to show our faith, was the outcome of what is invisible (v.), and this conviction itself is an act of faith. Mlotet voodpev (cp. Ro 1%; ‘yvoety is in Hellenistic Greek the current word for the apprehension of the divine in nature,” A. T. Goodrick on Wis 13) xatynpticbat (of creation, Ps 7316 ob xarypriow yAtov Kal cednvnv) Tods aidvas (17) prpat Oeod (the divine fiat here), eis (with consecutive infinitive) Td ph &k dawopevwv Td BdeTopuevov yeyovévat (perfect of permanence). The py goes with davopévwy, but is thrown before the preposition as, ¢g.,in Ac 1° od pera moAXas tavTas muepas (according to a familiar classical con- struction, Blass, § 433. 3).2. Faith always answers to revelation, 1W. Brandt (/sidische Reinhettslehre und thre Beschretbung in den Evangelien, 1910, pp. 2, 3) thinks that this expression might apply to the more recent teachers as well as to the ancient authorities. 2In 2 Mac 7% ovk e& dvTwy éroinoev atta 6 Oeds (A), the ovxK goes with the verb. II 162 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ [XI. 1-8. and creation is the first revelation of God to man. Creation by the fiat of God was the orthodox doctrine of Judaism, and anyone who read the OT would accept it as the one theory about the origin of the world (cp. eg. the description of God in the Mechilta, 334, on Ex 14%! etc. as “‘ He who spoke and the world was,” Doiyn mn) joxwv, and Apoc. Bar. 1417: “when of old there was no world with its inhabitants, Thou didst devise and speak with a word, and forthwith the works of creation stood before Thee”). But the explicitness of this sentence about creation out of what is invisible, suggests that the writer had other views in mind, which he desired to repudiate. Possibly Greek theories like those hinted at in Wis ro!” about the world! being created é€ dudpdov vAns, or the statement in the de aeternitate mundt, 2, where Philo declares éx rod pH dvros ovdey yiverat, quoting Empedocles to this effect, though elsewhere Philo does agree that the world was made out of nothing, as, é.g., in the de Somniis, i. 13 (6 eds Ta avta yevvynoas od povov eis ToOvpdaves nyayev GAXA Kat & mpdrepov odK Hv erotnoev, od Syutovpyos pdvov dAXG Kal KTioTYyS avTos wv, Cp. also Apoc. Bar. 214: “O Thou . that hast called from the beginning of the world that which did not yet exist,” and Slav. En. 247: ‘I will tell thee now what things I created from the non-existent, and what visible things from the invisible”). What the ph gawdneva were, our author does not suggest. R. Akiba is said to have applied the words of Ps rox’ to anyone who rashly speculated on the original material of the world. Our author does not speculate; it is very doubtful if he intends (Windisch, M‘Neill) to agree with Philo’s idea (in the de opificio Mundi, 16, de confus..ling. 34) of the davopevos ovTos Koopos being modelled on the dowparos kai vontos or archetypal ideas, for the language of 8° is insufficient to bear the weight of this inference. To take eis TO... . yeyovévar as final, is a forced construction. The phrase does not describe the motive of xarnpric@a:, and if the writer had meant, ‘*so that we might know the seen came from the unseen,” ? he would have written this, instead of allowing the vital words mzght know to be supplied. The roll-call of the mpeoButepot (vv.4f) opens with Abel and Enoch, two men who showed their iors before the deluge (vv.46). One was murdered, the other, as the story went, never died ; and the writer uses both tales to illustrate his point about TLOTLS. 1LXX of Gn 1? 7 5 yf fv ddparos cal dxarackevacros. 2 At an early period 7d BAerduevoy was altered into rd Pderdpueva (DK LW 6. 104. 218. 326. 1288. r vg syr arm), to conform with the previous plurals BAerouévwv and dparvouévwy, XI. 4.] THE FAITH OF ABEL 163 4 ]t was by faith (rloret, the rhetorical anaphora repeated throughout the section) ¢hat Abel offered God a richer sacrifice than Cain did, and thus (6 fis, sc. mwlarews) won from God the record of being “‘just,” on the score of what he gave ; he died, but by hts faith he ts speaking to us still. ° lt was by faith that Enoch was taken to heaven, so that he never died (‘‘he was not overtaken by death, for God had taken himaway”). For before he was taken to heaven, his record was that ‘‘ he had satisfied God”; § and apart from faith it zs impossible (adbvaror, sc. ort) ‘* to satisfy him,” for the man who draws near to God must believe that he exists, and that he does reward those who seek him. The faith of Abel and of Enoch is not mlotis eAmfLopéver, which is not introduced till v.22. In 4 Mac 16” the illustrations of steadfast faith are (2) Abraham sacrificing Isaac, (4) Daniel in the den of lions, and (c) the three men in the fiery furnace; but in 1844 the list of noble sufferers includes (2) Abel, (4) Isaac, (c) Joseph in prison, (d) Phinehas, (e) the three men in the fiery furnace, and (f) Daniel. Sirach’s eulogy of famous men in Israel (44-50) has a wider sweep: Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Joshua, Caleb, the judges, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, the twelve prophets, Zerubbabel, Joshua the son of Josedek, Nehemiah, and the highpriest Simon (fe. down to the second century B.c.). The first illustration (v.*) is much less natural than most of those that follow. In the story of Gn 4*°, emidev 6 Geds eri *ABedr Kal ért ToIs Owpois adrod. But why God disregarded Cain’s sacri- fice and preferred Abel’s, our author does not explain. Josephus (Ant. i. 54) thought that an offering of milk and animals was more acceptable to God as being natural (rots adroydrois Kal Kara dvow yeyovdor) than Cain’s cereal offering, which was wrung out of the ground by a covetous man; our author simply argues that the wAciwy Ovoia of Abel at the very dawn of history was prompted by faith. He does not enter into the nature of this melova (in sense of Mt 6 or Mk 124 4 ynpa atrn 4 arwyi mreov mavrwv BéBrAyxev) buctay mapa (as in 14) Kdiv, offered at the first act of worship recorded in scripture. What seems to be implied is that faith must inspire any worship that is to be acceptable to God from anyone who is to be God’s Sixatos (1038), Josephus held that Abel dicaroctvys émipedeiro, the blood of “ABeA rod dixafov is noted in Mt 23°%5, and the Genesis-words ézidev 6 Oeds are here expanded by our author into épaptupyOy etvat Sikatos. Note the practical equivalence of Sapa and Ovoia, as already in 51 etc. There is nothing in Ipds ‘EBpaious like Philo’s effort (Quaest. in Gen. 4*) to distinguish between dépa and @vaias as follows: 6 pev Otwy emidiatpe?, TO pev aipa TO Bwyd mpoxéwy, Ta Sé Kpéa oikade Kopilwv’ 6 dé Swpovpevos dAov Eouxe Tapaxwpely TH AapBavovre’ 6 pev otv didavros diavopeds olos 6 Kdiv, 6 8 pirddeos Swpytat ofov 6 “APed., 164 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (XI. 4. MrXelova: of the conjectural emendations, IIONA and HAIONA (Cobet, Vollgraff), the latter is favoured by Justin's reference in Dial, 29 (evddxnoe yap kal els Ta €Ovy, Kai Tas Ovolas 7Ocov Tap hw i) rap vpay AauBaver’ rls otv ére pool mepiroujs NOvyos, Ud TOU Geot paprupnbevre;), and is admitted into the text by Baljon and Blass (so Maynard in Exp." vii. 164f., who infers from paprupnberre that Justin knew IIpdés ‘Efpatous, the original text of the latter being air@ rod Geod). In Demosth. Prooem. 23, ijd:ov has been cor- rupted into zAetoy, In what follows, (a) the original text (uaptupodytos . . . atta to0 Geod) is preserved in p!® Clem. (om. 7r@ 60). (4) adra then became airod under the influence of the LXX, and 7@ Oe was inserted after mpoonveyxe to complete the sense (8° D° K L P r vg syr boh arm Orig. Chrys. etc.). Finally, (c) rod Geot became assimilated to the preceding r@ Geo, and paprupotyros ... . avrod TO Jed (N*¥ A D* 33. 104. 326. 1311. 1836. eth) became current, as though Abel witnessed to God, instead of God witnessing to Abel. Thus after zpoojveyxe the Greek originally ran: 8 fs épaptupyOn etvar Sikatos, papTupodryTos emt Tots Swpots aT Tod Geo’. Then another application of the LXX was added. The phrase in Gn 4! (dwv7 aiuatos Tod ddeAhod cov Bog mpds pe) had already suggested to Philo that Abel was in a sense still living (guod det. potiort insta. soleat, 14: 6 "ABeA, 75 tapadogdraror, dujpyrat TE Kal fy avypytas pev ek TS TOU apovos diavoias, cS) de thy év Geo Conv evoaiova’ paptupyae de 70 xpnobev Adytov, € ev & “ hovn” xpdpevos kat ‘* Boov” (Gen 41°) a merovOev ind Kaxod ovvdéerov TNAAVY OS etploxetau’ Tas yap 6 pyKér dv dvadéyerOau Suvards ;). Our author takes a similar line here: kat 80° adris (Ze. mictews) arobavay ere Aadet. Even after death, Abel’s cry is represented as reaching God, so Philo puts it (ibid. 20), Cn pev yap, as Kai mporepov epyy, 6 0 reOvavar doxar, el YE Kat iKETNS WV Geod Kat pwvy Xpapevos evpioxerat. Only, it is not the fact that the cry was one for retribution (12%) which is stressed here, not the fact that his blood cried to God after he died; but, as AaXeciy is never used of speaking to God, what the writer means to suggest (as in 3!5) is that Abel’s faith still speaks to us (Aad, not the historic present, but =in the record). Not even in 1274 does he adopt the idea of a divine nemesis for the sufferings of the pious in past generations. He does not represent the blood of martyrs like Abel as crying from the ground for personal vengeance ; he has nothing of the spirit which prompted the weird vision of the wronged souls under the altar crying out for retribution (Rev 61). “Er Xadet means, in a general sense, that he is an eloquent, living witness to all ages (so recently Seeberg). Primasius (“qui enim alios suo exemplo admonet ut justi sint, quomodo non loquitur ? ”) and Chry- sostom (rotro kal tod fhv onpetov cort, Kal Tov Tropa TAVTWV adecbat, OavpalerOar kai paxapiler Oar’ 6 yap wapawdv trois dAXots Sixaios etvac Aare?) put this well. The witness is that rioris may XI. 4, 5.] THE FAITH OF ENOCH 165 have to face the last extreme of death (124), and that it is not abandoned by God; dmo@avdév is never the last word upon a Sikatos. Compare Tertullian’s argument from Abel, in De Scor- piace, 8: “a primordio enim justitia vim patitur. Statim ut coli Deus coepit, invidiam religio sortita est: qui Deo placuerat, occiditur, et quidem a fratre; quo proclivius impietas alienum sanguinem sectaretur, a suo auspicata est. Denique non modo justorum, verum etiam et prophetarum.” The difficulty of XaXe? led to the tame correction AaAe?rac in D K L d eth, etc. Aade?ra: as passive (= Aéyerat) i is nearly as impossible as middle ; to say that Abel, even after death, is still spoken of, is a tepid idea. The writer of Hebrews meant more than an immortal memory, more even than Epictetus when he declared that by dying ére Ge. kai ws &de. one may do even more good to men than he did in life, like Socrates (iv. 1. 169, Kal viv Xwxpdrous amobavdvros ovbev Hrrov Hh Kal wrelov whériuds eoTw avOpwrots uYHUN Gv ere fv Erpagev h elev). The miotis “Evéx (vv.> 6) is conveyed in an interpretation of the LXX of Gn 5% kai einpéotncey “Evox TO Ged" Kal ovdx nupioKero, Sudte peteOnkey avtov 6 Geos. The writer takes the two clauses in reverse order. Enoch peteté6y tod (with infinitive of result) ph iSetv Odvarov (Lk 27°) kat (“indeed,” introducing the quotation) obx npicKero (on this Attic augmented form, which became rare in the xow7, see Thackeray, 200) Sidte eapneel adtév 6 Beds, mpd yap (resuming miore. peteTéOn) THs petabéocws pepaptupyta. (in the scripture record ; hence the perfect, which here is practically aoristic) Brceerttepet TO OeoG (etapeorety in its ordinary Hellenistic sense of a servant giving satisfaction to his master). For ebpicxeoPar=die (be overtaken or surprised by death),! cp. Epict. iii 5. 5 f., ov« oidas 6rt Kal vdcos kal Odvaros kataXaBetv jpas opeiAovaiv ti wote movodvTas; . . . epuol pev yap KarakndOnvat yevowro pndevos GAXov eriehoupevyr 7 7] THS Tpoapecews TIS €nnS ys Tatra ériTndevwv Oérdw etpeOivat: IV. 10. 12, d&yaGos ov arobavy, yevvaiay mpagwv emiTeNav. érel yap det mavTws eeaguy ea dvdyKn | ti mote ToLovvTa. evpeOnvar . . . TL ovv Oédes ToLdV EbpeOHVvaL tr6 tov Oavdrov; Here etpePjvar (with or without rod deer) is a synonym for Katadyn pOnvat or amroOaveiv, as in Ph 3° (etpeG év atta). Both Clem. Rom. (9?) and Origen, like Tertullian, appear to have read odx etpéOn atrod Odvaros in Gn 5%; and Blass therefore reads here ovx nuptoxer(o) avrot Odvaros, especially as it suits his scheme of rhythm. This is linguistically possible, as evpicxer@ar=be (cp. Fr. se trouver), e.g. in Lk 1738, Ph 28. Meré@yKev was turned into the pluperfect uereréOnxev by x* D° iy 5. 204. 250,257. 320: 337. 378. 393. 491. 500. 623. 1611, etc. Traditions varied upon Enoch (£47. 12952), and even Alex- andrian Judaism did not always canonize him in this way. (a) 1 In Sifre Deut. 304, the angel of death sought Moses, but found him not (xy x). 166 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI 5, 6. The author of Wis 41°, without mentioning his name, quotes Gn 5% as if it meant that God removed Enoch from life early (kai Cov peragd dpaprwdav perereOn) 1 in order to prevent him from sharing the sin of his age (npwdyn, py Kaxia dAAdEn ovverw adrod, H Soros ararnon Wxyv avrov); he departed young, but his removal was a boon mercifully granted by God to his youthful piety. (4) Philo views him in de Abrahamo, 3 (cp. de praem. 3-4), aS a type of perdvow. Quoting Gn 5*%4 he points out that peraGeots means a change for the better, and that odx ytpicKero is therefore appropriate, t@ Tov dpyatov Kat éridnrrov aradnrAipbat Blov kat jdavicba Kat pyxed ecipioxerOat, xabarep ei pnde TiHV apxnv éyevero. The Greek version of Sir 441° echoes the same tradition ("Evwx etypéorycey Kupiw Kat perereOy, trodeypa peravolas Tats yeveais), viz. that pweréOyxev implies the effacement of Enoch’s blameable past, or at any rate that he was enrolled in better company. Our author does not share this view. His general deduction in v.6 expands the description of wmiortes in v.?. To say that a man has satisfied God is to pronounce the highest possible eulogy upon him, says Philo! (de Abrahamo, 6, “7d Oo evnpéotncey’” ov Ti yevoir av ev TH ioe KpeitTov; Tis KaAoKayabias. ' évapyéorepos éXeyxos;), though he is referring to Noah, not to Enoch. Our author explains that to satisfy God necessarily implies mioris (v. ®) in the sense of 10%. Motedcar yap Set tov Tpocepxdpevov 7 Ged (41° etc.) 6 6rt €oTiv (so pict. ii. 26. 1 5s Stu Kai gore Kal Karas Srouel Td dAa) Kal Tots &xLntodow adTov proBarodétns (cf. v.26 10%) yiverat. As for the first element of belief, in the existence of God (87 éottv), the early commentators, from Chrysostom (dre éorw* ov 76 ti éorw: cp. Tert. adv. Marc. i. 17, “primo enim quaeritur an sit, et ita qualis sit ”) and Jerome (on Is 61-7, in Anecdota Maredsolana, i lil, 3. 110: ‘cumque idem apostolus Paulus scribit in alio loco, Credere oportet accedentem ad Deum quia est, non posuit quis et qualis sit debere cognosci, sed tantum quod sit. Scimus enim esse Deum, scimusque quid non sit; quid autem et qualis sit, scire non possumus ”) onwards, emphasize the fact that it is God’s existence, not his nature, which is the primary element of faith. Philo does declare that the two main problems of enquiry are into God’s existence and into his essence (de Monarch. 1. 4-6), but our author takes the more practical, religious line, and he does not suggest how faith in 1 Philo fancifully allegorizes the phrase in the de mutat. nomin. 4: POelperar ody elxdrws 7d yeGdes cal xaradverat, Srayv Sros Se Srwv 6 voids evaperreiy mpoéA\ntat Oew* omdviov dé Kal rd yévos Kal wdrdts edpioxduevor, wiv ovK advvarov yevécBar’ Sndot 5é 7d xpnobev emi Tod ’Evwyx Adytov Tdde° ednpéornce 5é’Hvax Te 0e@ Kal obx evpirxeTo* rod yap creWdperds Tis eUpo. rayabdv rotro; .. . obx evdploxero 6 evapnorioa stpbros TH Oew, ws dy Oxrou vrapxros mev Ov, droxpuTréuevos 5é cal rhy els TavTd cbvodov nud Gmrodidpaokwv, éredh Kal werareOjvar Aéyerat. iG. 7s) _ FAITH AND GOD 167 God’s existence is to be won or kept. When objectors asked him why he believed in the existence of the gods, Marcus Aurelius used to reply: mparov pév Kal der dpatol ciow* éretra MEVTOL OVE THY WuXHY TIV E“AUTOD EWpaKa Kal OUWS TIO’ OVTWS OdV kal Tovs Oeovs, €& dv tHs Svvdpews aitdv ExaoroTe weipGpat, éx TovTwy oTt Te cio KataAauBavw Kat aidodvpat (xii. 28). We have no such argument against atheism here; only the reminder that faith does imply a belief in the existence of God—a reminder which would appeal specially to those of the readers who had been born outside Judaism. Belief in the existence of God is for our author, however, one of the elementary principles of the Chris- tian religion (6!); the stress here falls on the second element, kat... pioOamodérns ytverat. When the Stoics spoke about belief in the divine existence, they generally associated it with belief in providence; both Seneca (Z/. xcv. 50, ‘‘ primus est deorum cultus deos credere . . . scire illos esse qui praesident mundo, quia universa vi sua temperant, qui humani generis tutelam gerunt interdum curiosi singulorum”) and Epictetus (e.g. li, 14. 11, A€yovow of Pirdcopot dtu pabeiv det rpOrov Tovro, ste éote Feds Kat mpovoet TOY GAwy: Enchir. xxxi. 1, THS wept Tods Beods evoeBeias icOw dtu Td KUpLmbTatov exeivd eat dpOds trorAnWes Tepi avTav éxew Os dvTwy Kal dtocKovvTw Ta CAG KAaA@s Kal diKaiws) are contemporary witnesses to this connexion of ideas, which, indeed, is as old as Plato (Leges, go5d, dre pev yap Geot + eiciv Kai avOporwy érieAodvvTat). Tots éx{itodow adtéy (for which p!8 P read the simple Cyrodow) denotes, not philosophic enquiry, but the practical religious quest, as in the OT (¢g. Ac 1517, Ro 3"). This is not Philo’s view, e.g., in the Leg. Alleg. 35 ci d& Cytotoa ebpyoes Pedy adydov, moAAols yap ovK epavépwoev Eavtov, GAN ateAH Tv omrovdyy axpt mavTos éoyov' e€apKkel pévtou mpos petovoiay ayalav Kat YAov TO fnreiv povov, del yap ai emt Ta Kad dppal Kav TOU TéAOVS aTvXdoL TOUS xpwuevous Tpoevppaivovow. But our author has a simpler belief; he is sure that the quest of faith is always successful. By God’s reward he means that the faith of man reaching out to God is never left to itself, but met by a real satisfaction; God proves its rewarder. Such faith is a conviction which illustrates 11}, for the being of God is an unseen reality and his full reward is at present to be hoped for. A still more apt illustration of miotts as the éXeyxos mpaypatwv ov BXeropévwv which becomes a motive in human life, now occurs in (v.7) the faith which Noah showed at the deluge when he believed, against all appearances to the contrary, that he must obey God’s order and build an ark, although it is true that in this case the unseen was revealed and realized within the lifetime of the 8Sixatos. Like Philo, our author passes from Enoch te 168 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [xI. 7. Noah, although for a different reason. Philo ranks Noah as the lover of God and virtue, next to Enoch the typical penitent (de Abrah. 3y 5) ELKOTWS TO peTaVEVONnKOTL TaTTEL KATA TO EENS TOV Deopidn Kat iAdperov) ; here both are grouped as examples of tiotts. Sirach (4417!) also passes at once from Enoch to Noah the dikatos. 7 Tt was by Saith (riores) that Noah, after being told by God (xpnuariabels, 8°, sc. mapa Tot Beov) of what was still unseen (r&v pniérw BreTopévwy, 7.€. the deluge), reverently (ethaBnOels, cp. 5") constructed (karecxevacer, as I P 3°) an ark to save his household ; thus he condemned the world and became hetr of the righteousness that follows faith. The writer recalls, though he does not quote from, the story of Gn 615f, fMiorer goes closely with edAdByOeis xateckedacer, and epi t. p. BAetronevwv goes with xpnpatioGeis (as Jos. Azz. iv. 102, éxpyparilero wept dv édetro), not with edAaBnbeis, which is not a synonym for dofnbeis—the writer is at pains always to exclude fear or dread from faith (cp. vv.2% 27), Eis owrtyptay is to be taken as = “‘to save alive” (Ac 2779 raaa éAmis Tod cwlerOat Hpas, 2754 rodto yap mpos THS bperépas cwrypias drdpye). Av As (ze. by the faith he thus exhibited; as both of the following clauses depend on this, it cannot refer to the ark, which would suit only the first) katéxpwe Tov Kédopov, Where KOT EK pLVEV corresponds to what is probably the meaning of Wis 4’ Kataxpwvet d€ diKkatos KaLOV tous Lavras doeBels, though kapov (=Oavev) is not the point of Hebrews, which regards Noah’s action as shaming the world, throwing its dark scepticism into relief against his own shining faith in God (Josephus, in Azz. i. 75,. puts it less pointedly: 6 dé Oeds rotrov pev THs Sixaocivys HyaTyGE, KaTedixale 8 éxeivous); Kécpos here (as in v.*8) means sinful humanity, almost in the sense so common in the Johannine vocabulary, the koopos adoeBav of 2 P 25. Philo (de congressu erudit. 17) notes that Noah was the first man in the OT to be specially called (Gn 6°) 8ixatos; but our author, who has already called Abel and Noah dikatos, does not use this fact; he contents himself with saying that tis kata miotw Sixaroodvns éyéveto KAnpd- vonos, 2.¢. he became entitled to, came into possession of, the dixacoovvy which is the outcome or property (kara xrX., aS in Hellenistic Greek, cp. Eph 115, a periphrasis for the possessive genitive) of such faith as he showed. Atxatoovvn here is the state of one who is God’s dikatos (6 dikatos pov, 108), A vivid description of Noah’s faith is given in Mark Rutherford’s novel, The Deliverance, pp. 162, 163. The faith of Abraham, as might be expected, receives more attention than that of any other (cp. Ac 776), It is described in three phases (8 9-10. 17-19) ; the faith of his wife Sara is attached to his (11-12), and a general statement about his immediate descend- XI. 7-9. ] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 169 ants is interpolated (15-16) before the writer passes from the second to the third phase. As in Sirach and Philo, Abraham follows Noah. ‘‘Ten generations were there from Noah to Abraham, to show how great was His longsuffering ; for all the generations were provoking Him, til] Abraham our father came and received the reward of them all” (Pirke Adoth 53). 8 Tt was by faith that Abraham obeyed his call to go forth to a place which he would recetve as an inheritance ; he went forth, although he did not know where he was to go. * It was by faith that he ‘‘sojourned” in the promised land, as in a foreign country, residing in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were co-heirs with him of the same promise ; he was waiting for the City with tts fixed foundations, whose builder and maker is God. The first phase (v.8) is the call to leave Mesopotamia and travel West, which is described in Gn 121, The writer does not dwell, like Philo (de Abrahamo, 14), on the wrench of tearing oneself from one’s home. But, as Philo says that Abraham started dua to KeAevoOjvar, our author begins with kadovpevos. When the call came, he obeyed it—émpxoucev éfeMetv (epexegetic infinitive), a reminiscence of Gn 12!)4 kai elrey xvpios To "ABpap, "E€eAOe . . . Kai eropevOn “ABpap xadarep ehadrnoev aito kvptos. He went out from Mesopotamia, ph émotdpevos moi €pxetat, his faith being tested by this uncertainty. So Philo (de Migr. Abrah. 9) notes the point of the future deéw in Gn 12); it 1s eis paptupiay rictews nv éeriotevoev 4 Woxn Jew. The insertion of 6 before kadovpevos (A D 33. 256. 467. 1739. 2127 sah boh arm Thdt.) turns the phrase into an allusion to Abraham’s change of name in Gn 17°, which is irrelevant to his earlier call to leave the far East. The second phase (vv.® !°) is the trial of patience. He did not lose heart or hope, even when he did reach the country appointed to him, although he had to wander up and down it as a mere foreigner, eis (=év, Mk 1316 Ac 84°) . . . ddotpiar. He found the land he had been promised still in the hands of aliens, and yet he lived there, lived as an alien in his own country! Mapwxyoev is the opposite of katéxyoev (as in Gn 373), and with a fine touch of paradox the writer therefore goes on to describe Abraham as év oxnvats xatounoas, contented patiently to lead a wandering, unsettled life. Such was all the ‘‘ residence” he ever had! What sustained him was his wriotts (v.19), his eager outlook for the City, fs texvitns Kal Snproupyds 6 Beds. Compare the scholion on Lucian’s Jov. Zrag. 38: bv d1 Gedv Kat Snpcovpyov 6 evoeBs avevpyKos Aoyiopos Epopov Kal TExXViTHV TOU TaVvTOS mpoeutpemicev. Texvirns is not a LXX term, and only began to be used of God in Alexandrian Judaism (e.g. in Wis 13!). This is the one place in the NT where it is applied to God; after- wards (e.g. Did. 128; Diognetus, 72) it became more common. Anptoupyss is equally unique as a NT term for God, but it occurs 170 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XI. 9-12. in 2 Mac 4}, and was used in classical literature frequently for a subordinate deity (cp. Schermann, Zexte u. Untersuchungen, xxxiv. 26. 23). In Apoc. Esdrae (ed. Tisch. 32) the phrase occurs, 6 raons THS KTicews Syptovpydés. Our author simply writes Texvityns Kal Syptoupyds as a rhetorical expression for maker or creator (8), without differentiating the one term from the other, as “designer” and “constructor” (cp. Philo, gués rer. div. 27, 6 texvitns ... Qvika tov Kdcpov eOnurovpye: de mut. nom. 4, COnke TA TAVTO. O yevVNTAS Kal TexVLTEVOAS TaTHp, BoTE TO “ eyd elt eds aos” ivov éott TH “ éyw ele moinrys Kat Snpwoupyds ”). In % the writer adds a new touch (as if to suggest that Abraham propagated his wiorts) in peta “loadk Kat “laxép !—who shared the same outlook—rév cuykAnpovépwv (a xown, though not a LXX, term for co-heir) rijs émayyeAtas tis adtis. Their individual faith is noted later (vv.”° 21). In sketching his fine mystical interpretation of Abraham’s hope, the author ignores the fact that Jacob, according to Gn 33!" (éroincey atta éxet oixias), did erect a permanent settlement for himself at Sukkoth. His immediate interest is not in Isaac and Jacob but in Abraham, and in the contrast of the tent-life with the stable, settled existence in a city—the idea which recurs in 122? 1314, It is a Philonic thought in germ, for Philo (Zeg. Alleg. 377) declares that the land promised by God to Abraham is a woAts ayaby Kal moAAy Kal opddpa eddaiuwv, typifying the higher con- templation of divine truth in which alone the soul is at home, or that the soul lives for a while in the body as in a foreign land (de Somniis, 154), till God in pity conducts it safe to pyntpdmoXts or immortality. The historical Abraham never dreamed of a wéXts, but our author imaginatively allegorizes the promised land once more (cp. 4°£), this time as (12?) a celestial réAs or Jerusalem, like Paul and the apocalyptists. According to later tradition in Judaism, the celestial Jerusalem was shown in a vision to Abraham at the scene of Gn 15%?! (Apoc. Bar. 4*), or to Jacob at Bethel (Beresh. rabba on Gn 281"). *EgeSéxeto yap—and this showed the steady patience( 10°*) and inward expectation (11!) of his faith—rhy tods beneXtous (rovs, because it was such foundations that the tents lacked) €xoucay méktw. No doubt there was some- thing promised by God which Abraham expected and did get, in this life; the writer admits that (645-15), But, in a deeper sense, Abraham had yearnings for a higher, spiritual bliss, for heaven as his true home. The fulfilment of the promise about his family was not everything; indeed, his real faith was in an “~ unseen future order of being (111). However, the realization of the one promise about Isaac (618-15) suggests a passing word upon the faith of Sara (vv.1 #2), 1 According to Jubilees 19'** Abraham lived to see Jacob’s manhood. 260 ys He THE FAITH OF SARA 171 1 Tt was by faith that even (kal) Sara got strength to conceive, bearing a son when she was past the age for zt—because she considered she could rely on Him who gave the promise. 1 Thus a single man, though (kal ratra) he was physically impotent, had issue in number ‘‘ like the stars in heaven, countless as the sand on the seashore.” This is the first instance of a woman’s faith recorded, and she is a married woman. Paul (Ro 4!) ignores any faith on her part. Philo again praises Sarah, but not for her faith; it is her loyalty and affection for her husband which he singles out for commendation, particularly her magnanimity in the incident of Gn 16? (de Abrahamo, 42-44). Our author declares that even in spite of her physical condition (kat atrh Xdppa), she believed God when he promised her a child. The allusion is to the tale of Gn 1715-217, which the readers are assumed to know, with its stress on the renewal of sexual functions in a woman of her age. This is the point of xat airy, not ‘mere woman that she was ” (Chrysostom, Oec., Bengel), nor ‘fin spite of her incredulity ” (Bleek), nor “Sara likewise,” z.e. as well as Abraham (Delitzsch, Hofmann, von Soden, Vaughan), owing to her close connexion with Abraham (Westcott, Seeberg), though the notion of “ like- wise” is not excluded from the author’s meaning, since the husband also was an old man. A gloss (oretpa, 7 oreipa, 7 orTeipa ovaa) Was soon inserted by D* P, nearly all the versions, and Origen. ‘This is superfluous, however, and probably arose from dittography (ZSAPPAZTEIPA). ‘The general idea is plain, though there is a difficulty in S8dvapw €daBev (ze. from God) eis KataBodhy oméppatos=cis TO KataBddAcobor oréppa, te. for Abraham the male to do the work of generation upon her. This is how the text was understood in the versions, e.g. the Latin (‘in conceptionem seminis”). Probably it was what the writer meant, though the expression is rather awkward, for xataBoA7 o7mépparos means the act of the male; eis trodoxiv orépyatos would have been the correct words. This has been overcome (a) by omit- ting kal adth Xdppa as a gloss, or (4) by reading adth Xdppa. (a) certainly clears up the verse, leaving Abraham as the subject of both verses (so Field in (Votes on Transi. of NT, p. 232, and Windisch) ; (4) is read by Michaelis, Storr, Rendall, Hort, and Riggenbach, the latter interpreting it not as “‘ dativus commodi,” but= “along with.” If the ordinary text is retained, the idea suggested in xal airy Xdppa is made explicit in mapa Katpov HAuktas. What rendered such faith hard for her was her physical condition. Philo (de Adrah. 22) applies this to both parents (ndn yap trepyAtkes yeyovdres Sia pakpov yhpas aréyvwoayv Tatoos o7opav), and a woman in the period of life described in Gn 1811-2 is called by Josephus ytvatoy tHv 7AtKkiav 75 mpoBeBAnkds (Ant. vii. 8. 4). 172 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XxI. 11, 12. His rd rexvGoa (D* P 69. 436. 462. 1245. 1288. 2005 syrbk!) after haBev is a harmless gloss. The addition of érexey (x° K L P lat arm) after #Acklas was made when the force of cal (=even) before rapa xatpdvy was missed. Mordv yjoato Tov émayyetkdpevoy (10%) is an assertion which shows that the author ignores her sceptical laughter in Gn 18}2; he does not hesitate (cp. v.27) to deal freely with the ancient story in order to make his point, and indeed ignores the equally sceptical attitude of Abraham himself (Gn 171"). To be mordés in this connexion is to be true to one’s word, as Cicero observes in the de Officiis (1. 7: ““fundamentum autem justitiae fides, id est dictorum conventorumque constantia et veritas”). The promise was fulfilled in this life, so that Sara’s faith resembles that of Noah (v.’). The fulfilment is described in v.!*, where, after 8156 Kai add” évds (ze. Abraham),! éyevynPyoov (p’ & Lb 1739, etc.) is read by some authorities for éyev7Oncav (A D K P etc.), though the latter suits the dad in dq’ évdg rather better. In either case something like réxva must be understood. °A@¢’ évds is resumed in kal taita (a v./. in 1 Co 68 for the less common kali Tovro) vevexpwpévou (in the sense of Ro 4?%). Gen. r. on Gn 251 applies Job 147% to Abraham, but the plain sense is given in Augustine’s comment ( C7vi¢. Dez, xvi. 28): “sicut alunt, qui scripserunt interpretationes nominum Hebraeorum, quae his sacris literis continentur, Sara interpretatur princeps mea, Sarra autem uirtus. Unde scriptum est in epistula ad Hebraeos: Fide et ipsa Sarra uirtutem accepit ad emissionem seminis. Ambo enim seniores erant, sicut scriptura testatur; sed illa etiam sterilis et cruore menstruo iam destituta, propter quod iam parere non posset, etiam si sterilis non fuisset. Porro si femina sit prouectioris aetatis, ut ei solita mulierum adhuc fluant, de iuuene parere potest, de seniore non potest; quamuis adhuc possit ille senior, sed de adulescentula gignere, sicut Abraham post mortem Sarrae de Cettura potuit [Gn 251], quia uiuidam eius inuenit aetatem. Hoc ergo est, quod mirum commendat apostolus, et ad hoc dicit Abrahae iam fuisse corpus emortuum, quoniam non ex omni femina, cui adhuc esset aliquod pariendi tempus extremum, generare ipse in illa aetate adhuc posset.” This elucidates He 111) 1%, In what follows, the author is quoting from the divine promise in Gn 2217, a passage much used in later Jewish literature,? though this is the only full allusion to it in the NT (cf. Ro 9?7). Before passing to the third phase of Abraham’s faith, the writer adds (vv.!%16) a general reflection on the faith of the patriarchs, an application of vv.* 1°. There were promises which 1Ts 512 éuBréWare els ’ABpadu Tov warépa tuwv . . . Ore els Fv. . 2 The comparison of a vast number to stars and sands is common in Greek and Latin literature; cp. ¢.g. Pindar’s Olymp. 2°8, and Catullus, 612%, XI. 13. | THE FAITH OF THE PATRIARCHS 173 could not be fulfilled in the present life, and this aspect of faith is now presented. 13( These all died in fatth without obtaining the promises ; they only saw them far away and hailed them, owning they were ‘‘ strangers and exiles” upon earth. 4 Now people who speak in this way plainly show they are in search of a fatherland. © If they thought of the land they have left behind, they would have time to go back, ® but they really aspire to the better land in heaven. ._That is why God ts not ashamed to be called their God; he has prepared a City for them.) Odto. mdvtes (those first mentioned in 1%, particularly the three patriarchs) died as well as lived kata miotiwv, which is substituted here for mwiore. either as a literary variety of ex- pression, or in order to suggest wioris as the sphere and standard of their characters. The writer argues that the patriarchs already possessed a iors in eternal life beyond the grave; their very language proves that. Mt Koptodpevor explains the mioris in which they died; this is the force of wy. All they had was a far-off vision of what had been promised them, but a vision which produced in them a glad belief—idévres kat domacd- pevot, the latter ptc. meaning that they hailed the prospect with delight, sure that it was no mirage. ‘The verb here is less meta- phorical than, e.g., in Musonius (ed. Hense), vi. : tiv d€ Lwnv as Tov ayabav péytatov doralopueda, or Philo (éydanoov ody dperas Kal doraca ux TH veavrov, guis rer. div. heres, 8). ‘Two interesting classical parallels may be cited, from Euripides (Zon, 585-587: 3 + Deak > , A , ov TavTov «loos Paiverat THY TpayyaTwr mpocwlev dvtwy eyyvOev & Spwpevwr. 5 arate \ ‘\ XN \ 3 / eyo d€ ryv pev ovudopay dorafopac) and Vergil (dex. 35%4 “TItaliam laeto socii clamore salutant”). Chrysostom prettily but needlessly urges that the whole metaphor is nautical (trav mAcdvTwy Kal mwoppwlev Spdvtwv Tas TOdELS Tas mwoGoupevas, as mpl H eioedOely cis aiTas TH mpoopyoe aBovres avras oiKeovvTat). Komodpevo: (p!® x* P W 33, etc.) is more likely to be original than a con- formation to 10° 1159; the sense is unaffected if we read the more common haBdrres (8° DK LW 6. 104. 1739, Orig.). The reading of A arm (mpocdetd- evo) makes no sense. Kat éuodoynoarvtes, for to reside abroad carried with it a certain stigma, according to ancient opinion (cp. eg. £, Aristeae, 249, kadov év idia. Kat Snv cat teAevTav. 7 Se Eevia rots pev wévnor Katappdovyow épyacerar, Tots d€ mAovotois dvetdos, ds dua. Kaxiav éxremtwxoow: Sir 2972-28 etc.). The admission, éte févo. kal mapemiSynpot elow emt yfs, is a generalization from the Oriental deprecation of Jacob in Gn 47° (elev “IaxoB rd Papas, ai Hucpar TOV érwv THS Cwns pov Gs TwapoLK® xrA.), and the similar confession of Abraham in Gn 23‘ to the sons of Heth, wdpouxos 174 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XI. 13. Kal maperionpos eyo eis pel” tudv. The ézi yns is a homiletic touch, as in Ps 11919 (wdporkds cit ev TH yH). In both cases this époroyia THs éAmidos (10%) is made before outsiders, and the words émi ris ys start the inference (vv.!416) that the true home of these confessors was in heaven. Such a mystical significance of vor kal mapemiSypor, which had already been voiced in the psalter, is richly and romantically developed by Philo, but it never became prominent in primitive Christianity. Paul’s nearest approach to it is worded differently (Phil 32°, where 76 zroAtrevpa corresponds to warpis here). In Eph 2!?