nine! Nth 9 ΠΥ wee EPERTS ESE bpdRes 2 : Ἢ 44 oi i ie # 2 ἘΠ ΠΝ ΟΝ he Crib ie thie | ae ie Chenlagirg, | τὰ δ; AK Z ge PRINCETON, N. J. | ἕω a. A fi Wo A ee te las Ἣν | aoe. ; Devision........... Shed aS . og oe oe. Oe Voge ἃ By Rage Section ......... ; ~JS Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic19In CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HANDBOOK TO THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. ¥ BY DR. GOTTLIEBY LUNEMANN, PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN. TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY REV. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXXIL NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS. ἢ Issue completes the Series of MEYER’S COMMENTARIES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. In Twenty Volumes. ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL, 2 Vols.—ST. MARK and ST. LUKE, 2 Vols.—ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL, 2 Vols.—ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, 2 Vols.—ROMANS, 2 Vols. —CORINTHIANS, 2 Vols.—GALATIANS, 1 Vol.—EPHESIANS and PHILE- MON, 1 Vol.—PHILIPPIANS and COLOSSIANS, 1 Vol.—_THESSALONIANS, Vol.—_TIMOTHY and TITUS, 1 VolHEBREWS, 1 Vol.—PETER and JUDE, 1 Vol.—JAMES and JOHN, 1 Vol. DUSTERDIECK ON REVELATION will not be translated in the meantime, as the Publishers have received no encouragement from the Subscribers. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL — net: "ἢ eT uf i EL, φι SEP COMMENTARY ON ---- = THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY γ΄ HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tz.D., OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER, From the German, with the Sanction of the Author. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. BY Dr. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXXII PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR T. ἃ T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, . . - . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO, DUBLIN; (ie Lee . GEORGE HERBERT. NEW YORK, 5 : 5 SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. HE idea and aim contemplated in the Meyer series Ἔ of commentaries, as also the general plan laid down for the work of translation, has been already explained by Dr. Dickson in his Preface to the Epistle to the Romans, and elsewhere. The merits, also, of Dr. Liinemann as a coadjutor of Meyer, have been sufficiently discussed by Dr. Gloag in connection with his translation of the Epistles to the Thessalonians. It only remains to add, that the aim in the translation of this commentary has been to give a faithful and intelligible rendering of Liinemann’s words, and in general to produce a worthy companion volume to those of the series already issued. It is hoped that a comparison with the German original will show the work has not suffered in the process of transferring to our own soil. It will be admitted that the commentary of Liinemann on the Hebrews—of which the first edition appeared in 1855, the second in 1861, the third in 1867, and the fourth, enlarged and greatly improved, in 1874—has claims of a very high order in a grammatical and lexicographical respect. He threads his way with a nice discrimination amidst a multitude of conflicting interpretations, and generally carries conviction with him when he finally gives his own view, or that in which he concurs. Even where, as in the case of some three or four controverted explanations, he may not have weighed the whole argument in favour of an opposite view, he has at least revealed to us the process by which his own conclusion is reached, thereby contributing to place the reader in a position for forming an independent judgment for himself. v1 PREFATORY NOTE. The opinions of Dr. Liinemann, as regards the position occupied by the writer of our Epistle towards the Scriptures of the Old Testament, have been expressed with great candour. Unfortunately no one seems to have made the questions here raised a matter for any very prolonged and detailed examination since the time of John Owen. With the eventual answer which shall be given to these questions will stand or fall the claim of Barnabas to the authorship of the Epistle, and many other things besides. It is, however, by his grammatico-critical and purely exegetical labours that Liinemann has rendered the greatest service to the cause of sacred literature. The judicious use of his commentary can hardly fail to lead to a more intimate acquaintance with the letter and