-!9, indeed, Christians are no longer €€vot kai maporxor, for these terms are applied literally to pagans out of connexion with the chosen People of God. The only parallel to the thought of Hebrews is in 1 P, where Christians are mapemionjot (11) and wapofkor kal waperdyjuot (24), The term €évoris used here as a synonym for waporxor, which (cp. Eph 2!* 19) would be specially intelligible to Gentile Christians. Iapezi- dyos only occurs in the LXX in Gn 234, Ps 3918; in the Egyptian papyri wapemidypotrvres (consistentes) denotes foreigners who settled and acquired a domicile in townships or cities like Alexandria (GCP. i. 40, 55; cp. A. Peyron’s Papyri graect R. Laur. Muset Aegyptii, 3° rév raperiynpotytwv kat | Ka |rovkovvTwy e[v] [r]avrai[s] €évwv), and for évo.=peregrini, Zp. Arist. 109 f. The use of such metaphorical terms became fairly common in the moral vocabulary of the age, quite apart from the OT, eg. Marcus Aurelius, ii. 17 (6 d& Bids woAemos Kat S€vov éridnpuia), A similar symbolism recurs in the argument of Epictetus (ii. 23, 36 f.) against the prevalent idea that logic, style, and eloquence are the end of philosophy: oiov et tus dmiov eis tHv warpida tiv éavrod kal dvodevwv mavdoKelov KaXOv apécavTos a’T@ Tov mavOokeiov Kata- pévor ev TH Tavdokelw. avOpwre, éreAadhou cov THs tpoHecews’ ovK Eis TovTO Woeves, GANG Oia TOVTOV . . . TO OE TpoKeipevov exelvo" Oeds< ldig avrod mpooryopia. 2The LXX of Gn 22? reads rév dyarnrév, but perhaps the writer of IIpds ‘Efpatous read a text like that underlying Aquila (7dv movoyerA), Josephus (rov povoyery, Ant. i. 3. 1), and Symmachus (rév pdvov). Movoyerjs and d-yamrnrés, as applied to a son, tended to shade into one another. Philo reads ayamrnros Kal udvos (quod deus tmmut. 4, etc.). XI. 18, 19.] ABRAHAM AND ISAAC 177 This is made explicit in v.18, with its quotation from Gn 21!%, For dvadéyouar in the sense of ‘‘secure,” see the line from Sophocles’ “ Ichneutae,” in Oxyrh. Papyrt, vil. 25 (dv BotBos tpiv ele x[ a |vedééaro). In v.19 Noytodwevos (as Ro 818 etc.) explains why he had the courage to sacrifice Isaac, although the action seemed certain to wreck the fulfilment of what God had promised him. He held dtu Kal éx vexpav éyetpew (weakened into éyetpar by A P, etc.) Suvatés (Dan 3)" ds éore Suvards e&eA€oOar Has KTA., and Ro 4?!) sc. €otw 6 Beds. Abraham, says Philo (de Abrahamo, 22), ravra noe Ged dvvara oxeddv e& ert omapydvwv Tovti 76 Séypa tpopabotea, Later (32) he speaks of this sacrifice as the most outstanding action in Abraham’s life—dédr/you yap d€m ddvar racas doat Geodircts trepBdAdXe. It was ‘a complicated and brilliant act of faith” (A. B. Davidson), for God seemed to contradict God, and the command ran counter to the highest human affection (Wis 10° copia... émt réxvov orAdyyxvois icxupov éepvAaéev). As Chrysostom put it, this was the special trial, ra yap rot Geod €d0Ket TOLs TOU Heod paxerOat, Kal Tictis éudyeTo TicTEL, Kal TpdC- taypa éerayyeXia. Hence (80ev, in return for this superb faith) éxopicato, he did recover him (kopileoOar, as in Gn 38” etc., of getting back what belongs to you),! in a way that prefigured the resurrection (kpeitrovos dvactdcews, v.*°), Such is the meaning of év tmapaBodq (cp. 99). Isaac’s restoration was to Abraham a sort? of resurrection (v.®4 ‘‘quaedam resurrectionis fuit species, quod subito liberatus fuit ex media morte,” Calvin). ’Ev zapa- Born has been taken sometimes in two other ways. (a) =apa- BorGs, te. beyond all expectation, almost zapaddgws, zap’ éA7rida(s), or in a desperate peril, as Polybius says of Hannibal (i. 23. 7, dveAriotws kat rapaBorws abros év TH oxddyn diépvye). This is at any rate less far-fetched than—(d) “whence he had originally got him, figuratively-speaking,” as if the allusion was to vevexpwpévov (in v.!2)! Against (2) is the fact that tapaBoAy never occurs in this sense. Augustine’s comment is (Czvzt, Dez, xvi. 32): ‘‘non haesitauit, quod sibi reddi poterat immolatus, qui dari potuit non speratus. Sic intellectum est et in epistula ad Hebraeos, et sic expositum [He 1117-19] , . . cuius simili- tudinem, nisi illius unde dicit apostolus: Qui proprio filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum?” He makes Isaac carrying the wood a type of Christ carrying his cross, and the ram caught in the thicket typical of Christ crowned with thorns. According to the later Jewish tradition (Pzrge R. Eliezer, 31), Isaac’s soul, which had left his body as his father’s sword 1 Josephus (Ant, i. 13. 4) describes the father and son as map éAmidas éaurovs Kexomiopévot. Philo (de Josepho, 35, 7d kouloacGar Tov adedpdv) has the same usage. 2 Aelian (Var. Hist. ili. 33) speaks of Satyrus the flautist, tpdaov twa Ti Téexvnv Exparrlfwv rapaBory TH pos pirocodlar. I2 178 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI..19-22. was falling, returned at the words, ‘‘ Lay not thy hand on the lad”; thus Abraham and Isaac ‘‘ learned that God would raise the dead.” The next three instances are of miotts as trdarucis éAmilopevuv, the hope being one to be realized in the destiny of the race (vy.20-22), The solitary instance of miotts in Isaac (v.29) is that men- tioned in Gn 2728: 29. 39. 40, q faith which (111) anticipated a future for his two sons. EdéAdyyoev, of one man blessing another, as in wif In kal mept peAddvtwv (sc. tpayydrwr), where pédAAew refers to a future in this world, the xaé simply! emphasizes zrepi peA- Advrwv edASyynoev, and the whole phrase goes with evAdyycer, not with wiore. The very fact that he blessed his two sons proved that he believed the divine promises to them would be realized in the future. The next two instances of faith are taken from death-beds ; it is faith, not in personal immortality, but in the continuance of the chosen race. In v.?! the writer quotes from Gn 473! Kat mpocexivycey ‘IopaiA eri TO axpov ths paBdou avrov, where the LXX by mistake has read nwan (staff) instead of m1 (bed), and the incident is loosely transferred to the later situation (Gn 48%), when Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph. Supporting himself on? his staff, he bowed reverently before God, as he blessed the lads. (In the Ep. Barnabas 134, the writer interprets Jacob’s preference for the younger son as a proof that Christians, not Jews, were the real heirs of God’s blessing!) In v.** the argument draws upon Gn 507# 25 (Ex 13%, Jos 24°2), where Joseph makes the Israelites swear to remove his remains from Egypt to the promised land, so con- fident was he that God’s promise to the people would one day be fulfilled. TeNeut@y (Gn 507° kai éreAcitycev “Iwonp) mepl tis é€sSou (only here in this sense in NT) tév vidy “lopany éprnpdveuce (called to mind, as v.15) xat wept tév édotéwy (uncontracted form as in LXX and Mt 232’, Lk 2499; cp. Cronert, Mem. Graeca fTercul, 166*) attoi évetetXato. Joseph’s faith also was shown in nis conviction of the future promised by God to Israel, but it found a practical expression in the instructions about conveying his mummy out of Egypt (Sir 4918 kat ra 607a adrod érerxernoayr). The ninth example of aiots is Moses, of whom almost as much is made as of Abraham. Five instances of faith are mentioned in connexion with his career (vy.?%-?9), 3 Tt was by faith that Moses was ‘‘ hidden for three months” (rplunvor, sc. xpévov) after birth by his parents, because ‘‘ they saw” the child was 1 To suggest that it means “‘even” is flat. for a blessing, ex hypothes?, referred to the future. Its omission (by * K L P, the eastern versions, etc.) is more easily explained than its insertion. J 21 K 1% mpocexvvynocev 6 Bacided’s él Thy xoirny, ért has the same local sense, XI. 23, 24.] THE FAITH OF MOSES 179 ** beautiful” (Ac 7%), and had no fear of the royal decree. ™ Tt was by faith that Moses refused, ‘‘when he had grown up,” to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; ™ tll-treatment with God’s people he preferred to the passing pleasures of sin, * considering obloguy with the messiah to be richer wealth than all Egypt's treasures—for he had an eye to the Reward. ™ It was by Jaith that he left Egypt, not from any fear of the king’s wrath; like one who saw the King Invisible, he never flinched. ™ It was by faith that he celebrated ‘‘ the passover” and performed the sprinkling by blood, so that ‘‘ the destroying angel” (cf. 1 Co 10") might not touch Israel's firstborn. ™ It was by faith that they crossed the Red Sea (Ac 7**) like dry land—and when the Egyptians attempted it, they were drowned. Moses (v.28) owed the preservation of his life as an infant to the courageous tiotis of his parents (matépwv=yoveis, parentes, like patres in Ovid’s Metam. 4°1, and Plato’s Leges, vi. 772 E, ayabdyv ratépwv pivrt). The writer quotes from Ex 2? 8, adding that, as the result of their faith, they had no fear of the royal edict (didrayua as in Jos. Ant. xvi. 16.5; Wis 11’ etc.). This is the main point of their iors. On doretov see Philo’s vit. Mos. 1. 3: yevvnbeis odv 6 rats etOds ow evépaivev doreLoTépav 7) KaT iduirnv, ws kal Tov Tod TUpdvvov Kypvypatwr, ep cov oldv TE Hy, Tovs yovets dXoynoat). The Hebrew text makes the mother act alone, but the LXX gives the credit to both parents; and this tradition is followed by Philo and Josephus (Azz. ii. 9. 4), as by our author. The parents of Moses are the first anonymous people in the roll-call of faith’s representatives. Calvin rather severely ranks their faith on a lower level, because the parents of Moses were moved by the external appearance of their child, and because they ought to have brought him up themselves (‘‘notandum est fidem quae hic laudatur ualde fuisse imbecillam. Nam quum posthabito mortis suae metu Mosen deberent educare, eum exponunt. Patet igitur illorum fidem breui non tantum uacillasse sed fuisse collapsam”’). Still, he reflects that this is after all an encouragement, since it proves that even weak faith is not despised by God. Chrysostom’s comment is kinder ; the writer, he thinks, means to afford additional encouragement to his readers by adducing not only heroes, but commonplace people as examples of faith (d4ojuwr, dvwripwr),. Another (7?) gloss has been inserted here, after v.73, by D* 1827 and nearly all the MSS of the Latin versions, viz. lore: uéyas yevduevos Mwvoijs dveiev Tov Alytmrioy KaTravowyv Thy Tatelywow TV ddehpav avTov, a homi- letical application of Ex 21}? (used in Ac 7”), The second item of faith (v.”4) is the first individual proof by Moses himself. Josephus (4zzv. ii. 9. 7) makes Moses refuse the Pharaoh’s crown when a baby. The Pharaoh’s daughter placed the child in her father’s arms; he took it, pressed it to his bosom, and to please his daughter graciously put the crown upon its head. But the child threw it to the ground and stamped on it. Which seemed ominous to the king! The writer of Hebrews avoids such fancies, and simply summarizes Ex 2U*, where Moses peéyas yevdpevos (from Ex 2"; 2, as Calvin points out, when his refusal could not be set down to childish ignorance 180 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 24-26. of the world, nor to youthful impetuousness) jpyyoato (with infinitive as in Wis 1227 1616 1710) \éyeoBar vids Ouyatpss dapad. His religious motive in declining the title and position of son to an Egyptian princess (Jub 47°) is now given (v.?°); p@dov ES pevos (for the construction and idea, cp. OGJS. 66938 paddov 77 TOV Tporepwv eTrapXwv aiwviov ea eae drr(dcocwv A THY TpOTKALPOV TLVOS GOLKiaY pLEeLLnodpevosS) oUyKaKkouxEtoa. (a New compound, unknown to the LXX) 7@ ha@ Tod Geo 4 mpdckatpov (a non-LXX term! which first occurs in 4 Mac 157° 28, and passed into the early Christian vocabulary as an antithesis to aidvos) €xew Gpaptias dmddavow. The duaptia is the sin which he would have committed in proving disloyal to the People of God ; that might have been pleasant for the time being, but mlotts looks to higher and lasting issues (10%4 111). It would have been “sin” for him to choose a high political career at court, the “sin” of apostasy ; he did what others in their own way had done afterwards (10%, cp. 13°). For améXavors see Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. /Vorzleg. Ixvii. 25) : roy ao 70eov , éfouolay d.ddvra mpos dkodaclay kal woki\ww Hoovev amddavow ayevvav Kal uikpoxapov, ideo voulfovrt, and 4 Mac 5° where the tyrant taunts the conscientious Jews, Kal tia dvénrov TovTo Td uh arodavery TWY xwpls éveldous 70eov. Philo (wrt, Mos. 6: vyevduevds re dtapepdvTws aoKyTiys ddAvyodeclas Kal roy aBpodiartov Boy ws ovdels Erepos xrevdous —Wux7 yap er bbe. pdvyn Fhv, ov Tw L.a7L) praises the asceticism of Moses in the palace of the Pharaoh, but gives an interpretation of his reward which is lower than that of our author; he declares (i. 27) that as Moses renounced the high position of authority which he cake have enjoy ed in Egypt (ére.dy yap Tiv Aly’mrov xaré\urev iyyepovlay, Ovyarptdobs Tov tére BacidevovTos wv), because he disapproved of the local injustice, God rewarded him with authority over a greater nation. In v.76 the reason for this renunciation of the world is explained. Metlova mdodtov hynodpevos (cp. v.!! and Aoyiodpevos in v.19) t&v Aiydtrou Onoaupav tov dveidtopdv tod Xprotod (as involved in ovykaxovxeicGat 7H Aa@ Tov Geov). This is one of the writer’s dinting phrases. There is a special obloquy in being connected with Christ. It is one of the things which Christians have to face to-day (131%), and, the writer argues, it has always been so; Moses himself, the leader of God’s people at the first, showed his ziors by deliberately meeting it. The obloquy was part of the human experience of Jesus himself (12? 13}2), but the point here in tév éve8topdv tod Xprotod is that, by identifying himself with God’s people in Egypt, Moses encountered the same dveiduopds as their very messiah afterwards was to endure. He thus faced what the writer, from his own standpoint, does not hesitate to call tov dveduocpov Tod Xprorod. Whether he had in mind anything further, eg. the idea that 6 Xprords here 1 Tt recurs in an edict of Caracalla (215 A.D.), quoted by Mitteis- Wilcken, i, 2. 39. XI. 26, 27.| THE FAITH OF MOSES 181 means the pre-incarnate Logos, as though a mystical sense like that of 1 Co 1o* underlay the words, is uncertain and rather unlikely, though the idea that Christ was suffering in the person of the Israelites, or that they represented him, might be regarded as justified by the language, eg., of Ps 89°! (rod dve- durpod Tov SovAwy cov... ov dveidicav TO dvtdAAaypa TOD Xpiotod gov). The experiences of ingratitude and insulting treatment which Moses suffered at the hands of Israel illustrate Chry- sostom’s definition of tov dvediuopov tod Xpirtod: Td wéxpe TéAOUS Kal eoxarns avamvons TarxELV KaKOS . . . TOUTO éoTLW dvELdiT HOS tov Xpiotod, Otay Tis Tap av evepyeret dvecdiCyrar (citing Mt 271°). The basis of this estimate of life is now given: daréBXetev yap eis tiv picOatodociay, as the writer desired his readers to do (10% 11°), *Azofdérev eis is a common phrase for keeping one’s eye upon, having regard to, e.g. Theophrastus, il. 10, kai eis éxetvov amoBXerwv: Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 1, 6 pev . . . eis povov Td AvouteRés 76 ek TOV GpTayav aroBX€rwv, TapyKovoev. Mr. Starkie, in his note on Arist. Acharn. 32, suggests that dmroBAderev, which is common in the comic poets and is also a philosophical term (e.g. Plato’s Phaedo, 115 C; Phaedrus, 234 D), “was used like ‘to prescind’ in English,” ze. to fix one’s gaze on a single object by withdrawing it from everything else. The third act of faith in his life (v.2’) is his withdrawal from Egypt to Midian (Ex 2!f-=Ac 7%). In ph oBnOets tov Oupsr tod Baowkéws the author ignores the statement of the OT that Moses did fly from Egypt, in terror of being punished by the king for having murdered the Egyptian (opynv dwetAuxtov BactrAéws GTrOOLOpacKwy, Philo, de wit. Mos. 1. 9). Josephus in his own way also (Azz. 11, 10. 1) eliminates the motive of fear. Our author declares that if Moses did retreat from Egypt, it was from no fear of Pharaoh, but in the faith that God had a future and a mission for him still; he had as little fear of Pharaoh as his parents had had, tév yap ddpatoy (sc, BactAéa) ds bpav éxapté- pyoev (cp. Sir 2? evGuvov tiv kapdiav cov Kal Kaptrépyoov). “ The courage to abandon work on which one’s heart is set, and accept inaction cheerfully as the will of God, is of the rarest and highest kind, and can be created and sustained only by the clearest spiritual vision” (Peake). The language and thought are illus- trated by Epict. ii. 16. 45-46: é« rHs duavoias éxBadre . . . Adrny, pdBov, éeriOvpiav, POdvoy, émixaipexakiav, PiAapyvpiav, padaxiay, axpaciav. Tatra 0’ ovk éotw dAAws éxBadrety, ei po Tpds povov TOV Gedv aroBAérovta, éxeivw povw TpootemovOdra, Tos éxeivou TpoorT- dypact Kafwowwpéevov. The phrase os épav means the inward vision where, as Marcus Aurelius observes (x. 26), dp@pev, ovyi tois 6pOadpois, GAN’ ovy Wrrov éevapyas. In the de Mundo, 399a, God is described as doparos dv dAdw tA Aoytoud. Philo had 182 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 27, 28. already singled out this trait in Moses, Cg. de mutat. nomin. 2: Movojns 6 rHs devdods pioews Oearys kal Oedrrys—eis yap Tov yrodov paciv abrov ol Oetou xene pot eiceAOety (Ex 201), THY GOpartov Kal dO LATOV ovolav aivirTopevol. In vit. Mos. i. 1 5 he declares that the Pharaoh had no notion of any invisible God (uydéva 76 mapdmray vontov Oeov ew Tav dpardv vopicwv), and later on, commenting on Eexe2 og?! Ai. 28), he adds that Moses entered the darkness, rovtéotwy eis my ded Kal ddpatov Kal dordparov TOV GvTWY TapaderypaTiKnY ovolav, TA abéaTa pice OvyTy KaTavoay. On pi) poBnOeis tov Oupdy tod Bacthéws, it may be noted that the Stoics took the prudential line of arguing that one ought not needlessly to provoke a tyrant: “sapiens nunquam potentium iras provocabit, immo declinabit, non aliter quam in navigando procellam ” (Seneca, £7. xiv. 7). Various attempts have been made to explain away the contradiction between this statement and that of Ex 2!4. (a) Some think they are not irreconcilable ; ‘so far as his life was concerned, he feared, but in a higher region he had no fear” (A. B. Davidson), ze. he was certain God would ultimately intervene to thwart Pharaoh, and so took precautions to save his own life in the interest of the cause. This is rather artificial, however, though maintained by some good critics like Linemann. (4) Or, the @vyzos may be not anger at the murder of the Egyptian, but the resentment of Moses’ action in refusing a court position and withdrawing from Egypt (Vaughan, Dods, Delitzsch, etc.). (c) A more favourite method is to deny that the writer is alluding to Ex 214-15 at all, and to refer the passage to’ the real Exodus later (so Calvin, Bleek, Westcott, Seeberg, and many other edd.); but this is to antici- pate v.28, and the Israelites were ordered out of Egypt by Pharaoh, not exposed to any anger of his. The fourth act of faith (v.28) is his obedience to the divine orders of Ex 12!2-48 (cp. Wis 185%), which proved that he be- lieved, in spite of appearances, that God had protection and a future for the People. Nerotnxey is another aoristic perfect ; mpdo- Xvous 1s not a LXX term, and Oiyyave (@tyn) only occurs in LXX in Ex 198 (=Heb 12”). As @tyyavw may take a genitive (12°) as well as an accusative, éAoOpevwv might go with mpwrdtoxa (Z.¢. of the Egyptians) and @iyn with atrév (the Israelites). Note the alliteration in miote. mem. tdoxa ... mpdcxuow. The tva py clause explains thv mpdcxuow Tod aiparos. By one Old Latin, or at any rate a non-Vulgate, text of this passage, in Codex Harleianus (ed. E. S. Buchanan, Sacred Latin Texts, i., 1912), a gloss is inserted at this point: ‘‘ fide praedaverunt Aegyptios exeuntes” (Ex 12%. 8), which was evidently known to Sedulius Scotus (Migne, ciii. 268 C), wie quotes it as ‘‘fide praedaverunt Aegyptios, quia crediderunt se iterum in Aegyptum non reversuros.” XI. 29-31. | THE FAITH OF ISRAEL 183 The fifth act of faith (v.2°) is the crossing of the Red Sea (Ex 141%), Strictly speaking, this is an act of faith on the part of the Israelites; the 8€Bynoav depends on, for its subject, the attav of v.28. But those who crossed were ot éfe\Oovres é€ Aiytrrov 51a Mwicéws (31°), and the action is the direct sequel to that of v.78, though Moses is now included in the People. 84 Enpas yijs is from Ex 1479; diaBaivew goes with the genitive as well as with the accusative. The Israelites took a risk, in obedience to God’s order, and so proved their miotts. But there are some things which are possible only to faith. “Hs (z.e. épvfpa Odrdacon) tetpav AaBdvres ot Atydmtio. KatemdOnoay (from Ex 154 KateroOnoav ev épv0pa Oaraccn, B), z.e. the Egyptians tried it and were swallowed up in the sea. Here zeipay AapBavew is a classical phrase for (2) making an attempt, almost in the sense of testing or risking. They “ventured on” (cp. Dt 28° 7 tpudepa, Hs ovxl metpav éXaBev 6 wovs aitys Baivew eri THs ys), or tried it (cp. Jos. Ant. 8. 6. 5, codias Bovdropevn AaBeiv welpay, etc.). The other meaning is that (4) of getting experience (so in v.°6), which is often the sad result of (a); so, ¢.g., Demosth. in Aristocratem, 131, AaBov epyw THs éxeivov Pirias weipay, The writer ignores the legendary embroidery of Philo (wt. Mos. iii. 345 Ws eri Enpas atparod Kat ALGwdous edhovs—éxpavpdOn yap 7 Wdppos kal hn oropas aitns ovaia cuppdoa HvsOn). Two more instances of faith are specially cited, both in con- nexion with the fall of Jericho (vv. 31), During the interval between the Exodus and the entrance into Canaan the writer, we are not surprised to find (3!), notes not a single example of miotis, but it is remarkable that neither here nor below (v.°2!) is there any allusion to Joshua. 0 Tt was by faith that the walls of Jericho collapsed, after being surrounded for only seven days. * It was by faith that Rahadb the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, as she had welcomed the scouts peaceably, The faith that had enabled Israel to cross the Red Sea in safety enabled them years later to bring the walls of a city crash- ing to the ground (v.*), There was no siege of Jericho; Israel simply marched round it for a week, and that act of faith in God’s promise, against all probabilities, brought about the marvel. So the writer summarizes Jos 617°, Judas Maccabaeus and his men also appealed, in besieging a town, to Tov péyay Tov Kdopou Suvdorny, Tov atep Kpi@v Kal pnxavOv épyaviKav KatakxpynpvicavtTa tTHv leptxd Kata tovs Inood xpéovous (2 Mac 121°), and one Egyptian fanatic (for whom Paul was once mistaken, Acts 21°°) promised his adherents, in rebelling against the Romans, that the walls of Jerusalem would collapse at his word of command (Josephus, Ant. xx. 8. 6). 184 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 81, 82. The faith of a community is now followed by the faith of an individual. The last name on the special list is that of a foreigner, an unmarried woman, and a woman of loose morals (v.31), in striking contrast to Sara and the mother of Moses. The story is told in Jos 21?! 6%, For 4 mwépvy (“‘ Ratio haec sat R. solita sit peregrinos excipere,” Bengel) see below on 13% A tendency to whitewash her character appears in the addition of émteyonévyn (% syrbk! Ephr.), which is also inserted by some codices in the text of Clem. Rom. 121. Her practical faith (Ja 2%; Clem. Rom. 11? d:a wiorw Kat pidoseviav éo00n), shown by her friendly (wer eipnyns) welcome to the spies, which sprang from her conviction that the God of Israel was to be feared, saved (cuvatédeto, cp. Sir 85) her from the fate of her fellow-citizens (tots direvOnoaow) who declined to submit to the claims of Israel’s God. They are described by the same word as are the recalci- trant Israelites themselves (318). Even Jewish priests were proud to trace their descent from Rahab; her reputation stood high in later tradition, owing to the life which followed this initial act of faith (cp. Mt 15). For lack of space and time the writer now passes to a mere summary of subsequent examples of faith (vv.5!), Roughly speaking, we may say that vv.%% 4 describe what the folk of old did by faith, vv.°5" what they did for faith. 32 4nd what more shall I say? Time would fail me to tell of Gideon, of Barak and Samson and Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 men who by faith (dia wicrews) conguered kingdoms, administered justice, obtained promises, shut the mouth of lions, *4 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness won to strength, proved valiant in warfare, and routed hosts ‘of ‘foreigners. Kat tt ért (om. D*) déyw (deliberative conjunctive) does not necessarily imply that Ipods “E@padous was originally a sermon or address ; it was a literary as well as an oratorical phrase. Thus Josephus uses a similar phrase in Amf?. xx. 11. 1 (kal ri del rAelw Aéyey ;). Faith did not die out, at the entry into Palestine. On the contrary, the proofs of faith are so rich in the later story of the People that the writer has no time for anything except a glowing abstract. “Emdeiper ydp pe Sinyoupevoy 6 xpdvos is one form of a common rhetorical phrase, though 77 7jépa is generally used instead of 6 xpévos. Three instances may be cited: Dion. Hal. De Compositione Verb. 4 (after running: over the names of a number of authors) kat dAXous pupious, @ ov dmrdvrov Ta Ovopara. €i Bovrotpnv éyerv, émireiWer pe 6 THs Tpepas Xpovos : Demosth. de Corona, 324, emidetipet pe NéyovO’ ) Huépa Ta TOV mpoddtwv dvdmara, and (out of several instances) Philo, de Sacrif. Abelis et Caint, 5, erirciver pe M Hepa A€yovta Ta TaY Kat Eidos dpeTav GvomaTa, XI. 32, 33. ] HEROES OF FAITH 185 Aunyoupevoy . . . mepi, as, ¢g., In Plato’s Huth. 6 C, modAa mepi Tov Oeiwv Supyjoopuot, and Philo’s de Adbrak. 44, dv dArALywo mporepov éevia dueEnAOov (= “gone over”). For pe yap (8 A D* 33- 547), yép me is rightly read by p18 D° K L P W Clem. Chrys. etc. (cp. Blass, § 475. 2), though ydép is omitted altogether by Ww 216*. Six names are specially mentioned, to begin with. Gideon’s crushing victory over the Ammonites echoes down later history (¢.g. Is 9? 1076, Ps 8311). The singling out of Barak is in line with the later Jewish tradition, which declined to think of him as a mere ally of Deborah; he was the real hero of the exploit. For example, some rabbis (cp. Targ. on Jg 528, Yalkut on Jg 42) gave him the high name of Michael, and praised this brave leader for his modesty in allowing Deborah to occupy so prominent a place. Later tradition also magnified Samson’s piety and divine characteristics (e.g. Sotah 92, 10a). Of all the four “judges” selected, Jephthah has the poorest reputation in Jewish tradition; he is censured for rashness, and his rank is comparatively insignificant. Augustine, however (Quaest. vil. xlix.), points out that the ‘‘spirit” came both on Jephthah (Jg 112% 30) and on Gideon (877). Why these four names are put in this unchronological order (instead of Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson), it is impossible to guess; in 1 S 121! it is Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, and Samson, followed by Samuel. David here (AavetS te) belongs to the foregoing group, the only one of Israel’s kings mentioned in the list. In Jewish tradition (e.g. Josephus, Azf. vi. 2, 2-3) Samuel’s career was interpreted with quite martial fervour; he was credited with several victories over the Philistines. Hence he forms a transition between the previous heroes and the prophets, of which he was commonly regarded as the great leader (cp. Ac 34). "A\X\wov (+70v?) is superfluously inserted before wpopytav by syrb*! pesh arm eth sah boh 69. 1288 Theod. Dam. In ot 814 miotews (v.*%) the of covers vy.33 34, but 61a wiorews includes vv.*°-*8 as well, and is reiterated in v.39, The following nine terse clauses, devoid of a single xa‘, begin by noting military and civil achievements. In katnywvi- gavto BactNelas, Kataywvi¢ouar (not a LXX term) is the verb applied by Josephus to David’s conquests (in Axzé. vil. 2. 2, abrd caoa Karaywvicapevy Iladaoriworts dédwxey 6 Oeds); its later metaphorical use may be illustrated from Mart. Pol. 19? (d1a THS UTopovns KaTaywvicdmevos TOV adLKov apxovTa). *Hpydcayto Sixarogvyyny in the sense of 2 S 8! (kat éBacirevoey Aaveid eri "Iopanr* Kal jv Tov Kpipa Kai Sikawotvyv ért mdvta Tov Aaov avrov) etc., the writer applying to this specific activity, for which miotis was essential, a phrase elsewhere (cp. Ac ro*) used for a general moral life. Such was their faith, too, that they had pro- mises of God’s help realized in their experience ; this (cp. 6°) is 186 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 88-35. the force of éméruyov émayyedtav. Furthermore, éppagav ordpara Aedvtwy, as in the case of Daniel (Dn 61% 23 6 Geds pou evéedpagev 7a oTopata Tov Acdvtwv, Theod.), éoBecav Sévapty tupds, as in the case of Daniel’s three friends (Dn 3!%28, 1 Mac 2°, 3 Mac 65). In épuyoy orépara paxaipys, the unusual plural of ordyua (cp. Lk 21% wecotvrat ordpatt paxaipns) may be due to the preceding oropara rhetorically; it means repeated cases of escape from imminent peril of murder rather than double-edged swords (41), escapes, ¢.g., like those of Elijah (1 K 19!) and Elisha (2 K 614. 316) In euvapeOnoay (pls x* A D* 1831; the v2 éveduva- pobnoav was probably due to the influence of Ro 47°) dard doGeveias, the reference is quite general; Hezekiah’s recovery from illness is too narrow an instance.! The last three clauses are best illustrated by the story of the Maccabean struggle, where dAXdrpiou is the term used for the persecutors (1 Mac 27 etc.), and awapeuBory for their hosts (1 Mac 3) etc.). In wapep- Bodds éxXway d&ddotpiwv, mapenBory, a word which Phrynichus calls devas Maxedovixdv, means a host in array (so often in 1 Mac and Polybius); xAivw (cp. Jos. Ant. xiv. 15. 4, KAiverau TO... Képas THS padayyos) is never used in this sense in the LXX. What the heroes and heroines of wiot1s had to endure is now summarized (vv.*5-88) : the passive rather than the active aspect of faith is emphasized. 85 Some were given back to their womankind, raised from the very dead ; others were broken on the wheel, refusing to accept release, that they might obtain a better resurrection ; *® others, again, had to experience scoffs and scourging, aye, chains and imprisonment—* they were stoned... sawn in two, and cut to pieces; they had to roam about in sheepskins and goatskins, forlorn, oppressed, tll-treated * (men of whom the world was not worthy), wanderers in the desert and among hills, in caves and gullies. “EdaBov yuvatkes? «rd, (85) recalls such stories as 1 K 171% and 2 K 483" (kat 7 yuv7 . . . EXaBev tov vidv airs Kal e&prOev) ; it was a real dvdotacis, though not the real one, for some other male beings became literally and finally vexpot, relying by faith on a kpetoowy dvdotacts. “Addor S€ (like Sokrates in Athens: cp. Epict. iv. I. 164-165, Zwxpdaryns 8 aicypds ov owlerar... TOUTOV OUK EoTL THoat aicypds, GAN’ adrobvyncKwv cotera) could only have saved their lives by dishonourably giving up their 1A more apt example is the nerving of Judith for her act of religious patriotism (cp. Rendel Harris, Szdelights on NT Research, 170f.), though there is a verbal parallel in the case of Samson (Jg 16% daréornoe am’ éuod 4 loxvs wou Kal doGeviow). 2 The odd v.72. yuvackas (p'® x* A D* 33. 1912) may be another case (cp. Thackeray, 149, for LXX parallels) of -as for -es as a nominative form ; as an accusative, it could only have the senseless meaning of ‘‘ marrying” (AauBdvew yuvaikas). Strong, early groups of textual authorities now and then preserve errors. XI. 35, 36. | MARTYRS OF FAITH 187 convictions, and therefore chose to suffer. This is a plain refer- ence to the Maccabean martyrs. “Etupmavic@ycay (Blass prefers the more classical form in D* dzervpravicOncav), a punishment probably corresponding to the mediaeval penalty of being broken on the wheel. ‘“ This dreadful punishment consists,” says Scott in a note to the thirtieth chapter of Zhe Betrothed, ‘in the executioner, with a bar of iron, breaking the shoulder-bones, arms, thigh-bones and legs of the criminal, taking his alternate sides. ‘The punishment is concluded by a blow across the breast, called the coup de grace, because it removes the sufferer from his agony.” The victim was first stretched on a frame or block, the r¥umavov! (so schol. on Aristoph. Plu. 476, ripmava évAa ed ols eruprdavilov’ éypdvro yap tatty TH TYywwpia), and beaten to death, for which the verb was dmorvpravilecOar (e.g. Josephus, c. Apionem, i. 148, quoting Berossus, AaPopooodpxodos . br tév hidwv aretuuravicOn: Arist. Ret. il. 5. 14, do7rep ot arotupravicopevot, etc.). So Eleazar was put to death, because he refused to save his life by eating swine’s flesh (2 Mac 619 6 d€ Tov per evxAcias Oavatov padrdov 7H Tov pera piaous Biov avadeEdpevos aiOaipéerws eri TO TUpmavov mpoonyev). It is this punishment of the Maccabean martyrs which the writer has in mind, as Theodoret already saw. ‘The sufferers were “ distracti quemadmodum corium in tympano distenditur” (Calvin); but the essence of the punishment was beating to death, as both Hesychius (zAnjoocerat, éxdepetar, ioxupos tvmrerat) and Suidas (EvAw TWAHoCETAL, exdépeTat, Kal Kpewatar) recognize in their defini- tion of tupavilerar. The hope of the resurrection, which sustained such martyrs 08 mpoodegdpevor (cp. 10°4) thy darokUTpwow, is illustrated by the tales of Maccabean martyrs, e.g. of Eleazar the scribe (2 Mac 62/£), urged to eat some pork iva rotro rpdéas azroAv6y Tov Gavarov, and declining in a fine stubbornness ; but specially of the heroic mother and her seven sons (¢did. 71), who perished confessing aiperov petadAAdooovtas aro avOpworwv Tas bro TOD Geod mpocdoKav éAmidas TaAWw avactyoeTOar bx’ airod . . ol pey yap viv nuerepor ddeAhot Bpaxdv érevéyKavres movov devdov Cwns tro SvadnKyny Geod rerTwKkacw. In v.°6 érepor S¢ (after of wey... GAXou dé in Matt 164) metpav €daBov (see on v.29) éumratypav (cp. Sir 2778 eumravypds Kat dvelourpos) Kat paotiywv—a hendiadys; the writer has in mind shameful tortures like those inflicted on the seven Maccabean brothers, as described in 2 Mac 7! (udori€w kal vevpats aixifo- 1 Another word for the frame was tpoxdés, as in 4 Mac 9”, where the eldest of the seven famous Jewish brothers is beaten to death. Hence the verb used by Philo (2% Flaccum, 10) to describe the punishment inflicted on the Alexandrian Jews (Tovdato. wactiyovmevar, Kpeuduevor, Tpoxifduevor, Karatkifomevot). 188 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 36 pevous .. . 7 Hyov ert Tov éeuratypov), although in this case the beating is not at once fatal, as the next words prove (éru ée dexpav Kat dvdAakys). The passage would be more clear and consecutive, however, if érepo. 8é preceded mepiAOov (in v.97), introducing the case of those who had not to suffer the martyrs’ death. This would leave épmatypév «rAd. as a reiteration or expansion of érupravicOyncav. Before Seopav kat udakis, ete dé probably (cp. Lk 142°) heightens the tone—not merely passing blows, but long durance vile: though the sense might be. simply, ‘and further.” In v.37 é\v@do@yoav (as in the case of Zechariah, 2 Ch 2470-22, Mt 23%5) was the traditional punishment which ended Jeremiah’s life in Egypt (Tertull. Scorp. 8) ; possibly the writer also had in mind the fate of Stephen (Acts 758). "Emplo@ncav (Am 1° éxpilov mpioow odypois xrA.) alludes to the tradition of Isaiah having being sawn in two with a wooden saw during the reign of Manasseh, a tradition echoed in the contem- porary Ascensio Isatae 51-14 (Justin’s Dial. cxx.; Tertull. de Pattentia, xiv. etc.); cp. R. H. Charles, Zhe Ascension of Isatah (1900), pp. xlv—xlix. After éAv@dc8noav there is a primitive corruption in the text. Four readings are to be noted. éreipdcOnoay, érpladncay: & L P 33. 326 syrbk!, érplaOnoay, éreipdobnoay: p*® A DW 6. 104. 1611. 1739 lat boh arm. éretpacOnoay : fuld, Clem. Thdt. érplo@yoav: 2. 327 syr’é Eus. etc. Origen apparently did not read ézeipdoOnoav, if we were to judge from Hom. Jerem. xv. 2 (dddov €X:GoBdrAncav, dArov Expicay, AXdov awéxrewav petagd TOU vaod Kal Tob Pvotacrnplov), but shortly before (xiv. 12) he quotes the passage verbally as follows: éAi@dc@ncav, érploOyoay, éreipdcOncav, év povy paxalpas aréPavov, though éreipdo@noav is omitted here by H. In c. Cels. vil. 7 it is doubtful whether ée:pdOnoav or éreipdo@noav was the original reading. Eusebius omits the word in Prep. Evang. xii. 10 (583d), reading €\:OacOnoav, érplodncav, év ddvw xrd., and sah reads ‘‘they were sawn, they were stoned, they died under the sword.” It is evident that érverpacOnoay (written insome MSS as émip.) as ‘‘ were tempted ” is impossible here ; the word either was due to dittography with érpic@noayv or represents a corruption of some term for torture. Various suggestions have been made, e.g. émnpwénoay (mutilated) by Tanaquil Faber, érpd@ncav (sold for slaves) by D. Heinsius, éoreipdcOnoav (strangled) by J. Alberti, or érépO@ynoav (impaled) by Knatchbull. But some word like érupé(dco)@nocav (Beza, F. Junius, etc.) or érpicAnoav (Gataker)! is more likely, since one of the seven Maccabean brothers was fried to death (2 Mac 74), and burning was a punishment otherwise for the Maccabeans (2 Mac 6), It is at any rate probable that the writer put three aorists ending in -c@yoav together. Death év dovm paxaipns (a LXX phrase) was not an un- common fate for unpopular prophets (1 K 19! Jer 2625); but the writer now passes, in wepiq\Oov x7A. (37-88), to the sufferings Or éverpyoOnoav, which is used by. Philo in describing the woes of the Alexandrian Jews (2 Flaccum, 20, f@vres ol wev éverpicOnoar). XI. 36-38. | THE PERSECUTED 189 of the living, harried and hunted over the country. Not all the loyal were killed, yet the survivors had a miserable life of it, like Mattathias and his sons (1 Mac 278 éfvyov . . . eis Ta dpy), oF Judas Maccabaeus and his men, who had to take to the hills (2 Mac 527 év rots dpeow Onpiwy tpdrov diély abv rots per’ adrod, Kal THY XopTHdy Tpopyy orTovpevot SteréAovr), Or Others during the persecution (2 Mac 6! érepor 5¢ wAnoiov cuvdpapovtes eis Ta omyAaa). When the storm blew over, the Maccabeans recol- lected ds rHv TV oKnVaV EopTHy ev TOs Opec Kal ev TOLs oryAALoLS Onpiwv tpdorov Hoav veudpevor (2 Mac 10°), They roamed, the writer adds, dressed év pyndwrats (the rough garb of prophets, like Elijah, 1 K 19119), év aiyetous Séppacw (still rougher pelts). According to the Ascensio Lsaiae (27) the pious Jews who adhered to Isaiah when he withdrew from Manasseh’s idolatry in Jerusalem and sought the hills, were ‘all clothed in garments of hair, and were all prophets.” Clement (17!) extends the refer- ence too widely: oirwes év déppacw aiyeious Kal pndAwrtats mrept- watnoav Knpvaocortes THY eAevotv TOD Xpiorov" A€yomev dé "HAciav kat “EAwoaré, ere 5€ Kai “leLexiyA, Tovs mpodyras: mpos Tovrots Kat TOUS [ELAPTUPN[LEVOLS. A vivid modern description of people clad in goatskins occurs in Balzac’s Les Chouans (ch. i.): ‘‘ Ayant pour tout vétement une grande peau de chévre qui les couvrait depuis le col jusqu’aux genoux. . . . Les meches plates de leurs longs cheveux s’unissaient si habituellement aux poils de la peau de chévre et cachaient si complétement leurs visages baissés vers la terre, qu’on pouvait facilement prendre cette peau pour la leur, et confondre, a la premiére vue, les malheureux avec ces animaux dont les dépouilles leur servaient de vétement. Mais a travers les cheveux l’on voyait bientédt briller les yeux comme des gouttes de rosée dans une €paisse verdure ; et leurs regards, tout en annongant lintelligence humaine, causaient certainement plus de terreur que de plaisir.” Their general plight is described in three participles, botepov- pevor, OuBdpevor (2 Co 48), kaxovxodpevor (cp. 13°, and Plut. Consol. ad Apoll. 26, dote rpiv drwcacbat Ta TévOy KaKovXovMEVOUS teAXeutnoat Tov Piov). Kaxovyew only occurs twice in the LXX (1 K 276 1199 A), but is common in the papyri (e.g. Zedt. Pap. 10422, B.c. 92). This ill-treatment at the hands of men, as if they were not considered fit to live (cp. Ac 22%), elicits a splendid aside—Gyv otk jv déos 6 Kéopos. Compare Mechilta, 5a (on Ex 12°): ‘Israel possessed four commandments, of which the whole world was not worthy,” and the story of the bath gol in Sanhedr. 11. 1, which said, ‘‘One is here present who is worthy to have the Shekinah dwelling in him, but the world is not worthy of such.” Kéopos as in v.?; Philo’s list of the various meanings of kéapos (in de aetern. mundt, 2) does not include this semi-religious sense. Of the righteous, Wis 35 remarks: 6 Geds éeipacev avtovs Kai etpey aitovs agiovs éavrod, 190 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 88-40. ‘*There is a class of whom the world is always worthy and more than worthy: it is worthy of those who watch for, reproduce, exaggerate its foibles, who make themselves the very embodiment of its ruling passions, who shriek its catchwords, encourage its illusions, and flatter its fanaticisms. But it isa poor vé/e to play, and it never has been played by the men whose names stand for epochs in the march of history” (H. L. Stewart, Questzons of the Day in Philosophy and Psychology, 1912, p. 133). In °8> it was the not infrequent (cf. Mk 145) confusion of EN and ETT! in ancient texts which probably accounted for év being replaced by ézé (颒) in p!® & A P 33. 88, etc.; émé does not suit omndatous. . . dmats, and the writer would have avoided the hiatus in é7i épypias. Still, tAavdpevor suits only éonpiats Kal 6peowv, and éwi may have been the original word, used loosely like wAavipevor with omydAaiows xrX. In Ps.-Sol 17!% the pious érAavavro év épjuots, cwOjva Woxas attdv amd Kaxov. For drats, cp. Ob 8 év rais drats tév wetpov. andaiov, like the Latin spelunca or specus, eventually became equivalent to a “‘ temple,” perhaps on account of the prominence of caves or grottoes in the worship of some cults. Now for an estimate of this zioris and its heroic representa- tives (vv.59 4°)! The epilogue seems to justify God by arguing that the apparent denial of any adequate reward to them is part of a larger divine purpose, which could only satisfy them after death. 89 They all won their record (waprupndévres =éuaprupyOnoay in v.*) for faith, but the Promise they did not obtain, © God had something better in store for us (hu@v emphatic); he would not have them perfected apart from us. | Some of these heroes and heroines of faith had had God’s special promises fulfilled even in this life (eg. vv.1!: 8), but zhe Promise, in the sense of the messianic bliss with its eternal life (1086 87, cf. 617£), they could not win. Why? Not owing to any defect in their faith, nor to any fault in God, but on account of his far-reaching purpose in history; oto. mdvtes (again as in v.18, but this time summing up the whole list, vv.4%8) odx éxopicavto (in the sense of v.!* ux Kouicdpevor; not a voluntary renunciation, as Wetstein proposes to interpret it—‘‘non acceperunt felicitatem promissam huius vitae, imo deliberato consilio huic beneficio renunciaverunt et maluerunt affligi morique propter deum”) thy émayyediav (in v.18 the Promise was loosely called ai érayyeAda, and the plural ras érayyedias is therefore read here by A W 436. 1611). The reason for this is now given (v.4°) in a genitive absolute clause, tod Oe00 mepl hyay kpettrov Tt mpoBAepapevou (the middle for the active). ITpoSAérew only occurs once in the LXX (Ps 37}9 6 8 kvpios . . . mpoBrEéret Ore H&et 7 Hepa adrod), and only here in the NT, where the re- ligious idea makes it practically a Greek equivalent for providere. XI. 40.] THEY AND WE IQI Kpeirrov tu is explained by tva ph xwpis fpav teherwGouv, which does not mean that “our experience was necessary to complete their reward,” but that God in his good providence reserved the messianic teAeiwors of Jesus Christ until we could share it. This reXciwos is now theirs (9! 12”), as it is ours—if only we will show a like strenuous faith during the brief interval before the end. This is the thought of 12!*, catching up that of 10%, God deferred the coming of Christ, in order to let us share it (cp. 1 P 110.20), his plan being to make room for us as well. The reXeiwots has been realized in Jesus; till he reappears (978 1012. 87) to complete the purpose of God for us, we must hold on in faith, heartened by the example of these earlier saints. Their faith was only granted a far-off vision of the hoped-for end. We have seen that end realized in Jesus; therefore, with so many more resources and with so short a time of strain, we ought to be nerved for our endurance by the sense of our noble predecessors. It is not that we experience xpetrrév tu by our immediate experi- ence of Christ (10!*), who fulfils to us what these former folk could not receive before his coming. This is true, but it is not exactly the point here. The xpetrrdy re is our inclusion in this People of God for whom the reActwors of Christ was destined, the privilege of the xpeirrwv diabyxyn. The writer does not go the length of saying that Christ suffered in the persons of these saints and heroes (as, ¢.g., Paulinus of Nola, 4zs¢. xxxviii. 3: ‘ab initio saeculorum Christus in omnibus suis patitur ... in Abel occisus a fratre, in Noe irrisus a filio, in Abraham peregrin- atus, in Isaac oblatus, in Jacob famulatus, in Joseph venditus, in Moyse expositus et fugatus, in prophetis lapidatus et sectus, in apostolis terra marique iactatus, et multis ac uariis beatorum martyrum crucibus frequenter occisus”), and this consideration tells against the theory of a “mystical” sense in v.26. The con- clusion of the whole matter rather is (vv.5% 4°) that the reward of their faith had to be deferred till Christ arrived in our day. The reAeiwois is entirely wrought out through Christ, and wrought out for all. It covers all God’s People (cp. 1278), for now the Promise has been fulfilled to these earlier saints. But the writer significantly ignores any idea of their co-operation in our faith; we neither pray to them, nor they for us. Josephus interpreted the sacrifice of Isaac, as if Abraham reconciled himself to it by reflecting that his son would be a heavenly support to him (Azz. i. 13. 3, €kelvov, 2.€. Tov Oeod, THY WuxiVv THY OHV TpoTdexopevou Kal map aito KabéEovros’ ever TE pot eis KNdELOVa Kal ynpoKOMov . Tov Oedv avTi cavTod mapecynpévos). Such ideas lie outside the range of our epistle, and there is significance in the fact that the writer never touches them. I92 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XI. 40-XII. 1. In Clement of Alexandria’s comment (Strom. iv. 16) on this passage, he quotes 10°89 (reading Seopots mov: éavrovs: xpoviet: dixatds pou), then hurries on to 11°*@-12? (reading éXOdoOnoav, éretpdoOnoar, ev povy pm. amé- Oavov: év épnulas: Thy érayyeNlav Tod Oeob), and adds: dzrodelrerar voeiv Td Kara wapacusrnow elpnudvov pdvor. émipéper yodv' rept hua Kpetrréy Tt mpoedouéevou Tod Oeod (dyabds yap Fv), va pn xwpls hudy TerXewwhdor. The collocation of tiv érayyedlav with rod Geod is a mistake. From the jpav ... fpav of the epilogue the writer now passes into a moving appeal to his readers (121*). 1 Therefore (Tovyapofy, as in 1 Th 48), with all this host of witnesses encircling us, we (kal fuels, emphatic) mst strip off sin with tts clinging folds, to run our appointed course steadily (6 bmopovns), * our eyes fixed upon Jesus as the pioneer and the perfection of fatth—upon Jesus who, in order to reach his own appointed joy, steadily endured (bréwevev) the cross, thinking nothing of tts shame, and ts now “‘ seated at the right hand” of the throne of God. The writer now returns to the duty of trouovy as the im- mediate exercise of wioris (10°), the supreme inspiration being the example of Jesus (121°) as the great Believer, who shows us what true wiotis means, from beginning to end, in its heroic course (Tov mpoKeipevov Huty ayava). The general phraseology and idea of life as a strenuous dywv, in the Hellenic sense (see on 514), may be seen in many passages, ¢.2. Eurip. Ovest. 846 f. : ) mpos & ’Apyetov olxerar New, Wuxjs ayava Tov mpoxeluevov Tépt ddowv, ev @ hv i) Oavety buds xpewr, Herod. viii. 102 (azodAods roddAdKs dy@vas Spauéovrar of “EAAnves) and ix. 60 (d-yGvos weylorov mpoxermévou édevbépny elvar # dedov\wpyevyny Thy ‘EAAGSa), and especially in 4 Mac 14° mdyres (the seven martyrs), ®omep ém’ ddavaclas dddv Tpéxovres, Emi Tov did Tov Bacdyvwy Odvarov éomwevdoy, and Philo’s de migrat. A brah, 24, kal yap ‘ABpaap mirretoas ‘ éyylfew Oe” (Gn 18%, cp. He 11°) héyerat. é€av pévroe Topevduevos unre Kaun (cp. He 12%) pare pabuujoy, ws map éxdrepa éxtpamduevos (cp. He 12)%) rravdcbac ris péons kal evOurevots Siaaprav ddo0, pipnoduevos dé Tods ayabo’s Spouets 7d orddiov dmralorws avion Tod Blov, oreddvwv Kal GO\wv ératlwy revserat pds TO Tédos éOwy. The figure is elaborately worked out in 4 Mac 171-14 (a\0@s yap iv dyav Oetos 6 Ov abrav yeyevnuévos. OoPETEL yap Tore adperh Sv brromovys Soxiud- fovca’ Td vikos év dpOapola év Swy worvxpoviw. ’Heafap 5é rponywvrifero: 7 dé bjTnp TOv era raldwy évjOrer' of dé ddeA Hol Hywvifovro’ 6 Tupavvos avTnywvlfeTo* 6 6é kdomos Kal 0 THv dvOpdrwy Bios éewper), Where the Maccabean martyrs are athletes of the true Law; but the imagery is more rhetorical and detailed than in I[pdés ‘ESpaious, where the author, with a passing touch of metaphor, suggests more simply and suggestively the same idea. "Exovtes . . . GroOdyevor . . . adopadytes, three participles with the verb after the second, as in Jude 2° #1; but here the first, not the second, denotes the motive. Tooodroy! (thrown forward, for emphasis) €xovtes trepike(pevoy hutv védos paptipwr. Maprupes here, in the light of 1124589, denotes those who have borhe 1 Tydckovrov, x* W. XII. 1, 2. | THE CLOUD OF WITNESSES 193 personal testimony to the faith. Heaven is now crowded with these (12?), and the record of their evidence and its reward enters into our experience. Such mvevpara dixaiwy rereherwpevwv speak to us (114) still; we are, or ought to be, conscious of their record, which is an encouragement to us (kal mets) ér éoydrov tay neepav Tovtwy (17), It is what we see in them, not what they see in us, that is the writer’s main point; zepixeipevov suggests that the idea of them as witnesses of our struggle (see the quot. from 4 Mac, above) is not to be excluded, but this is merely suggested, not developed. Mdédprus is already, as in Rev 2} etc., beginning to shade off into the red sense of “‘ martyr” (cp. Kattenbusch in Zeztsch. fiir neutest. Wissenschaft, 1903, pp. 111 f. ; G. Kriiger, zdzd., 1916, pp. 264f.; Reitzenstein in Hermes, 1917, pp. 442f., and H. Delehaye in Axalecta Bollandiana, 1921, pp. 20 f.), though the writer uses the word with a special application here, not as usually of the Christian apostles nor of the prophets, but of the heroes and heroines of the People in pre-Christian ages. He does not even call Jesus Christ pdprvs (as does the author of the Johannine apocalypse). The meaning of ‘‘ witnesses of our ordeal” (z.e. spectators) is supported by passages like Epict. iv. 4. 31, ovdels dyav) diya OoptBou ylverat* moddovs Set Tpoyuuvacras elvat, moAdovs [Tovs] émixpavydfovras, roAXovs ervoTrdras, TOAAOUS deards, and particularly Longinus, de sud/im. xiv. 2, who, in arguing that many people catch their inspiration from others, notes: r@ yap dvTt péya Td aywvicua, ToovToy UroTidecOar Tay idiwy Adywr dikaoTHpiov Kal Oéarpor, Kal év TnXKoUTOLs Hpwot kpirats Te Kal wdprvow vréxe TOV ypadouevwy evOivas memaixOa. In Educational Aims and Methods (p. 28), Sir Joshua Fitch writes: ‘‘ There is a remarkable chapter in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which the writer unfolds to his countrymen what is in fact a National Portrait Gallery, as he enumerates, one by one, the heroes and saints of the Jewish history, and adds to his catalogue these inspiring words . . . [He 11°?-*4], And, finally, he draws this conclusion from his long retrospect . . . [He 12!]. How much of the philosophy of history is condensed into that single sentence ! It is suggestive to us of the ethical purpose which should dominate all our historical teaching. To what end do we live in a country whose annals are enriched by the story of great talents, high endeavours and noble sacrifices, if we do not become more conscious of the possibilities of our own life, and more anxious to live worthily of the inheritance which has come down to us?” Nédos (never in this sense in LXX) has its usual Greek mean- ing of “host” (Latin nimbus or nubes), as, ¢g., in Herod. viii. 109, véhos TocotTo avOpwrwv. In dykov dtobdpevor mdévtTa Kal Thy eUmepiotatoy dpaptiav, dyxov is thrown first for the sake of emphasis: ‘‘any encumbrance that handicaps us.” The conjec- 1 The broader conception of the moral life as an athletic contest recurs in Epict. iii. 25. 1-3, cxéWar, Gv mpoéGov apyduevos, Tlywy wer éxpdryoas, tivwy F o} . . . od yap amroKkvnréov Tov ayava Tov péyioTov aywrifouevols, GANA Kal wANyas AnTréov’ ov yap Urép wadns Kal TayKparlov 6 dywv mpdxerrat . . . GAN vrép alras ebruxlas Kal evdaimorlas. 13 194 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS _ [XII. 1, 2. ture dxvov (P. Junius) is relevant, but superfluous; sloth is a hindrance, but the general sense of dyxos in this connexion is quite suitable. Compare Apul. Apologia, 19 (“etenim in omnibus ad vitae munia utendis quicquid aptam moderationem supergreditur, oneri potius quam usui exuberat”), and the evening prayer of the Therapeutae (Philo, w7¢. Contemp/. 3) to have their souls lightened from tod rév aic@jycewv Kal aicbytdv dyxov. "Oyxos had acquired in Greek literature the sense of pride, both bad and good, and it has been taken here (so sah= “having forsaken all pride”) as an equivalent for pride in the sense of conceit (fastus), as, ¢g., by Bengel and Seeberg. But what the readers seem to have been in danger of was not arrogance so much as a tendency to grow disheartened. ‘The metaphor is not “reducing our weight,” though dyxos had sometimes this associa- tion with fleshiness ; it refers to the weight of superfluous things, like clothes, which would hinder and handicap the runner. Let us strip for the race, says the writer. Put unmetaphorically, the thought is that no high end like miots is possible apart from a steady, unflinching resolve to do without certain things. What these encumbrances are the writer does not say (cp. 1115. 25. 26); he implies that if people will set themselves to the course of faith in this difficult world, they will soon discover what hampers them. In kat thy edmepiotarov duaptiav, the article does not imply any specific sin like that of apostasy (v.*); it is daptia in general, any sin that might lead-to apostasy (e.g. v.19). The sense of edrepicraros can only be inferred from the context and from the analogy of similar compounds, for it appears to have been a verbal adjective coined by the writer; at any rate no in- stance of its use in earlier writers or in the papyri has been as yet discovered. As the phrase goes with dmo8éuevor, the intro- ductory xaé linking thy . . . dpaptiay with dyKov, etrepiotatos probably denotes something like “‘circumstans nos” (vg), from meplictavat (=cingere). The ed is in any case intensive. The- ophylact suggested “endangering” (8° iv edxdAws Tis eis Tept- oTdces éurimrer’ ovdev yap oUTW KLVOvVHdes Os duaptia), as though it were formed from zepiotracis (distress or misery). Taken passively, it might mean (a) “popular,” or (4) “easily avoided,” or (c) ‘‘easily contracted.” (a) mepicraros may mean what people gather round (repicraréw) to admire, as, ¢.g., in Isokrates, de Permut. 135 E, Oavparorotiais tais... tro tay dvonTwv mepior dr ous yevopevais, and evdrepiorarov would then = “right popular.” This is at any rate more relevant and pointed than (2), from Tepllo Tapa, which Chrysostom once suggested (ryv EVKOAWS TEPUTT OPEV IV eas 7 TV cdohus TeploTaciv duvapevny mabeiv: parXov de TodTo, padiov yap «av OeAwpev mepvyever Oar THs dyaptias), though wepicraros does mean ‘‘admired,” and drepi- XII.1,2.] DIFFICULTIES OF THE COURSE 195 oraros is sometimes, by way of contrast, ‘‘unsupported.” On the other hand, dmepicraros may mean ‘‘unencumbered,” as in the contrast drawn by Maximus of Tyre (Diss. xx.) between the simple life (adaAoty Biov kat adrepictatroy Kal éAcvbepias é7PBoXov) and a life r@ odx atAG GAN advayxaiw Kal mepiotdcewv yémovTt. The former life he declares was that of the golden age, before men worried themselves with the encumbrances of civilization. In the light of this, edwepioratos might mean ‘which sorely hinders ” (z.e. active), a sense not very different from (vg) “ cir- cumstans nos,” or ‘‘which at all times is prepared for us” (syr). (c) is suggested by Theodoret, who rightly takes 4 dpuapria as generic, and defines eizepiotaroy as eikdAws ouvicTapevny TE Kal ywopevnv. Kal yap dpbarpos deAXealerar, axon KarabéArAyerar, ay yapyapilerat, kal yAd@ooa paota diodiobaiver, Kal 6 Aoyiopos mept 70 xelpov G€vpporos. But “easily caught” is hardly tense enough for the context. Wetstein, harking back to wepioraros and zepi- oraois, connects the adjective with the idea of the heroic on- lookers. ‘‘Peccatum uestrum seu defectio a doctrina Christi non in occulto potest committi et latere ; non magis quam lapsus cursoris, sed conspicietur ab omnibus. Cogitate iterum, specta- tores adesse omnes illos heroas, quorum constantiam laudaui, quo animo uidebunt lapsum uestrum? qua fronte ante oculos ipsorum audebitis tale facinus committere?” But “open” or “conspicuous” is, again, too slight and light a sense. If any conjecture had to be accepted, edmepiotadtov would be the best. Cp. the schol. on Jad, ii. 183 (ao dé xAaivay Bare), yAatva Tetpaywvos xAapds 4 eis 6€0 Anyovoa aréPare SE aityv dd TO evrepiotaAtov. Hence Bentley’s note: ‘‘ Lego riv tép ixavoy draptiav . . . immo potius eizepiotaArov dazaptiav.” In Soph. Ajax, 821, the hero says of the sword on which he is about to fall, “I have fixed it in the ground, ed wepicretAas, right care- fully.” The verbal adjective would therefore mean, in this connexion, “ close-clinging,” while dzapriav (= burden) would be practically a synonym for dyxov. Tpéxwpev . . . dhopdvtes, for the motive-power in life comes from inward convictions. What inspires Christians to hold out and to endure is their vision of the unseen (cp. Herodian, v. 6. 7,6 8 "Avrwvivos lee. . . &s TE TOV Oedyv aroBAéTwV Kal Tos xadwors avréxwv Tov int TacdV TE THY OOOV HYVE TPEXwV EuTaALY éavTod adopav te eis TO mpdcbev tov Oecd), as the writer has already shown (111%), Tév mpoketpevoy Hpiv dyava is built on the regular (p. 193) phrase for a course being set or assigned ; 0.8 Lucian in de Mercede Conduct. II, gol 6€ 6 brep THs WuyAs ayov Kat trép amavtos Tov Biov Tore reece doxet: Plato’s Laches, 182a, o0 yap aydvos aOAntat éopev Kal év ols jpiv 6 sl mpoxertat KTA., and Josephus, Axz. Vill. 12. 3, ot tpoKxeipevwv adrois 196 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII 1, 2. aOXwv, erav epi Te cTOVddT wo, Od SiadeirrovGL TEpL TOUT EvEpyovVTES. For &popartes eis (v.”), see Epictetus, il. 19, where the philosopher says he wishes to make his disciples free and happy, eis rov @eov aopavras év TavTl Kal piKp@ kat peydAw. An almost exact parallel occurs in the epitaph proposed by the author of 4 Mac (17?°) for the Maccabean martyrs, of kai efediknoav 7O éOvos eis Oeov apop@vTes Kal péxpt Oavdrov tas Bacdvous tropeivavtes. “Adopay implies the same concentrated! attention as dao Aérew (see on 1176); “with no eyes for any one or anything except Jesus.” "Incotv comes at the end of the phrase, as in 2°, and especially 3'; the terms rtév tis mlotews dpxnydv kat teherwryy describe him as the perfect exemplar of miotts in his earthly life (cp. 21%), as the supreme pioneer (dépxnyés as in 2!°, though here as the pioneer of personal faith, not as the author of our faith) and the perfect embodiment of faith (reXevwrys, a term apparently coined by the writer). He has realized faith to the full, from start to finish. TeXewwrns does not refer to reAcewHGow in 11493 it does not imply that Jesus “‘ perfects” our faith by fulfilling the divine promises. In ds dyti tis mpoKepevys atTO xapas, the yapa is the unselfish joy implied in 2° 9, “that fruit of his self-sacrifice which must be presupposed in order that the self-sacrifice should be a reason- able transaction. Self-sacrificing love does not sacrifice itself but for an end of gain to its object ; otherwise it would be folly. Does its esteeming as a reward that gain to those for whom it suffers, destroy its claim to being self-sacrifice? Nay, that which seals its character as self-sacrificing love is, that this to it is a satisfying reward” (M‘Leod Campbell, Zhe Nature of the Atone- ment, p. 23). As Epictetus bluntly put it, dy py ev td atta 7 TO evoeBes Kal cupdépoyv, od Svvarat cwAhva To eiceBis &Y Tit (i. 27. 14). So, in the Odes of Solomon 315? Christ says: “They condemned me when I stood up... But I endured and held my peace, that I might not be moved by them. But I stood unshaken like a firm rock, that is beaten by the waves and endures. And I bore their bitterness for humility’s sake; that I might redeem my people and inherit it.” Hence dvi (as in v.!6 dvtt Bpdoews: cp. Plato’s Menex. 237 A, dvopas ayalovs érawovvtes, ot . . . THY TEeEUTHY ayTl THs Tov Lév- twv owtypias nAAdEavto) means, “to secure.” The sense of 1 Epictetus, in his praise of Herakles (iii. 24), declares that his hero lived and worked with a firm faith in Zeus the Father. ‘* He considered that Zeus was his own father ; he called Zeus father, and did everything with his eyes fixed on Zeus (pos éxetvov dghopav érparrev & émrparrev).” XII. 2.] JOY AND SHAME 197 mpoxepevns (cp. v.!) tells against the rendering of dvti . . . yapas as ‘‘instead of the joy which had been set before him,” as though the idea were that of 117-26, either the renunciation of his pre- incarnate bliss (so Wetstein, von Soden, Windisch, Goodspeed, etc., recently), or the renunciation of joy in the incarnate life (so Chrysostom, Calvin), z.e. the natural pleasure of avoiding the way of the cross. This is a Pauline idea (2 Co 89, Phil 2&7), which the writer might have entertained ; but (p. 1) he never hints at it elsewhere, and the other interpretation tallies with the idea of 28-9, Inspired by this, Jesus émépewe (+76v, p!® D*) ctaupdv— as we might say in English “a cross.” Aristotle (Viz. Z7h. ix. I, 2) declares that courage is praiseworthy just because it involves pain, xaAerwrepov yap Ta AvTNpa bropéver H TA HO€wv améxer Oar: no doubt the end in view is pleasant (76 xara rHv avdpetay Tédos 70v, cp. He 1214), but the end is not always visible. In aioxdvys katappovyoas it is not the horrible torture of the crucifixion, but its stinging indignity (cp. Gal 3!° for an even darker view), which is noted as a hard thing; it was a punishment for slaves and criminals, for men of whom the world felt it was well rid (cp. 11°84), But Jesus did not allow either the dread or the experience of this to daunt him. He rose above ‘indignity and contumely, that is to say, all that would most touch that life which man has in the favour of man, and which strikes more deeply than physical infliction, because it goes deeper than the body—wound- ing the spirit” (M‘Leod Campbell, Zhe Mature of the Atonement, pp. 229, 230). Musonius (ed. Hense, x.) defined w@pus or aioxivy as olov AovdopyOjvat } TANyHVvaL H eumTvaOjva, Gv TO xaXerwTaToV mrynyat. But the special aicxdvy here is that of crucifixion. This, says the writer, Jesus did not allow to stand between him and loyalty to the will of God. It is one thing to be sensitive to disgrace and disparagement, another thing to let these hinder us from doing our duty. Jesus was sensitive to such emotions ; he felt disgrace keenly. But instead of allowing these feelings to cling to his mind, he rose above them. This is the force of kata- gpovyjoas here, as in the last clause of St. Philip of Neri’s well- known maxim, “Spernere mundum, spernere te ipsum, spernere te sperni.” It is the only place in the NT where xatadpovety is used in a good sense (true and false shame are noted in Sir 470-21 repi rns Wuyns cov py aloyvvOyjs* €or yap aicyivy émd- youra apaptiav, Kai éorw aicyivyn d0fa Kai xdpis). The climax is put in one of the writer’s favourite quotations from the psalter ; only this time he uses kexd@ixev (perfect here alone for the more usual aorist, 1° 8! 10!) =and so has entered on his xapa. Jesus thus had to suffer worse than anything you have had to bear; this is the thought of vv.*4, which round off the first movement of the appeal in 12}! :— 198 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIL.8. 8 Compare him who steadily endured (twopepevnndta) all that hostility [ram sinful men, so as to keep your own hearts from fainting and fatling. ‘ You have not had to shed blood yet in the struggle against sin. The writer assumes, as in 5%f, a close knowledge of the Passion story. Before proceeding to argue that suffering is a fruitful discipline, with which God honours them (v.**), he re- minds them that as yet they have not had to face the worst (v.*). The metaphor of the race-course dies away into the general military metaphor of v.4, where duaprtia is half-personified as in 313, *Avadoyicacbe 1 (the yap is corroborative: “yes, dévaho- yioacbe ” xr.) is more than katavojoate (3!): “consider him and compare his treatment at the hands of these sinners (épaptwdday as in Mk 144!) with what you are called to suffer.” Totadtny echoes ataupov and aicxuvys, and is explained by péxpts atparos in the next verse, while Sropenevnndta is another aoristic perfect like cexaOcxev. "Avtidoylay is used here of active opposition, as in Ps 17* (pdoai pe e& dvtiAoyiv daod), where N* R read avriAoyias, and in the papyri (eg. Zedt. P. 138 [ii B.c.] avTiAoyuds pdxnv). Like the verb (cp. Jn 19!2, Ro 1o0!), the noun covers more than verbal opposition, as in Nu 2018 and Jude !! rH dvtiA0yia rod Kopé. The words eis adrév (or éavrov, A P syr™! etc.: in semetipsum, vg.) have no special emphasis; all the writer means to say is that Jesus himself, Jesus in his own person, had to encounter malevolent opposition. This is one of the places at which textual corruption began early. The curious v.t. éavrovs finds early support in x* D* (abrovs, pi? x° 33. 256. 1288. 1319”. 1739. 2127 Lat syr’8 boh Orig.); p'® x* and D* go wrong here as in rie. D* and Lat asat 112 (insertion). iti is extremely unlikely that the read- ing arose from a recollection of passages like Nu 16%” (Korah, Dathan, and Abiram) arylacay Ta mupeca Tov dpapT wordy rovTwy év (2.é. at the cost of) rats puxats abrav, or Pr 8% oi de els ue duaprdvorres docBotow els ras Eavrav puxds. The notion that an evil-doer really injured himself was a commonplace (é.z. M. Aurel. 91 6 duaprdvwy éavr@ auapTdaver: 6 dducGv éaurov adtxet, the remark of Chrysippus quoted by Plutarch in de Stotc. repugn. xvi., ddixetobar bf é€auTov Tov ddtkodyTa Kal avroy ddixely, drav dddov abixy, Aristotle in Magn. Moral, 1196a, 6 dpa ratra uh rpdrrwy ddixetadrov, and Xen. Hellen. i. 7. 19, nuaprnkiras Ta méyiora els Geovs Te Kal buds av’rovs); Philo works it out in. quod deter. 15, 16. But there is no point in suggesting here, as this reading does, that the aduaprwdol were acting against their better selves, unconsciously injuring their own souls, as they maltreated Jesus. The writer deals with sin in a more straightforward and direct way, and, in spite of all arguments to the contrary (¢.g¢. by Westcott, von Soden, Seeberg, Peake, Wickham), this seems a far-fetched idea here. It is like the similar interpretation of éavrous in 10%4, a piece of irrelevant embroidery ; it “looks like the conceit which some reader wrote upon his margin” (A. B. Davidson). Theodoret took els éavrovs with dvadoyicacbe=‘‘think to yourselves.” Which is not natural, though the Ethiopic version follows this interpretation. In some early versions (¢.g. sah arm) neither els éavréy nor els éavrovs seems to be implied. 1’ Avadoylfouat, though not a LXX term, begins to be used in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g. Ps.-Sol 87 cveXoyiodunv ra Kpluara 790 Oeod) in a religious sense. XII. 3, 4.] A ROUSING REMINDER 199 In tva . . . ekdudpevor, exAvdpevor (ekAeAvpevor p!8 D*) might go with rats Wvyais tov (cp. Polybius, xx. 4. 7, od povoy rots THpacw eeAvOnoay, GANG Kal tats Wxats), as readily as xdpnre (cp. Job 10! kdéyyw dé TH Wy pov). Both verbs connect with it, to express the general sense of inward exhaustion and faint- heartedness ; indeed, Aristotle uses both to describe runners relaxing and collapsing, once the goal has been passed: ézi rots kapmTnpow (at the goal of the race, not till then) éxavéover kal €xAvovTa’ mpoopavTes yap TO mépas ov Kapvovor mpdtepov (Lhet. ili. 9. 2). In v.4 oUmw (ydp is superfluously added by DL 440. 491. 823 arm sah boh) xrA. does not necessarily imply that they would be called upon to shed their blood in loyalty to their faith, as if martyrdom was the inevitable result of tenacity. Nor is the writer blaming them; he does not mean to suggest that if they had been truly decided for God against the world, they would by this time have suffered péxpis aipatos. He is shaming them, not blaming them. ‘ Your sufferings have been serious and sharp (10%), but nothing to what others before you, and especi- ally Jesus, have had to bear. Will you give way under a lesser strain than theirs?” The coming of the messiah was to be heralded by birth-pangs of trouble for his adherents on earth, and it might be supposed that the writer implies here: “ The Coming One (10?") is near (127°), as is evident from your woes ; do not fail, but be ready for him.” But this line of thought is not worked out elsewhere by the writer, and is not necessary to his argument at this point. To fight péxpis aiuaros is to resist to the death; cp. the cry of Judas Maccabaeus to his troops (2 Mac 13}4), aywvicacbat péxpt Gavdtov. Meéypis aiwaros has the same meaning of a mortal combat, e.g. in Heliod. vii. 8, ris PEXPLS Aiparos OTATEWS. Note another case of rhetorical alliteration in atu. dyrix. . . . apapr. dvraywrigduevor (cp. Clem. Hom. iv. 5, mpos tocavrny diva dyraywvil- gac@at), and the use of dvraywrigéobar above (v.’) in the quot. from 4 Mac. The connexion of thought in vv.5* is: God has not yet asked from you the supreme sacrifice (v.*), and, besides (vv.5"), any demand he makes upon your courage is in your highest interests. i ius have you forgotten the word of appeal that reasons with you as SONS §— ** My son, never make light of the Lord’s discipline, never faint (éxdvov) under his reproofs ; 8 for the Lord disciplines the man he loves, and scourges every son he receives.’ 1 It ts for discipline that you have to endure. God ts treating you as sons ; for where ts the son who is not disciplined by hts father? *® Disctpline ts the portion (pwér oxo yeyévact, as 314) of all; tf you get no discipline, then you are not sons, but bastards. * Why, we had fathers of our flesh to discipline us, 200 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XII. 5. and we yielded to them! Shall we not far more submit to the Father of our sptrits, and so live? © For while thetr discipline was only for a time, and inflicted at their pleasure, he disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his own holiness. ™ Discipline always seems for the time to be a thing of pain, not of joy ; but those who are trained by tt reap the fruit of tt afterwards in the peace of an upright life. With the interrogative kat ékdé\nobe «rr. (v.5) the writer opens his next argument and appeal. All such too means a divine ra:Seta or moral training, which we have the honour of receiving from God. Instead of adducing the example of Jesus, however (see on 57-8), he quotes from the book of Proverbs (vv.5- 6), and then applies the general idea (vv.71!). “Exdav6a- veo$a (not a LXX term) in v.5 is slightly stronger than the more common émAavOdver$a, though it may be rhetorically chosen for the sake of assonance after éxkAvopevor. The rapdaxAynots is personified rhetorically ; “Htis (2°) 6piv (for the scripture applies to all believers) &s utots Suadkd€yetar. It is the wapdxAnors of God, who speaks as a father to his son (vié wov), though in the original “son” is merely the pupil of the sage (personifying the divine wisdom). ILapdkAyou in Alexandrian Judaism ‘is the regular term for ‘an appeal’ to an individual to rise to the higher life of philosophy” (Conybeare’s ed. of Philo’s de vit. Contempl., p. 201). The quotation is from Pr 3! !2 (A): es ‘\ > , 5 / / vie, fy OALywper wraldetas Kvuptov, \ > , ers 3 na, 3 / 2 z poe éxAvov tr attod édeyxopevos dv yap ayama Kupios moudever (éX€yxer, B) A / e pactiyot O€ mavra viov dv mapadéxerau. After uté, pou is added (except by D* 31 Old Latin, Clem.), but otherwise the citation is word for word. Philo (De Congressu. Erud. 31) quotes the same passage to prove that discipline and hardship are profitable for the soul (otrws dpa 7 émimAngis kai vovlecia Kaddov vevopicrat, dote du airns mpos Gedy Spodroyia ovyyéveta yiverat. ri yap oixedrepov vid rarpos 7) viod rarpi;). The LXX contains a double mistranslation. (a) It is at least doubt- ful if the Hebrew text of the second line means “be not weary of”; the alternative is a parallel to the first line, “scorn not.” (4) It is certain that the second line of v.