spirit of this apostolic writing, well styled by the Helmstiadt professor Walther a “beyond all measure profound epistle.” Of the very abundant exegetical literature pertaining to the Epistle to the Hebrews, our space admits of the mention of but a very few writings. Nor was it needful to give an account even of all that have been collated in preparing this translation. Most of the German commentaries published after the middle of the eighteenth century were entirely over- shadowed by the appearing of the great work of Bleek, and those of subsequent writers. For many particulars concerning the authors specified in the following list, more especially of those who flourished about the time of the Reformation, I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. James Kennedy, B.D., librarian of New College, Edinburgh. To the list of works enumerated might be fittingly added the suggestive transla- tion of the New Testament made by Sebastian Castellio (1542-1550), mostly during the time of his retirement in Basle. M. J. E. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. —@— FOR THE GREEK FATHERS. Cramer (J. A.), 5. T. P.: Catena Graecorum Patrum. Tomus vii. 8vo, Oxonii, 1844. ON THE VULGATE TEXT. J USTINIAN (Benedict), + 1622: Explanationes in omnes Pauli Epistolas. Lugd. 1612. FRaNcIscO DE ΒΊΒΕΒΑ : Commentary. 8vo, Col. Agr. 1600. Crario (Isidore) [Clarius]: Novum Testamentum Latiné, adjectis scholiis. Authore Isidoro Clario. 8vo, Ant. 1544. Lupovicus ΡῈ Tena: Commentary. folio, Toleti, 1611. » Lond. 1661. Primasius, Bishop of Adrumetum, sixth century: Commentary on the Epistles of Paul. That on the Hebrews is by some attributed to Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt, ¢ 853. ON THE GREEK TEXT. Aprescn (Peter), Professor at Groningen, ¢ 1812: Paraphrasis et Annotationes. Leyden, 1786-90. [Continued by Vitringa to end of chap. vii. 1817. ] Baumaarten (5. J.), Ὁ 1757, and Semzter: Erklirung des Briefes. Halle, 1763. Τ Vili EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. Bresentuat (J. H. R.): Epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos, eum rabbinico commentario. Berol. 1857. Bispinc (A.): Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Briefen des Ap. Paulus [vol. iii. ]. Miinster, 1855-63. Beek (Franz), Τ 1859: Der Brief an die Hebrier. Berlin, 1828-40. Der Hebrierbrief erklirt. Edited by Windrath. Elberfeld, 1868. Buiiincer (Heinrychus), Ὁ 1575: In omnes Apostolicas Epistolas, Divi videlicet Pauli xiiii. etc. Commentarii. [P. 639-731.] fol. Tiguri, 1549. Cameron (John), Professor at Saumur, t 1625: Annotationes in N. T. Edited by Lewis Cappel. 1628. CapreL (Jacques), Ὁ 1624: Observationes in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. 8vo, Sedan, 1624. Carpzov (J. B.), Professor at Helmstiidt, + 1803: Sacrae Exercita- tiones .. . ex Philone Alexandrino. 8vo, Helmst. 1750. Cramer (Johann Andreas), Professor at Kiel, t 1788: Erkliirung des Briefes an die Hebriier, 2 parts. Copenh, 1757. De Werte (W. M. L.), + 1849: Kurze Erkliirung, etc. Die Briefe an Tit. Tim. und Heb. [νο]. ii. part 5]. ; Leipz. 1844, αἱ. Detitzscu: Commentar zum Brief a. ἃ. Hebr. Leipz. 1857. [Eng. transl., T. & T. Clark, 1868. ] Dickson (David), Ὁ 1662: Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, Aberdeen, 1649. [See also Romans. ] D’OurreEIn (Jan.): Zendbrief . . . aan de Ebreen, ontleidet, uitgebreed en verklaard. yee Esrarp (H. A.), Professor at Erlangen: Commentar iiber den Hebriierbrief. Konigsberg, 1850. (Eng. transl., T. & T. Clark, 1853.] Ewaup (G. H. A.), ‘Professor at Gottingen, t 1876: Sendschreiben an die Hebriier. Gotting. 1870. GERHARD (John), t 1637: Commentarius super Epist. ad Hebraeos. ; 8vo, Jenae, 1661. Gomar (Francis), Professor at Leyden, ¢ 1641: Analysis Epistolae Pauli ad Hebraeos. Opera [pp. 285-380]. Amstel. 1644. Gouce (W.), D.D., 1 1653: Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. fol. Lond. 1655. [Reprinted 1866, 1867. ] Guers (E.): Etude sur l'Epitre aux Hébreux. Genéve et Paris, 1862. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. ix Hormann (J. C. K. von), 7 1877: Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testa- ments. Vol. v. 8vo, Nordlingen, 1873. Hyrerius (Andreas), | 1564: Commentarii in Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad Hebraeos. fol. Tiguri, 1584. Jones (W.), D.D.: Commentary on tbe Epistles to Philemon, Hebrews, and the First and Second Epistles of John. fol. Lond. 1636. Kee (H.): Auslegung des Hebriierbriefs. Mainz, 1833. Kuiuce: Der Hebriierbrief, Auslegung und Lehrbegriff. Neu.