® originally ran, “he afflicts the man in whom he delights,” or ‘and delights in him as a father in his son.” Our writer, following the free LXX version, notes the twofold attitude of men under hardship. They may determine to get through it and get over it, as if it had no relation to God, seeing nothing of him in it. Stronger natures take this line; they summon up a stoical courage, which dares the world to do its worst to them. This is dAvywpetv madeias Kupiou. It ignores any divine meaning in the rough experience. Other natures collapse weakly (ék\vew); they see God in the >. @ 8 © 5-7. | PROVIDENCE AND ENDURANCE 201 trial, but he seems too hard upon them, and they break down in self-pity, as if they were victims of an unkind providence. "EXeyxdpevos . . . madeder is used, as in Rev 319 (é6c0us éay pro eheyxo Kal maidevw), of pointing out and correcting faults ; pactryot, as in Judith 827 (eis vovdérnow pactryot Kvpwos rots éyyilovras ard) and often elsewhere ; mapaséxerat, in the sense of Lk 15%. In fact, the temper inculcated. in this passage resembles that of Ps.-Sol 161! where the writer prays: \ \ 93 4 > / 4 byl weak A yoyyvapov Kat dAtyouxiav év Odiver paxpuvov am épuov, €dv dpapTjow ev TO oe Taidevew els emioTpopyV... év TO eAeyxerOar Wryxiv ev xelpl Gampias aitns... A al , ¢ ‘ , év TO Dropetvat dikarov év TovTos eAenOynoeTat bro Kuplov. In eis madelay Smopévere (v.”), with which the writer begins his application of the text, the vigour is lost by the change of eis into ef (in a group of late cursives, including 5. 35. 203. 226°. 241. 242. 257. 337. 378 383. 487. 506. 547. 623. 794. 917. 1319. 1831. 1891. 1898. 2127. 2143 + Theophyl.), and wtmopevere is indicative, not imperative.t To endure rightly, one must endure intelligently ; there is a reason for it in God’s relations with us (Gs utots Sptv mpoodépetar). Mpoodéeperar (cp. Syll. B7 TS SIFALD) is a non-biblical Greek term for “treating” or “handling” (“‘tractare, agere cum”); cp. Sy. 371 1 A.D., and Latyschev’s Inscript. Antig. Orae Septentrionalis, 1 2228 ois pev WAuKuoTas mporpepopevos ws adeAdds . . . Tos dé ratclv ws Tarp); Tis goes with vids, as in Mt 79 (ris éorw e& tpov avOpwros) etc., and éorw after vids is rightly omitted by x* A P W 104. 256 vg sah Origen. A mood of bitter scepticism about the discipline of provi- dence recurs in some contemporary Roman writers ; both Lucan (Pharsalia, iv. 807 f., “ Felix Roma quidem, civesque habitura beatos, | si libertatis superis tam cura placeret | quam uindicta placet ») and Tacitus (//7s¢. i. 3, “nec enim umquam atroci- oribus populi Romani cladibus magisve iustis indiciis adprobatum est non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem ”) speak as if the gods showed an unpaternal vindictiveness. But the idea of a fatherly providence was far-spread, both within and without Judaism. When our author argues: ‘You think that if God were fatherly, he would spare you these hardships? On the contrary, they are the proof of his wise affection”-—he is not far from Seneca’s position (in the de Providentia, iv. 7): ‘hos itaque deus quos probat, quos amat, indurat recognoscit, exercet.” And in 2 Mac 6 the author bids his readers re- 1D takes els maidelav with the foregoing mapadéyerat, as Hofmann does with pacriyot. This leaves trouévere (Urouelvare D) in quite an effective opening position for the next sentence ; but it is not the writer’s habit to end a quotation with some outside phrase. 202 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII.7, 8. member TOS {TuyLwpias pm mpos dAcOpov, GAAA pds waidiay Tod yévous Hav etva. According to Sanhedr. rora (cp. Sifre, Deut. 32), Rabbi Akiba comforted R. Eliezer on his sick- bed by explaining to him that “‘chastisements are precious,” whereas the other three rabbis who accompanied him had only praised the sick man for his piety. There is a fine passage in Philo’s guod deter. potiort insid. soleat, 39-40, where he argues that discipline ny God’s hands is better than being left to oneself in sin and folly ; edruxéorepor O€ Kal Kpeitrovs Tov averiTpoTrevTwv Vvéwv ot pdduora pev ériotacias Kal dpyns akwlhévres proxys, nv ot yevv7- gavres émi Tékvois KexAnpwvTar . . . ixerevwuev ovv Tov Gedy ot guveidoyoer TaV oikelwy GdiKnuaTwv éA€eyxdpmevot, KOAdoAaL Huas uaAXov 7) mapetvar. Similarly, in de sacrificantibus, 11, he writes of parental care, human and divine, apropos of Deut 14} (vioi éore kupiw TO Ged tudv) SnArovdte mpovoias Kat Kydepovias a€uohy- oopevot THs ws €Kk mar pos’ 7 dé émipédXera Torovrov dioica THS ar dvOpworwv 6 Omovrep, oluat, Kal 6 érrrehovpevos Srapéper, Compare M. Aur. 1. 17, 70 dpxovte kat marpi trotaxOnvat, Os EueArXe tavra Tov Tdpov apaipyoey pov (cp. v. 31). When the king asks, in the ZLpist. Arist. 248, what is the supreme instance of neglect (apédeva), the Jew answers, el Téxvwv dgpovris Tis ein, KaL poy KaTa TavTa TpoToVv dyaryetv prensa .. TO O€ émidetobar madeiav " cwppootrys petacyxetv, Jeod dvvdpet TovTO yivera. } Jerome writes in his letter (Zfzs¢. xxii. 39) to Eustochium: ‘‘haec est sola retributio, cum sanguis sanguine conpensatur et redempti cruore Christi pro redemptore libenter occumbimus. quis sanctorum sine certamine corona- tus est? Abel justus occiditur; Abraham uxorem periclitatur amittere, et, ne in inmensum uolumen extendam, quaere et invenies singulos diuersa per- pessos. solus in deliciis Salomon fuit et forsitan ideo corruit. quem enim diligit dominus, corripit ; castigat autem omnem filium, quem recipit. "te often quotes this verse (8) in his letters of counsel and warning. Thus in Ixviii. 1 he prefixes it with the remark, ‘‘ magna ira est, quando peccantibus non irascitur deus.” The modern parallel would be Browning’s hero in Christmas-Eve and Easter-Day (pt. 2, xxxiii.), who is ‘happy that I can Be crossed and thwarted as a man, Not left in God’s contempt apart, With ghastly smooth life.” In v.8 mdvtes (sc. viot yvyovor) recalls mdévta uidy (v.5). Nodbor are children born out of wedlock, who are left to themselves ; the father is not sufficiently interested in them to inflict on them the discipline that fits his legitimate children for their place in the home. Nédos (not a LXX term) seems to mean born of mixed marriages, in Wis 4° (cp. Aristoph. Birds, 1650— 1652, vdOos yap et Kov yvyowos . . . dv ye Sévys yuvatxds). So Philo compares polytheists and lovers of material pleasure to rv ék’ mopvns aroxunGevtwv (de Confus. ling. 28), as distinguished from XII. 8-10.} FATHERS AND THE FATHER 203 the sons of God. The double éore (not 77e) makes the sentence more vivid ; the writer supposes an actual case. In vv.% 1 the writer simply develops this idea of maSela, comparing the human and the divine methods. Hence ¢fra cannot mean here “further” (deinde) ; it is ‘‘ besides,” in the sense that it brings out another element in the conception. Etra might be taken interrogatively (=itane or siccine), to introduce an animated question (as often in Plato, e.g. Leges, 9646, Theat. 207d, Sophist. 2226), though we should expect a '8é in the second clause here or a kal before ov moAd paddAov. Kypke suggests that elra=el dé (quodsi) as, é.g.,in Jos. B./. iii. 8. 5, ef7 av per ddavioy tis avOpwrov TrapakaTabyKny, H OcdOnra cakes. NatSeurns only occurs once in the LXX, and there as a de- scription of God (Hos 5? éya 6 radeuvris tudv); in 4 Mac 9% (6 madevrys yépwv) it is applied to a man, as in Ro 27, Kat éverperrou.e0a, (“‘reverebamur,” vg), we submitted respectfully to them (the object of the verb being matépas), as in Mt 21%”, not, we amended our ways (as in LXX, eg. 2 Ch 7!* and Philo’s quaest. in Gen. 49 76 pn apaptavev pydev TO wapapéyiorov ayabov' TO dpaptavovra evtparnva: cvyyéves éxeivov). In o8 todd paddor, the more common moAh@ is read by D° K L, and after zodv a few authorities (p!? x° D* 1739 Origen) supply the dé which is strictly required after the preceding pev. ‘The description of - God as T@ watpi Tay mveupdtwy is unexpected. In the vocabulary of Hellenistic Judaism God is called 6 rév rvevpdtwr Kal réons efovatas duvdorys (2 Mac 3”), and “ Lord of spirits ’ is a favourite Enochic title; but “spirits” here cannot mean angels (cp. Nu 16*2), The contrast between tols tis capkds twatépas and 76 tatpt Tov mveundtwy denotes God as the author of man’s spiritual being; the expression is quite intelligible as a statement of practical religion, and is only rendered ambiguous when we read into it later ideas about traducianism and creationism, which were not in the writer’s mind. Shall we not submit to Him, the writer asks, kat {ycoper (cp. 10°8 fyjcerat) ? ‘‘ Monemur hoc verbo nihil esse nobis magis exitiale quam si nos in Dei obsequium tradere recusemus” (Calvin). In v.!® the assumption that the readers were mature men (eixopey, v.%) is made explicit by mpés dAtyas hpepas (till we became men). LIIpds here, as in Wis 168 (cis voveciav d€ rpds dAiyov érapayOnoav) etc., means duration ; it is not final, as if the parental discipline were with a view to the short, earthly life alone. Katad 15 Soxodv adtots (as they chose) refers to the arbitrariness of the patria potestas. “‘ Parents may err, but he is wise,” as the Scottish metrical paraphrase puts it. The writer has in mind the familiar Jatrza potestas of the Romans, as in Terence’s Heauton Timoroumenos (100: ‘‘vi et via pervolgata patrum” 204 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XII. 10. 204-207: ‘‘parentum iniuriae unius modi sunt ferme . . . atque haec sunt tamen ad virtutem omnia’’), where one father is confessing to another how he had mishandled his boy (99f.: ‘‘ubi rem rescivi, coepi non humanitus neque ut animum decuit aegrotum adulescentuli tractare ”). Compare the remark of the Persian officer in Xenophon’s Cyropaedza (ii. 2. 14), who argued that a man who set himself to make people laugh did less for them than a man who made them weep, and instanced fathers—kdavuaor pév ye kal marépes viots swdpoctvnv unxavavrat. This is wholesome correction. But it was not always so. ‘‘Qur postremo filio suscenseam, patres ut faciunt ceteri?” old Demaenetus asks, in the Aszvzaria (49) of Plautus. Ovid’s ‘‘durus pater” (Amores, i. 15. 17) was more than a tradition of literature. Pliny tells us, for example, that he had once to remonstrate with a man who was thrashing his son for wasting money on horses and dogs (Z//. ix. 12): ‘‘haec tibi admonitus immodicae seueritatis exemplo pro amore mutuo scripsi, ne quando tu quoque filium tuum acerbius duriusque tractares.” There is also the story told by Aelian (Var. Ast. ix. 33) about the youth who, when asked by his father what he had learned from Zeno, was thrashed for failing to show anything definite, and then calmly replied that he had learned stoically to put up with a father’s bad temper (@67 meuabynxévar péperv dpyhv rarépwv kal uh ayavaxretvy). Sons, says Dio Chrysostom (xv. 240 M), rpédovrat mares bd TOV Tarépwv Kal walovrac wédAaKis Uw’ ad’r@v. The general point of view is put by Epictetus (Enchiridion, 30, warnp éorw* bmaryopeverat émipedeta bat, TO,pax wpety aTaVTWY, avéxec0at ocdopotvros, matovros), and the connexion of *‘ life”? with madela in Pr 4° éridaBod éufjs wadeias, uh ads, GAA PvAasov avray ceauTy@ els Swhv cov: Pr 63 Adxvos évToA} vouou Kal Pas, Kal odds fwijs kal éXeyxos Kal macdeia, and Sir 4)", Now for the contrast. ‘Oo 8€ (God; sc. wawWever nuds) emt 78 oup.dépov (cp. TiCOMgl 20 pet ristapees: op Bovdevortov pos TO cupEepov TV didrwy), which is explained in eis 16 petadaBety (cp. 67) tis dyidtnTos adtod. ‘“Ayiétys is a rare term, which begins to appear late in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 15? rod mavta epopavtos pel ayiorntos: Test. Levi 34 trepdvw racns dy.dtytos), and, except as a v./, in 2 Co 117, occurs nowhere else in the NT. Here it denotes the divine life, to share in which is the outcome of 6 dyacpds oF xwpts obdels SWerar (7c. have a direct experience of) tov kdptov (v.14). The writer, in this contrast, is simply arguing that the divine education, which involves some suffering, as all watdefa does, is more worthy of obedience from mature people than even the parental discipline to which, for all its faults ot temper, they submitted during childhood. The say- ings of Isokrates, that while the roots of wadefa were bitter, its fruits were sweet, was a commonplace of ancient morals; the writer is going to develop it in a moment. Meantime he alludes to the equally well-known truth that zadefa might involve severe physical treatment. Two examples may be added of this doctrine that education involves a discipline which sometimes requires the infliction of pain. Maximus of Tyre (Diss. iv. 7), in arguing that the desire to give pleasure is by no means an in- variable proof of true affection, asks: g@iAodow dé wou kal maidas marépes Ket diddoxaror pwabyrds kal ri dy ein dviapdrepov 7} madi marhp Kal uabnry diddo- kados; so Philo argues in de Migrat. Abrah. 20, cwppovicrdv ws Eocxe Todrs XII. 11.] THE GOOD OF DISCIPLINE 205 éore Td @00s, mavdaywyav, didackddwv, yovéwy, mpecBuTépwr, adpxdvTwv, vouwv* dverdlfovres yap, ore 5 Srrov kal Koddfovres Exacror ToUTwy delvous Tas Wuxas amepydfovrat T@v madevouevwwv. Kal ExOpds pév ovdeis oddevl, pirou dé maar mavtes. In de parent. col. 4, he explains, dca rotr’ é&eort Tots marpdou kal KaTnyopelv mpos Tovs matdas Kal éuBpiléorepov vovberetv Kal, el wt Tals Ov axowv dmeiNais brelkovot, TUMTTEW Kal mpomndaklfev Kal KaTadely. In v.1! the writer sums up what he has been saying since v.5. Discipline or tatSela mpds 6 wapdv (a classical Greek phrase = for the moment, eg. Thuc. il. 22, op@v airovs mpds 76 rapdv xaderai- vovtas) o§ (7as . . . ov=absolute negative, not any) Soxet (to human feelings and judgment) xapas etvar &AAG AUrys (to be a matter of, efvac with gen. as in 10%). Naoa pev (x* P 33. 93) and aoa dé (p? xe A DC H K LW 6. 326. 929. 1288. 1836 vg syr boh Chrys. etc.) practically mean the same thing, for the uév is concessive ( ‘Sof course” ) and dé is metabatic. But probably it was the awkwardness of the double yév that led to the alteration of this one. The other readings, waoa yap (Cosm. (221 C) Jer. Aug.) and raoa (D* 104. 460. 917 arm eth Orig. Cosm. (376 D)) are obviously inferior attempts to clear up the passage. “Yotepov 8€ (cp. Pr 5% 4 (of the harlot) 1 wpds xarpov Auraiver cov dapvyya' VaTEpov pévTor miKpoTEpov XoAHS evpyoes), but later on discipline yields fruit; it is not a stone flung down arbitrarily on human life, but a seed. By kapmév cipyyikdy Stxatocdyys the writer means fruit (xaprds as often=result or outcome), which consists in (genit. of apposition) dicaocvvy (as in 117 a generic term for the good life as a religious relationship to God). But why eipyvuxdy? Possibly in contrast to the restiveness and pain (AUwns) of the period of discipline, when people are being trained (yeyupvacpévors); when the discipline does its perfect work, there is no friction between the soul and God. But there is also the suggestion of ‘“‘saving” or “blissful.” Philo quotes Pr 311.12 (see above on v.°) as a saying of Solomon (¢he peaceful (eipnvixds) ; the significance of this he finds in the thought that subjection and obedience are really a wholesome state for people who are inclined to be self-assertive, uncontrolled, and quarrel- some. He thinks that Noah is rightly called by a name denoting rest, since petiacw npepatov dé kal novydlovta Kal orabepoy ere dé kal eipyvixov Biov of Kkadokdyabiav tetiunkdtes (Abrah. 5). To take eipyvixdv in some such sense (salutaris) would yield a good interpretation ; and this is confirmed by the similar use of eipyvn in v.!4 and of the adjective in 3 Mac 6*, where the Jews, in the ecstasy of their relief, yopots ovvictavto edtdppocivns eipynvixns onpetov. ‘Those who stand their training reap a safe, sound life at last. In its social aspect, eipyvixov could only refer to the brotherly love of the community; the writer might be throwing out a hint to his readers, that suffering was apt to render people irritable, impatient with one another’s faults. The later record even of the martyrs, for example, shows that the very prospect of 206 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS ([XII.11, 12. death did not always prevent Christians from quarrelling in prison. This may be the meaning of eipyvexdy in Ja 3}8, but it is out of keeping with the present context. A close parallel to v.! is the saying of Aristotle (see above, for the similar remark of Isokrates), quoted by Diog. Laertius (v. 1. 18): ris madelas py Tas pev plfas elvar muxpas, yAuKets dé rods Kaprovs. In pest. Arist. 232, Tovs yap am avbrijs (2.¢é. Suxacoovyys) ddurlav karacKkevdvev, though the ddumla here is freedom from misfortune. Clem. Alex. (Strom. vii. 10. 56), after speaking of the time when we are delivered from the chastisements and punishments as ék Trav duaprnudrwy els matdelay vrouévouev cwrnprov [He 127], adds: ued’ Hy drodtrpwov 7d yépas Kal ai Timal TeXeLwOeiow drodldovrai . . kal Geol rhv mpoonyoplay KéxXnvrat ol civOpovoar TOV dAwv Gedy, Trav bd T@ CWTHPL THWTa TETAYMEVWV, yEevNTOMEVOL. The writer now resumes the imperative tone (vv.!%), with a blend of counsel and warning. The discipline of trouble. is viewed under an active aspect; men must co-operate with God, exerting themselves to avoid sin (v.1) by the exercise of personal zeal and church-discipline. Otherwise, the results may be fatal. The exhortation broadens out here, resuming the tone and range of 102F, 12 So (616 as in 61) ‘up with your listless hands! Strengthen your weak © knees!” %8 And ‘‘ make straight paths for your feet” to walk in. You must not let the lame get dislocated, but rather make them whole. ‘4 Aim at peace with all—at that consecration without which no one will ever see the Lord ; ™ see to it that no one misses the grace of God, ‘‘ that no root of bitterness grows up to be a trouble” by contaminating all the rest of you ; 8 that no one turns to sexual vice or to a profane life as Esau did—Esau who for a single meal ‘* parted with his birthright.” '" You know how later on, when he wanted to obtain his inheritance of blessing, he was set astde; he got no chance to repent, though he tried for tt with tears. For the first time, since the hints in 3!? 41 and 611, the writer alludes to differences of attainment in the little community. Hitherto he has treated them asa solid whole. But the possi- bility of individual members giving way has been voiced in 102%, and now the writer (1) widens his appeal; his readers are to maintain their faith not only for their own sakes but for the sake of those who at their side are in special danger of collapsing. The courage of their évopovy is more than a personal duty; they are responsible for their fellow-members, and this involves the duty of inspiriting others by their own unswerving, unflagging faith. The admonition, as in 131", is addressed to the whole community, not to their leaders. The general aim of vy. 18 js to produce the character praised by Matthew Arnold in his lines on Rugby Chapel: ‘Ye move through the ranks, recall The stragglers, refresh the out-worn... Ye fill up the gaps in our files, Strengthen the wavering line, XII. 12, 18.) RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS 207 Stablish, continue our march, On, to the bound of the waste, On, to the City of God.” He begins in v.!” by using scriptural language borrowed freely from Is 35° (ioxvoare, xelpes dvemévar Kal yovata mapadedvpeva), but in a form already current in Sir 25°? (yetpes wapepévar kal yovata mapaXeAvpéva), and also from Pr 4° (dpGas tpoxids rove tois tooiv). This metaphorical language for collapsing in listless despair is common, e.g., in Sir 21? where yetpes mapepevar is bracketed with “cowardly hearts,” in Philo’s description of the Israelites who longed to return to Egypt, of pev yap mpoxapovres avérecov, Bapiv aytiradov hynodpevor Tov Tévov, Kal TAS XElpas br dobevelas Womrep areipyKdtes GOAnTal KabjKav (de Congressu Erud. 29, cp. He 111°), and especially in the description of moral encouragement in Job 4° 4 ei yap od évovlérnoas mtodXods, Kal xéipas aobevovs mapexdArecas, dobevodyvtas Te eLavéeotyoas pyyacw, yovaciv te advvatrotow Odpoos mepieOyxas. In Dt 32°° rapadcdv- pévous is parallel to mapeiévovs, and in Zeph 31° the appeal is @dpoe . . . pn tapeobwoav at yxetpés cov.! "AvopPdoate (literally = straighten, renew) goes with ydvara better than with xetpas, but the sense is plain. In v.}, if moujoate is read in the first clause, kal tpoxids 6p0as tmoujoate Tots Tooly Spay is a hexa- meter (p. lvii). By 76 xwddy the writer means “those who are lame,” these crippled souls in your company. Probably the roveire of 8* P 33. 917. 1831 (Orig.) has been conformed, in monoare (x° AD H KL, etc., Chrys.), to the preceding dvop@dcare (so, é.g., B. Weiss, in Zexte u. Untersuch. xiv. 3. 4, 9, who declares that the older codices never yield any case of an original aor. being changed into a present), though some edd. (é.g. von Soden) regard woujoare as the original text and moveire as having been conformed to LXX (cp. Mt 3%). As ia6 8 paddov shows, éxtpawf here has its medical sense (e.g. Hippol. de offic. med. 14, os pare dvaxAGrac pate éxtpé- wnat), not the common sense of being “turned aside” (as, ¢.g., in Philo, Quaest. in Exod. 2379 ot advddktws ddoropodvtes Stapapravovaw THs 6pOjs Kal AewPdpov ws woAXdaxKis eis avodias Kal dvaBarovs kai tpaxeias atparovs éxtpérerOa' TO rapamrAnoiy éotww dre kal ai Woxal TO vedy Traideias ayoupodvow, and in M. Aurel. 1. 7, Kal TO pi) extpamnvar eis ChrAov codiotikov). In Od. Sol 6!4* the ministers of the divine grace are praised in similar terms for their service to weaker Christians : ‘They have assuaged the dry lips, And the will that had fainted they have raised up:... And limbs that had fallen They have straightened and set up.” 1 Clem. Hom. xii. 18, ai xetpes bard Snyudrwr rapelOynoav. 208 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII 18, 14. But here it is the rmembers as a whole who are addressed, and Tpox. dp0as 7. T. Tooty Guay means “keep straight ” (zociv, dative = “for your feet”)—it is the only way to help your fellow-members who have weakened themselves. Keep up the tone of your community, move in the right direction, to prevent any of your number from wavering and wandering. The straight path is the smooth path, it is implied; if any limping soul is allowed to stray from the straight course, under the influence of a bad example, he will be made worse instead of better. The admoni- tion in Zes¢. Sim. 573 is interesting, as it suggests the train of thought here between vv.12 and 16 ; > , X , Chur 4 , ayabivare Tas Kapdias trav evwriov Kuptov , a , kat evOvvare Tas Sd00s tuadv evdrLov Tov avOpdrwy / , \ , kal €cece etpioxovres xapiv évwmiov Kvupiov kat avOpwrwv. puvragacbe otv amd THS Topveias, OTL 7) Topveia pyTnp eoTi TOV KaKOv, / > A nw n \ aA fr , xwpilovea amo Tov Peod Kat mpoceyyilotoa TO BeXiap. The author of Npds ‘EBpatous knows that the difficulties in the way of faith are more than mere despair. In 1211! he has been dealing with the need of cheerful courage under the strain of life ; this leads to the appeal of v.!%. But while there is nothing so infectious as cowardice or despair, he rapidly passes on, in vv.l3£ (kaf xrA.), to warn his readers against some specific temptations in the moral life. He continues, in a third impera- tive (v.14), eipyynv SidKxete (an OT phrase, 1 P 3!) pera mdvtov. Here pera goes with duoxere in the sense of “along with” (as in 119 13°3, for our author avoids avy), and wdvrwy means “all the (other) dytoc” (as in 1374). The call is to make common cause with all the rest of the Christians in the quest for God’s cipyvn, t.e. (see above on v.!!) the bliss and security of a life under God’s control. It is eipyvy in a sense corresponding to the older sense of felicity and prosperity on the ground of some (messianic) victory of God, practically as in Lk 17 198 the Christian salvation; only this comprehensive sense does justice to the term here and in 137, Hence the following xaé is almost = “even.” Eipyvy in a similar sense occurs repeatedly in the context of the passage already quoted from Proverbs: e.g. 3'*? vié, éudv vouluwy uh émidavOdvov, Ta dé phuara mou TypelTw oh Kapdla* ufKos yap Blov Kal éryn fwhs kal elphyny mpocOjncovely go .. . 3° amdpxov alr@ amd cGy Kaprdv dixacocvvns . 316 17 éx rod orbuaros avrijs éxropeverat dixatoovvyn Kal mdvres ol TplBo. adrhs év elpdvyn . . . 37% iva ropevy meroibws ev elpivy mdoas ras ddovs cov. After Pr 4% (as quoted above) there follows the promise, avrds 58 ras 6p0as momo Tas Tpoxlas cov, Tas dé mopelas cou év elpnyy mpodéer. The conventional interpretation takes elpyvynv with peta mavtov (Ze. all XII. 14, 15.] A WARNING 209 your members). This yields a fair sense, for a quarrelsome church is a real hindrance to effective faith; the quarrelsomeness here would be due to the presence of faulty persons, whose lapses were apt to be irritating, and what would break eipjvn (z.e. mutual harmony) in such cases is the spirit of harsh- ness in dealing with faults, censoriousness, or aloofness, just as what makes for elpjvn is a concern for purity and goodness inspired by forbearance and patience. But all this is read into the text. There is no hint of such dangers elsewhere in IIpds ‘EBpatous as there is in 1 P 38- and Ro 12). Our author is characteristically putting a new edge on an old phrase like diwxere elpjyny. What eipyvy specially involved is shown in kat tév déyvacpdy xtX. Here dyvacpéds is not to be identified with cwdpoauvy in the special sense of 13*; it is the larger “consecration” to God which all &yvo. must maintain. In fact, dudKete tov dytacpdy KTA. is simply another description of the experience called “sharing in God’s ayidtns” (v.°). Xwpis generally precedes, here it follows, the word it governs (06), either for the sake of the rhythm or to avoid a hiatus (06 ot8eis). ‘“‘To see the Lord,” is an expression common in Philo for that vision of the Divine being which is the rare reward of those who can purify themselves from the sensuous (cp. H. A. A. Kennedy’s Phzlo’s Contribution to Religion, pp. 192f.). Kupuos is God in vv.°and ®; here, in view of 9%, it might be Jesus (as 2°), though “to see God” (vg ‘“‘deum”) as a term for intimate personal fellowship is more adequate to the context. People must be on the alert against tendencies to in- fringe this dyvaopds (v.1°) ; éruckotodvtes, one form and function of TapaKadouvtes (107), introduces three clauses, beginning each with py tus, though it is not clear whether the third (v.16) is intended as an example of prov@Gow or as a further definition of the second pa tis (piLa:xrA.). The first clause, py tus botepay (sc. 7) dd Tis xdpitos Tod Ge00, shows dotepety (41) with dé as in Eccles 6? torepGv . . . dard ravros ov éribupynoe (Sir 7°4 uy torépe dé kAadvrwv has a different sense). In writing dd tis ydputos tov Jeod the writer may have had already in mind the words of Dt 2938 (uy ris eorw ev tiv... tivos 7 Sidvora eéexAwev ard kuptov Tov Geov jay), which he is about to quote in the next clause. The rhetorical tone comes out in the two iambic trimeters 06 ywpls ovdels Berar Tov Kvptov and émickorobyres wh Tis VoTEpGy ard. The next clause, py tis pila mxpias dvw pvouga evoxd#, is a reminiscence of the warning against idolatry and apostasy in Dt 2918, which A (as well as F*) preserves in this form, py tis éorw év tylv pila mixpias avw pvovaa évoxAy (so B*: év yoAH B) kai aixpia (B*: kat mixpia B). The form is ungrammatical, for éorw is superfluous, as is kat mxpia. On the other hand, the text of B yields no good sense, for a root can hardly be said to grow up év XoAq, and xai mixpia is left stranded; the alteration of muxpia in B*¥ does not help matters, for it is not preceded by év xodAf, 14 210 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 15, 16. Plainly the writer found something like the words of A in his text of the LXX; he may have omitted éorw and kai mxpia. The confusion between -oyAy and xodAy Is intelligible, as dxAos and xéAos are confused elsewhere (Blass reads év xoAq here, which requires 7) or éorw to be supplied). °Evoxdq is the present subjunctive of évox\ety, which is used in 1 Es 2!9 (évoyAotea) and 2% (évoyAjoa) of rebellion disturbing and troubling the realm. As a general term for “troubling” or “vexing,” it is common both in classical Greek and in the papyri, either absolutely or with an accusative, as, eg., Polystr. Zpicur. (ed. C. Wilke) 84. 4, 083 tf’ évds tovtwv évoxAncapévovs npas, the edict of M. Sempronius Liberalis (Aug. 29, 154 A.D.): & TH oikeia ™ yew py |éa ™pooKapTepovot py évox)etv (B GU. il. 372); and ‘Aristoph. Frogs, 709 f., ob wohvv ot8 6 wiGnKos obros 6 viv évoyAdv. As for fifa (of a person, as, ¢.g., in t Mac 1? kat efprOev e& abradv pila apyaptwAos “Avtioxos ‘Exupavys) muxptas (genitive of quality), the meaning is a poisonous character and influence (cp. Ac 873). The warning in Deuteronomy is against any pernicious creature in the community, who by cool insolence and infidelity draws down the divine sentence of extermination upon himself and his fellows. Here the writer thinks of people who consider that immediate gratification of their wishes is worth more than any higher end in life; they value their spiritual position as sons (vv.5) so little, that they let it go in order to relapse on some material relief at the moment. Such a nature is essentially BéBndos, devoid of any appreciation of God’s privileges, and regarding these as of no more importance than sensuous pleasures of the hour. Under the bad influence of this (810 tavtTys, X DK LW 326, etc., as in 137: d:a airs, A H P 33. 424* syrbkl boh Clem. etc., as in 114 1214), all the rest (ot mwodAot, after one has been mentioned, as in Ro 5) etc.) may be tainted (utavOGor), and so (cp. on ro”) rendered incapable of dpecOar tév Kuptov. The third clause (v.16) is py tis (sc. 4) mépvos i BéBndos (for the collocation see Philo, de Sacerdot. 8, ropvy kat BeByiAw copa Kal Wuxnv, and for this transferred sense of 8. (= Lat. profanus) see Jebb-Pearson’s Lragments of Soph. ii. 208); BeBydos is only once applied to a person in the LXX, viz. in Ezk 2175 od BéBnre avope (=05n), then to people like Antiochus (3 Mac 2°14) or (3 Mac 715 rods BeByrovs xepwodpevor) recreant Jews. In adding &s “Hoad xrA. the writer chooses the story of Esau, in Gn 2578-34 271-89 to illustrate the disastrous results of yielding to the &waptia of which he had spoken in v.1.. There can be no Stopovn, he implies, without a resolute determination to resist the immediate pleasures and passions of the hour. As Cicero puts it in the De Finzbus, 1. 14, “plerique, quod tenere atque IL i6, 17.) THE SIN OF ESAU 211 servare id quod ipsi statuerunt non possunt, victi et debilitati objecta specie voluptatis tradunt se libidinibus constringendos nec quid eventurum sit provident, ob eamque causam propter voluptatem et parvam et non necessariam et quae vel aliter pararetur et qua etiam carere possent sine dolore, tum in morbos graves, tum in damna, tum in dedecora incurrunt.” But why choose Esau? Probably owing to rabbinic tradition, in which Esau is the typical instance of the godless who grow up among good people (Isaac and Rebekah) and yet do not follow their deeds, as Obadiah is of the good who grow up among the wicked (Ahab and Jezebel) and do not follow ¢hezr deeds (Sifre 133 on Nu 271). The rabbinic tradition! that Esau was sensual, is voiced as early as Philo, in the ad WVobilitate, 4 (6 dé petlov ameiOiys ék TOV yaoTpos Kal TOV peTa yaoTépa HOovav axparis eywv, id’ dv dvereicbn Kat mperBeiwy efictacbar TO peT adTod Kal peravoety edbis ep’ ols eEéorTy Kal povav kata Tod adeApod Kai pndev erepov 7) Ov dv AvIHTEL TOs yovels mpaypateverGat), where Philo interprets the petdvora of Esau as simply regret for a bad bargain. Our author may have considered Esau a mépvos literally—and in any case the word is to be taken literally (as in 13*), not in its OT metaphorical sense? of “ unfaithful ”—but the weight of the warning falls on 6éByAos, as is clear from the phrase dvti Bpdoews pias (cp. Gn 2578 7 Oypa airovd Bpaats airo). T. H. Green (Prolegomena to Ethics, § 96) points out that hunger was not the motive. ‘If the action were determined directly by the hunger, it would have no moral character, any more than have actions done in sleep, or,strictly under compulsion, or from accident, or (so far as we know) the action of animals. Since, however, it is not the hunger as a natural force, but his own conception of himself, as finding for the time his greatest good in the satis- faction of hunger, that determines the act, Esau recognizes himself as the author of the act... . If evil follows from it, whether in the shape of punishment inflicted by a superior, or of calamity ensuing in the course of nature to himself or those in whom he is interested, he is aware that he himself has brought it on himself.” The puas is emphatic: “id culpam auget, non misericordiam meretur” (Bengel). In the Cees from Gn 25%° (diédoro 5¢ "Hoad ra mpwroroxeia TY "TaxwB), &wédero (A C 623), as if from a form &modl8w (cp. Helbing, 105), is preferred by Lachmann, B. Weiss, WH. The warning is now (v.!”) driven home. “lote, indicative here (a literary Atticism, though Blass insists that it is chosen for the 1Jub 25+ (Esau tempting Jacob to take one of his own two sensual wives). 2 Tlopvela has this sense, and so has the verb (e.g. Ps 737" éEwdéOpevoas wdvra Tov TopyvevovTa amd cov). 212 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XII. 17. sake of the rhythm, to assimilate tore yap ér Kat pe(témerta) to the closing words of the preceding sentence), recalls to the readers the scripture story with which they were so familiar. “lore Stu kai (another item in his story) petémerta OéXwv KAypovo- pjoor (1 P 3°) thy eddoylay (=mpwrordxia as in 1 Ch 5}-?) dmedokipdaby (Jer 6°° dredoxivacev attrovs Kvpios: Ign. Lom. 8% éay amodokipacda). “AmodoxisdfeoBar is common in the Greek orators for officials being disqualified, but the rejection here is an act of God; Esau is a tragic instance of those who cannot get a second chance of perdvow. (6°). The writer has again the sombre, serious outlook which characterizes a passage like 6*°%, The very metaphor of plant-growth occurs here as there, and azredoxiuacOy recalls addxiuos. Meravora is impossible for certain wilful sins ; certain acts of deliberate choice are irrevocable and fatal Why this was so, in Esau’s case, is now explained; peTavolas yap témov obx eUpe (evpicoxw=obtain, with éxlyreiy as often in LXX, eg. Dt 47°), katwep peta Saxpdwy (emphatic by position) ék{ythoas adtHy (Ze. peravoiav. ‘‘ Meravoias Tdros is, In fact, perdvora. . . . When per. rémov is taken up again, the mere secondary tomos disappears, and it is airy, not adirdov, agreeing with the great thing really sought,” Alford). If the writer used his usual A text of the LXX, he would not have found any allusion to the tears of Esau in Gn 27%8, but the tears were retained, from the Hebrew, in Jub 26%, in other texts of the LXX, and in Josephus (Azz. i. 18. 