-Ruppin, 1863 Kurtz (J. H.), Professor at Dorpat: Der Hebriierbrief erklirt. 1869. Lawson (George), Rector of More, Shropshire: Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. fol. Lond. 1662. M‘Caut (J. B.), Canon of Rochester: A Paraphrastic Commentary, etc. Lond. 1871. MancueEsteR (George Montagu, Duke of): Horae Hebraicae [ Heb. i-iv. 11]. Lond. 1835. MENEEN (Gottfried), | 1831: Homilien iiber das 9° und 10° Kap., nebst einem Anhange etlicher Homilien iiber Stellen des 12 Kap. Bremen, 1831. Mout (C. B.): Der Brief an die Hebrier [Lange’s series]. Bielefeld, 1861. [Translated by A. C. Kendrick, D.D. New York, 1871. | OxEcoLAMPADIUS (Joannes), f 1531: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos J. O. explanationes. 4to, Argentorati, 1524. [From notes taken by some of the hearers. | Owen (John), D.D., 7 1683: Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 4 vols. fol. London, 1668-74, al. Pe.uican (Conrad), f 1556: Commentaria Bibliorum. 9 vols. ᾿ fol. Tiguri, 1532-42. [ Vol. ix. ‘in omnes Epistolas.”] PiscatoR (John), Professor at Herborn, f 1626: Analysis Logica Epistolae Pauli ad Hebraeos. [Commentarii in omnes libros Novi Testamenti, 3d ed. fol. p. 674-718. Herbornae, 16388. | Reicue (J. G.): Commentarius Criticus in Novum Testamentum. 3 vols. Ato, Gottingen, 1853-62. [Vol. iii. In Hebraeos et Catholicas Epistolas. ] x EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. Reuss (Ed.): L’Epitre aux Hébreux. Essai d’une traduction nouvelle, accompagné d’un commentaire théologique. Strasbourg, 1862. Rien (E. C. A.): Lehrbegriff des Hebriierbriefs. Ludwigsb. 1858, 1859. Rotuock (Robert), Principal of the University of Edinburgh, f 1598: Analysis Logica in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. Accessit brevis et utilis Tractatus de Justificatione. 8vo, Edinburgi, 1605. [Rollock carried the work only to xi. 6, the rest was finished and edited by Robert Charteris, at Rollock’s request. | Scuiicutine (Jonas), ἡ 1664, and Joun CreELi, ἡ 1633: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos Commentarius. 8vo, Racoviae, 1634. Scumip (Chr. Fr.), 1778: Observationes . . . historicae, criticae, theo- logicae super Epistolam ad Hebraeos. 8vo, Lips. 1766. Scumip (Erasmus), | 1637: Notae in Novum Testamentum. 1658. Scumipr (Sebastian), 7 1696: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos Commen, tarius. 1690. StewarpD (George): Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, Edin. 1872. Stier (Rudolf), | 1562: Der Brief an die Hebrier, in 36 Betrach- tungen ausgelegt. 2 parts. 1842. Stuart (Moses), Professor of Sacred Literature at Andover, f 1852: Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. 8vo, 1827, 1828, al. Tuotvuck (Andreas), Professor at Halle, ¢ 1877: Kommentar zum Briefe an die Hebrier. 8vo [1836], 3d ed. Hamburg, 1850. VALCKENAER (Lewis Casp.), Professor of Greek at Leyden, f 1785: Selecta e Scholiis. Edited by Wassenbergh. Tom. ii. Amst. 1817, WattTHER (Michael), Professor at Helmstiidt, + 1662: Griindliche, erdeutliche und ausfiihrliche Erliuterung der... Ep. St. Pauli an die Hebriier. fol. Niirnberg, 1646. WieseELer (Karl), Professor at Greifswald: Untersuchung iiber den Hebrierbrief, namentlich seinen Verfasser und seine Leser. 8vo, Kiel, 1861. Wirticu (Christoph), Professor at Leyden, t 1687: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. Edited by David Hassel. 1692. ¥ THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. ---Ὁ.---- INTRODUCTION. SEC. 1—THE AUTHOR. =u HE Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of an ys) unknown writer. The question, by whom it was composed, was already variously answered in ancient times, and has not to the present day been solved in a way which has found general assent. The sup- position that the Apostle Paul was its author has obtained the widest currency and the most lasting acceptance. And in reality this supposition must most readily suggest itself, since an unmistakeably Pauline spirit pervades the epistle, and single notices therein, such as the mention of Timothy as a man stand- ing in very close connection with the author (xiii. 23), might appear as indications pointing to Paul. Nevertheless, there is found nothing which could have the force of a constraining proof in favour of this view, and, on the contrary, much which is in most manifest opposition thereto." For— (1) The testimonies of Christian antiquity in favour of Paul as the author of the epistle are neither so general nor so confident as we must expect, if the epistle had been from the beginning handed down as a work of the Apostle Paul. — Not unfavourable to the claim of Paul, but yet by no means decisive, are the judgments of the early Alexandrian Church. Pantaenus, president of the school of catechetes in Alexandria about the middle of the second century, the first from whom 1 Comp. H. Thayer, ‘Authorship and Canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xxiv., Andoy. 