7, revOos nyev eri TH Stvapapria. Kai atrod rots daxpvow a&xOopevos 6 watyp xtX.).1 ‘Those tears of Esau, the sensuous, wild, impulsive man, almost like the cry of some ‘trapped creature,’ are among the most pathetic in the Bible” (A. B. Davidson). Aéryv refers to petavotas, not to eddoytas (which would require petavoias . . . edpev to be taken as a parenthesis, a construction which is wrecked on the anti- thesis between eGpey and éxfnrjoas). The petdvoia is not a change in the mind of Isaac, which would require some additional words like tod matpdés. Besides, Esau does not beseech Isaac to alter his mind. Nor can it refer to a change in God’s mind. It is ‘a change of mind” on Esau’s part, “‘undoing the effects of a former state of mind” (A. B. Davidson). Bitterly as Esau regretted his hasty action, he was denied any chance of having its consequences reversed by a subsequent perdvoua; this is the writer’s meaning. ‘Advvarov radw dvaxatvilew eis weravoray is the law of God for such wilful offenders, and to try for a second perdvova is vain. Such is the warning that our author deduces from the tale of Esau. 1 There is a striking parallel in De Mercede Conductis, 42, where Lucian describes an old man being met by % perdvoia daxptovoa és ovdéev Bpedos. XII. 17.] THE SIN OF ESAU 213 This inexorable view agrees with Philo’s idea (Leg. Adleg. iii. 75, roAXais yap Wuxais peravola xpjobar Bovdrnbeioats ovK éwétpewev Oo Beds) that some, like Cain! (guod deter. pot. 26, re 5é ph Sexouévw perdvoavy Kalv ov brepBodhv dyous), are too bad to repent, though Philo illustrates it here not from Esau, but from Lot’s wife. In de Spec. Leg. ii. 5 he declares that luxurious spendthrifts are dvcxdOaproe cal Svolaror, ws unde Oe TH THY piow trew cvyyvauns ad€oicAat. In Jub 35'4 Isaac tells Rebekah that ‘‘ neither Esau nor his seed is to be saved.” But the idea of Ipds ‘ESpatous is made still more clear by the use of petavolas témov as an expression for opportunity or chance to repent. This is a contemporary Jewish phrase; cp. Apoc. Bar 85}? (‘* For when the Most High will bring to pass all these things, there will not then be an opportunity for returning . . . nor place of repentance”), 4 Es 9 (‘‘ while a place of repentance was still open to them, they paid no heed”), which goes back to Wis 121° xplywy dé kara Bpaxd édldous réov peravolas (of God punishing the Canaanites). It is linguistically a Latinism,? which recurs in Clem. Rom. 75 (év yeved kal yevea meravotas témov dwKev 6 deomérns Trois BovAouévas emriotpapjvar ém’ avrdy) and Tatian (Ovat. ad Graecos, 15, dia Tovro yotv ) Tav daudvuw wrdoTacts ovK exer peTavolas rérov). But a special significance attaches to it in 4 Esdras, for example, where the writer (¢.g. in 7/°*) rules out any intercession of the saints for the ungodly after death, in his desire to show that ‘‘the eternal destiny of the soul is fixed by the course of the earthly life” (G. H. Box, Zhe Ezra- Apocalypse, pp. 154, 155). Here, as in the Slavonic Enoch (53), which also repudiates such intercession, ‘‘ we may detect the influence of Alexandrine theology, which tended to lay all stress upon the present life as determining the eternal fate of every man.” The author of IIpds ‘Efpatous shared this belief (cp. 97’) ; for him the present life of man contains possibilities which are tragic and decisive. He ignores deliberately any intercession of saints or angels for the living or for the dead. But he goes still further, with Philo and others, in holding that, for some, certain actions fix their fate beyond any remedy. He regards their case as hopeless; characters like Esau, by an act of profane contempt for God, are rejected for ever, a second perdvoa being beyond their reach. The connexion (ydp) between the finale (vv.!82%) and what precedes lies in the thought that the higher the privilege, the higher the responsibility. In Leg. Adleg. 111. 1, Philo quotes Gn 2527 to prove that virtue’s divine city is not meant for human passions ; ov yap wépuxev 7 THY TaGGv OnpevtiKy KaKia THY apeTns moXduv, wickedness banishing men from the presence and sight of God. But this line of thought is not in the writer’s mind. It is more relevant to recall that Esau typifies exclusion from God in Jub 15% (“Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and Esau, the Lord did not cause to approach Him”); yet even this is not needful to explain the turn of thought. The writer is continuing his grave warning. As vv.!*!" recall the first warning of 6*8, so he now proceeds to reiterate the second warning of 1076-81, reminding his readers that they stand in a critical position, 1 Philo read pelf{wy 7 alrla wou rod ddeOjvac in Gn 4}. 2 Livy, xliv. 10, ‘‘ poenitentiae relinquens locum” (cp. xxiv. 26, ‘‘locus poenitendis”’) ; cp. Pliny’s £//. x. 97, ‘‘ex quo facile est opinari, quae turba hominum emendari possit, si sit poenitentiae locus,” where the phrase is used in quite a different sense, of a chance to give up Christianity. 214 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 17, 18. in which any indifferences or disobedience to God will prove fatal. This is the note of vv.?5-9 in particular. But he leads up to the appeal by describing in a vivid passage the actual position of his readers before God (vv.18-*4); their new status and en- vironment appeals even more powerfully and searchingly for an unworldly obedience to God than the old status of the People. 18 You have not come (wpooednArAvVOate) to what you can touch, to ‘* flames of fire,” to “mist” and “gloom” and ‘‘ stormy blasts, ® to the blare of a trumpet and toa Voice” whose words made those who heard tt refuse to hear another syllable * (for they could not bear the command, ‘‘ If even a beust touches the mountain, tt must be stoned”)—*' indeed, so awful was the sight that Moses said, ‘‘ I am terrified and aghast.” * You have come (wpooednhv- Bare) to mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to myriads of angels in festal gathering, * to the assembly of the first-born registered in heaven, to the God of all as gudge, to the spirits of just men made perfect, *4 to Jesus who mediates (88 9") the new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood whose message ts nobler than Abel's. The passage moves through two phases. (vv.!8?! and 22-24), contrasting the revelation at mount Sinai (2? 10%) with the new diabyxn, the one sensuous, the other spiritual; the one striking terror with its outward circumstances of physical horror, the other charged with grace and welcome as well as with awe. The meditation and appeal are woven on materia! drawn from the LXX descriptions of the plague of darkness on Egypt (Ex 102! Wnradyntov oKdtos .. . éy€vero axdtos yvodos veAAa) and the theophany at Sinai (Dt 41! mpooydGere Kat Eornte bird 7d dpos* Kal TO Opos exaiero Tupt ews TOV ovpavov, oKdTOS, yvodos, OveAXa, povn peyadn, and Ex 191% apocéxere Eavrois Tod dvaBnvat eis TO Opos Kai Oryety TL adtov' Tas 6 ddpevos TOD Spovs OavaTw TeAEvTHTEL . &v Aous ALGoBoArANOHcerar H Bor. xatarogevOnoerar’ édy re KTHVvos édv te avOpwros, ov Cyoerar. .. Kai éyivovto gdwvat Kal dotparal Kal vepéeAn yvoPpddys éx dpous Lewd, pwvy tHs oddmvyyos NXE peya* Kat érronOy was 6 Aads 6 ev TH wapeuor(H). In v.38 the text is difficult and perhaps corrupt. WydAapwpéva Sper would be equivalent to wWyAadyTa dpe, a tangible, material mountain; but as dpe is a gloss (added, from v.22, by D K L 255 syr™! arm Athan. Cosm. etc., either before or after WyA.), though a correct gloss, y. may be taken (a) either with -upi, (4) or independently. In the former case, (a) two constructions are possible. (i) One, as in vg (‘“‘ad tractabilem et accensi- bilem ignem”), renders ‘‘to a fire that was material (or palpable) and ablaze”; (ii) ‘‘to what was palpable and ablaze with fire” (rvpt in an ablative sense). (i) is a daring expression, and the implied contrast (with v.?%) is too remote. The objection to (ii) is that wvpé here, as in the OT, goes with the following datives. It is on the whole preferable (4) to take WyAaduwpery by itself XII. 19-21. | THE TERRORS OF SINAI 215 (sc. rue). The mountain could not be touched indeed (v.”°), but it was a tangible object which appealed to the senses. This is the point of contrast between it and the Xidv dpos, the present participle being equivalent to the verbal adjective WyAadnros. Kypke connects yw. with mvpi in the sense of “touched by lightning” (‘‘igne tactum et adustum”), comparing the Latin phrase “fulmine tactum.” But the Greek term is 6/yyavev, and in any case this interpretation really requires dpe, the mountain “‘sundering ” under the lightning touch of God (Ps 144° etc.). Two conjectures have been proposed, ter vevepwuévy by G. N. Bennett (Classical Review, vi. 263), who argues that this ‘‘ would fit in exactly with the OT accounts, which represent the summit of the mountain as burnt with fire, while lower down it was enveloped in a dense cloud” ; and redefadw- pévw (Sper) by E. C. Selwyn (Journal of Theological Studtes, ix. 133, 134)= ** calcined” (a calcined volcano). Others (e.g. P. Junius) less aptly insert ov or uy before YnAagwyévyw, to harmonize the phrase with v.”. In the rest of the description, 6p» is a poetical word (cp. de Mundo, 400a, heaven ravros Codov kat ardxrov Kwypatos Kexw- pispevov), which the writer prefers to oxdros. Kat @uéAdy— OveAAy, a hurricane, is defined by Hesychius as dvéuov cvatpodi Kat oppy, » KaTaryis (cp. Hom. Od. 5. 317), and in de Mundo, 3954, as mvedua Biorov Kat apvw mpocaddAdpevov. In v.!9 jxw (ny "Arrixot’ Hxos “EAAnves, Moeris) is a synonym for the LXX ev4, which the writer intends to use immediately. Philo had already used jos in de Decalogo, 11: wévta 8 ws eixds TA wept TOY TOTOV éOavpatouvpyeito, Ktvmous Bpovtav pelovwv 7) wate xwpely axods, aotpaTav Aduperw atryoedeotatas, dopdtov odAmlyyos xn ™pos pyjKiotov arotevovon . . . Tupos ovpaviov hope karve Babel Ta ev KUKAw ovokiacovtos. In de Spec. Leg. ii. 22 he explains that the gwvn oddAmiyyos announced to all the world the significance of the event. Finally, kat dwvf pnpdtev (the decalogue in Dt 4}%), fs (2.2. the wv) ot dkovcavtes Tapytyicavto pi) (pleonastic nega- tive as in Gal 57; hence omitted by 8* P 467) mpooteOfvar (the active mpooGetvat, in A, is less apt) adrots (ze. the hearers) Adyov (accus. and infinitive construction after uy, cp. Blass, § 429). The reference in v.2° is to the scene described in Dt 52°f, where it is the leaders of the nation who appeal in terror to Moses to take God’s messages and orders for them: kai viv px drofavwper, ott éfavarddoe. nuas TO TUp TO péya TOTO, eov TpoTHdpea rpets akovoa THY pdwovnv Kupiov tov Oeod apov er, Kal drofavovpeba. But in Ex 20!” it is the people, as here, who appeal to Moses, pn Aadreirw mpos Has 6 Oeds, wy Grofdvwpev. Td dracteAddpevov (in Ex 19}%, see above) is passive. AtaoréAAopar is said by Anz (Subsidia, 326f.) not to occur earlier than Plato; here, as in Jth 11!2 (60a duecreiAato atrots 6 Geos), of a divine injunction. In v.?! havtafépevoy is not a LXX term (for the sense, cp. Zec 101 216 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS |XII. 21-23 Kvptos éroinoev pavtacias, of natural phenomena like rain); it is used here for the sake of alliteration (fof. ¢avr.). To prove that even Moses was affected by the terrors of Sinai, the writer quotes from Dt 9! éxoBéds civ, adding rhetorically atte EvTPOLLOS. He forgets that Moses uttered this cry of horror, not over the fearful spectacle of Sinai but at a later ae over the worship of the golden calf. For évrpopos, cp. 1 Mac 13? evtpopos xa expoBos (v.2. &uhoBos). The phrase évrpoyos yevouevos is applied by Luke to the terror of Moses at the dwv7 Kupiov out of the burning bush (Ac 7°?). Assonance led to é@xrpogsos (8 D*) or éudoBos (M 241. 255. 489. 547. 1739 Thdt.). “Evrpouos was read by Clem. Alex. (Protrept. ix. 2).. The true position of Christians is now sketched (vv.??-#4), "ANAG mpoceAnAUOaTe Luv dper Kat méder (111% 16) Geos Lavtos, the author adding ‘lepoucadhp éroupaviw (111°) in apposition to woAe, and using thus the archaic metaphors of Is 18’, Am 1?, Mic 41 etc., in his picture of the true fellowship. Paul had contrasted mount Sinai (=the present Jerusalem) with 7 avw. ‘IepovcaAnp. Our author’s contrast is between mount Sion (=‘TepovoaAnp érovpavios) and mount Sinai, though he does not name the latter. From the zéAts he now passes to the zroAtrau. In Chagiga, 12d, i. 33, Resh Lakish deduces from 1 K 8 and Is 63% that zebul, the fourth of the seven heavens, contains ‘‘ the heavenly Jerusalem and the temple,” z.é. as the residence of deity ; ; while Ma’on, the fifth heaven, holds the ‘‘ companies of ministering angels.” The second object of mpooedn\UOate is Kal. pupidew (so En 4o!: “I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand before the Lord of spirits”) d&yyé\ev, with which mavnyupe. must be taken, leaving the following xat to introduce the third object (v.28). The conception of the angels as popiddes goes back to traditions like those voiced in Ps 6817 (70 a dpya TOU Geod puprotAdatov, xiArddes evOnvovvTwv* 6 KUpLos év adrots év Suwa) and Dan 7”? (ytpar prpiddes). Tavijyvpus was a term charged with Greek religious associations (cp. R. van der Loeff, De Zudis Eleusinits, pp. 85 f.), but it had already been adopted by Greek Jews like the translators of the LXX and Josephus for religious festivals. Moavnydper describes the angelic hosts thronging with glad worship round the living God. Their relation to God is noted here, as in ie their relation to human beings. “Evéa Tavipyups €kel xapa, as Theophylact observes (tapas evOupias, iv mavyyupis émitnret, Philo, im Flacc. 14); but the joy of Lk 151° is not specially mentioned. Chrysostom’s suggestion is that the writer évrata tiv xapay Oeikvvot Kal tiv edppocivyy avrt Tov yvopov Kat TOU oKdTovs Kai THS OvéAAns. Augustine (Quaest. i. 168: ‘“‘accessistis ad montem Sion et ad ciuitatem dei Hier- XII. 23. | THE CELESTIAL CITIZENS 217 usalem et ad milia angelorum exultantium ”) seems to imply not only that mavnydper goes with dyyéAwv, but that he knew a text with some word like zavyyvpifovtwv (Blass), as is further proved by boh (“keeping festival’), Orig** (laetantium, collaudantium), and Ambrose. There is a hint of this in Clem. Alex. Protrepzt. ix. 6, 7, avry yap % mpwtdtoKos éxxAynoia 7 ex ToAAGV ayabav ovykemevn Tadiwov’ Tadt got. TA TpwTdTOKA TA evarroyeypappeva. €v ovpavois Kal Tooavras pupiacw ayyéAwv cvpravynyupilovra. The human zodXtra: are next (v.”8) described as éxkdyoia Tpwrotdkwy atroyeypaupéevwy év odpavots. (For the collocation of angels and men, see En 39° ‘‘Mine eyes saw their [#e. the saints’] dwellings with His righteous angels, and their resting- places with the holy”; the Enoch apocalypse proceeding to the intercession of the angels (“‘and they petitioned, and interceded, and prayed for the children of men”) which the Christian writer deliberately omits.) The phrase describes what the author else- where calls 6 Aads (rot Meod), but in two archaic expressions, chosen to emphasize what Paul would have called their election. They are mpwréroxo (as Israel had been zpwréroxos, Ex 4?? etc.), with a title to God’s blessing (v.16 rpwrordxta). The choice of the plural instead of the collective singular was due to the previous plural in pupidow dayyéAwv. In dmroyeypappevev év odpavots there is a passing allusion to the idea of the celestial archives or register—a favourite poetical figure in which the Oriental expressed his assurance of salvation.t As in Lk 107 so here, the phrase refers to men on earth, to the church militant, not to the church triumphant; otherwise év odpavots would be meaningless. This interpretation, which groups zavnyvpet with what precedes, is current in nearly all the early versions and Greek fathers, who generally assume it without question. The real alternative is to take uvpidow as further defined by ayyé\wv mavyytpe: kal éxxA\nola mpwrorikwy amoyeypaupévov év ovpavots. This introduces and leaves wvpidow rather abruptly, and implies that angels alone are referred to (so recently Dods, von Soden, Peake, Seeberg), called mpwrotéxot as created before men. But, while a later writer like Hermas ( Vis. iii. 4) could speak of angels as of mp&roe xricbévres, Gtroyeypappévev cannot naturally be applied to them. Hermas himself (Vs. i. 3) applies that term to men (éyypagjoovrat els Tas BiBXous THs (ws mera TOv aylwv). A fresh sweep of thought now begins (7824), The writer is composing a lyrical sketch, not a law-paper; he reiterates the idea of the fellowship by speaking of God, men, and him by whom this tie between God and men has been welded, the allusion to Jesus being thrown to the end, as it is to form the starting- point for his next appeal (v.25). In kat xpitq 06 mdvtwv it is not possible, in view of 9? (wera d€ Totro kpiows) and of the punitive sense of xpivw in 10%, to understand xpiryjs as defender 1 Clem. Hom. ix. 22, 7a dvépuara ev obpayg ws del fdvTwr avaypagphvat. 218 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 23, 24. or vindicator (so, eg., Hofmann, Delitzsch, Riggenbach). The words mean “to the God of all (angels and men, the living and the dead, Ac 104%), and to him as xpurys, to whom you must account for your life.” It is implied that he is no easy-going God. The contrast is not between the mere terrors of Sinai and the gracious relationship of Sion, but between the outward, sensuous terror of the former and the inward intimacy of the latter—an intimacy which still involves awe. In the next phrase, mvevpata Sixaiwy means the departed who have in this life been Sixavor in the sense of 10%! ; teteherwyévwy is added, not in the mere sense of “departed” (reAcvrav = TeAetovc Gat, TeAcLodv), but to suggest the work of Christ which includes the déxato, who had to await the sacrifice of Christ before they were “ perfected ” (11°), If this involves the idea of a descent of Christ to the under-world, as Loofs (eg. in LRZ. iv. 662) argues, it implies the group of ideas mentioned in 2!4, which may have lain in the background of the writer’s thought. At any rate the “ perfect- ing” of these dékaro, their teXetwors, was due to Jesus; hence (v.24) the writer adds, kat 8aOjKys véas peoity “Incod (again at — the end, for emphasis), where véas is simply a synonym for Kawijs (88 etc.). The classical distinction between the two terms was being dropped in the xowy. Tis véas ‘Iepovoadnp occurs in Zest. Dan 5%, and the two words are synonymous, e.g., in Zest. Levi 814 (émruxAnOnoetar atTd dvopa Kaivov, OTe Bacireds . . . roinoes iepareiav veav). Indeed Blass thinks that the unexampled d.a6yKxns veds was due to a sense of rhythm; the author felt a desire to reproduce the — .. —— J — of the preceding wy rereActwpevov. In Cambodia (cp. # RZ. iii. 164) those who are present at a death-bed all ‘*repeat in a loud voice, the patient joining in as long as he has the strength, ‘ Arahan! Arahan!’ ‘the saint! the just one!’ (Pali araham=‘the saint,’ ‘one who has attained final sanctification’).” Bleek is so perplexed by xal mvevm. dik. TeX. coming between Oe@~ and *Iycod that he wonders whether the author did not originally write the phrase on the margin, intending it to go with ravnyvper or éxxAnolg. The curious misreading of D d, reenerdiw- uévwv, underlies Hilary’s quotation (tract. in Ps. 124: ‘‘ecclesia angelorum multitudinis frequentium—ecclesia primitivorum, ecclesia spirituum in domino fundatorum”’), Another odd error, mvevmare for mvevuaci, appears in D (boh ?), d and some Latin fathers (e.g. Primasius)—a trinitarian emendation (=107), In 8:a0yKys véas, as in 13”, the writer recalls the conception with which he had been working in the middle part of his argu- ment (chs. 7~10) ; now he proceeds to expand and explain the allusion in Kat atpatt fpavticpod (9!) kpetrrov (adverbial as in 1 Co 7°8) XadodvTe mapa (as in 14 etc.) tov "ABed (=70! rod “ABA, cp. Jn 5°°). Reconciliation, not exclusion, is the note of the véu¢ diabyxyn. The blood of the murdered Abel (114) called out to 1 70” ABeX (genitive) was actually read by L and is still preferred by Blass. XII. 24, 25. | A WARNING 219 God in En 226 (where the seer has a vision of Abel’s spirit appealing to God) for the extinction of Cain and his descendants. The xpetrrov in Jesus here is that, instead of being vindictive and seeking to exclude the guilty, he draws men into fellowship with God (see p. xlii). The contrast is therefore not between the Voice of the blood of Jesus (AaAotvr.) and the Voice of the decalogue (v.!9), but between Jesus and Abel; the former opens up the way to the presence of God, the latter sought to shut it against evil men. The blood of martyrs was assigned an atoning efficacy in 4 Mac 628 1721f; but Abel’s blood is never viewed in this light, and the attempt to explain this passage as though the blood of Jesus were superior in redeeming value to that of Abel as the first martyr (so, ¢.g., Seeberg), breaks down upon the fact that the writer never takes Abel’s blood as in any sense typical of Christ’s. The application of vv.18-*4 now follows. Though we have a far better relationship to God, the faults of the older generation may still be committed by us, and committed to our undoing (vv.?5-2), 25 See (Bdémere as 3'*) that you do not refuse to listen to his voice. ov tf they failed to escape, who refused to listen to their instructor upon earth, much less shall we, if we discard him who speaks from heaven. * Then his voice shook the earth, but now the assurance ts, ‘‘ once again I will make heaven as well as earth to quake.” ™ That phrase (rd 6€ as Eph 4°), ‘‘ once again,” de- notes (6ndot, as in 9°) the removal of what ts shaken (as no more than created), to leave only what stands unshaken. * Therefore let us render thanks that we get an unshaken realm ; and in thes way let us worship God acceptably —* but with godly fear and awe, for our God ts indeed ‘‘ a consuming fire.” The divine revelation in the sacrifice of Jesus (AaAotvzt) suggests the start of the next appeal and warning. From the celestial order, just sketched, the divine revelation (tév Aadodvra . Tov dw otpavay) is made to us; instead of rejecting it, which would be tragic, let us hold to it. The argument is: God’s revelation (v.25) implies a lasting relationship to himself (v.?8) ; and although the present order of things in the universe is doomed to a speedy fall (v.26), this catastrophe will only bring out the unchanging realm in which God and we stand together (v.27), The abruptness of the asyndeton in (v.25) BXémere pur xrA. adds to its force. Mapoimmonode . . . mapattnodpevor are only a verbal echo of mapytyoavto xrX. in v.!®; for the refusal of the people to hear God except through Moses is not blamed but praised by God (Dt 5%8). The writer, of course, may have ignored this, and read an ominous significance into the instinctive terror of the people, as if their refusal meant a radical rejection of God. Butthisis unlikely. By wapattnodpevor tov xpnpatifovta he means any obstinate rejection of what Moses laid down for 220 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XII. 25, 26. them as the will of God. Ei... od (as was the fact) é&€puyov (referring to the doom mentioned in 2? 37% 1029), As in 2° (as nuets expevéoueba), expevyw is used absolutely ; the weaker éeduyov is read only by 8& DK LM W tog, etc. In the following words there are three possible readings. The original text ran: (a) émt Yiis Wapattnodpevor tov xpypatifovra (S* A C D M d boh Cyr.), eri yns being as often thrown to the front for the sake of emphasis. But the hyperbaton seemed awkward. Hence (d) Tov éml ys mapaityodpevor x. (N° K L P Chrys. Thdt. etc.) and (¢) wapairyodpevor tov eri ys x. (69. 256. 263. 436. 462. 467. 1837. 2005 vg) are attempts to make it clear that émi yjjs goes with tdv xpnparifovta, not with mapattnodpevor. The latter interpretation misses the point of the contrast, which is not between a rejection on earth and a rejection in heaven (!), but between a human oracle of God and the divine Voice a7 ovpavav to us. The allusion in tov ypyparilovra! is to Moses, as Chrysostom was the first to see. To refuse to listen to him is what has been already called d6erety vopov Mwicéws (1078). As the Sinai-revelation is carefully described in 2? as 6 & dyyéAwv. AadnOeis Adyos, so here Moses is 6 xpnparifwv, or, as Luke puts it, ds édeEato Adyia Cavta Sodvac (Ac 78); he was the divine instructor of the Aads on earth. It is repeatedly said (Ex 20”, Dt 4°6) that God spoke to the people at Sinai é« rod otpavod, so that to take tév xpnpatifovra here as God, would be out of keeping with éwi tis yas. The writer uses the verb in a wider sense than in that of 8° and 117; it means “the man who had divine authority to issue orders,” just as in Jer 26? (rods Adyous ovs ouvéTagd gor advtots xpnuatioat), etc. He deliberately writes Tov xpyparifovra of Moses, keeping 7rév Aadodvra as usual for God. Then, he concludes, odd (altered, as in v.%, to woAA@ by D° K LM P ¥ 226, or to zdcw, as in g!4, by 255) padXov (Sc. ovK expevfouea) pets ot Tov (Sc. xpnuarilovra) aw obpavay atroctpeds- pevo. (with accus. as 3 Mac 37% dameorpewavto thy atipnrov modtreiav, and 2 Ti 1! dreorpadyody pe mavres). It is surprising that odpavod (& M 216. 424**. 489. 547. 623. 642. 920. 1518. 1872 Chrys.) has not wider support, though, as 9”: *4 shows, there is no difference in sense. In v.76 of 4 pwvh Thy yhy éoddeuce tore is another (cp. vv.}% 14) unintentional rhythm, this time a pentameter. Tore, ze. at Sinai. But in the LXX of Ex 19}8, which the writer used, the shaking of the hill is altered into the quaking of the people, and Jg 5%! does not refer to the Sinai episode. Probably the writer inferred an earthquake from the poetical allusions in Ps 114? 1 Cp. Jos. Ant, iii. 8. 8, Mwiions . . . éxpnuaritero wept Gv édeiro mapa Tov Oeod. XII. 26. | THE FINAL CATASTROPHE 221 (eoarevbn » yn), Ps 685 7718 when these were associated with the special theophany at Sinai. Név 8€ émjyyeATror (passive in middle sense, as Ro 47") Xéywv, introducing a loose reminiscence and adaptation of Hag 2° (er ama ey ceiow Tov otpavov Kal THY ynv xrd.), where the prediction of a speedy convulsion of nature and the nations has been altered! in the LXX, by the intro- duction of ém, into a mere prediction of some ultimate crisis, with reference to some preceding cetots, z.e. for our writer the Sinai-revelation. The second and final ceious is to be at the return of Jesus (978). The anticipation of such a cosmic collapse entered apocalyptic. Thus the author of Apoc. Baruch tells his readers, ‘‘if you prepare your hearts, so as to sow in them the fruits of the law, it shall protect you when the Mighty One is to shake the whole creation” (32). In v.2’ the Haggai prediction is made to mean the removal (petdSeoww, stronger sense than even in 7!) tay cadevopévwr (by the cetous). There is a divine purpose in the cosmic catastrophe, however; it is tva petvyy tO ph cadeudpeva, z.c. the Baowdela doddeutos of the Christian order. For d&od\euvtos, compare Philo, de vit. Mosis, 1L tard be TOUTOU jLovov Pepa, doahevta, dxpddavra » pever tayiws ad 7s iyp-epas eypapn péxpe vov Kal ™pos TOV éreita. mavra Suapevety eArris aiTa aidva domep aGdvara. elw and gadedw are cognate terms (cp. e.g. Sir 161819 6 otpavos . . . Kal yi carevOnoovrat . . . auaTta py kat Ta OewéALa THs yns ovoceiovrat). Here oeiow is changed into cefw by D K L P d arm and some cursives, probably to conform with the form of the promise in Hag 27! (éya ceiw tov ovp. Kat tHv yhv). The hint is more reticent, and therefore more impressive than the elaborate pre- diction of the Jewish apocalyptist in Apoc. Bar 59%: “but also the heavens were shaken at that time from their place, and those who were under the throne of the Mighty One were perturbed, when He was taking Moses unto Himself. For He showed him . the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of which was to be made the sanctuary of the present time ” (cp. He 85). There is a premonition of the last judgment in En 601, as a convulsion which shook not only heaven, but the nerves of the myriads of angels. “There have been two notable transitions of life,” says Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. v. 25), in the history of the world, z.e. the two covenants, ‘*which are also called earthquakes on account of their arresting character” (dia 7d TOO rpdypuaros mepiBdnrov) ; the first from idols to the Law, the second from the Law to the gospel. We bring the good news of yet a third earth- quake, the transition from the present order to the future (ry évretOev emt ra éxeive perdoraciv, Ta mnkére Kivovmeva, unde cadevdueva).? 1 7,¢. while Haggai predicts ‘‘ it will be very soon,” the LXX says ‘‘ once > a Probably a reference to He 12%, 222 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XII. 26-28. Changes and crises may only serve to render a state or an individual more stable. Thus Plutarch says of Rome, in the disturbed days of Numa, xafdzep ta xataryyvipeva TO oeier Gan padAdov edpalerat, pavvvo dar doxodoa dua tov Kwdivev (Vit, Mum. 8). But the writer’s point in v.?” is that there is an dod\eurtos Baowdeta ! already present, in the fellowship of the new S.aO%jxy, and that the result of the cosmic catastrophe will simply be to leave this unimpaired, to let it stand out in its supreme reality and permanence. ‘The passage is a counterpart to 11°12, where skies and earth vanish, though they are God’s own épya. So here, the writer puts in, by way of parenthesis, aS TreTOUnHevev. Kypke took memoupévwr, “pro TEeTOLNMEVHY, Sc. peTabecw,” COoM- paring Mt 5! where he regarded €Aaxiorwy as similarly equiva- lent to €Aaxiornv. The word would then be a genitive absolute, connecting with what follows: “all this being done so that,” etc. Even when zerowpévwv is taken in its ordinary sense, it is sometimes connected with iva «rA. (so, é.g., Bengel and Delitzsch) ; the aim of creation was to replace the provisional by the per- manent, the temporal by the eternal. A far-fetched interpreta- tion. Even the conjecture (Valckenaer) zerovypevwy (labouring with decay) is needless, though ingenious. In vv.?% 2° the final word upon this prospect and its responsibilities is said. Awd (as in v.!2), in view of this outlook (in v.?’), Baowdelay doddeutov (metaphorical, as, ég., Diod. Sic. xii. 29,. orovdai daoddevrat) TapadkapBdvovtes (cp. 2 Mac ro! and LZpist. Arist. 36, cal tpets dé wapadaBdovres tTHv PBactAreiav xtA., for this common phrase) éxwpev xdpiv (d.0 with pres. subjunctive as in 61). The unique and sudden reference to the primitive idea of Baowelo (see Introd., p. xxxiil) may be a reminiscence of the scripture from which he has just quoted ; the prediction about the shaking of heaven and earth is followed, in Hag 2?2, by the further assertion, xai kataotpeww Opovovs Baciréwv, Kal eoArAcOpetow Sivapw Bacriréwv trav e6vav. Possibly our author regarded the prediction in Dn 738 (kat mapadnpovrac tHv Pactrelay ayor tWicrov Kal Kabeovow aitHv ews aidvos Tov aiwvwv) as fulfilled already in the Christian church, though he does not mean by BaovAeciay Trapahap,Pavoyres that Christians enter on their reign. Why thankfulness (for this common phrase, see Epict. i. 2. 23, Exo Xaply, ort pov deidy, and OP. 138178 (2nd century) da Ouovdv TH cdoavt. daredidopev xdpitas) should be the standing order for ‘them, the writer explains in 8 fis xrA.; it is the one acceptable Aerpevew (914), or, as he puts it afterwards (1315), the real sacrifice of Christians. Av 4s \atpevdmev (subj. cohortative in relative clause, like orjre in 1 P 5!) edapeot&s (not in LXX; 1Cp. Wis 511 dikaoe dé els Tov aldva faow . . - Ajmpovras Td Baal- Necov THs edmpemelas . . . Ex xeLpds Kuplov, bri TH Seéia oKemdce: airous. XII. 28. | THE DUTY OF AWE 223 an adverb from the verb in the sense of 11° 6) 76 666. The v./. éxouey (8 K P Lat syr™' eth etc.) is the usual (see Ro s}) phonetic blunder, though Aarpevowev (NX M P syr™ arm) would yield as fair a sense as Aarpevopeyv (A C D L 33. 104 Lat sah etc.). In pera .. . S€ous he puts in a characteristic warning against presumption. There are three readings. (a) etAaBelas kat d€ouvs, N* A C D 256. 263. 436. 1912 sah boh syr’® arm. (2) evrAaBelas kai aidods, 8° M P W 6. 104. 326. 1739 lat Orig. (c) aidods cat edAaBeias, K L 462 syr™ Chrys. Thdt. The acci- dental doubling of a (from xa/) led to (4), especially as aidods and e«iAaBeia were often bracketed together, and as deds was a rare word (first popularized in Hellenistic Judaism by 2 Macca- bees), EdhaBeta here as in 5” (cp. 117) of reverent awe. Kat yap 6 Geds pov wip katavadtoKov (v.29). Not ‘‘for our God too is a 7Up av.,” for the writer believed that the same God was God of the old d:a6yxy and of the new; besides, this rendering would require kat yap Huav 6 Beds. The phrase is from Dt 424 (Moses at Sinai to the Israelites) ot Kvpuos 6 Beds cov mip KatavadiocKov eativ, Oeds Cyrwrys (cp. 9%), referring to his intense resentment of anything like idolatry, which meant a neglect of the dabyjxn. There is no allusion to fire as purifying; the author of Wisdom (1616) describes the Egyptians as rupi xatavadickdpevor, and it is this punitive aspect of God which is emphasized here, the divine fndos (see p. XXXVI). This is one of Tertullian’s points (adv. Marc. i. 26-27) against the Marcionite conception of a God who is good-natured and nothing more : *‘tacite permissum est, quod sine ultione prohibetur . . . nihil Deo tam indignum quam non exsequi quod noluit et prohibuit admitti. . . malo parcere Deum indignius sit quam animadvertere. . . . Plane nec pater tuus est, in quem competat et amor propter pietatem, et timor propter potestatem ? nec legitimus dominus, ut diligas propter humanitatem et timeas propter disciplinam.” In IIpds ‘E8patous there is no softening of the conception, as in Philo’s argument (de Sacrificantibus, $) that God’s requirement is simply ayamrav avrov ws evepyérny, el 5¢ uh, poBetc Oar your ws &pxovra Kal Kvpiov, Kal dia. racGy lévar Tay els dpéoxecay dd@v Kal AaTpevey a’T@ wh wapépyws adda bn 7H Wuxy wemAnpwpévyn yrouns proGou kal Tov évrodGv airod repiexerOat kal rd Oixaca tywav. In de Decalogo, 11, he spiritualizes the fire at Sinai thus: Tov mupds TO pwev puwrifery 7d 5é kalew mépuxev (those who obey the divine laws being inwardly enlightened, those who disobey being inflamed and consumed by their vices), and closes the treatise (33) by enunciating his favourite doc- trine that God never punishes directly but only indirectly (here by Alxn, whose appropriate task is to punish those who disobey her liege Lord). Indeed he allegorizes the OT comparison of God to a flame (Quaest. tn Exod. 24” womrep 5é 7 PASE TWacay Thy wapaBAnfeioay SrAnv avadioxe, olTws, Bray ém- pornon eldixpivhs Tod Oeod évvoia TH Wuxy Wdvras Tovds érepoddéous doeBelas Aoyisuovs Siapbelper, KaGooroboa THY SAnv didvorav). The closest parallel to our passage lies in Ps.—Sol 15°% where the author declares that praise to God is the one security for man. Wadudv kal alvov wer’ Bors év evppootvy Kapdrds, Kapmov xeiléwy . . . amapxnhv xeiAdwy amd Kapdlas dcias Kal dixalas, 6 rowdy ravra ov garevOyjoerat els Tov aldva amd (2.2. bd) Kaxov, PAE Tupds Kal 224 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (XII. 28-XIII. 2. bpyn adlkav od~ dwera adrov, Srav éféOyn éwi apaprwrods ard mpocwrov kuplov. With this impressive sentence Mpés “EBpaious really closes, But the writer appends (see Introd., pp. xxviif.) a more or less informal postscript, with some personal messages to the com- munity. A handful of moral counsels (vv,'’) is followed by a longer paragraph (vv.816), and the closing personal messages are interrupted by a farewell benediction (v.?°). 1 Let your brotherly love continue. * Never forget to be hospitable, for by hospitality (61a ravrns, as 121°) some have entertained angels unawares. * Re- member prisoners as tf you were in prison yourselves ; remember those who are being tll-treated (11°"), since you too are in the body. Neither uradedpia nor girogevia is a LXX term, though the broader sense of the former begins in 4 Mac 137% 26 141, Mevérw (cp. 619 1024 82f), though its demands might be severe at times (cp. Ro 12), 1 P 177; Clem. Ro 1?; Herm. Zand. 81°) ; the duty is laid as usual on members of the church, not specially on officials. In v.? a particular expression of this giAadeddia is called | for. ¢tdogfevia was practically an article of religion in the ancient world. The primary reference here in twes is to Abraham and Sara (Gn 181£), possibly to Manoah (Jg 13%), and even to Tobit (Tob 12°) ; but the point of the counsel would be caught readily by readers familiar with the Greek and Roman legends of divine visitants being entertained unawares by hospitable people, e.g. Hom: Odyss. xvii. 485 f. (kat te Get Seivouow éotxdtes &AXOSaTrOICL | ravrotor reA€Oovtes, Ertaotpwpoot ToAyas, cp. Plat. Soph. 216 B); Sil. Ital. vii. 173 f. (“laetus nec senserat hospes | advenisse deum”), and the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, JZezé. viii. 626 f.) alluded to in Ac 1414. In the Hellenic world the worship of Zeus Xenios (é.g. Musonius Rufus, xv.w, 6 wept E€vous duxos eis Tov E€viov auapraver Aia) fortified this kindly custom. According to Resh Lakish (Sota, roa), Abraham planted the tree at Beersheba (Gn 21%) for the refreshment of wayfarers, and gidogevia was always honoured in Jewish tradition (e.g. Sabbath, 127. 1, “there are six things, the fruit of which a man eats in this world and by which his horn is raised in the world to come: they are, hospitality to strangers, the visiting of the sick,” etc.). But there were pressing local reasons for this kindly virtue in the primitive church. Christians travelling abroad on business might be too poor to afford a local inn. Extortionate charges were frequent ; indeed the bad repute which innkeepers enjoyed in the Greek world (cp. Plato’s Zazws, 918 D) was due partly to this and partly also to a “general feeling against taking money for hospitality” (cp. Jebb’s Theophrastus, p. 94). But, in addition, the moral repute of inns stood low (Theophrastus, Char. 65 XIII. 2, 3.] HOSPITALITY 225 Sewvos 5 ravdoxetoat Kal mopvoBookjaa KTA.); there is significance in the Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus (Amz. v. 1. 1) that Rahab zopvy (1151) kept an inn. For a Christian to frequent such inns might be to endanger his character, and this consideration favoured the practice of hospitality on the part of the local church, apart altogether from the discomforts of aninn. (“In the better parts of the empire and in the larger places of resort there were houses corresponding in some measure to the old coaching inns of the eighteenth century ; in the East there were the well-known caravanserais ; but for the most part the ancient hostelries must have afforded but undesirable quarters. They were neither select nor clean,” T. G. Tucker, Life in the Roman World, p. 20.) Some of these travellers would be itinerant evangelists (cp. 3 Jn °%). According to Philo the three wayfarers seen by Abraham did not at first appear divine (ot dé Oeorepas dvres Picews eAeAHOecayv), though later on he suspected they were either prophets or angels when they had promised him the birth of a son in return for his splendid hospitality (Advah. 22-23). “Ina wise man’s house,” Philo observes, ‘“‘no one is slow to practise hospitality: women and men, slaves and freedmen alike, are most eager to do setvice to strangers”; at the same time such hospitality was only an incident (adpepyov) and instance (detypa cadpéorartov) of Abraham’s larger virtue, #.e. of his piety. Josephus also (Ant. i. 11. 2) makes Abraham suppose the three visitors were human strangers, until at last they revealed themselves as divine angels, (Geacdpevos Tpets dyyéAous kat vopicas elvat £évous nowacato r avacTas Kat Tap avT@ kataxOévras mapexdret feviwy peradraBetv). It was ignorance of ‘the classical idiom (cp. Herod. i. 44, tarodegapevos tov Ecivov povéa tov mardds éAavOave Booxwv) in €\abov g~evicavtes, which led to the corruptions of é\a8ov in some Latin versions into ‘‘latuerunt,” ‘‘ didicerunt,” and ‘‘placuerunt.” Note the paronomasia émAavOdveoOe .. . €\afov, and the emphatic position of dyyédous. ‘‘ You never know whom you may be entertaining,” the writer means. ‘Some humble visitor may turn out to be for you a very dyyeAos Oecd” (cp. Gal 4). MipynoKxeoe (bear in mind, and act on your thought of) ray Seopiwy. Strangers come within sight; prisoners (v.°) have to be sought out or—if at a distance—borne in mind. Christian kindness to the latter, ze. to fellow-Christians arrested for some reason or other, took the form either of personally visiting them to alleviate their sufferings by sympathy and gifts (cp. Mt 25%, 2 Ti 116), or of subscribing money (to pay their debts or, in the case of prisoners of war, to purchase their release), or of praying for them (Col 4}8 and 4%). All this formed a prominent feature 15 226 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XIII. 8. of early Christian social ethics. The literature is full of tales about the general practice: eg. Aristid. Apfo/l, 15; Tertull. ad Mart. tf. and Afol. 39, with the vivid account of Lucian in the de Morte Peregr. 12, 13. This subject is discussed by Harnack in the Expansion of Early Christianity (bk. 11. ch. 3, section 5). Our author urges, ‘remember the imprisoned” as ouvdedepévor. If ws is taken in the same sense as the following ws, the meaning is: (a) ‘Sas prisoners yourselves,” z.e. in the literal sense, ‘‘ since you know what it means to be in prison”; or (4) “as im- prisoned,” in the metaphorical sense of Diognet. 6, Xpicriavoi KaTéxovTat Os év dpouvpa ta Koopo. A third alternative sense is suggested by LXX of 1S 18! (9 Woy ‘Iwvabay cuvedeOn TH Wox7 Aavid), but the absence of a dative after ovvdedeuévor and the parallel phrase as év odpart rule it out. Probably ws is no more than an equivalent for woe. Christians are to regard themselves as one with their imprisoned fellows, in the sense of 1 Co 1276 eire Tacxe ev pédos, cumTdcxya TavtTa TA peAy. ‘This interpreta- tion tallies with 1084 above (cp. Neh 13-4). It does not, however, imply that év odpatt, in the next clause, means “in the Body (of which you and your suffering fellows are alike members”); for év ojpate refers to the physical condition of liability to similar ill-usage. See Orig. ¢. Ceds. 11. 23, trav Tots év owpacr (Bouhéreau COnj. cwpatt) cvupBawdovrwv, and especially Philo’s words describ- ing some spectators of the cruelties inflicted by a revenue officer on his victims, as suffering acute pain, as év rots érépwy copacw avrot Kaxovjevot (de Spec. Leg. ili. 30). So in de Confus. Ling. 35, Kal TO cuumopov avyviTwv TOV Kakovxopéevwy (7.e. by exile, famine, and plague; cp. He 11°”) ov évdeHetoor xupiw, cdpare Seneca (Z. ix. 8) illustrates the disinterestedness of friendship by observing that the wise man does not make friends for the reason suggested by Epicurus, viz., to ‘‘ have someone who will sit beside him when he is ill, someone to assist him when he is thrown into chains or in poverty,” but ‘*that he may have someone beside whom, in sickness, he may himself sit, someone whom he may set free from captivity in the hands of the enemy.” The former kind of friendship he dismisses as inadequate: ‘‘a man has made a friend who is to assist him in the event of bondage (‘adversum vincula’), but such a friend will forsake him as soon as the chains rattle (‘cum primum crepuerit catena’).” In Zf. Arist. 241, 242, when the king asks what is the use of kinship, the Jew replies, éav rots cuuBalvover voulfwuer aruxotce pméev éNatrobcbat kal kaxoTabGpev ws avrol, palverar Td cvyyeves cov loxiddy éort. Cicero specially praises generosity to prisoners, and charity in general, as being serviceable not only to individuals but to the State (de Offic. ii. 18, ‘‘haec benignitas etiam rei publicae est utilis, redimi e servitute captos, locu- pletari tenuiores”’). 4 Let marriage be held in honour by all, and keep the marriage-bed un- stained. God will punish the vicious and adulterous. 5 Keep your life free from the love of money ; be content with what you have, for He (airés) has said, ** Never will I fail you, never will I forsake you.” XIII. 4. | SEXUAL PURITY 227 5 So that we can say confidently, ‘* The Lord ts my helper (BonOés, cp. 218 438), J will not be afraid. What can men do to me?” As vv.!:2 echo 1024: 82. 83, y,4 drives home the zépvos of 1216, and vv.®-® echo the reminder of 104. Evidently (v.*), as among the Macedonian Christians (1 Th 4%%), giAadeAdia could be taken for granted more readily than sexual purity. Ttywos (sc. eorw as in v.5, Ro 12%, the asyndeton being forcible) 6 ydpos ép méotv, 2.€. primarily by all who are married, as the following clause explains. There may be an inclusive reference to others who are warned against lax views of sexual morality, but there is no clear evidence that the writer means to protest against an ascetic disparagement of marriage. Koitry is, like the classical Xéxos, a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse, here between the married ; dpiavros is used of incest, specially in Zest. Reud. i. 6, €ulava Koirnv Tod matpds pov: Plutarch, de Aluvits, 18, py OéXwy puaivey THY Koitnv Tod yevvyoavTos, etc.; but here in a general sense, as, ¢.g., in Wisdom: paKxapia 7 oTelpa 7 apiavros, HTS OK Eyvw KOiTHY ev TapaTTopatt, eeu kapmov év émioxoTy Wuydv (3}%), and ovre Biovs ovre ydpous Kafaports ere dvddcooveu, €repos 0 érepov 7 Aox@v avaipet 7H volevwv ddvva (14%). In mépvous yap kat potxous xrA., the writer distinguishes between poorxoi, 7.e. married persons who have illicit relations with other married persons, and zépvo. of the sexually vicious in general, t.é. married persons guilty of incest or sodomy as well as of fornication. In the former case the main reference is to the breach of another person’s marriage; in the latter, the pre- dominating idea is treachery to one’s own marriage vows. The possibility of wopveéa in marriage is admitted in Tob 87 (od da mopveiay éyo AapBavw tHv adeApyv pov Tavryv), te. Of mere sexual gratification! as distinct from the desire and duty of having children, which Jewish and strict Greek ethics held to be the paramount aim of marriage (along with mutual fellowship) ; but this is only one form of zopveia. In the threat xpwvet (as in 10°) 6 @eds, the emphasis is on 6 @eds. “Longe plurima pars scortatorum et adulterorum est sine dubio, quae effugit notitiam iudicum mortalium . . . magna pars, etiamsi innotescat, tamen poenam civilem et disciplinam ecclesiasticam vel effugit vel leuissime persentiscit ” (Bengel). This is another social duty (cp. Philo, de Decalogo, 24). In view of the Epicurean rejection of marriage (e.g. Epict. ili. 7. 19), which is finely 1 un év rade éwiOuylas, as Paul would say (1 Th 4°). 228 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 4, 5. answered by Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. Flordleg. Ixvii. 25: 6 evyerhs kal eUiuxos véos .. . Oewpav didre rédetos olkos Kal Blos ovK &AXAws SdvaTaL yevéoOat, } pera. ‘yuvatxds kal réxywy xrTXd.), as well as of current ascetic tendencies (e.¢., I Ti 4°), there may have been a need of vindicating marriage, but the words here simply maintain the duty of keeping marriage vows unbroken. The writer is urging chastity, not the right and duty of any Christian to marry. Prejudices born of the later passion for celibacy led to the suppression of the inconvenient év mdot (om. 38. 460. 623. 1836. 1912” Didymus, Cyril Jerus., Eus., Athan., Epiphanius, Thdt.). The sense is hardly affected, whether ydp (x A D* M P lat sah boh) or 6é (C D° W 6 syr arm eth Clem., Eus., Didymus, Chrys.) is read, although the latter would give better support to the interpretation of the previous clause as an anti- ascetic maxim. A warning against greed of gain (vv.® ®) follows the warning against sexual impurity. There may bea link of thought between them. For the collocation of sensuality and the love of money, see Lpict. il. 7. 21, col KaAnv yuvatka dhaiverOat pydepiay 4 THY ony, Kadov maida pydéva, Kaddov dpyvpopa pnbév, xpiouopa pnOev: Test. Jud. 18, puddkacbe ard THs Topveias Kal THs PiAapyupias... 6Tt Taira... ovx adie avopa éAenoat Tov wAnciov avrov, and Philo’s (de Post. Caint, 34) remark, that all the worst quarrels, public and private, are due to greedy craving for 7 edpmopdias yevarkos 7) xpnuatwv «tA. In de Adbrah. 26, he attributes the sensuality of Sodom to its material prosperity. Lucian notes the same connexion in JVigrin. 16 (cuveirépyeroar yap poryeia Kai diAapyupia xtX., the love of money having been already set as the source of such vices). In 1 Co 51% Paul brackets of zdpvor with of wAcovéxtat, and mAcovegia (cp. 1 Th 4°) as selfishness covers adultery as well as grasping covetousness. But the deeper tie between the two sins is that the love of luxury and the desire for wealth open up opportunities of sensual indulgence. In injuries to other people, Cicero observes (de Offic. i. 7. 24), “‘Jatissime patet avaritia.” When Longinus describes the deterior- ating effects of this passion or vice in character (de Sudblim. 44), he begins by distinguishing it from mere love of pleasure ; dirapyupia pev voonua jkporoidy, ptAydovia Oo ayevverraror. Then he proceeds to analyse the working of iAapyvpia in life, its issue in UBpts, wapavopia, and avaroxvvtia. *"Adiddpyupos (the rebel Appianus tells Marcus Aurelius, in OP. xxxiil. 10, 11, that his father TO pev mparov 7 iy pirdcogos, TO Sedrepov aprdpyrpos, TO TpliTov pirdyabos) 6 TpdTos: (in sense of ‘mores,” as often, eg., M. Aurelius, 1. 16, kai was 6 tovodros TpOTOS). FAbRoviLevot is the plur. pte. after a noun (as in 2 Co 17, Ro 12%), and with tots mapodow reproduces a common Greek phrase for contentment, e.g. Ze/es, vil. 7, GAN’ Hyets od Svvdpeba apketo bat Tois Tapovovy, Gravy Kal Tpupy Tord SidGmev, and xxvili. 31, Kal pn exwv ovK érurobynoes GAAA Biden apKxovpevos Tots rapodvorr. The feature here is the religious motive adduced in atris yap XIII. 5, 6.] CONFIDENCE IN GOD 229 eipynxev (of God as usual, ¢eg., 11%), a phrase which (cp. Ac 20% avros elev) recalls the Pythagorean atrés eda (‘thus said the Master”). The quotation 08 pi ce dvO 068° of py ce éyxataNitw is a popular paraphrase of Jos 1° or Gn 28) (cp. Dt 318, 1 Ch 287) which the writer owes to Philo (de Confus. Ling. 32), who quotes it exactly in this form as a Ady.ov Tod (Aew Geod peaTov HuEporyTos, but simply as a promise that God will never leave the human soul to its own unrestrained passions. The combination of the aor. subj. with the first od my and the reduplication of the negative (for ovd od py, cp. Mt 2474) amount to a strong asseveration. Note that the writer does not appeal, as Josephus does, to the merits of the fathers (Aztig. xl. 5.7, Tov pev Oedv lore pvyjun tov matépwv “ABpdpov Kal “Iodkov kal “IaxwPov TapapevovTa Kal dud THS exeivwv SiKacoovvys ovK eyKataheimovTa TV brép yuav mpovo.ay) in assuring his readers that they will not be left forlorn by God. ’"Eyxaradelrw (so all the uncials except D) may be simply an ortho- graphical variant of the true reading éyxaraXlrw (aorist subj.). In Dt 316 the A text runs od uy ce avy odd’ ov ce éyxaraXelry, in Jos 1° ovK éyxaradelrw ge ovde brepdYoual ce, and in Gn 28" ot uy oe éyxaradelrw. The promise originally was of a martial character. But, as Keble puts it (Chréstzan Year, ‘‘The Accession ”) : ‘Not upon kings or priests alone the power of that dear word is spent; it chants to all in softest tone the lowly lesson of content.” "Qate (v.°) Bappodvras (on the evidence for this form, which Plutarch prefers to the Ionic variant @apceivy, cp. Cronert’s Memoria Graeca Herculanensts, 1337) jpas (om. M, accidentally) héyew. What God says to us moves us to say something to ourselves, This quotation from Ps 118° is exact, except that the writer, for the sake of terseness, omits the kat (=s0) before o8 doByOjcopar, which is reinserted by 8° ADK LM syr™' etc. For the phrase @appotvras Aéyew, see Pr 171 (Wisdom) éxi de mvAais Toews Pappotoa déyer: and for BonOds and Gappetv in con- junction, see Xen. Cyr. Viti. 255 26, érevd1) 5 ék Iepoay Bonbes Hpiv eoppnOys . . » vov & av otras éxopev Os dv pev Gol Guws Kal év TH moAcpia OvTes Gappodjpev. Epictetus tells a man who is tempted (ii. 18. 29), rot Geod peuvnoo, éxetvov émxadod BonOov Kai mapaoraryv. This is the idea of the psalm-quotation here. Courage is described in Galen (de H. et Plat. decr. vii. 2) as the knowledge dv xpi Oappety 7) 7 Oappetv, a genuinely Stoic defini- tion; and Alkibiades tells, in the Symposium (221 A), how he came upon Sokrates and Laches retreating during the Athenian defeat at Delium kai idov edOds mapaxeAcvomai te adroty Oappeiy, Kal €Xeyov Ott ovK aohei~w aitd. In the touching prayer pre- served in the Acta Pauli (xlii.), Thekla cries, 6 Oeds pov Kai Tod 230 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 6, 7. oixov Tovtov, Xpiaté Incod 6 vids rod Geod, 6 éwol Bonfos év pvraky, Bonbos eri Hyepdvev, Bonbds ev wupi, BonGos év Onpiors. According to Pliny (Z/. ix. 30: ‘‘ primum est autem suo esse contentum, deinde, quos praecipue scias indigere sustentantem fouentemque orbe quodam societatis ambire’’) a man’s first duty is to be content with what he has ; his second, to go round and help all in his circle who are most in need. Epictetus quotes a saying of Musonius Rufus: od @édets wedeTav apKetoOar TY 5edouévw ; (i. 1.27) 3 but this refers to life in general, not to money or property in particular. The argument of our author is that instead of clinging to their possessions and setting their hearts on goods (1o0*4), which might still be taken from them by rapacious pagans, they must realize that having God they have enough. He will never allow them to be utterly stripped of the necessaries of life. Instead of trying to refund themselves for what they had lost, let them be content with what is left to them and rely on God to preserve their modest all; he will neither drop nor desert them. Hitherto the community has been mainly (see on 1214f) addressed as a whole. Now the writer reminds them of the example of their founders, dead and gone, adding this to the previous list of memories (121), 7 Remember your leaders, the men who spoke the word of God to you; look back upon the close of thetr career, and copy thetr faith. . Mynpovevete Tay Hyounévwv Sudv oitives (since they were the men who) éAdAnoay bpiv tov Adyov tod Geos. ‘The special function of these primitive apostles and prophets was to preach the gospel (cp. 1 Co 1!”) with the supernatural powers of the Spirit. Then the writer adds a further title to remembrance, their con- sistent and heroic life; they had sealed their testimony with their (Gv xrA.) blood. “Hyovpevos, like épywv, was.a substantival formation which had a wide range of meaning; here it is equivalent to “president” or “leader” (cp. £pp. Apollon. ii. 69, dvdpas Tovs Hyoupevous tuav = your leading citizens, or prominent men, and Ac 157%).4. It was they who had founded the church by their authoritative preaching; éAdAncav tyty tov Adyov rod Geod recalls the allusion to the gwrypia which ind tv dxovcavtwv (z.e. Jesus) eis Huds éBeBarhOn (2°). The phrase denotes, in primitive Christianity (e.g. Did. 44 where the church-member is bidden remember with honour tot Aadodytos cou tov Adyov Tod Oeod), the central function of the apostolic ministry as the declaration and interpretation of the divine Adyos. These men had died for their faith ; €kBaous here, as in Wis 217 (ra ev éxBaoe aitov), is, like €£od0s, a metaphor for death as the close of life, evidently a death remarkable for its witness to faith. They had laid down their lives as martyrs. This proves that the allusion in 12* does not exclude some martyrdoms in the past history of the community, unless the reference here is supposed to mean 1JIn Zp. Arist. 310, of the headmen of the Jewish community at Alexandria. XIII. 7. | GOOD EXAMPLES 231 no more than that they died as they had lived xara rior (1115), without giving up their faith. In Egypt, during the Roman period, ‘‘a liturgical college of mpeoBuvrepoar or tyyoUmevor was at the head of each temple” (GCP. i. 127), the latter term being probably taken from its military sense of ‘‘ officers” (¢.g. tyeudves TO éiw rdtewr). "Avabewpodvtes is “‘scanning closely, looking back (dva-) on”; and dvactpody is used in this sense even prior to Polybius ; e.g. Magn. 46% 44 (iii Bc.) and Magn. 165° (i A.D.) dua rH Tod nOovs kocp.ov avactpopyyv. As for puretode, the verb never occurs in the LXX except as a v./. (B*) for éuionoas in Ps 31%, and there in a bad sense. The good sense begins in Wis 4? (rapotoay Te pipodvrat aityy), so far as Hellenistic Judaism goes, and 1 in 4 Mac 978 (utpnoacde pe) ¥37 (puna defo. TOUS TpEls TOUS él THs Supias veavioxovs) it is used of imitating a personal example, as here. In the de Congressu Erudit. 13, Philo argues that the learner listens to what his teacher says, whereas a man who acquires true wisdom by practice and meditation (6 éé aokynoe. TO KaAOV GAAG pt) OidacKadrta KTwpevos) attends ov Tots Aeyouévors GAAG Tots A€yovar, ppovpevos TOV éxeivwy Biov év Tats Kata pepos avemiAnmtTos mpdgeot. He is referring to living examples of goodness, but, as in de Vita Mos. i. 28, he points out that Moses made his personal character a zapddevypa tots eJéXovor ppeto Gat, This stimulus of heroic memories belonging to one’s own group is noted by Quintilian (Jmstit. Orat. xii, 2. 31) as essential to the true orator: “‘quae sunt antiquitus dicta ac facta praeclare et: nosse et animo semper agitare conveniet. Quae profecto nusquam plura maioraque quam in nostrae Civitatis monumentis reperientur. . .. Quantum enim Graeci praeceptis valent, tantum Romani, quod est maius, exemplis.” Marcus Aurelius recollects the same counsel: éy rots rév “Ext- KoUpEtov YPappace mapayyehpa € way adhd TVVEXOS bropuvyoKeo Gat TOV Tadatay TOS TOV GpeTH ypNoapévwv (xi. 26). Human leaders may pass away, but Jesus Christ, the supreme object and subject of their faithful preaching, remains, and remains the same; no novel additions to his truth are required, least of all innovations which mix up his spiritual religion with what is sensuous and material. 8 Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. *% Never let yourselves be carried away with a variety of novel doctrines ; for the right thing ts to have one’s heart strengthened by grace, not by the eating of food— that has never been any use to those who have had recourse to it. ™ Our (éxouev as 4)°) altar ts one of which the worshippers have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of the animals whose ‘‘ blood is taken into the holy Place” by the highpriest as a ‘‘sin-offering, are burned outside the camp” ; and so Jesus also suffered outside the gate, in order to sanctify the people (cp. 107) dy his own blood (9'*). 1 Let us go to him “‘outside the camp,” then, bearing 232 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XIII. 8, 9. his obloguy “(for we have no lasting city here below, we seek the City to come). \* And by him “‘let us’ ’ constantly ‘offer praise to God” as our “‘ sacrifice,” that is, ‘‘the fruit of lips” that celebrate his Name. 16 Do not forget (ui émdavOdverde, as in v.*) deneficence and charity either; these are the kind of sacrifices that are acceptable to God. V.8 connects with what precedes and introduces what follows. "Ex0es 1 refers to his life on earth (2? 5”) and includes the service of the original syovpevor; it does not necessarily imply a long retrospect. Znpepoy as in 3), and 6 adrés as in 1%, The finality of the revelation in Jesus, sounded at the opening of the homily (11), resounds again here. He is never to be superseded ; he never needs to be supplemented. Hence (v.%) the warning against some new theology about the media of forgiveness and fellowship, which, it is implied, infringes the all-sufficient efficacy of Jesus Christ. Atdaxats (62) morxtdats (24 in good sense) kat févars ph mapadeperbe. Tlapapépeobau (cp. Jude !*) is never used in this metaphorical sense (swayed, swerved) in the LXX, where it is always literal, and the best illustration of €évais in the sense of ‘foreign to” (the apostolic faith) is furnished by the author of the epistle to Diognetus (11+), who protests, ob €€va 6miAG.. . dAXAG arocroAwy yevopevos pabyriHs yivopat SiddcKaXros eOvav. Such notions he curtly pronounces useless, év ots odk @pednOyaay oi mepi@atouvtres, where év ols goes with mepurarotyres; they have never been of any use in mediating fellowship with God for those who have had recourse to them. It is: pret the tone of Jesus in Mk 738, IlapagépecOe was altered (under the influence of Eph 4!*) into zepupépec be (K LW 2. 5. 88. 330. 378. 440. 491. 47: 642. 919. 920. 1867. 1872. 1908. arm sah). Tlepurarjoavres (x° C D° K L M P syr®*! arm Orig. Chrys, etc.) and mepirarobyres (x* A D* 1912 lat) are variants which are substantially the same in meaning, wepirarety év being used in its common sense=living in the sphere of (Eph 2" etc.), having recourse to. The positive position is affirmed in kadéy xrA. (addy, as in 1 Co 7}, Ro 147! etc.). ‘*Kadds... denotes that kind of good- ness which is at once seen to be good” (Hort on 1 P 2!%), ze, by those who have a right instinct. The really right and good course is xdpitt BeBarodcbat thy Kapdtay, zc. either to have one’s heart strengthened, or to be strengthened in heart (kapdéav, accus. of reference). Bread sustains our physical life (dpros xapdiav avOpwrov orypite, Ps 104)), but xapdia here means more than vitality ; it is the inner life of the human soul, which God’s yapus alone can sustain, and God’s xépis in Jesus Christ is everything (2° etc.). But what does this contrast mean? The explanation is suggested in the next passage (vv.0-16), which flows out of 1 The forms vary ; but this, the Attic spelling, has the best repute upon the whole (see W. G. Rutherford’s Mew Phrynichus, pp. 370f.), and strong support here in x A C* D* M. XIII. 9.] FOOD AND FAITH 233 what has just been said. The various novel doctrines were connected in some way with Bpwpata. So much is clear. The difficulty is to infer what the Bpwpara were. There is a touch of scorn for such a motley, unheard of, set of dudayaé. The writer does not trouble to characterize them, but his words imply that they were many-sided, and that their main characteristic was a preoccupation with Bpwyara. There is no reference to the ancient regulations of the Hebrew ritual mentioned in 9!°; this would only be tenable on the hypothesis, for which there is no evidence, that the readers were Jewish Christians apt to be fascinated by the ritual of their ancestral faith, and, in any case, such notions could not naturally be described as zrouxiAau xal gévat. We must look in other directions for the meaning of this enigmatic reference. (a) The new didaxaé may have included ascetic regulations about diet as aids to the higher life, like the évtdApata kat dwacKkariat tv avOpuHrwv which disturbed the Christians at Colossé. Partly owing to Gnostic syncretism, prohibitions of certain foods (adréxecOar Bpwudrwv, 1 Ti 4°) were becoming common in some circles, in the supposed interests of spiritual religion. ‘‘We may assume,” says Pfleiderer, one of the representatives of this view (pp. 278f.), ‘‘a similar Gnostic spiritualism, which placed the historical Saviour in an inferior position as compared with angels or spiritual powers who do not take upon them flesh and blood, and whose service consists in mystical purifications and ascetic abstinences.” (4) They may also have included such religious sacraments as were popularized in some of the mystery-cults, where worshippers ate the flesh of a sacrificial victim or consecrated elements which represented the deity. Participation in these festivals was not unknown among some ultra-liberal Christians of the age. It is denounced by Paul in 1 Co 1o, and may underlie what the writer has already said in 10%, Why our author did not speak outright of eidwAddura, we cannot tell; but some such reference is more suitable to the context than (a), since it is sacrificial meals which are in question. He is primarily drawing a contrast between the various cult-feasts of paganism, which the readers feel they might indulge in, not only with immunity, but even with spiritual profit, and the Christian religion, which dispensed with any such participation. (c) Is there also a reference to the Lord’s supper, or to the realistic sense in which it was being interpreted, as though participation in it implied an actual eating of the sacrificial body of the Lord? This reference is urged by some critics, especially by F. Spitta (Zur Geschichte u. Litteratur des Urchristentums, i. pp. 325 f.) and O. Holtzmann (in Zettschrift fiir die neutest. Wissenschaft, x. pp. 251-260). Spitta goes wrong by misinterpret- ing v.10 as though the o@pa of Christ implied a sacrificial meal 234 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XIII. 9, 10. from which Jewish priests were excluded. Holtzmann rightly sees that the contrast between xdpis and Bpdpara implies, for the latter, the only Bpapa possible for Christians, viz. the Lord’s body as a food. What the writer protests against is the rising conception of the Lord’s supper as a dayetv ro capa Tov XpioTov. On the day of Atonement in the OT ritual, to which he refers, there was no participation in the flesh of the sacrificial victim ; - there could not be, in the nature of the case (v.14). So, he argues, the c@ua Xpiorod of our sacrifice cannot be literally eaten, as these neo-sacramentarians allege; any such notion is, to him, a relapse upon the sensuous, which as a spiritual idealist he despises as ‘‘a vain thing, fondly invented.” A true insight into the significance of Jesus, such as he has been trying to bring out in what he has written, such as their earlier leaders themselves had conveyed in their own way, would reveal the superfluousness and irrelevance of these didayaé. As the writer is alluding to what is familiar, he does not enter into details, so that we have to guess at his references. But the trend of thought in vv.!% is plain. In real Christian worship there is no sacrificial meal ; the Christian sacrifice is not one of which the worshippers partake by eating. This is the point of v.® The writer characteristically illustrates it from the OT ritual of atonement- day, by showing how the very death of Jesus outside the city of Jerusalem fulfilled the proviso in that ritual (vv." 1") that the sacrifice must not be eaten. Then he finds in this fact about the death of Jesus a further illustration of the need for unworldli- ness (vv.}% 14), Finally, in reply to the question, “Then have Christians no sacrifices to offer at all?” he mentions the two standing sacrifices of thanksgiving and charity (vv. 16), both owing their efficacy to Christ. Inwardness is the dominating thought of the entire paragraph. God’s grace in Jesus Christ works upon the soul; no external medium like food is required to bring us into fellowship with him; it is vain to imagine that by eating anything one can enjoy communion with God. Our Lord stands wholly outside the material world of sense, outside things touched and tasted; in relationship to him and him alone, we can worship God. The writer has a mystical or idealistic bent, to which the sacramental idea is foreign. He never alludes to the eucharist; the one sacrament he notices is baptism. A ritual meal as the means of strengthening communion with God through Christ does not appeal to him in the slightest degree. It is not thus that God’s xdpus is experienced. The clue to v.?° lies in the obvious fact that the @uctacrjptov and the oxy belong to the same figurative order. In our — spiritual or heavenly oxyv7, the real oxyvy of the soul, there is indeed a Ouctacryptov é€ of (partitive ; cp. Ta eis Tov icpod eo Oiov- XIII. 10-12. | UNWORLDLINESS 235 aw, t Co g!8) dayety (emphatic by position) odk exouoww éfouciay } (x Co 94) ot TH oxyvy Aatpedovres (Aatpevew with dative as in 8°). It makes no difference to the sense whether of . . . Aatpevovres means worshippers (9° 10?) or priests (85), and the writer does not allegorize 6vovacrypiov as Philo does (e.g. in de Leg. Alleg. i. 15, ris KaGapas Kal dusavrov pivews THs avapepovons TA Guwopa TA ew, avry O&€ éotu TO Ovovacrypiov). His point is simply this, that the Christian sacrifice, on which all our relationship to God depends, is not one that involves or allows any connexion with a meal. To prove how impossible such a notion is, he (v.!4) cites the ritual regulation in Lv 16%’ for the disposal of the carcases of the two animals sacrificed wept tijs duaptias (dv 76 aipa clonveyOn eéidac- acbat ev TO ayiw eEoicovew avira Ew THs TapemBoArTs Kal KaTaKavoov- ow avTaévrvpt). Fora moment the writer recalls his main argument in chs. 7-103 in v.!0 Christ is regarded as the victim or sacrifice (cp. mpooeveyOeis in g*5), but here the necessities of the case involve the activity of the Victim. Ad kat “Inoods xrA. (v.12). The parallel breaks down at one point, of course; his body was not burned up.? But the real comparison lies in é&@ tis médys (sc. THS TapeuPodrrs, as Ex 327-27), ‘The Peshitto and 436 make the reference explicit by reading woAews, which seems to have been known to Tertullian (adv. Jud. 14, “extra civitatem”). The fact that Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem influenced the synoptic transcripts of the parable in Mk 128= Mt 2199=Lk 2035, Mark’s version, amextewvav atrov kat é€Badov atrov ew Tod apmed- evos, was altered into (é&€Badorv) éxBarovres abrov eEw Tod apreAGvos (kal) daréxrevvay. . Crucifixion, like other capital punishments, in the ancient world was inflicted outside a city. To the writer this fact seems intensely significant, rich in symbolism. So much so that his mind hurries on to use it, no longer as a mere confirma- tion of the negative in v.!9, but as a positive, fresh call to unworldli- ness. All such sensuous ideas as those implied in sacrificial meals mix up our religion with the very world from which we ought, after Jesus, to be withdrawing. We meet Jesus outside all this, not inside it. In highly figurative language (v.18), he therefore makes a broad appeal for an unworldly religious fellow- ship, such as is alone in keeping with the yapis of God in Jesus our Lord. Toivuy (beginning a sentence as in Lk 20%8 roivuy arddore x7X., instead of coming second in its classical position), let us join Jesus €& tis mapepBodjs, for he is living. The thought of the 1 The omission of éfovclay by D* M and the Old Latin does not affect the sense ; @xe.v then has the same meaning as in 61°, 2 The blood, not the body, of the victim mattered in the atonement ritual. Hence, in our writer’s scheme of thought, as Peake observes, ‘‘ while he fully recognises the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, he can assign it no place in his argument or attach to it any theological significance.” 236 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 18-15. metaphor is that of Paul’s admonition pa cvvoxnpatilerde to ai@ve tovTw (Ro 12”), and the words tév dverdropdv adrod épovtes recall the warnings against false shame (1126 127), just as the following (v.14) reason, od yap éxopey O8e (in the present outward order of things) pevoucay! modu GAAG Thy péeAdoucay émiLntoiper recalls the ideas of 11101416. The appeal echoes that of 4! oTrovodowpev ovv eine Get eis exetvny THY Katamavowv. It is through ~ the experiences of an unsettled and insulted life that Christians must pass, if they are to be loyal to their Lord. That is, the writer interprets ¢€w tijs mrapepPohijs figuratively (“ Egrediamur et nos a commercio mundi huius,” Erasmus). Philo had already done so (cp. specially guod. det. pot. 44), in a mystical sense: pakpayv Svockiles TOV TWMATLKOU OTpAToOTédoV, MOVs AV OUTWS éArricoas ixéerys kat Oepamreutys ecco Oat TéeAcLos Peov. Similarly in de Lbrietate, 25, commenting on Ex 33’, he explains that by év r@ otparorédw ( = év rp wapenfoAnH) Moses meant allegorically év 76 wera odparos fiw, the material interests of the worldly life which must be for- saken if the soul is to enjoy the inward vision of God. Such is the renunciation which the writer here has in view. It is the thought in 2 Clem. 5! (c6ev, ddeAol, katarcipavtes THY mapoiKiav TOU KOapoV TovTOY ToLnTwLEY TO OéeAnua TOU KadécayTos Has, Kal py poBynaue efedOeiv ex Tod Kdopov Tovrov) and 6° (ov dura- pea trav dvo piror elvar det O€ Nuads TovTwW arorasapéevous éxeivw xpacGar). Only, our author weaves in the characteristic idea of the shame which has to be endured in such an anworldhy renunciation. The next exhortation in v. (dvapépwper) catches up éepxw- pefa, as 8. abtod carries on zpos adrév. For once applying sacri- ficial language to the Christian life, he reminds his readers again of the sacrifice of thanksgiving. The phrase xapmév yethéwv ex- plains (toét’ €or) the sense in which @uoia aivésews is to be taken; it is from the LXX mistranslation (kaprov yeréwv) of Hos 14° where the true text has O08 (bullocks) instead of "5 (fruit). In dpodoyotvtwy 7H dydpatt attod, duoAoyety is used in the sense of égouodoyeteGat by an unusual? turn of expression. The évoya means, as usual, the revealed Spooks Probably there 1 is an unconscious recollection of Ps 548 (e€oporoyyoopat TO ovopart cov) ; Ovcia aivésews® is also from the psalter (e.g. 5ol* 28), "Avadéepew elsewhere in the NT is only used of spiritual sacrifices in the parallel passage I P 2° dvevéyxae TVEVMLATLKAS duaias ev poo deKTous bea dua “Inoov Xpiorov. We have no sacri- 1 In the sense of Aeneas (Verg. Aen. iii. 85, 86, ‘‘da moenia fessis | et genus et mansuram urbem”’). Note the assonance uévouoay - . » MéANOVTAY, 2 But ouodoyety rive occurs in 3 Es 4° 5°8 (A). 