1867, p. 681 ff. Mryrer.—HEs. A 23 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. an express statement as to the name of the author has come down to us, certainly assigned the epistle to the Apostle Paul. But yet it is to be observed that even he felt called to set aside an objection, which seemed to lie against the justice of this view, namely: that, contrary to the custom of Paul, the author has not, even in an address prefixed to the epistle, mentioned himself by name; whether it was that this difficulty first arose in the mind of Pantaenus himself, or that, in opposition to others who had raised it, he wished to show the invalid nature thereof. (Comp. the notice of Clemens Alexandrinus on Pantaenus, in Eusebius, Hist. Zccles. vi. 14: Ἤδη δέ, ὡς ὁ μακάριος ἔλεγε πρεσβύτερος, ἐπεὶ ὁ κύριος, ἀπόστολος ὧν τοῦ παντοκράτορος, ἀπεστάλη πρὸς Ἕβραίους, διὰ μετριότητα ὁ Παῦλος, ὡς ἂν εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἀπεσταλμένος, οὐκ ἐγγράφει ἑαυτὸν ‘EBpaiwv ἀπόστολον διά τε τὴν πρὸς τὸν κύριον τιμὴν διά τε τὸ ἐκ περιουσίας καὶ τοῖς Ἑβραίοις ἐπιστέλλειν, ἐθνῶν κήρυκα ὄντα καὶ ἀπόστολον. --- Clemens Alexandrinus, too, the disciple of Pantaenus (end of the second and beginning of the third century), makes repeated mention of the epistle as a work of the Apostle Paul (Strom. 11. p. 420, iv. p. 514 sq.,ed. Sylburg, Colon. 1688, αἰ... But yet he does not venture to ascribe it in its present form im- mediately to Paul. Not only is for him, too, the same objec- tion, which his teacher already had undertaken to set aside, still of sufficient weight for him to attempt its removal in a new, though, it is true, equally unsatisfactory manner; but also the un-Pauline character of the language in the epistle does not escape his glance. Rather to Luke than to Paul does the garb of the letter seem to him to point. On this account he assumes that a Hebrew (Aramaic) original writing of Paul forms the substratum of the epistle, but that our present epistle is only a version or adaptation of that original writing by Luke, designed for Hellenes. (Comp. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 14: Kat τὴν πρὸς ‘EBpatovs δὲ ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου μέν εἶναί φησι, γεγράφθαι δὲ “Ἑβραίοις “EBpaixh φωνῇ, Δουκᾶν δὲ φιλοτίμως αὐτὴν μεθερμηνεύσαντα ἐκδοῦναι τοῖς “Ελλησιν᾽ ὅθεν τὸν αὐτὸν χρῶτα εὑρίσκεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ταύτης τε τῆς ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῶν πράξεων" μὴ προγεγράφθαι δὲ τὸ Παῦλος ἄπόστολος, εἰκότως. “Ἑβραίοις INTRODUCTION. 3 γάρ, φησίν, ἐπιστέλλων πρόληψιν εἰληφόσι κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑποπτεύουσιν αὐτὸν συνετῶς πάνυ οὐκ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἀπέστρεψεν the Epistle to the Hebrews stand, it is true, in some rela- tion to the Apostle Paul, as he accordingly more than once cites passages therefrom as sayings of Paul (eg. ωπον. ad Martyr. 44, in Joh., ed. Huet. t. ii. p. 56; ΄ ὅτι καλῇ, θα γὰρ ὅτι καλὴν συνίδησιν ἔχομεν ἐν πᾶσιν καλῶ; θέλοντες ἀνασαρέφεσθαι. 12 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. passage we may certainly conclude that the author was on terms of friendship with Timothy, the well-known assistant of Paul. But this fact could be regarded as a sign indicative of Paul himself only if Timothy were characterized as a person who occupied a subordinate position towards the author, which is not the case. As the words read, the passage is appropriate to any disciple of Paul as the writer. ΤῸ this the considera- tion must be added, that in the passage in question the deliverance of Timothy out of his captivity is announced: the readers must thus have had a knowledge of the imprisonment itself; it could not therefore have been either insignificant or of short duration. Of an imprisonment of Timothy, however, so long as he was the assistant of Paul, there is not found the slightest trace, either in the epistles of the latter or in the Acts of the Apostles... Much more probable is it, therefore, that this notice refers to an imprisonment suffered by Timothy only after the death of the Apostle Paul. The fourth passage, According to Tobler, καλῇ. θα is to be derived from καλεῖν, and indeed is to be regarded as an earlier contraction for καλεώμεθα, in which the quantity of the crasis has remained resting on the former vowel (!); so that καλεῖσθαι, in this connection, would correspond to the Latin in jus vocari, citari, Acts iy. 18, xxiv. 2, and the sense would result: ‘‘ Pray for us, for we are summoned before the tribunal, must plead in our own defence; that we may have a good con- science, a cheerful spirit, to give an account; for in all things, and in this case too, we wish to walk rightly.” But in order to perceive the erroneousness of such a mode of argument, a glance at the codex itself may suffice. This presents Heb. xiii, 18 in the following arrangement : προσευχεσθε σε μι μων ort KHAN. ἔα yup ors καλὴν συνιδησιν κι τ... Evidently καλῆ. is nothing else than the κάλην following in the next line, inas- much as a stroke at the end of a line is very often placed in the Cod. Sin. instead of an end letter ; so that by a mere error of transcribing, of which there are very many in the Cod. Sin., ors κάλην, which belonged only to the third line, was wrongly placed in the second, and here pushed out the three first syllables of the πειθορεεθα, which the copyist had before him in the text given him for copying. That the copyist really had 2s:toy:4e—for which, moreover, the fourth hand has put πεποίθαμεν by way of correction—before him for copying is clearly shown, as well by the θα, as also by the yap of the third line. Comp. against Tobler also Volkmar, in Hilgenfeld’s Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1865, H. 1, p. 108 ff. 1 That Ebrard (p. 417 ff.) is very much inclined to bring out of the construction of Phil. ii. 19, 23 an imprisonment of Timothy at Rome, at the time when Paul was held captive there, deserves to be mentioned only as a curiosity. INTRODUCTION. 13 finally, is supposed to show that the epistle was written from Rome, and on that account probably by Paul. But from οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας the author could send salutations only if he were somewhere outside of Italy. If he had himself been present in Italy, with the Italian Christians from whom the salutations come, at the time of the composition of the epistle, he must have indicated them as οἱ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιταλίᾳ (comp. 1 Pet. v. 13). At most, we could only assume that the author had meant by of ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας Roman Christians out of the province, in opposition to οἱ ἐν “Ρώμῃ, the Christians of the Roman capital. Then he would certainly have been dwelling in Rome. But how would it be explicable, in that case, that he should neglect to convey a salutation from these Christians of the capital? While, on the other hand, if the author was writing outside of Italy, the isolated expression of greeting from of ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας is simply explained on the supposi- tion, that in the place of his dwelling for the time being, a Christian church from which he could likewise send salutations did not yet at all exist. Against Paul as the author argue— (3) The style and manner of presentation characteristic of the epistle. Origen has already observed (vid. supra, p. 3), that every one who is a judge of the diversities of language must admit that this writing is συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως ἑλληνυ- κωτέρα than the letters of Paul; and the same fact, even before his time, drew the attention of Clemens Alexandrinus (vid. supra, p. 2), as in general the widespread belief of antiquity in a Hebrew original of the epistle is based upon such divergency. But the epistle is distinguished not merely by a purer Greek,—with which are found mingled Hebraisms, for the most part only in the citations borrowed from the Old Testament,—it is also more perfectly rounded off into periods, and more rhetorical. Whereas Paul wrestles with the lan- guage in order to express in words the abundance of thoughts pouring in upon him, and irregularities of grammar, variations of structure, and anacoluthias are nothing rare with him, the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews always flows on in smooth facility. The harmonious symmetry of the sentences is preserved uninterrupted, even where parentheses of consider- 14 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. able extent are inserted (comp. vii. 20-22); nay, parenthesis is enclosed within parenthesis, and yet the writer steadily returns to complete the construction begun (comp. xii. 8-24). The greatest care is bestowed throughout upon euphony and musical cadence (comp. 6.7. 