3In the LXX éfouordynoats is rene preferred to alveots as an equiva: lent for An. XIII. 15, 16.] CHRISTIAN SACRIFICES 237 \ ficial meals, the writer implies ; we do not need them. Nor have we any sacrifices—except spiritual ones. (The ovv after 8: adroi, which x° A C D° M vg syr®*! boh arm eth Orig. Chrys. ete. re- tain, is omitted by 8* D* P W vt syr’®; but 8* D* om. ody also 1 Co 6’,as D in Ro 7”). The thought of 1278 is thus expanded, with the additional touch that thankfulness to God is inspired by our experience of Jesus (80 atrov, as Col 31" edyapiorotvtes TA Ge warpi d¢ advrod); the phrase is a counterpart of 8a tod dpxtepéws in v.". This thank-offering is to be made d:a avrés (s¢. xpdvov), instead of at stated times, for, whatever befalls us, we owe God thanks and praise (cp. 1 Th 516). The Mishna (cp. Berachoth 5*) declares that he must be silenced who only calls upon God’s name with thankfulness in the enjoyment of good (Berachoth 58 jnix pprvin OD OND Wo DN sv OY. . . Wis). The religious idea of thanksgiving was prominent in several quarters. According to Fronto (Loeb ed. i. p. 22) thank-offerings were more acceptable to the gods than sin-offerings, as being more disinterested: uavrewy dé ratdés gacw Kal Tots Oeots Hdlovs elvat Ovoidv Tas xapiornplouvs 7 Tas metArxlous. Philo had taught (de Plant. 30) that evxapiorlia is exceptionally sacred, and that towards God it must be an inward sacrifice: dew 5¢ ov eveote yrnolws evyapioTjoat O¢ dy voulfovew oi woddol KatacKkevdv avabnudrwv Ovordv—ovde yap cvytras 6 Kéopos lepdv dkidxpewy Gv yévoro mpos Thy TovTOU TLLV—GAAA SE éralywv kal tuvwv, ovx ods ) yeywvds doerac Pwvh, GANA ods 6 deLvdhs Kal KaOapwraros vovs émnxjoe kai avauédhWe. He proceeds (2bzd. 33) to dwell on the meaning of the name Judah, ds épunveverar kuplw éfouordyyots. Judah was the last (Gn 29%) son of Leah, for nothing could be added to praise of God, nothing excels 6 evAoy&v rév Gedy vods. This tallies with the well-known rabbinic saying, quoted in Tanchuma, 55. 2: ‘‘in the time of messiah all sacrifices will cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving will not cease; all prayers will cease, but praises will not cease” (on basis of Jer 33! and Ps 56'%). The praise of God as the real sacrifice of the pious is frequently noted in the later Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 10’). In v.16 the writer notes the second Christian sacrifice of charity. Edmowia, though not a LXX term, is common in Hellenistic Greek, especially in Epictetus, eg. Fragm. 15 (ed. Schenk), éri xpyordryte kai evrrouig; Fragm. 45, ovdev Kpetooor evouias (where the context suggests ‘ beneficence ”). Kowwvia in the sense of charity or contributions had been already used by Paul (2 Co 9}8 etc.). To share with others, to impart to them what we possess, is one way of worshipping God. The three great definitions of worship or religious service in the NT (here, Ro 121? and Ja 17’) are all inward and ethical; what lies behind this one is the fact that part of the food used in ancient OT sacrifices went to the support of the priests, and part was used to provide meals for the poor. Charitable relief was bound up with the sacrificial system, for such parts of the animals as were not burnt were devoted to these beneficent purposes. An equivalent must be provided in our 238 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XIII. 16. spiritual religion, the writer suggests; if we have no longer any animal sacrifices, we must carry on at any rate the charitable element in that ritual. This is the force of ph émdavOdveode. Contributions, ¢eg., for the support of myovpevor, who were not priests, were unknown in the ancient world, and had to be explicitly urged as a duty (cp. 1 Co 9®14), Similarly the needs of the poor had to be met by voluntary sacrifices, by which - alone, in a spiritual religion, God could be satisfied—rotatrats (perhaps including the sacrifice of praise as well as eizoia and kowwvia) Quotas edapectettar (cp. 11> 6 1278) 6 Beds. This counsel agrees with some rabbinic opinions (e.g. T. B. Sukkah, 594: ‘‘he who offers alms is greater than all sacrifices”). The special duty of supporting the priesthood is urged in Sir 73%, but our author shows no trace of the theory that almsgiving in general was not only superior to sacrifices but possessed atoning merit before God (Sir 3)4 eAXenpootvn yap marpos ob émtAnoOyoerat, Kai dyti dpaptiav mpocavoixodopynOyoerat oor). In the later rabbinic theology, prayer, penitence, the study of the Torah, hospitality, charity, and the like were regarded as sacrifices equivalent to those which had been offered when the temple was standing. Thus Rabbi Jochanan b. Zakkai (cp. Schlatter’s Jochanan ben Zakkat, pp. 39f.) consoled himself and his friends with the thought, derived from Hos 6%, that in the practice of charity they still possessed a valid sacrifice for sins; he voiced the conviction also (e.g. b. baba bathra 10>) that charity (np?¥) won forgiveness for pagans as the sin-offering did for Israel. In the Ep. Barnabas (27) the writer quotes Jer 72% 28 (Zec 817) as a warning to Christians against Jewish sacrifices (aicbdvec bar ouv dheiXopev THY yvopany TIS d-yabwovvys TOU TAT pos Hav or npv Neyer, GArwy judas py Spoiws wAavwpevovs exelvors Cyreiv, TOs mpoodywpev aiT@), but he quotes Ps 511% as the description of the ideal sacrifice. The tendency in some circles of the later Judaism to spiritualize sacrifice in general and to insist on its motive and spirit is voiced in a passage like Jth-roter: bpn yap éx OepeNlwy ov Bdacw carevOrjoerat, métpat & ard mporwmrov gov ws Knpds TakjcovTat* ére O€ Tots PoBovpévas oe ov evidaTevers avTois* Sri puxpoyv maca Ovola els dcunv evwolas, kal é\dx.oTov wav oréap els d\oKa’Twud cot" 6 dé PoBovmevos Tov KUptov péyas dia mavrds. Also in a number of statements from various sources, of which that in Zp. Arist. 234 (ri uéyworév éore Sdéns ; 6 5¢ ele’ 7d Tidy Tdv Bedv* TodTo & éoriv ov ddpos ode Ovolats, GAAA Wuxis Kabapdryte Kal dtadyWews oolas) may be cited as a fair specimen. The congruous idea of bloodless sacrifices was common in subsequent Christianity. Thus the martyr Apollonius Woe Apollonit, 445 Conybeare’s Monuments of Early Christianity, pp. 47-48) tells the magistrate, ‘‘I expected . . . that thy heart would bear fruit, and XIII. 16, 17. | CHURCH LEADERS 239 that thou wouldst worship God, the Creator of all, and unto Him continually offer thy prayers by means of compassion ; for compassion shown to men by men is a bloodless sacrifice and holy unto God.” So Jerome’ s comment runs on Ps 154 od wh owaydyw ras owaywyds airav é aludrwv. Luvd-ywv, gnoiv, cvvayuyas éx TeV eOvadv, od St aludrwy ta’ras cuvdéw' TodT gor, ov Tapackevdow Oud THs vous moe mpocépxerOat AaTpelas, du’ alvécews Sé waddov kai THs dvaudKxrov Ovolas (Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. 123). Both in the Didache (14! kAdoare dprov kal evxapirrjoare mpocekomodoynodpevor Td maparTwuara buoy, Srws Kabapa 7) Ovola duev 7H) and in Justin Martyr (Dza/. 117, mwdvras ody of dia Tov dvduaros Tov’Tou duolas, as TmapedwKev Inoots 6 Xpiords ylveo Oat, TouTéotw éml TH edXaptorig Tov dprov Kai Tov mornplou, Tas év mavtTl Tomw THS yas ywouévas bro Tav Xpicriavav, rportaBwv 6 Peds waprupet evapéorous virdpxew avTq), the very prayers at the eucharist are called @vcla, but this belongs to a later stage, when the eucharist or love-feast became the rite round which collections for the poor, the sick, prisoners, and travelling visitors (vv./f-) gathered, and into which sacrificial language began to be poured (cp. Justin’s 4Zo/. i. 66, 67). In IlIpds ‘EBpatous we find a simpler and different line of practical Christianity. Now for a word on the living *yodmevor of the community (v.17), including himself (vv.1® 19), 17 Obey your leaders, submit to them; for they (adbrol) are alive to the enterests of your souls, as men who will have to account for thetr trust. Let their work be a joy to them and not a grief—which would be a loss to yourselves. 18 Pray for me, for Lam sure L have a clean conscience; my desire ts in every way to lead an honest life. © I urge you to thts (2.e. to prayer) all the more, that I may get back to you the sooner. The connexion of vv.!7£ is not only with v.’, but with vyv.816, It would be indeed a grief to your true leaders if you gave way to these zouxiAar kai €évae doctrines, instead of following men who are really (this is the force of airo/) concerned for your highest interests. Mei@ceobe (cp. Epict. Fragm. 27; TOV ™ poo opiovvra Starkorov fy TE el pev dpeivova, a&KOVELV xpn Kat weiGecbat he kat OtelkeTe (tretxe i is not a LXX term); strong words but justified, for the Adyos tod Geod which Christian leaders preached meant authoritative standards of life for the community (cp. 1 Co Alf. al 1487 etc. ), inspired by the Spirit. Insubordination was the temptation at one pole, an overbearing temper (1 P 5°) the temptation at the other. Our author knows that, in the case of his friends, the former alone is to be feared. He does not threaten penalties for disobedience, however, as Josephus does (c. Apionem, ii. 194) for insubordination on the part of the Jewish laity towards a priest: 6 d€ ye TOUT ta) meiouevos beer Siknv ws els Tov Geov aitov doeBv. Rather, he singles out the highminded devotion of these leaders as an inducement to the rank and file to be submissive. Adtot yap dypunvotow bmép tov Wuxdv Spar, almost as Epictetus says of the true Cynic who zealously con- cerns himself with the moral welfare of men, vmepyypiTvyKev tarep avOpurwy (111. 22. 95 ; he uses the verb once in its literal sense of a soldier having to keep watch through the night, iii. 24. 32). 240 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII 17. The force of the phrase is flattened by the transference of tép Tav Wuxdv buoy to a position after ds Adyov droddcovtes (as A vg). The latter expression, ws (conscious that) Adyov dmrodwcovres (ws with fut. ptc. here only in NT), is used by Chrysostom, de Sacerdotio, ii. 18 (cp. Vi. 1), to enforce a sense of ministerial responsibility (et yap Tav oixetwy TAnupednparoy eidivas t bmréxovrTes ppirroper, as ov Svvqnoopevor TO wup expuyety exeivo, TL xpt) Teicer Gan mpoo doKay Tov brép tocovTwy dmroXoyetobat pédovta ; ;), but in IIpds ‘EBpaiovs the writer assumes that the yyovpevor are doing and will do their duty. Any sadness which they may feel is due, not to a sense of their own shortcomings, but to their experience of wilfulness and error among their charges. Asyov dmodtddvar is more common in the NT than the equivalent Adyov d:ddvat, which recurs often in Greek literature, eg. in Plato’s Sympos. 1890, mpdcexe tov voiv Kal ovtws A€ye as SHowv Adyor, or in the complaint of the Fayyum peasants (A.D. 207), who petition the local centurion that the disturbers of their work may be called to account: dévotvres, éav cor S6€y, KerXedoar adrods axOnvat eri oe Adyov aroddcovras wept Tovtov (GCP. i. 3547 6). In Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, John says to the captain of the robbers, éy® Xpiorad Adyov dHcw trép cod. The tva clause (iva peta xapas Todt TowWow Kal ph orevdLovtes) goes back to weifeoOe . . . taeixere. The members have it in their power to thwart and disappoint their Tryobpevot. Tovro 7. refers to dypurvotcw, and the best comment on kai wn orevalovTes is in Denny’s hymn: “OQ give us hearts to love like Thee,’ Like Thee, O Lord, to grieve Far more for others’ sins than all The wrongs that we receive.” The last four words, dducitehés yap Spuiv toéto, form a rhe- torical litotes, as when Pindar (Olymp. 1. 53) remarks, axépdeva Aédoyxev Gapuva Kaxaydpos. It would bea “sore loss” to them if their lives failed to answer the hopes and efforts of their nyovpevot, hopes like those implied in 69 and 10%%, *AdAvouredés (‘no profit”) is probably used after Adyov drodHcovres with its sense of “reckoning.” Compare the use of the adverb in Theophrastus, viii. 11 (ov yap pdovov Wevdovrat GAXG kal dAvotTeADS dra\\arrover), and the dry remark of Philo (¢% Hlaccum, 6), speaking about the attempt of the Alexandrian anti-Semites to erect images in Jewish places of worship, when he says that Flaccus might have known @s od Avowredes €6n mwartpia kwveiv ! The term lent itself to such effective under-statements, as in Philo’s aphorism (fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris, p. 70) 76 émvopkeiv avdavov Kal ddXvotreA orator. XIII. 18, 19.] PRAYERS 241 The next word (v.}8) is about himself. Mpovedyeobe (continue praying) wept (cp. 2 Mac 1° kai viv ade éopev mpooevyopevon mrept bpav) hpov (plural of authorship), wer@due8a (a modest confidence : “‘whatever some of you may think, I believe”) yap 61 kad guveidynow éxopev. He is conscious of a keen desire (€Aovres as in 121’) to act in a straightforward, honest way ; hence he can ask their prayers. Hence also they may feel confident and eager about praying for him. The writer chooses xadyv (cp. on v.%) instead of a&yaOyv as his adjective for ovveidnow, probably for the sake of assonance with the following xad@s, perhaps also to avoid the hiatus after 67 When he adds, év waéow (here neuter) kah@s Oédovtes dvactpépeoOar (a phrase which occurs in the Pergamos inscript. 459° xaA@s Kat évddEws avaotpadjvat, in the rst century B.c. inscription (Priene, 115°) avaorpepopevos ev racw piA[avOpdrws|, and in Epict. iv. 4. 46, €opryv dyew dvvaca kal? nuepay, OTL KaAwS aveotpadys év THE TO Epyw, etc.), the language recalls that of 2 Co 1" 12 where Paul appeals for the help of his readers’ prayers and pleads his honesty of conscience (76 paprv- plov THS cvverdnoews HOV, OTL. . . dvertpddywev xTA.). Perhaps the writer is conscious that his readers have been blaming him, attributing (say) his absence from them to unworthy motives, as in the case of Paul (eg. 1 Th 218, 2 Co 11), This may be the feeling which prompts the protest here and the assurances in vv.19. 23, “JT am still deeply interested in you; my absence is involuntary ; believe that.” Kal is inserted before mept by D vt Chrys. (possibly as a reminiscence of 1 Th 5%), z.e. pray as well as obey (‘‘et orate pro nobis,” d); this would emphasize the fact that the writer belonged to the jyyovuervor. But the plural in v.!8 is not used to show that the writer is one of the *yovmevor mentioned in v.27, for whom the prayers of the community are asked. He was one of them ; #udv here is the literary plural already used in 5% 6*11. There are apt parallels in Cicero’s de Offictzs, ii. 24 (“f Quem nos. . . e Graeco in Latinum convertimus. Sed toto hoc de genere, de quaerenda, de collocanda pecunia vellens etiam de utenda”), and OP. x. 1296 (the letter of a boy to his father), rou . . . Ptdorovotpuev kal avawyuxduer. erOdueba (rrelPouat 256. 1319. 2127) has been changed into wemot@apev by x¢ C° D © W 6. 104. 263. 326 (Blass), probably because the latter (‘‘ we are confident’) is stronger than mel@oueba, which (cp. Ac 26%) only amounts to ‘‘ we believe” (though implying ‘‘we are sure”). Retaining wevOdue@a, A. Bischoff (Zezts. fiir ave neut. Wess. ix. 171 f.) evades the difficulty by altering the order of the words : mpocevxX. epl huav’ Kadhv yap our. Exouev, Bre melOoucda ev waow xk. 0. dvaorpépec Oat, z.e. taking 87. as ‘‘ because.” As in Philem 2, the writer’s return is dependent on his friends’ prayers (v.!®) ; specially (see p. 17) let them intercede with God for his speedy restoration to them, tva tdxvov drroxatactaQd spiv (cp. OP. 181 (A.D. 49-50) doxateotdfy por 6 vids). Tdxvov may mean “the sooner” (ze. than if you did not pray) or simply “soon” (as in v.73, where, as in Hellenistic Greek, it has lost 16 242 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIITI. 19, 20. its comparative meaning). What detained the writer, we cannot tell. Apparently (v.?*) it was not imprisonment. A closing prayer and doxology, such as was not uncommon in epistles of the primitive church (eg. 1 Th 5%, 1 P 5"), now follows. Having asked his readers to pray for him, he now prays for them. ' 0 May the God of peace ‘who brought up” from the dead our Lard (7%) Jesus (see p. Ixili), ‘‘the” great ‘* Shepherd of the sheep, with the. blood of the eternal covenant,” » fur nish you with everything that ts good for the doing of his will, creating in your lives by Jesus Christ what 1s acceptable tn his own sight! To hin (i.e. God) de (sc. etn) glory for ever and ever. Amen. ‘O Geds ris cipyyvys means the God of saving bliss (see on 12"), cipnvy being taken in a sense like the full OT sense of the secure prosperity won by the messianic triumph over the hostile powers of evil (cp. 2!4 72). There is no special allusion here, as in Paul’s use of the phrase (Ro 15%8, 2 Co 13" etc.), to friction in the community ; the conflict is one in which God secures «ipyvy for his People, a conflict with evil, not strife between members of the church. The method of this triumph is described in. some OT phrases, which the writer uses quite apart from their original setting. The first quotation is from Is 634% ov 6 avafsiBaoas éx THs yns TOV woLmeva TOV TpoParwyv, which the writer _ applies to Jesus—his only reference to the resurrection. (cp. on vy.11 12), But there is no need (with Blass) to follow Chrysostom in reading trys yys here for vexpdv. With dvayetv in this sense, éx vexpdv (So Ro ro’) or some equivalent (é€ adov, Ps 304, Wis 1618, Joseph. Azz. vi. 14. 2) is much more natural. In réy Tou.eva Tov TpoBdrwv Tov peyay, 6 péyas is applied to him as in 414 1071, The figure of the zouwjv, which never occurs in Paul, plays no role in our author’s argument as it does in 1 Peter (2% 5*); he prefers tepeds or dpynyds, and even here he at once passes to the more congenial idea of the diafy«y. Jesus is the great Shepherd, as he has made himself responsible for the People, identifying himself with them at all costs, and sacrificing his life in order to save them for God. But as death never occurs in the OT description of the divine shepherd, not even in the 23rd Psalm, the writer blends with his quotation from Isaiah another—év aipare Siadiixys aiwviov, a LXX phrase from Zech ott (& atpare diabhyxys cov ée$améoredas Seopious cov), Is 55° (Siabyropat t ppv Sia qeny aiavov), ait "Ev alpare diab yKys | aiwviou goes with dvayayav, not with ror Toipeva, in which case tov would need to be prefixed to the phrase. Jesus was raised to present his blood as the atoning sacrifice which mediated the Siabjxy (9! 246). To the resurrection (cp. on yv.!2) is thu’ ascribed what elsewhere in the epistle is ascribed to the eiveAOety eis Ta ayia. But as the stress falls on aiwvéov, then more is XIII. 20, 21.| . THE SHEPHERD’S BLOOD 243 implied than that apart from the aiza no dia0y«y could have been instituted. In reality the thought resembles that of 9!4 (ds dea Tet LAT OS aimviov éavrov mpoojnveyxey . . . Kabapret THV gwveldnow Huav .. . eis TO Aarpevetv Gea Covrt), where eis 10 Aarpevev bed corresponds to «ig TO Tovjoar TO OéAnya adtod below; & «rd. is “equipped with,” not “in virtue of.” This interpretation is in line with -the author’s argument in chs. 7-10. ‘ Videtur mihi apostolus hoc belle, Christum ita resur- rexisse a mortuis, ut mors tamen eius non sit abolita, sed aeternum vigorem retineat, ac si dixisset: Deus filum suum excitavit, sed ita ut sanguis, quem semel in morte fudit, ad sanctionem foederis aeterni post resurrectionem vigeat fructumque suum proferat perinde ac si semper flueret” (Calvin). In Kataptica: (the aor. optative)! «xrA., there is a parallel to the thought of Ph 233, Bis 76 wojoar 7O GéAnpa avdrod recalls the Janguage of - To%, and 8a “Iycot Xptotod goes with ody: the power of God in our lives as for our lives (v.2°) works through the person of Jesus Christ. To take dd ‘I. X. with 75 eédpeotov évémioy avtod yields an unobjectionable sense, corresponding to the thought of v.%, But 7rd... adrod stands quite well by itself (cf. 1 Jn 372). The writer makes no such use of the shepherd and flock metaphor as, ¢.z., Philo had done. The Jewish thinker (V2¢. A/os, 1. 11) argues that the calling of a shepherd is the best preparation for anyone who is to rule over men ; hence ‘‘ kings are called shepherds of their people” as a title of honour. He also interprets the sheep as the symbol of a nature which is capable of improvement (de sacrif. Abel. 34, mpoxowis 6€ wpdBarov, ws Kal abrd dydot robvoua, ciu8orov).' The classical habit of. describing kings as shepherds of their people would help to make the metaphor quite intelligible to readers of non-Jewish origin, Compare, é.g., the saying of Cyrus (Xenophon, Cyropaedza, viii. 2.14), that a good shepherd resembled a good king, Tov re yap vopéa xphvat py evdaiwova ra KTVT jwovovrvra xpiobGat avrots, } On wpoBdrwr evdat- hovla, Tov Te Baoihéa woatrws evdalwovas modes Kal dvOpwrous movobyTa XpHoa avrots. Mavré was soon furnished with the homiletic addition of épye (C K M P syr sah arm eth Chrys. Thdt. etc.), or even épyw Kal heyy (A, from 2 Th eae IIo.dy has either air@ (x* A C* 33* 1288 boh) or éavr@ (Greg. Nyss.) or avrés (d 1912) prefixed. Hort, admitting that ‘‘it is impossible to make sense of airm” (B. Weiss, Blass = éavré), maintains that av’rés is original. It is a homiletic isaviions out of which ai7@ arose by corruption. “Hyty (sD M © 33. 104. 181. 326. 917. 927. 1258. 1739. 1912, etc. syr¥8 sah boh arm) is merely an error for tpiv, due to the preceding jydr. A personal postscript (vv.?*74) is now added, as 1 P 5!*¥ afteri5 9. 4, 22 T appeal to you, brothers (3)-!* 10”), to bear with this appeal of mine. ft ts but a short letter. 1 This lonely occurrence of the optative points to its tendency after the LXX to disappear; thus, apart from mi yevolro, it only occurs once in a writer like Epictetus (iii. 5. 11). 244 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIITI. 22. °3 You must understand that our brother Timotheus ts now free. Tf he comes soon, he and I will see you together. 4 Salute all your leaders and all the saints. The Italians salute you. 25 Grace be with you all. Amen. The Timotheus referred to (in v.28) is probably the Timo- theus who had been a colleague of Paul. The other allusions have nothing to correspond with them in the data of the NT. But there is no ground for supposing that vv.?2-25 were added, either by the writer himself (Wrede) or by those who drew up the canon, in order to give a Pauline appearance to the docu- ment (see Introd., pp. xxvilif.). Seeberg’s reasons for regarding vv.22-25 as a fragment of some other note by the same writer are that 28> implies not a church but a small group of Christians, and that vv.!8 23 presuppose different situations; neither reason is valid. The style and contents are equally unfavourable to Perdelwitz’s theory, that vv.?225 were added drevt manu by some one who wrote out a copy of the original Adyos rapaxAjoews and forwarded it to an Italian church. In v.2? dvéxeoOe, for which avréyeoGe (J. Pricaeus apud Tit 19) | is a needless conjecture, takes a genitive (as in 2 Ti 48 tis byawovons Sidackadias odk avéefovrat, and in Philo, guod omnis probus, 6, kat THs warpos pev 7 pNTpPOs eriTayparwv Taides avexXovTAt, yvaopysoe 6¢ dv ay tpyynrat dvaxeAevwvrat). It has been flattened into dvéyeo Oar (infinitive as in 1 P 2!) by D* W vg arm 181. 436. 1288. 1311. 1873, etc. (Blass). A written homily may be like a speech (Ac 13}5), a Adyos THs mapaxdynoews (cp. on 125); qapa- kAnows echoes tmapaxadéw He is not the only early Christian writer who mildly suggested that he had not written at undue length (cp. e.g. 1 P 51260 éXtywv eypaila, tapaxadov rr. ; Barn 15 8) Kat yap (‘‘etenim” as 4?) 8a Bpayxéwv (sc. Adywv) éméoterda ! (epistolary aorist) dptv. Avi Bpayéwy was a common phrase in this connexion ; 4g. Lucian’s Zoxaris, 56 (meoréov kal rattd oor vopoberovvte Kat dua Bpayewv Aexréov, wi Kal Kapns Hplv TH axon ouptreptvooTav). IIpos “EBpatovs may be read aloud easily in one hour. The writer has had a good deal to say (zoAts, 514), and he has now said it. Not I hope, he adds pleasantly, at too great length! As for the dvcepyyvevtos Aéyevv, that is another question which he does not raise here. He is not pleading for a patient reading, because he has had to compress his argument into a short space, which makes it hard to follow, owing to its highly condensed character. What he does appear to anticipate is the possibility of his readers resenting the length at which he has 1 For éréorecha (here as in Ac 15% 21%; Theophr. 24!8 émicréAX\wy up ypadgew xT. = “write,” ‘send a letter”), see Laqueur’s Quaest. Epigraph. et Papyr. Selectae, 16 f. (émioré\Xey = ‘f communicare aliquid cum aliquo sive per hominem sive per epistolam ”). XIII. 22, 23.] SHORT LETTERS 245 written. When the younger Pliny returned a book to Tacitus, with some criticisms upon its style and matter, he said he was not afraid to do so, since it was those most deserving praise whc accepted criticism patiently (‘neque enim ulli patientius repre- hunduntur quam qui maxime laudari merentur,” £7. vii. 20), The author of Ilpos “EBpaiovs might have taken this line, for he has done justice to the good qualities of his friends (e.g. 6% 10%9 13), even in reproving them for backwardness and slowness. But he prefers to plead that his words have not been long; his readers surely cannot complain of being wearied by the length of his remarks. Not long before, Seneca had made the same kind of observation to Lucilius (Z%. xxxvili. 1) about short letters being more effective than lengthy discussions. ‘ Merito exigis ut hoc inter nos epistularum commercium frequentemus, pluri- mum proficit sermo, quia minutatim inrepit animo.. . ali- quando utendum est et illis, ut ita dicam, concionibus, ubi qui dubitat inpellendus est: ubi vero non hoc agendum est ut velit discere sed ut discat, ad haec submissiora uerba ueniendum est. facilius intrant et haerent: nec enim multis opus est, sed efficaci- bus.” But Seneca’s practice was not always up to his theory in this respect. His Stoic contemporary Musonius Rufus gave examples as well as precepts of brevity, which were more telling (e.g. doris O€ wavTaxod Setrat drode(Eews Kal Orov Gadhy TA TpdypaTa éotiv, 7) Sua ToAAGY arodeixvvcGar BovrAcTaL atT@ Ta du dArALywv duvdpeva, TavTamaciw aromos Kai Ovopabys, ed. Hense, pp. 1, 2). The literary critic Demetrius considered that the length of a letter should be carefully regulated (ro dé péyefos cvvertadOw THs exiatoAns, De Llocut. 228); letters that were too long and stilted in expression became mere treatises, ovyypdupara, as in the case of many of Plato’s, whereas the true éricroAy, according to Demetrius (tb¢d. 231), should be ¢iAodpovyars in a brief compass (cVvropos). Which would apply to IIpés “Efpafouvs. Erasmus comments: ‘“‘Scripsi paucis, ut ipse vos brevi visurus.” He may have, but he does not say so. In v.78 yweoxete is imperative; he is conveying a piece of information. See, eg., Zebt. P. 372 (73 B.C.) yivwoxe Kedaday . . . mpooeAndrArfevac Anpntpiw: ibid. 127 (118 B.C.) 362 56°. The construction with the participle is common (eg. Lk 84); you must understand tov d8edbsv pay (omitted by 8° D> °K PW 6 Chrys. etc.) TupdOeov drodedupévoy, ze. “is (set) free,” not necessarily from prison. ‘The general sense, ranging from “‘is free” to “has started,” may be illustrated, e.g., from the applica- tion of a woman to leave Alexandria via Pharos (OP. 1271* 5, ili A.D.: d&iO ypdwWar oe TO EritpOTw THs Pdpov aroiooa pe Kata To os), or from BGU. i. 27!*)) (xa iyépav mpocdexopl||Oa diycowplav More Ews oNpepov pydevay arodcAVaOat Tov pEeTa CiTOV), 246 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (XIII. 28, 24, | where é. = “has set out,” as in Ac 28 (dredvovro). The inter- pretation of the next words pe of édv TéxLov Epyntar dpopor Spds depends upon whether Limotheus is supposed to join the writer or to journey straight to the community addressed. In the latter case, the writer, who hopes to be coming soon (v.}%) ‘himself, looks forward to meeting him there. In the former case, they will travel together. It is natural to assume that when _ the writer sent this message, Timotheus was somewhere else, and that he was expected ere long to reach the writer. For owouor= _ visit, see -3 Jn 14 éAmilw dé eiOéws Wey oe, etc. “Edy taxtov éoxytac may mean either, “‘as soon as he comes,” or “if he comes soon.” The latter suits the situation implied in v.!® better. The writer (in v.!®) asks the prayers of his readers, that some obstacle to his speedy return may be removed. If this obstacle were the hindrance that kept Timotheus from joining him on a journey which they had already planned to the church (Riggenbach), he would have said, “Pray for Timotheus, 1 cannot leave for you till he rejoins me.” But the idea is: as the writer is rejoining his friends soon (he hopes), he will be: accompanied by Timotheus, should the latter arrive before he has to start. Written advice is all very well, but he hopes soon to follow up this Adyos zapaxAyjocews with personal intercourse, like Seneca in Z¢f. vi. 5 (‘‘ plus tamen tibi et uiua vox et convictus quam oratio proderit. in rem praesentem uenias oportet, primum quia homines amplius oculis quam auribus credunt, deinde quia longum iter est per praecepta, breue et efficax per exempla”). The greeting comes as usual last (v.74). “AomdouoOe xrA. is an unusual turn, however; the homily was evidently sent to the | community, who are told to greet all their }yoduevor. This finds its nearest parallel in Paul’s similar injunction (Ro 16") to the Ephesian Christians to salute this and that eminent member of their circle. Still, no other NT church is bidden to salute its leaders; and though the writer plainly wishes to reinforce his counsel in v.!’, the mévras suggests that the persons addressed - were “part of the whole church of a large city . ... a congrega- tion attached to some household” (Zahn) ; they are to convey the writer’s greetings to all the leaders of the larger local church— and to all their fellow-members (kat wdvras Tods dytous being more intelligible, in. the light of a passage like Ph 4?! dordoaoGe wavra aytov). To his personal greetings he now adds greetings from some Italians. In ot dad ris ‘ITadias, dd may have its usual sense of “domiciled at” (practically = éy), as, ¢.g., in OP. i. 81 (A.D. 49-50), where tOv dx “Ogvptyywv means “the inhabitants of Oxy- rhynchus,” or in TiAnve . . . dwd ya, ze. at Phmau (ostracon of A.D. 192, quoted in Deissmann’s Light from the East, p. 186). If it thus means residents in Italy, the writer is in Italy XIII. 24. | FAREWELL 247 himself. But of d@ré tis “Iradias, on the analogy of Ac 2127 (of dad tis “Acias “lovdaior), might equally well mean Italians resident for the time being outside Italy; in this case the writer, who is also abroad, is addressing some Italian community, to which their countrymen forward greetings. Grammatically, either rendering is possible, and there is no tradition to decide the question. Perhaps of amd rys “Iradias is more natural, however, as a description of some Italian Christians abroad who chanced to be in the same locality as the writer and who take this opportunity of sending their greetings by him to an Italian community. Ifthe writer was in Italy, we should have expected mavtes of ard THs ‘Iradias, considering the size of Italy and the scattered Christian communities there at this period. The final benediction, } xdpts (sc. €orw or ein) peta mdvTov spay (Tit 3/4, 2 Ti 47") has a liturgical duyv, which is omitted by X* W fuld sah 33; the homily was, of course, intended to be read aloud at worship. INDEXES. ~—-—--4----- I. INDEX GRAECITATIS. Words marked * are peculiar in NT to Hebrews. 33 i] 3 > > B ] ” t occur only in quotations from LXX. ¢ are peculiar in NT to Luke (gospel, Acts) and Hebrewah [Paul] [T] [P] are only used elsewhere in NT by Paul, or in the Pastoral Epistles, or in 1 Peter. t’Aapdy, 54, 711, 94, ABpadp, 216. 635, aie 2. 4. 5. 6. :, I 18 1 ayabés, 13); : 7a ayabd, og, 10}. + dyadXNlacts, I t dyardw, 19, 128, arydmn, 61°, 10%, dyamnrés (ayamnrol), 6°. dryryedos, 14 5 & (LXX) ™ (LXX) 33, 2% 5.7 (LXX)% 16, 7222 132, * ayeveadoynros, 7°. dyidtw, 2", of, Lene, 14, 29° 312, ay.acuds, 1214 dytos, 3} (Christians) : 10” 134: wveiua dywov, 24, 37, 64, 9%, 10°: rd dytov, 9}. ay.érns, 12)° [Paul ?]. t dyxupa, 6". ayvoew, 5%. * ayvonua, 9’. ayputvéw (v7ép), dyw, 2), aywv, 12! [Paul]. 13)7, ddeApds, 2M 12 (LXX)17, 3h 12, 7d, 81 (LXX), 109, 1322 23) t+ ddixla (19?), 81, &dixos, 61°, dddxiuos, 68 [Paul]. advvaros (ddvvarov), 6% 18, ro4, 118, + del, 32°, aberéw, 10%, ol dro, 6'°, 13243 (ra) dyin, 82, 9% 3 8+ 12 24. 25, * d0érnots, 718, 978, * dOAnows, 10°, * alyevos, 1197, t Alydmrios, 117%. Alyunros; 37% 3? 211-7; aldws, 1278 (s.v.Z) [T]. alua, 214, 7. 12.13. 14, 18. 19. 20. (LXX) al. 22. 25 10% 19- 29 17%, 12 24, ll. 12. 20 (LXX). i alnarexxuatas bee *+ atveois, 131°. aipetabat (EAdpuevos), * aicOnrnpiov, 514, alaxvvn, 127, airta, 21}, tatrios, 59. aidv, 18(LXX), 5°(LXX), 6% 20, wit (LXX) 42 (UL XX),) 72 Bs of aldves, 12, 96, 11%, 73 21, alwvios, 137° (diay), 9! (KAnpo- vouta), 67 (kptua), 9! (AUTpwors), g"4 (wvetua), 5° (rwrnpla). &xaxos, 776 [Paul]. d&kavéa, 68, * dxardduros, 738, * dxruws, 107, akon, 4°, su. dxovw, 203, 3% (LXX) 15 16, (LXX), 12), * axpoOlviov, 74. t+ dkpos, 117! (rd &xpov, LXX). dA7jGera, 1076, adnOivds, 87, 9 11% [Paul]. 4 i 24 1022, 248 INDEXES dANd, 218 318 ce B16 24 10% 2 39° 1138) poll. 22. 26 (XX), 1214, + dddrdoow, eae aAAjAos, 1074, dros, 48, 1155, adAbrptos, 97, 11% #4, aXX ov, 33, 4%. * ddvotredns, 137. apaprdvw, 317, 1078, duapria, 138, 217, 318, 418) 61.3 27 gi2 (LXX), 26. 4 Rotisne 6 (LXX) & UM. 12. 17. (LXX) 18. 26. 1125, 12! 4, 131, dpaprwdés, 726, 12°, dpuedéw, 2°, 89 (LXX), d&ueutrros, 87. * dueTtaderos, 617 18, dup (2), 1372. * duhrwp, 7%. dlavros, 77° (Christ), 134 (Chris- tians). + dupos, 1112, duwnos, 914, dy, 13(LXX), 48, 8* 7, 107, 11%, avayKatos, 8°. dvdryen, 71% 27, g)6: 28, dvayw, 137, t dvadéyoum, 1117, t dvabewpéw, 137. dvaipéw, 10%, * dvaxawltw, 69, dvakdumrw, rr}, * dvadoylfouat, 12°, dvamiuynoKkw, 10°, dvduynots, 10°. *+ dvaplOunros, 1114, avdoracts, 67, 11°, * dvacraupbw, 69, dvacrpépouwat, 10°, 1318, dvaotpop?, 137. dvaré\rw, 714, dvadépw, 777 (Bolas), 97% (auap- rlas), 13) (Ouclav). dvéxw, 137%, dvOpwros, 2° (LXX), 51, 616, 7% 28, 82, 9”, 136 (LXX). t dvinus, 13°. aviornm, 71) (intrans.), + dvopia, 19 (?), 812, 1017, t dvop0dw, 12}, * dvraywvifoua, 124, + dvrarodldwut, 10%, dyri, 127 16, * dyrixablornut, 124. avriroyla, 61%, 77, 125, dyrirvros, 974 [P)]. oa 249 dvuméraxros, 2° [T]. Tt dyw, 12%, t dvwrepoy, 108, dvupedhs, 7° [T] dévos, 118, d&idw, 3°, 10°, adparos, 1177 [Paul]. amayyéA\w, 2)*, amad\doow, 21°, draé, oo gi 26. 27. a 107, (LbXxX) +", amapaBaros, 774, +++ 1276 * * dmdrwp, 73, aravyacua, 1%, arelGera, 4% 11 [Paul]. amebéw, 338, 1151, darevpos, 5%, amekdéxouat, 978, ORT ines, : 12 . 4.10 ; as re, 26 i li? by . ° J 8 ; 9 ° : ] 112+ 15. 34 fals 2 324, dmroBdddw, 10°, amoBérw, 117, amroypagw, 127°. amodexaréw, 7° (?), drodldwur, 121 16, 1317, arodoxiagw, 1217, dmrobvjoKkw, 78, 927, 10%, 1 1418. 21. 37, aroxabiornut, 13), dmdékemat, 977. drédavors, 11% [T]. amoXelrw (drodelrerat), tT drddAupe, 122, dmronvTpwors, 915, 1135, atrodvw, 137%, dtrooré\Xw, 114, drécroXos, 3) (Christ). amocrpépw, 12”, amrorlOnut, 121, amrwnera, 10°9, * * 6). Up 10%, * ++ 4% ye I 075, dpvéouwat, 1174, apmayh, 10%, dpros, 9%. dpxy, 1 (kar dpxds, LXX), 23, 314, 512, 61, 73, + apxnyos, gi0h 124, dpxtepeds, 217, 31, i415, 51.5. 10 620, 726. 27.28 81. 3° 7. 11. 25 Tou (s.v.2.), 1311, t doddevros, 12”. daBévera, 41°, 57, 773, 1154, dcbevys, 7°. 250 domdfouct, 1118, 1374, tt doretos, 1178, * dorpov, 11", aopanys, 6, 118 8) ye eae lt 7 a OSA Ss avrés (avrd, avrots, atvrod, ava, avrav), 13 4678 1.12 (EL XX), 26 (LXX)™ (LXX)¥, 32 % 10) (LXX), 4& 8, 55 7, 88% (LXX) 10, 23 one yeaa NE a, 19 | p95. (LXX) 2 17, 738+ 18.17, avrés, 1% (LX’X) 22, gre TS asta Ges RO 1g ten 1 (LXX), 3° (LXX), 8% (LXX) (LXX), 13% 17: airév, 2% (LXX) 7 Nb oa) cha e BO a 1. 21. me. 24, 26.28) p75. 6.19 7218. qirous, y4- 12 (LXX), 248, 8% (LX xX) 19 (LX), We TO (EK) eras: adrd.d oF nord, pO arn) etry, ti y abriy, 14554, Lol E28 OUT HE, OT yd Dra eiean Eb) aprony Ors. ake [Ee i (LXX), 3% (LXX)® & 7 (LXX ) 1B(LXX), 4% (LXX) 1-18, 610, ee Ore te Xn hie Taian) 10. 