1. 1-4, vil. 1-3), upon the effective grouping of words (comp. ey. vil. 4), and even the use of particles and participles betrays throughout an acquaintance with the art of composition and a learned rhetoric. While the Apostle Paul is everywhere concerned only about the matter itself which he is presenting, never troubles himself about a fair form of its clothing in language, and with him even the most affecting outbursts of natural eloquence are never anything but the immediate product of the moment,—in the Epistle to the Hebrews the endeavour after euphony and adornment of style extends even to the details of expression and the turns of the discourse. Where, for instance, the plain and simple μισθός, of which Paul regularly makes use, might have been placed without any difference of sense, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews chooses just as regularly the fuller sounding μισθαποδοσία (ii. 2, x. 35, xi. 26), and in accordance therewith makes use of ὁρκωμοσία (vii. 20, 21, 28), αἱματεκχυσία (ix. 22), and other sonorous compounds. Whilst, further, ey., the sitting of Christ at the right hand of God is indicated by Paul simply by ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ καθήμενος (Col. ili. 1; comp. also Rom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 20), in the Epistle to the Hebrews the majestic formulas: ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς (i. 8), ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (viii. 1), ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ κεκάθικεν (xii. 2), serve to express the same thought. Further, that which Paul predicates of Christ, in describing Him simply as εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (2 Cor. iv. 4), or as εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου (Col. 1. 15), or as ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (Phil. ii, 6), is expressed by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in more carefully chosen language by means of the characteristic ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ θεοῦ.᾽---Α5, however, the author of the Epistle 1 Many further differences of language in details, in part connected with the fact that in the Epistle to the Hebrews the language is preponderantly rhetorical, with Paul preponderantly dialectic, see in Schulz, Der Brief an die Hebr., INTRODUCTION. £05) to the Hebrews surpasses the Apostle Paul in respect of this external side of the diction, and of all writers of the New Testament comes nearest to a_classical_perfection,—in such wise that only some portions in Luke bear comparison there- with,—yet, on the other hand, he falls considerably behind the Apostle Paul in respect of the inner character of his mode of presentation. There is wanting to his argumentation that dialectic acuteness (comp. eg. xii. 25), to his sequence of thought that severe and firm connectedness (comp. e.g. iv. 14), to his expression that precision and definiteness (comp. eg. vii. 27), which are characteristic of the Apostle Paul. (4) Deviations from Paul are shown, further, in the doctrinal subject-matter of the epistle. Certainly in the main, and regarded as a whole, its fundamental doctrinal conception is the same as in the Pauline Epistles, as also in details it affords manifold notes of accord with the doctrinal presentation of the latter." Nevertheless, this dogmatic har- mony is not without peculiar, individual, independent colour- ing in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” The Apostle Paul regards as the most important fact in the history of salvation, the resurrection of Christ ; by this did the work of salvation first receive the divine sanction and attestation; by it was Christ Breslau 1818, p. 135 ff.; Seyffarth, De ep. quae dicitur ad Hebr. indole maxime peculiar, Lips. 1821, p. 25 sqq. 1 Comparisons of points of coincidence, which, however, stand in need of critical sifting, see in Fr, Spanhemius, De auctore epistolae ad Hebraeos (Opp. t. ii, Lugd. Bat. 1708, fol. p. 171 sqq.); Cramer, Ὁ. lxix. sqq., lxxx. sqq.; Petr. Hofstede de Groot, Disputatio, qua epistola ad Hebraecos cum Paulinis epistolis comparatur, Traj. ad Rhen. 1826, 8. 2 Yet on account of this independence to regard the epistle, with Riehm (Lehrbegriff des Hebrierbriefs, Ludwigsb. 