1213 15. 21. girGy (219, 75. 6. 25 rr16: 2% 8. LX =o 10 1. 12 TOME 17 “aire, (LXX) § (LXX), 282% B(LXX), 44, 59, 710» co88 (LUXX 92? Favre b™, SPAT KN), wise). Tate oor7, ait “atrais, 10 2 abr, 19; agatpéw, 104, *adarvys, 4}, * adavicuds, 818, dgpeots, 972, 1038, ddlnut, 28, 61. adiddpyupos, 13° [T]. adlarnut, 3}2. * ddouotdw, 7°. adpopdw, 127 [Paul]. dxpt, 41, 6", 3' (dxpis oF). Bamricpds, 67, 91°. * Bapdx, 11°, Baowrela, 18 (LXX), 1133, 1278, Baotreds, 71+2(LXX), 11° at, BéBaros, 22, 3% 4, 619, o}?, BeBardw, 2°, 139. BeBalwots, 616 [Paul]. BéByros, 1216 [T]. + BiBXlov, 939, 107 (LXX), Bracrdvw, 9%. Brérw, 29, 322 19 19%, 17}. 87, 225, INDEXES |; BonPea, 41°, Bonbéw, 21%, *+ BonOds, 13°. *+ BoXks (s.v.l.), 12%. * Bordvn, 6". BovAy, 61". Bovroua, 617. Boaxus, 2% (LXX)* 3 BpSua, 9%, 13°. BpG@ore, 128, yada, tase 13, yapmos, 134. yap (90 times). *Tededv, 11°, T yeved, Cae * yeveahoyéw, 7 ae yevvdw, 15. (LXX), Tr}2 (@)- 23, yevw, 2°, 6% 5,. * vewpyéw, 6. . yi, 1%(LXX), 67, 8% °(LXX), [1% 18. 29. 88 “y9%. 26(T XX), ynpdokw, 8, ylvopat (30 times). ywaokw, 3° (LXX), 104, 13%. *+ yvdgos, 1238, + yévu, 12), + ypdg@w, 107, yumvatcw, 524, 121, yuuvos, 43, 5° (LXX), 82 (LXX), “ot oP. OF, Tye t decxviw, 8°. * Sexdry, 7% * 8 2, * dexardw, 7% 9, deEvds (é Sek sin) (Lexy (éz Brea): 13'S) OR ae, * Sé0s5 (s.0.2.), 1228, * dépua, 1197, déoptos, 10°4, 133, decuds, 11%, devTepos, 87, g?+™ 78, 10%, déxouwar, 11%, Snrdw, 98, 12% fot the Spirit [P]). * Snutoupyds, 117° * Sqrov, 23%, dvd, with accusative (17 times). with genitive (38 times). diaBatyw, 117? _— af Sse ia ee lC!mlUlC( ClO ee eT ee . et ee ——ae em | Oe ee INDEXES didBodos, 214. SiaO}Kn, 722, 8% 8-10 (LXX), gf 15+ 16. 17 20(T XX), 10 29, 7924 320, dtaxovéw, 6", diaxovia, 134, didxptots, 514 [Paul]. Siaréyouar, 12°, Siapaptipouar, 2°, + duapévw, 14, + dudvora, $!°, 1018, SiacréA\Aw, 127°, * Sidtaryua, 1173, t dvarlOnu, 81°(LXX), (LXX). didgopos, 14, 8°, 9! [Paul]. dvddoKados, 51%. diddoxw, 512, 8 (LXX). d.dax7, 6% 137, Sdwur, 2(LXX), 74, 8!°(LXX), 10" (LXX). Siépxomat, 434. dinyéoua, 11°, * deqvexys, 7°,<10): 44, * Sutxvéowar, 4!°, Gixdtos; IO" (LX )s 14.12”, dexacogvvy, I 525, Ockarwpara, g} 10, 516, 371, 61, 10%, 111216 | 53. * didpOwors, 9”, byd7e, 11 2, dtcrouos, 42, SuoKw, 1244, doxéw, 41, 1079, 121% 12, "+ doxeuacla, 3°. dda, 13, Lae Sogdgw, 5°. dovAela, 2) [Paul]. dtvapmat, 238, tol 1, Dpaiit. tee. 2, O°, 07 1%) py. 2, Suvvaudw, 1154 [Paul]. duvarés, 11), 5vo, 618, 1078, * ducepunvevtos, 541, dwped, 64. 5@pov (SGpa), 51, 8% 4, 99, 114, édy, 3% 7 (LXX) (LXX), 4? (LXX), 10 (LXX), Gal * ddvrep, 314, 6°. €avrod, 313, 5% 4-5, 9” 14, ef, 102. ie roms 16. &Bdomuos, 44. éyyigw, 71, 10%. 9/6 Af 1016 9 (LXX), Lael rte I [7 33. 12, 28 2 ] gi. (LX X) 9, 10. a. 9; 1 2. 25 9 ae Lhe BAY Lae Ge Al 27 ee ba aT * gyryvos, 77, éyyis, 68, 813, éyelpw, 11, * évxawvitw, 918, 10, éyxaradelrw, 107, 135(LXX), fog (OARS hg ai Ca Lo ig an A €0os, 10”. el, 2%, 31(LXX), 4>% (LXX)8, 6! (LXX), 74-15, 847, gi8, 1715, el kal, 6% el pn, 33°. ted un, 614, el ov, 12”, elOov 3" (uy DAs oe, eixa@v, Io}. elul, 127!(LXX). + ef, 19 12, 0d, éoTlyv (18 times). exper, 38, 42, 11% 99, éoré, 128, elaly, 1)% (LXX) 4, ri} ets LI are GRO, o., TP NOM (LOO), uv tot (LXX)*, 1o7', elpyxev, 1%, 4° 4, ro 35, 13°. elpnvn, 77, Trl, 12! 1320, elpnvixds, 1214, els (75 times). els, 211, rol 14 712, 216, elodyw, I elgaxovw, 57. 9 ie wc t cicerps, 9°. LXX) 18-19) gl. 3. elagpxopat, 31) ( 619. 20, (LXX) 5. (LXX) 6. 10. HW 12. 24, 25 5 PEO’, elcodos, 101%. elo pépw, 134. eira, 12°. éx (22 times). Exaoros, 3°, 64, 84 (LXX), 117), * éxBaivw, 1115, éxBaots, 13’ [Paul]. éxdéxouat, 10'%, 11”, + éxdixnows, 10°, * éxdox7H, 1077, éxet, 75. éxeivos, 4* 11, 67, 8% 1 (LXX), 10'°, 11, 19%. éexfnréw, 11%, 1217, éxxAynola, 212(LXX), 122, * éxhavOdvw, 125, + éxdelrrw, 132, éxdvw, 12°, 12° (LXX). éxovolws, 1028 Py éxrpémres, r24( Ti. éxpépw, 68, 252 éxpevyw, 2°, 125, + éxpoBos, 1271, + @\avov, 1%. éX\doowv, 77. + déyxw, 125. + €darréw, 27 9%, * Aeyxos, 11}. + édéyxw, 12°. éNenuwy, 217, éreos, 416. t EXloow, 17? (s.v.2.). éNrifw, 11. édrris, 3°, 61-18, 719, 1923, + éupéven, 8, éwol, 10°, 13%, * éumavymds, 11°8, éumimrw, 10°}, éugavitw, 974, 1114, év (65 times). évdeixvumt, 6! 1 [Paul]. évdixos, 27 [Paul]. évepyhs, 412. évOvunots, 4). éviaurés, 9% >, 10h 3, évlornu, 9° [ Paul]. évvoa, 4? [P ]. t évoydéw, 121°, évoxos, 2), évTéX\Xw, 97° (LXX), 117, evroAt, 75+ 16+ 18, old, évrpémw, 12°. tt évrpouos, 127). évtuyxavw, 7%, * évuBpifw, 107%. évirriov, 433, 1371, "Evwx, 115, + dEdyw, 89, efépxouar, 31%, 75, 115, 137%. HEELS. Ss, éto5os, 117%. éfovcla, 13", éw, 131+ 12. 18, éraryyeNta, 4}, 61% 1-17, 76 6 old. 1088, 719 13. 17. 38. 39, éraryyé\Aw, 618, 1073, rr!) 1276, éeraoxtvvoua, 24, 1118, érrel, érel ody, 214, 48, * érewcaywyn, 7). &revra, 77° 37, ert: 88 10(LXX), rol (LXX) 2, [12h 80 7210, dat. 2!3(LXX), 8b 6, 91015. 1%. 26 192°8(LXX), 114 38, genit. 2, 6", Ts 8+ 10 (LXX), Ghee & ag be i. pi. gi? sad 102, Ij: accus. 27(LXX), 3°, 6!, 718, INDEXES ériyvwots, 1075, + émvypdgdw, 8, 1018, érideixvum, 617, émifnréw, 1114, 1314, érldecis, 67. érOuuéw, 611, émixaréw, 1138, émikeruat, 9), erica Bava, 216, 8°(LXX). émavOdvouat, 610, 137 * éridelrw, 11°, + érirxérrouat, 2°, * émisxotéw, 12) [P ?]. éricramat, 118, t émiaré\Xw, 137". érisuvaywyn, 10” [Paul]. émirenéw, 85, 9%, érirpérw, 6°, émituyxdavw, 6, 1159, WETOS,. 7¥s émoupdnios, CUM rg hot 1272, éwTd, 1130, epydtouae, 11°38, Epyov, 6° (1371): epya, 11° (LXX), 2! (LXX); ) 3) (LX 4tes (LXX)2, 61, 9'4, Epnuta, 11°, tT Epnuos, 3% (LXX)™. épiov, og. Epunvetw, 7°. t épvOpds, 1179, Epxouar, 67, o*. I pis. 118, 13% (88, 1037 écOiw, 1077, 1319, + &couat, 15, 218, 910. 12 7312), éxxaros, 1%, t éowrepos fr éawrepov), 61%, repos, 5S : lie 13. 15° 11°9, bry, 710-1. 15 , 82(LXX), 98, 10 17: 37 (LXX), "p14 82. 6 TZ ip 27 (LXX). érouudtw, 1118, + &ros, 122, 319-17, evayyerlferOar, 47% * edapeoréw, 115 (LXX)§, 1336, evdpeoros, 1371 [Paul]. * evapéorws, 1278, + evdoxéw, 10% & 38, t evderos, 67. *+ eddurns, 18, eUKatpos, 418, * edd Bea, 57, 12%, t evrAaBéouwar, 117. evroyéw, 614(LXX), 72+ 6 7 1120-21, evrAoyla, 67, 1217, * edreploraros, 12), INDEXES * evrroita, 1338, evploxw, 416, g'? (ebpduevos), (LXX), 1217. épdrak, 77, 9”, 10", éxOés, 13°. t éxOpés, 138, 1038, éxw (38 times). f fast? SY S101) + fHros, 1077, Shy, 215, 312, 412 78. 25 10%. 31. all G8? O. 0 Rae be 22 tnréw, 87. + tépos, 1238, Sunt, 7% '8 (Gov, 1314. Haze (XX), 10", ries 12% SEVEDUIE, LO 1 RTE 1 et ae, + kw, 107 % 87, mrucla, 11, quets (31 times). pepe, r, 38: (LXX)"*, 4 aL) . 37, &8. 9 f (EXX); rae 16. “ies 82° 7130 210, Av (hoav), 215, 730-11, 94. n 1158, 122, "Head, 117°, 1216 [Paul]. tfixos, 12)%, 14, 17 ’ Odracoa, 111% (LXX)*, Odvaros, "29 14. 15 ae bet 9t5- 16. 115, Bappéw, 13° [Paul], * Gearplfw, 10°, bédqua, 107" (LXX) * (LXX) 20- 8, I * BeXncis, 2 bw, Gepertos, Cerio. + Oenedidw, 17°, Geds (66 times). *+ depdarwv, 3°. Gewpéw, 74. + Onplov, 12”, Onoavpds, 1176, Oiyydave, rm", 12” (LXX) [Paul]. OXBw, 1197 OrtYWes, 108, Opdévos, 18(LXX), 41%, 81, 127, Ovydrnp, 1174, *+ Ovédda, 128, *+ Ouuarnprov, 94 i (LXX)8 (LXX), 12!7, Ouuds, 1177, Buola, 51, 727, 88, 9% 2% 26, yo). 5. (LXX) © Rows il. 12. 20 114, 1 oat Buciaarhpiov, Y hes te toe 1° 253 TaxéB, 119 2. 21, idouat, 121°, t ld0v, 23%, 88, 107: 9, + lepareta, ice ‘Teperx, Lag iepevs, Bert) 1p) Soliet ld. 16.172 (LXX) 22 21. 23 84, 9°, 1oll. 21, ‘Tepovoadnu, 12%, * jepwovvn, "71+ 12 24, *’TepOde, 1152, "Inoots, 29, 31, 414, 6, 722, rol? (‘Inood Eee eat "12% 24 138 (‘Incods Xpirés), 13) 30. 21 (’Inood Xpiorod), * ixernpta, 57. t tNdoxopac, 217, itaorypiov, 9° [Paul]. t trews, 8}2, + ludreov, 121 (122), AT ie etn be) tory eet 8 oath hae 1277, 1212. 17. 19 Wa. jo, 33, 41}, O'S, 11 512% 3, *Tovdas, 7'4, 88 (LXX). "Toad, 11% 17. 18. (1EXDG) 20 tornut, 10% 2, lavupes, 5468), 11%, loxvw, 9). 7 Iradla, 130". Lwonp, 112+ 22, =Joshua, 4°. Tt kaya, 8°, Kaddmep, 4. kaBapltw, ol 2% 23° 102, kabapicus, 1°, kaOapéds, 107%, * kabapdrys, 9}, + xkdOnua, 13, T xaGl(w, 1°, 8, 10%) 127, KaOlornpt, 2" (LXX P), 53, 7%, 8°. Kadus, at 4° i 5° 6. 8°, 107, 1122, Kadwomep, 54. kal (54 times), Kdiv, 114. xauvbs, (diabyjun), 8* (LX X)1*5 91°, kalarep, 58, 7°, rein Kaupds, 9% 10, [yi 15, t xalrow, 4°, Tt xalw, 1218, KaKelvos, 4°, kakés, 514, * kaxovxéw, 1197, 138, canew, 24 318, ct. ob. (LXX). KaA0S, 61". 6%, TO") 19% 18, Kadds, 1338, Kdpuvw, 12°, 118 18 254 INDEXES t 14 618 Kparew, 4°, . t+ dv, 127, 12. 15 cpdros, 24, St {Tie} OL oe er a stunatloky: ee (LEX)', 80(LXX), 108% | kpavyth 5? 7.19.22 Q6 25 LRG) FA) 2? KpelTT wr, hia 7 nee S90 eae 84 7716.35.40 yo24 A asc Ht et (LXX). ‘age sy 27 Kolpa., . 1G fee 618/16» Saccusa)).178 kplyew, 1o(L XX), ce Kara: ; aT 27, 4.17 43.8. (LX X 18, ah) Kpiots, gn", To”. OL) 2, au 6h (LXX), )s a gnperge AGOd); 12%. >. iS (LXX) "00, 22. 27 , 8% (LXX)9} * KPUTtKos, 4 v 4 _(LXX) g* 95.10. 22; 23. sift Io}: 3. 8. Ns 1; KpUTT, i Del eee ul i ‘ Kriss, ai, io: 713 x10, 30 eI bi i Kukhéw, 11°, Ped & LXX) kaTaBarrw, é 496 y7ll KUptos, 11° (LXX), 2 27 fe { x i L (i . kaTaBory, 4°, 9 an ; 82 8 (LX X) 2 (LXX) : (LX Pa . lh Sat ote 2 II". (LXX), - 1076: 30 (5X), 12 7 F ? r & * KaTaddnnos, 7 i (LXX) 14 19% (LXX)} A + KaTaKal, 13 ; *+ RGAOF YAS KaTAKpLYw, a hy Kwhtw, 73, kataXelrw, 4}, ee . 8 55, 69 “+ caravarloxw, oe Nahe, 1% Aja Shy 7? p KaTavoéw, 31, 10%. yo ri 2. 32 * 13%. 8.9 éW 10”, xa 2, 3 16, L. 4 164 . . KATATATEW, 5. 10. 11 AauBdvw, 2 4 2 11. 18 ai 3. 5. . . he 4 8. 1 29. 85, 36 is KaTdamavots, ? (LX) 8 * gl 19 7928, I t kararatw, 4* kee 20 Aavddvu, r3° : t saabeaiberbrighacr O07 LO Fe Riese ae Sy ye cee A rive Kkaramlyw, 117". gt 48). Toe CL Xe) Saree, 13 f 8 ' 6 Kardpa, 6°, Aarpeia, 9} 14 Pp 2 7528 7210 KaTapyew, 2", = 3 21 Lampeter, 85, o® wy itt, ae 2 13 \ f IO” (LXX) ii; 13 ! 6. 7, 6. 13. a7. 15 . uk ’ KaTapTi¢o, Seis a Baie? héyw, I 2 °, king Ma ES KaTaoKevafw, 3% 4, 9°, 11%. 6M, vil. 13. 21 ghee (LXX)? “(LXX) x Le 5 y ee < 13 9” 3. 6. a vbatliac sas Selec phen 10. (T,X X) (1) Ge E sd KaTdoKoTos, a . 10> 8 18 ee 24. A, 12”, I3°. fal eral NO Aetroupyéw, 10". pelts 2 ie * 98 Aecroupyla, 8°, 97. KOTERG; D0) 9° 1o™. * NecroupycKés, hoy Pp ul} deat Ties peebaelichht t7 (LXX), 8° [ au * kadows, 68, Aevt, 7°-9 van LO, 3. [Paul]. v1 KQAUXT LG, fas Rewercndes hae + Dice aisle S. i Aéov, 11°8, "+ kepaNls, Se roa NOd ew, 1137, ; ead 20 KiBwrds, ? 2 os 14 612. pol? tT AcGoBoréw, iets KAnpovouew, a 8 ; Aoyifouar, 11), / ; f 2 KAnpovouia, O°, II’. 17 eat Adycov (plur.), 57%. 2 KAnpovdpuos, 17 (of Christ), 6!7, 117. Rbhoy, 22, 42-1218, gl. 18 61 728. Koes, cy 2), I Volts 22. & KNlvw, peat Aaurrdés (TO Aorrdv), TO", kowvés, oy ovw, 1072, . t il Kove (gen. ’ z a8 AUT PHO LS, aa Lannie a Auxvia, 97. Ko.vwvds, IO”, ; 4 Oba Eas paxpodupéw, 615, kéxxtvos, 9). ia, 612, Le, 10°5, 11% 19. 39, Paperupe eaaae 99% 13. 2 KOM so, ? pbaddov, 9'*, 10%, 12 i + _ f f + korn, 7}. Py pavOdvw, 5%, Koopuxds, 9' [TT]. , 4 ¢ 26 5 7. 38 pavra, 9*. Kbcpmos, 4%, 9°, 10°, 117% 38, - INDEXES paprupew, 78. 17, fly T [> 4. 5. 39 Hapripiov, z=, peaprus, 108 (LXX), 1 2. + paorrybw, 12". pao’, rie pdxaupar, 432, 1124: 87, peyadwotrn, 1%, 8}. ne 4', 8" ( (LXX), [OPN a, tae eh gmat De OE i eh HABA oR 129, BO BPs = tr° a 73s. * Merxigedéx, 5° 19, 6, 7 péudopar, 8® [P: au I}. ney, 17, 35, . B18. 20. of 8, Tol: 33, air, we 10. 12, pév odv, 74, 84, !. pévw, 7%, "10%, p227, p3h i, meplfw, 7 * uepiopds, 24%, 4). épos, 6°. * weotrevw, 617, peatrns, 8°, 95, 1274 [Paul]. fF wécos, 2" werd: genit. 4", OW ae ce Baa it Sl” y Qld. 17. 28. 13M 23. 25, accusing 9%, HOw UX), 8. 87» 7 Qu. 26 * werdOecis, 71, 11°, 1277. peradauBdvw, 67, 12, + merapuédomat, 77 peravou., 65, 12*7, perarlOnut, 7, 11°. * werémerta, 122", Here 2+ 5, 7 + Méroxos, 1? (Ex), 3 Soke 6 oy? pe eae * weTproTrabéw, 5”. weéxpt, 3&4, 9), 12% BH (28 PA lat pymore, 2', 3%, 41, 9M pant, 9° [Paul]. pare, 7°. puaivw, 121%, t pexpés, 811, 10%”, pipéomat, 137. papenrys, 6! [Paul]. puyvjnoKkw, 2° (LXX), To!” (LXX),°13, t micéw, 1°. * uabatodocia, 2”, 10°, 117, * uoOarodérys, 11%, rol: a 1. 10, 11. 15. 17 812 (LXX), a + movoyervas, I 255 pvnwovetw, 1115 22, 737, powxds, 13%. de pdvov, 9°, 1276 (LXX). bovos, 9%. _ Hoaxes, Wate * wuedds, 42°. fupids, 1272, Muvorfjs, 32 85:16 714 g5 gl9 1628 Tia kee vexpds, 6! 2, gl4- 17, yy19- 85, 7 220, vexpdw, 11)" [ Paul]. véos, 1274, * végos, 12}. vimoos, 53%, voéw, 11°, * yd00s, 128, * vouoberéw, 711, 88, ydj0s, 75+ 12. 16. 19. 28 gl. 22° pol. 8. 16. (LXX viv, 28, 88, o% 4, 1116, bane vuvl, 8° (s.v.2.), 97%. Née, 117, 810 (LXX), * pwOpdbs, 514, 62, * hehe aI * Eevifw, 137, Eévos, 1118, 13%, Enpds, 1179, 0 (7, 76) (170 times). byxos, 12}, 006s, 32° (LXX), o, 10”, BGen, 21 oa) ah BO yas te ofkos, 37 (LXX)* 4. 5. (LXX) 8, 88: (LXX)*(LXX), 107, 117. olkoupevn, 1; 22P, olxripuds, 107° [ Paul]. édtyos, 12}, dduywpéw, 125, dhobpevw, 1178, ddokatTwua, 10% 8, dos, 3°. éuviw, 311: (LX X) 18, 48 +. mat (LXX). dmordrns, 415, 7), 6pmotdw, 217, duolws, 97, dmodoyéw, 1138, 1339, éuoroyla, 31, 414, 1078, évetdiopds, 10%, 11°, 1333 [Paul]. Byopia, 1*,.2 (LX), oe ras, 6H, 11°8, emrauy 6", G'*, T0!8, drws, 2°, 9), dpdw, 2°, 85 (LXX); 97%, 1177, 1214, i. (LXX), 61% 256 + épyh, 3", 4%. dpéyw, 1116 [TT], $6p0és, 1278, opliw, 47. Spkos, 616 17, * doxepoola, 720 2+ 28, Spos, 8° (LXX), 118, r2-(LXX) # 5s (75 times). Savos, 778, bcos, r*; Pod 37) Y Faia 3°; 97", 107°: 37 Baris, 23, 86 g%9 1o8+ 11-35, 25, 137, bo pts, 75 ace bray, 1%, Bre, 710, ol7, ded 26 (LXX), 319, 7814.17 99. (LX X) 10-12 12 78, 76 18.14. 18. 19 1217, 1338, +08, 3°, ov (ox) (61 times). + od uh, 84-12, rol7, 131, obdé, $4, gl 1825 1o8 (LXX), 13° (LXX). obdels, 28, 618, 7138.14.19, y 214, ovdérore, 10! 11, ovKért, 1015 26, ofv, 214, 4) (3%) 6.111416 ll ga g!+ 23, 191985, 7315 (2), otirw, 2°, 124, ovpavds, 119 (LXX), 4'4, 77, 8}, 9°24 ry12 (LXX), 12% 29: 26 (LXX). ovTos (43 bes) obre(s), rhe Be, 5. 6% ae 9° exh tO. ice ovxl, 14, HE, dpelrw, 217, 5% 12, ép0arpuds, 4}°, wdOnua, 2% 19 1082, matdela, 12% (LXX) 7% & 1, * raeuTys, 12° [Paul]. mavdevw, 12% (LXX)* 29, madtov, 2!» (LXX) 4, 11%, wadat, 1°. t wadacdw, 174 (LXX), 87°. méduv, 158, 457-18 512 61.6 1030, * ravtyyupis, 12°, t mravredns, 7”. mavrobev, 94. mdvrore, 7”, mapa: accus. 1* 9(LXX), 27 (LXX) 9 38, 28 py 112, 924, wapdBacts, 279" [Paul]. mapaBorn, 9%, 111% maparylvouat, 9', INDEXES * rapaderyparifw, 6%, + mapadéxopuar, 12°, mapatréopat, 121% 5, mapaxaréw, 313, 107%, 131% 22, mapakdnots, 618, 12°, 1372, mapakoy, 27 [Paul]. tmaparausdvw, 1278, t rapardtw, 12°, Tapapévw, 7°, *+ mapamikpatyw, 338, *+ mapamikpacds, 3% 15, * rapamlrrw, 68, * rapamAnolws, 214, * trapapéw, 2}, mapagpépw, 13%. mdpeyu: To mapdv, 121); povra, 13°, mapenBory, 1134, 131 13, + mapemldnuos, 11° [P]. tt mapinut, 12}2, t mapoikéw, 11%, t+ mapofvouds, 1074. mappa ta, ata eto: 85, mwas (48 times). maoxa, 1178, rdoxe, 218, 58, 9%, 13! warihp, U5 (LX), 03? (LXX), 5 (EEX); 71 S(LXX), Tim, for, t mrarpidpyns, 74. marpis, 1114, mavouat, 10%, welOw, 2'° (LXX),. 6%, 132% 18, Soret pa, ski yrs mepagw, 218 39 (LXX), 4!5, 1127, t reipacuds, 3°. mépas, 618, mepl: genit. 2°, an 9) Soak Gee ale 9°, 10° (LXX) 4 -(LXX)® (LXX\ 18. 26. II’: 20. 22. 32. a igus 18 Ta 7a mepiatpéw, 1012, + repiBddacov, 1}? [ Paul]. meprépxomat, 1177, TEptKadUTTW, 94, meplkeuat, 5°, 12), mepiTatéw, 139. mwepitoinots, 10°, mwepisobrepov, 617, 75, mepiocotépws, 21, 139 [Paul]. * ripyvum, 8°. anvtxos, 74 [Paul]. t mixpia, 12), tivw, 6". mlirrw, ght a) 1”, TLoTEvW, 4°, 11° mloris, 42, 6:2, 10% 8% (LXX)%, tr 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 11. 13. 17. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 28. 29. 30. 31. 33. 27. 3 = 12° 77. + INDEXES worros, 2', 3% © 10 a0}: wravdw, 3'°(LXX), 52, 118. mAdé, 94 [Paul]. mwrelwv, 3°, 773, 114, wAHOos, 1117, wAnOvvw, 614, mdnpopopla, 64, 107? [Paul]. mhodros, II at mvedua, 17 (LXX) 4, Bester g& 14) 7015-29, 729. 23 = 64, rovew, 1k Paes (LXX), Sn OONT 85. (LXX) 9( (LXX), 107 (LXX)® (LXX)®%, 11%, 1218 (LXX) 27, 138 (LXX) 17 19.21, motklXos, Fey ie he tmouuny (of Christ), 137, wédeuos, 1194, MOARS AF Liye 1206 1318, t wonirns, 81. moNAdxts, 67, 9% 26 rol, * rodupepas, I onus, ails ee 9%, tO} 12°: 15. 25. * rodurpérws, 1}, $e ——- = * * moua, 9! [Paul]. tovnpds, 3}%, 10%, mépvn; 11°), mépvos, 1216, 134, méppwlev, 1138, wogos, 9'*, 10°, more, 1°18 mov, 118, tov, 2°, 44, Rieti 2 tO eS e121, mpayyua, 618, rol, rr}, pena, 2'°, 72. mpeoBvrepos, 117 (plur.). mpigw, 1137 mpd, 11%, tpodyw, 738, mpoBarov, 137% mpoBrérw, 11%, mpddnros, 714 [T]. mpddpomos, 6”, mpoep@, 47. mpd0ects, 97. wpdxermat, 618, 12) 3, mpos: accus. 178. 18 217, 418 gl. 5. 7.14. 611, 721, ls. 20 (LXX), 1016 (LXX), 1118, 124 1.11, 7318, Tpocaryopetw, 51°, mpordéxouat, 10%4, 11°, fib Ga Ae pO OI, 1216 mpocevxomat, 1338, mpocéxw, 2}, 713, mpbakatpos, 11”, mpookxuvéw, 18 (LXX), 117), 17 257 *+ mpocoxOltw, 31% 17, mpoorlOnu, 1219, * rpdaparos, 10”, mporpépw, 5+ %7, 7%, B84 79 14, 25.98 ol. 2 8 1.12 yy4. 17 97, mpoopopd, 10% (LXX) ®(LXX) !° 14. 18 * rpdaxvo.s, 1178, mpdcwrov, 974, mporepos, 48, 727, 10%, mpopyrns, 11, 119, mpwrov, 7%. pros, 8% 18, gl- 2 6 8 15.18 109, * rpwrordkia, 12)8, mpwrdroxos, 18, 11%, 128, mvdn, 132. Wipsele (LAK), 10s oi el (LXX). mwas, 2%, 218. 29 ‘PadB, 1154, paBdos, 18 (LXX), 94, 117! (LXX),. pavri¢w, Ql 1% 21 122, pavriouds, 124 P]. pjua, 15, 65, 115, 12), T pleas i2e, * gaBBaricuds, 4% garevw, 1276: 27, *+ Dadje, Aa = + oddreyé, 12”, t LDamoujr, 1152, * Lapyov, 11°, odpkivos, 716 [Paul]. odpé, 214, 57, gl 18, 19% 129, Zdppa, 117}, oBévyum, 114, t+ celw, 1276, onuctoy, 2". onpepov, 15 (LXX), 3% (LXX) 8" (LAR), 4? (LXNS, $8 (LX), 13°, Liwy, 12" okevos, aly oK vt 82-5, g? 8 6.8.11. 21 p19 y 310, oxid, 8°, 101. + oKXnptve, Bea AG omépua, 216 yy). ie (LXX). om AaLov, 1138, omodds, 9}, omovddgw, 41, omovdy, 61, * orduvos, 9%. oTdows, 98. oraupos, 12%, orevagw, 1317, arepeds, 51% 14, t crepavdw, 27 9 ig ba 258 INDEXES oro.xetov, 512, lie Too infin. 2." eo ie or bua, Tre 3, (Lec), ohio fod, 15 8: 10. ll. 12, 97. 12, se 6 614) * rod-yos, gi? 1519 ros, ait. 21 85. 107: . 118, 13°, rpdmega, 9°. ‘: ovyxaxovyé, beg * rpaxnrifw, 433, guyKepdvvuut, 4” [Paul]. t rpeis, 1078, ovykAnpovduos, 11%, Tpéxw, 12}, * cuumabéw, 4), 10%4, tplBoros, 6 gupdépw, 12°, * rolunvos, 118, t ovvavrdw, 73+ 10, Tpémos, 13°, * cuvarddAume, 115), Tpopy, 51% 14, * cuvdéw, 13°. *+ rpoxid, 12}8, cuveldnats, 9% 14, 10% 2, 1338, Tuyxdvw, 88, 11%, * cuveripmaprupéw, 24, * ruuravitw, 11%, guvrérera, 97, + rémos, 8°, i TUrTEnEw, 8. 3 t oxed6v, 9%, vdwp, 9 TO7s, coyw, us 725, t verbs, 67. capa, 10 (LXX) 1 22) 73% 2, vids: (Christ), 135: (LXX)§, ) 38, cwrnpla, 114, 23-10, 59, "69" 9%, 117, 44, 55 (LXX)8, 68, 7328, 10%; (men), 2% (LXX) 10 7d, yb 22, 24 + rages, 5% 10, 620, 71.17, 125: & (LXX) 78, ravpos, 9!8, 104, bets (34 times). Taxuov, 131% 3, t duvéw, 2), ré, 18, gl 4l2° cl. 7.146 62 4.5, 19, Srakon, 58. 83, gh: 2. 9 19. 10°, 1132, ype vrakovw, 5°, 118, reixos, 11°, t trapées, 10°, réXevos, 534, ol. brdpyw, 10°4, * redevérns, 61 [Paul]. breixkw, 13)7, Tedecdw, 219, 59, 71% 28) o® rol 14, | + drevayrlos, 1077 [Paul]. ce he 1273, vrép: genit. ae S440 6* et} a g trerelwors, 714. eR bee 1317: accus. 4 * rehewwr7s, 127, brepava, 9°, TerevTdw, 11, dré2. genit.go''134 Votale wigs Tens ere eae, Tr. 12%8 (L XX). répas, 2°, brddevrypua, 411, $°, 9”, + recoapdxovra, 3% 17, + broxdrw, 2°, rexvirns, 11? (God). Urouévw, 10%, 12% 3-7: TNALKOUTOS, 2°, Urouovy, 10°, 12}, rlOnur, 1718 (LXX), ro8 (LXX). + bromdéduov, 113, 1038, rikrw, 67. brécracts, 13, 314, 111 [Paul]. 47% pape LOL OBS, Oa Mire te + trrocré\Xw, 10°8, rhuwos, 134, * baroaroN}, 10°, Tiuddeos, 137. t vrocrpégu, 7}, * riuwpla, 10, vrordcow, 28 (LXX), 12° ris, 1518, 26 (LXX), 316 17-18 19, Yoowros, 9} y par a tt i ed 8 BY GE vorepéw, 4}, 1187, 12), TES, ee ee ieee eee pace borepos (Uorepor), 12)!, M, p412 B38 1020.27. 98 p40" 215. Symr0s, 18, 725, oy ie t bYioros, 7). rovyapodv, 12' [Paul]. rolvuy, 1333, gpalyw (davoueva), 114, Toiotros, 7, S*, 11 4u12%, 14°; gdavepdw, g® 6, * rouwrepos, 4}, * pavrdgw, 127), réros, 87, 118, 1217, Papaw, 1174, rosoiros, 14, 47, 7%, 10%, 12}, gépw, 1°, 6%, g!6, 12, 3313, rére, 10% (LXX) 9%, 1276, gevyw, 11*4, INDEXES pnul, 8°, pradeddpla, 133. prrokevia, 13? [Paul]. tT prog, 1 Papebline AT 11%. ati ae (lax Xk). * poBepds, 1077 8 , 12, poBos, 215, govos, 1187, gpdcow, 11°% [Paul]. puraxh, 1158, pudn, 718. 14, t pvw, 12%, gwry, 37 (ea 16°(LXX), (LXX), 1219 26 purifw, 64, 1082, 4! Xapa, 10%, 12% 2), 7317, *xapaxrip, 1%, Napisy 27(5.0:d;), 4 eh 10%? 1215378, 129 25 MetnUS, 11745413 (LX ). yelp, POL XX) os( XX), 63: 8? (LXX); 10*, 1212 (LXX), xEetpotrolnros, gi}. 24, , Xelpor, lo. * xepouBelv, 9°. xpela, 5% wil 10°6, 259 xpnuaritw, 85, 117, 125, XGUrTOS, ott gS LO 10!) 7128, 738-21, tT xplw, 1%. + xpovlfw, 10%. xpdvos, 47, 51%, 11%, xpuceos, 94, xpuclov, 94, xwrds, 1233, xwplfw, 7%, xls 4 7 20 gf 18. 2228 128, 18 40, 728. 14, 11, 14, 24. 28 9 , Pevdouc, 618, Ynr\addw, 12)8, YUx, a>} 619, 10m (LXX) am 127; Pau, Go, 7°21 3% ds, 1+ (IXX) #2 (LXX), 3% 5:6 & (LXX) ¥+ (LXX) 8 (LXX), 48 (LXX), 6", 79, 11%! (LXX) 27,29, 95-7 16. 27 38. 17, t doel, 1/2, éomep, 4}, 727 92, wore, 13°, dpedeee, Aa are Il. SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS. Aaron, 63 f. Abbott, E. A., 67. Abel, xlii, 163 f., fa $i Ablutions, 75, 144 f. Abraham, xv, 37, 85 17, 1081, 224. Access to God, xliif., 60, 125, 143 i, 219. Adjectives, Ix. Aeschylus, 29, 66, 134. Age, old, 72. Agriculture, metaphors from, 81. Alexandrian Church, its attitude to- wards ‘‘ Hebrews,” xviii f. Alford, 212. Alliteration, lx, 57, IOI, 199, 216, etc. Altar of incense, 114 f. Anastasius Abbas, 26. Anchor, metaphor of, 88 f. Angels, 9 f., 16, 18, 21f., Anthology, the Greek, xix, 89. Aorist participle, use of, 31, 121. 100, 216f. | Apocalypse of John, the, xlvii, 114, 164, 193. Apollinarius, xix. peer xxiv, 39, 43, 77, 82, 149, 180. Apuleius, 144. Aristophanes, 70, 150, 157. Aristotle, lvi,.29, 60, 85, 151, 197. Ark of covenant, 115 f. Armenian version, Ixxi, 4, 17, etc. Arnold, Matthew, xxxv, xxxix, 206. Article, 47, 88. Assonance, Ix, 87, 96, 100, etc. Atheism, 167. Atonement, Day of, xxxvii, 63, 117. Augustine, 43, 103, 172, 177, 185, 216. Aurelius, Marcus, 10, 72, 81, 167, 174, 181, 228. Awe, xxxvi, lxiii, 218 f., 223. Bacher, W., 91. Backwardness, 71. 260 Bakhuyzen, Van de Sande, 96. Balzac, 189. Baptism, 75, 144 f. Barak, 185. Barnabas, and the authorship of ** Hebrews,” xviii f. Barnabas, Epistle of, xiv, xxviii, 52, 70, (145; 178, etc. Baruch, Apocalypse of, 12, 106, 114, TOM 2535 .221, etc. Beneficence, 237 f. Bengel, 87, 110, 139, 184, 194, 211, 227, Bennett Gy No i215; Bentley, 33, 39, 95, 195- Beza, 37, 66, 188. Bezaleel, 106. Bischoff, A., 241. Blass, lix, 42, 54, 66, 69, 73, 113, II5, 165, 211, 218, 242. Bleek, 24, 218. Blood in sacrifices, xxxviif., xlii. Blood of Jesus, the, xlif., 123f., 243. Bousset, xliv. Boxsets otis. 0; cic. Brandt, W., 161. Bréhier, 6. Brotherly love, 84, 224. Brown, T. E., 23. Browning, Robert, 47, 202. Bruce, AB.) 41, 66; 76,135. Burton, E. D., 31, 156. Cain, 92, 163 f. Calvin; xxxiv £, 4,,8,119) 37s559,8075 158, 177, 179, 243. Campbell, Macleod, 26, 40, 196, 197. Canon, ‘‘ Hebrews” in the NT, xixf., Ixx. Carlyle, xxxvi. Carlyle, “Ay J., xi, xiv; Castellio, 37. Censer, the golden, 115. Chrysostom, Ixxiiil, 2, 7, 31, 48, 70, 153, 159, 179, 194, 216, 220, 240, 242. “ Christ,” Ixili, 14. Church, the, 4, 33, 39, 48. Cicero, 27, 106, 178, 210, etc. City of God, 170, 216. Clement of Alexandria, xv, 46, 47, 12550102; 200,210,207. Clement of Rome, xiii, xiv, xix, xxii, 8, 140, 165, 184, 189, 213. Clement, Second (homily of), xiv, Xxvili, 236, etc. INDEXES Confidence, religious, 44, 48, 229. Contentment, 229. Conybeare, F. C., lxxi, 200. Cosmas Indicopleustes, 37, 143, 154. Courage, 229. Covenant, Ideas of the, xxvf., xl, 107437,;127, Coverdale, 104, 142. Creation and Christ, 5, 20,150, "101 L Cromwell, 73. Cronert, 61, 104, 178, 229. Crucifixion, 80, 197, 235. Cyprian, 75. 6; 1 §etaailes Dante, 46, 160. Date of ‘* Hebrews,” xvi, xxi, 45. Davidson, A. B., xxxi, 2, 38, 56, 88, ¥32.,177, 1o2ndoa, 212: Death, 35 f., 133. Delitzsch, 143. Demetrius, 245. Denney, James, lili, 6, 124, 139. Devil, the, 11, 34 f. Didache, the, 75, 113, 239. Diognetus, Epistle to, xxii, xlix, 232 Discipline, 64, 66, 67, 201 f. Dods, Marcus, 25, 125. Dryden, xlvi. Education, 199 f. Endurance, 85, 199 f., 210. Enoch, 165 f. Ephraem Syrus, Ixxi, 58. Epictetus, 35f., 71, 156, etc. Erasmus, xix, 79 97, 236, 245. Esau, 81, 210f, Eschatology, xxxiii, xxxiv, liv, 4, 16, 134, etc. Eucharist, xxxili, 128, 234. Euripides, 56, 73, 81, 82, 83, 173. Eustathius, 2 Examples, 85, 193, 231. Ezra, Fourth book of, 12, 53, 213. 193, 196, Faith, xliiif., 50, 85, 157f., 160f. ; of Jesus, xliv, 33, 192f., 196. Fatherhood of God, xxxv, 30, 201 f. Fear, 35, 168, 179, 181. Field, Dr., 46, 171: Fire, metaphor of, 84, 150, 223. Fitch, Sir Joshua, 93. Fourth Gospel, xlix, 6, 7, 168. France, Anatole, xxiv. Friendship, 226. Fronto, 237. INDEXES Genitive absolute, the, Ixi, 110, 190. Gethsemane, 33, 39, 66, 198. Gideon, 185. Gilmour, James, 80. God, as creator, 51, 162 f. ; as Father, XXXV, 30; as Judge, liv, 150f. ; as transcendent, xxxvi. Goodrick, A. T., 161. Gosse, Edmund, xxx. Grace, 26 f. Greek fathers, interpretation of ‘““Hebrews” in, 26, 37, 48, 128, 159, etc. Green, l,i tis, 217. Gregory of Nazianzus, 221. Gregory of Nyssa, 8. Grotius, 79. Grouping of MSS, Ixxii. Growth, 72 f. Habakkuk, 157 f. Haggai, 221. Hands, Laying on of, 75. Hardy, Thomas, 175. Harnack, 73, 148, 226. Heaven, 60. ‘‘Hebrews,” meaning of the title, xv. ** Heirship,” lili, 5. Hellenistic Judaism, Ixiii, 18. Hermas, xiv, xviii, 217, etc. Herwerden, 51. Hickie, W. J., 19. Hicks722. Holtzmann, O., 233. Holzmeister, 3. Hope, 33, 44, 85, 98. DLOrt 3 36,232,243. Hospitality, 224 f. Household of God, 42. Image of God, the, 6. Impossible things, the four, 76. Individualism, 147. Infinitive, the epexegetic, 63; for other uses of the infinitive, see 35, 47, 83, 96. Inns, 224 f. Inspiration, 22, 44, 150. Insubordination, 239. Intercession of saints and angels, Xeetey X11, 116, TOO2 213. Isaac, 178. Isaiah, martyrdom of, 188, 189. Isidore, 128. Isokrates, Ivi, lvii, 194, 204. Italy, xxi, 246f. 261 Jacob,-178. Jebb,: Ril Gy, 224: Jephthah, 185. Jeremiah, xl, 107f., 139f., 188. Jerome, 26, 81, 166, 202, 239. Jesus, birth of, lii; death of, xxxiv f., xxxlx, 27 f. ; human characteristics Ol; XSXV1, XIlil fy OS;V 1OT, (102 1): names of, Ixili; prayers of, 66; priesthood of, xxv f., 98f.; teach- ING 4Ol, 19s astoon, xxuif., ix!'f; II, 66f., 164, etc. Joseph, 178. Josephus, xxii, 130, 163, etc. Joshua, 43, 52, 183. Joy, 154; of Jesus, 14, 196. Jubilees, Book of, 91, 136, 170. Judaism, xxvif. Judith, 186. Junius; Poyt7; 194,215. Juristic terms, 87; 97; 111, 127 f., 138. Justin Martyr, xiv, xlix, II, 33, 41, 75 99, 164, 239. Justinian, 5. Keble, 229. Kennedy, H. A. A., xl, lv, 123, 209. Kingdom of God, xxxiii. Kogel, Julius, xxvii. Kypke, x, 61,/203,0215, 222. Lactantius, 7, 42, 93. Lake, Kirsopp, Ixx. Latin Versions, Ixix, 9I, 155, 171, 182, 225. Law, the, 96f. Levitical priesthood, 94, 96. Libations, I19. Living God, the, 47, 54, 152. Logos, the, xxxiv, xlvii, xlix, 6, 54f. Loofs, 218. **Lord,” liv, Ixiii. Love, xxxv, xxxvi, 82, 146f. Lucian, 20, 56, 212, etc. Lucretius, 36. Macalister, R. A. S., 122. Macaulay, xxx. Maccabean martyrs, 186 f., 189, 192, 196. Maccabees, Fourth book of, 59, 176, 192. Mackintosh, H. R., 1. MacNeill, H., xliv. Marett,“ Rik. 2123: Marriage, 226 f. 152; "132i, 262 Martial metaphors, 15, 140, 198. Maximus of Tyre, 34, 53,154, 156, 195, 204. Mediation, 107. Melanchthon, xxi. Melchizedek, xxxiif., go f. Menander, 3, 7, 85. Ménégoz, xxi, 159. Merits of the fathers, xxxix, 229. Michael, 37, 100, 107, 185. Milk, metaphor from, 7of. Miracles, 19 f. Mixed metaphors, 89. Money, 228 f. Montefiore, C. G., xxxvii, 77. Moses, 40f., 107, 216f. Moulton, J. H., 94, 136, 176, etc. Muratorian Canon, xv. Musonius Rufus, 35 e¢ passzm. Mystery-religions, li, 75, 148, 233. Mysticism, livf., 9, 170, 181, I9I, 234. ‘“*Name,” 8. Nestorians, 26. Noah, 167 f. Nominative for vocative, 13, 138. Norden, 30. Novatians, xx. Oath of God, 86f., 99. Obedience of Jesus, 67 f. Odes of Solomon, 34, 147, 196, 207. Oecumenius, lxxiv, 26, 74, 99, 128. Officials of the church, 230 f. Old Testament, use of, xvi, Ixii, 45, 129, 215f., etc.; argument from silence of, 92. Optative mood, 243. Origen, on authorship of ‘*‘ Hebrews,” xvilif.; on interpretation of, 25, 70, 80, 81, 129, 131, 165, 176, 188. Parables of Jesus, 5, 50; Jewish, 111. Paronomasia, 29, 66, 154, etc. Participles, use of, 32, 240. Patience, 157, 169f. Patria potestas, 203 f. Paul, and the authorship of ‘* Hebrews,” xviii, xxix; and author of ‘* Hebrews,” xxxixf., xlvili, 10, 18, 34, 126, 155, 197, 216, etc. Paulinus of Nola, 191. Peace, 205 f., 242. Peake, A. S., 181, 235. Pearson, A. C., 133, 210. INDEXES People of God, the, xxxviii, 39, etc. Perdelwitz, xxvii, 244. Perfect tense, lix, 91, 94, etc. Persecution, 36, 153 f. Peter, First Epistle of, xv, xvii xxxvi, lxiv, 36, 124, 175, etc. Pfleiderer, lii, 233. Philo, xxxili, xxxv, xlix, Ixif., 4 4 passim. ; Philosophical ideas, xxxif., 106. Pilgrims, 174 f. Platonism, xxxi, 102, 152. Polykarp, 80. Praise, 33, 236. Prayer, 241. Pre-existence of Christ, 5 f. Prepositions, 4, 9, 17, 19, 29f., 45, 63, 96, EIO>) EI, -120,4126,55120, 161, Present tense, use of the, xxii. Priesthood of Jesus, xxvf., xxxix f., xliv f., etc. Priests, 95 f., 144. Primasius, 27, 136, 164. Prisoners, 154, 225. Promise, God’s, 85 f., 190 f. Prophets, the OT, 2 f. Psichari, 20. Purdy, Professor, xxvi f. Pythagoras, 71, 89. , Quintilian, 71, 81, 231. Quotations from the LXX, I xxii. Index III. Ses Rabbinical interpretations of the OT, 75/12, 32, 40, 52077; of eter Radermacher, 53, 105, 128. Rahab, 184, 225. Ransom, 126. Reiske, J. J., 88, 125. Religion as worship, xlivf., 125. Rendall, F., 25. Repentance, 74; no second, 77f., 212f. Resch, 72. Rest of God, the, 45 f. Resurrection of Jesus, xxxviiif., 237, 242. Retribution, 46, 149. Reuss, 29, 42. Revelation, 2, 55. Reverence, xxxvi, 66. Reward, 167. Rhythm in style, lvif., 159, 209, ete. Riggenbach, 71, 218, 246. Ritschl, 39. INDEXES Sabatier, xxxii. Sacerdotal metaphors, 34, 60, 144, 234 f. Sacrifice of Christ, xxxivf., xliif., IDL piaii.;an OD ritual, ixxxv-t, xlii., 233. Samson, 185, 186. Schoettgen, 18, 52, 79. Schultz, 149, Scott, KE. F., xxxiil,: 73. Scott, Sir Walter, 187. Sedulius Scotus, Ixxiv, 5, 182. Seeberg, 37, 38, 194, 219, 244. Selwyn, E. C., 215. Semitisms, Ixii. Seneca, 7, 36, 57, 60, 83, 106, 182, 226, 245, 246. Septuagint. See Old Testament. Shakespeare, 22. Shame, xxii, 153, 180f., 197, 236. Simcox, W. H., Ixiv. Singo19)39.62,.74, 117, 126-4, Sinai, theophany at, 18, 214f. Sinlessness of Jesus, 32, 123f. Sins, unpardonable, 63, 79f., 148 f. Smith, W. Robertson, xv, xxxviil, 5, gf., 18, 34, 67. Son of Man, xlix, 23. Souter, A., xxi. . Spirit, the human, 56; the Holy, 18, 19, 20, 44, 75, 78f., 117, 151. PIA T'.5!'35.2 33. Starkie, 181. Stephen, speech of, Ixii, 18, 106. Stewart, H. L., 190. Stoicism, 30, 59, 69f., 72, 154, 182. Stuart, Moses, 25. Suetonius, 57, 99. Sufferings of Jesus, xxxviii, I, 20f., 27 Rvetc, 3 Ol men, 23,. 30. Sumerian religion, lii, 106. Symbolism, xlvi f. Sympathy of Jesus, 37f., 59f. Syriac versions, lxxi, 36, etc. Tears of Jesus, 65. Temple, the Jewish, xvi, xxii. Temptation, 36, 59. Temptation of Jesus, the, 38 f., 59. Tertullian, xvii, xviii, 75, 79, 165, 166, 223, 235. 263 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, xli, xlvii, etc. Textual problems, lix, lIxivf., 26f., OOTP 1060 135; 4171,- 150, 190, 214. Thekla, 220. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ixxiii, 26, Theodoret, Ixxiv, 35, 93, 145, 195, 198. Theodotion, 10, 129. Theophylact, 87, 107, 128, 194, 216. Timotheus, 244. Tithes, 91 f. Torrey, Ga C., xxix. Tucker, 0.9G: ,.225. Tyndale, 13, 66, 82, 159. Union with Christ, liv f., 32, 47. Unworldliness, 235. Upanishads, 15. Valckenaer, x, xxvill, II, 21, 222, Variety in revelation, 2. Vaughan, C. J., 80. Vision of God, 181, 209. Vocation, 67. Volz, xlix. Vulgate, lxixf., 1f., 27, 62, 65, 109, 140, etc. 175; Warneck, G., 82. Weiss, B., Ixxili, 110, 207. Western Church, attitude ‘* Hebrews,” xix f. Wetstein, 57, 190, 195, 197. Wickham, 1. Co 273,136, '70,° 127; Williams, C. R., xxix. Windisch, 25. Wisdom, the Book of, xxxi, lii, lvii, 7, 34, 90, 106, 166, etc. Women, 184. World, creation of the, 5f., 159f. ; end of the, 15, 52, 221. ** World,” The, 168. Worship, xliiif., 11, 125, 237. Wrath of God, xxxv, 48. Wrede, W., xxix, 70, 244. towards 30 Zahn, Theodor, xviii, xx, 147, 246. ZAM Es FAsset 1.030, 29, INDEXES III. QUOTATIONS OR REMINISCENCES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. GENESIS. PAGE i He Sane 81 2% Pe eas ary Lats eyes ts ‘A c SI oh 5 Pi tes. PLO SOMES es fob y oe LO Ge whites Views | e1OS 124. B 169 LAN 00S 18? : goey ye Dis 177 oa\6t 176 23° Sg Hee) oA eo - ah Soh eee hee uate 212 47° . 173 47>) 178 5076 178 EXxopbus. 22. 3 179 Jib 181 fo. 214 727 Seal OF 194 eee ee 4 Loe Mika ba aeeeO 245% tae eel 20s 2OUeOR as UGG 28 ¢ oT 105 RON thir; 33° 105, 236 LEVITICUS. 16%" SSO 1 aly 163k, eee sins e385 NUMBERS, PAGE ilo bole Boy 42 0 Neeteg Sd BR | 105 DEUTERONOMY. gilt. ; 214 47s ‘ 223 ea? TAA aed 215 OT afabiistt sl en Lt Se el he : 150 2q% 209 Bien ved Lie ae 220 aay ae reheat ht £3 R22 152 she II JOSHUA. i: 229 2 SAMUEL. gis Io PSALMS, 2" - 9, 64 rah eae 22 7 elt ee Be. 33 AGun eumerck 37h Piet h « Nie! BL PET. f 95 . 43 f. 162° ; 14 f. 1044 real 12 T10! 5 15, 140 § Cons LES) Pee ed ans, PROVERBS. git 26 2620 AT oa a ene Keer oe Te ae se JEREMIAH. 1s 109 f., HOSEA. 147 PS eee HABAKKUK, | 2%. 4 HAGGAI. 26 . . . e ZECHARIAH. gu eae ee ake 141 236 157 221 221 242 wT) \ 4 A Lait oY, yt) “ay? ae oe 7" 1 i A LS =, eh Ny HWY ie i, a a, Meee ee vy Te Ming vi any) We ‘i A sh » 7 j i} * cs OE ie a sy ON) Fd nla rl Lt y er Z ’ ae i . \ ’ j D Tekh 0 Rae a reba, 7 d A 4 (a MG a } ne by Ala DATE DUE re “a bs: Be dies po j be rh i eae = yy 7 hi we Be: | . ’ : ee eg Sa poe Ps. fee oe. F = a a 2 fed Z Goes z- “6 — 2 eae 3 Ds ae a be FS Ki 8 Se ia ’ “ eee? le at tae ie A iia | 4] a. ) Pg ae, — oh ba r ae ‘ o< me ae ee 4 —_ ze — whe 5 9 = 9 rm + nm 6) yf : 7 c 7 Ps Sree eae a . Nv * Ml $a aia en ; re if “y af a — eo —e a ee a = = : 7 — Pe - = eat Pant rh m. : dee herbert bag fe AWS rage om A ORE ear PG A mene! teeta ae LE Pe BRN aie SNe ne ney yn Rms tt LO SN eet, pre ore ts Pee em ee ee Le gO ee Se ne EO BS mi mignen gre FEE ER ee PA we RH fe hoe ein ocak cll aia! PS ag YO gO Sry aap PTE SR NO A cane ge GO DUET EIT = Le ae gem oe me Hae ee eet ae Ee SPR De eee peemaytinatons (oP aot Me Raa ee NA ra Hegt eR me Si nC ial aa ae Hy Daunte ranches Ce Tamyenn ell ee ee Se Png eae oe pate SL tihe ee SPN aes oe ences eR CAP gm ON wre mage Na pa om ge ee Pei Ss gr e ahaaninaianion Ree tar Seti bo gp Sees Spiele et finch th rnc AOE RASS AAA Pete deine den ite oon ea 8 ae A NASR al Oe AOE RAR I gi SOA O NS SN gtr res nee. Coren ~~ Pree re ee oitnehousatiees Pade at itaastnibaitinded eels hin edinaiaitin sated oe ee SE GR Na am gh me i Sata “itil Pinte enters Ante naeaneateciaandianos wee ol ee aay sper gel tae aehatvip aihatistelh adhere trent at di ache a, tities adenoma en ee ee aT OE LOE NT FO eS ey at tg ep, nt Sig ha gS Age A. ER rg ee OS SOREN Nm atm alagi in Sy Ee ND ee Rp many: ora tae ee Sp en a, REN SS Soe a ete re. el dia ee en a rene Seen te aoe “os Se a baer ~ x oa ne Lee etermin Pa Ra GR Som He, Rie ae, ROL eae 7 TEEN en ee Syn ie ne eee LR ee i Ans 98, ee. Ta EN MeN igaltiwese Na ete Grh praise h yer SEM Sree aren NO ee % (a teb AS aeues fx wiser. rine aeNe NO a ATG HF WOR OE NS 3 TT PAE at Net nas 810g ps AA Mh nt ON i yo tt kg ah PERE ORES APR Ry re ee a gt ae or Re Re eG aE My. Su Se A ater a Mal ap OT I OE ag gee Cam oT pe eas Lp tom call hitithettesane ania coats aioe ieacemenetiom tote ee Ser, oe Ae Agta a peat + NEEL, Sera Syren cw tee ata? FON E nwle Se ee - x FEE ST Re aoe N= Sa me AINA WS, RRS lm SR OR Hl A, VEN RTS OR Raia Canepa tig C8 ot Oley BS wn Sat, Se Sie ent Aa cl a AE Ge echt ne ah PSA OG) tig hrs Fahne sale oMpT aA me nt gp OF NR Seay te ge ELE A Shes - LOIN SE Eg ee mrt IS ae pont a . em Ue ee Hee — Sante ieee me, 8, Ley vet sey si om engine hy Sees en ee es ete Reema ey Oo PLU. Mien Me wee tase Ae ey SNe NS a Fem Bee SON Be rete mL te Reem on, ‘ i Ah eee HOM - CRA e ee em gion ey Hen Repey ee, BL ON, Me eS ee eee BA ee ee PO ta gerne te Sees NPE ee Oe Me RT i ee a eae UN ay gue) eee eige owe See es Py igs ~ 84 oe ie mat ie OR te O,