1858, 1859, II. p. 861 ff.), after the example of R. Koéstlin (Theol. Jahrbb. of Baur and Zeller, 1854, H. 4, p. 463 ff.), also Ritschl (Hntstehung der alikathol. Kirche, 2 Aufi., Bonn 1857, p. 159 ff.) and Weiss (Studien u. Kritiken, 1859, H. 1, p. 142 ff.), as not the work of a writer of the Pauline school, but to discover in it a later stage of development of the primitive apostolic Judaeo-Christianity, is a proceeding not warranted by any sufficient ground. There is the less reason for such judgment, inasmuch as a very close personal connection of the author of the epistle with Paul and his disciples and fellow-labourers is conceded ; in the doctrinal conception of the epistle not only no contradiction of Paul is discovered, but, on the contrary, a higher agreement with him on all essential points ; and it is, moreover, taken for granted that the epistle arose through the incitement and under the influence of Paulinism, 16 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. first by a divine deed proved to be the Son of God. Of the death of Christ, therefore, Paul speaks almost always in con- nection with the resurrection. This importance, however, the resurrection of Christ has not for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Only incidentally, in the invocation xiii. 20, is it mentioned by him; in the body of the epistle, on the contrary, stress is laid exclusively upon the death of Christ and the heavenly high-priesthood, of which office the Saviour Christ, exalted to the right hand of God, is the occupant and fulfiller. In addition to this, the notion of πίστις is different with our author from what it is with Paul. Whereas with Paul the πίστις involves an opposition to the νόμος and the ἔργα νόμου, and has its object in particular in Christ, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, understands thereby in general the believing, humble con- fiding in God’s grace and promises, in opposition to the seeing of their realization—a phase of the conception which but rarely (comp. 2 Cor. v. 7) is met with in Paul. Τὺ is, more- over, a remarkable fact that no reference is made to the parti- cipation of the Gentiles in the Messianic kingdom,—although the author must have entertained the same views as Paul on this point, inasmuch as he regards Judaism only as an imper- fect preparatory stage to Christianity, and demands a coming forth from the former, in order to become partakers of the blessings of the latter——whence it seems to follow that the author found his life’s task not so much in the conversion of the Gentiles, as in the conversion of his Jewish kinsmen. Peculiar to this epistle is, further, the prevailing fondness for a typico-symbolic mode of contemplation, which is met with indeed in Paul’s writings (eg. Gal. iv. 21 ff.; 1 Cor. x. 1 ff), but yet only in isolated instances; and other peculiarities besides. Comp. Riehm, Lchrbegr. des Hebrderbr. I. p. 221 ff, 385 ff, IL p. 682 ff, 821 ff; Davidson, Introduction, I. p. 241 ff. (5) Decisive against Paul are, further, the citations from the Old Testament. While Paul not merely makes use of the 1 Comp. de Wette, ‘‘ Ueber die symbolisch-typische Lehrart des Briefes an die Hebr.” (in the Theologische Zeitschrift of Schleiermacher, de Wette, and Liicke, Heft 8, Berlin 1822, p. 1 ff). INTRODUCTION. 17 LXX., but is also at home in the original Hebrew text, and often independently translates this for himself, for the most part also cites with more or less freedom and from memory ; the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews follows the LXX. exclusively, and generally with great exactness. He even bases an argument upon its inaccurate renderings (comp. specially x. 5—7), in such wise that he can have possessed no knowledge of the Hebrew, or at any rate but a very unsatis- factory knowledge,—a fact which even in early times was not overlooked by the opponents of the Pauline origin of the epistle (comp. Jerome on Isa. vi. 9, Opp. ed. Martianay, t. ii. p. 64: Pauli quoque idcirco ad Hebraeos epistolae contradicitur, quod ad Hebraeos scribens utatur testimoniis quae in Hebraeis voluminibus non habentur). The references in detail see in Bleek, Abtheil. 1, p. 338-369. (6) The author describes, ix. 1-5, the arrangement of the Jewish sanctuary, and presupposes (ver. 6) that this still con- tmues in its original form in the Jewish temple of his time. In so doing, however, he falls into divers historic errors (comp. the exposition), such as would have been impossible with Paul, who had lived a considerable time in Jerusalem. (7) If Paul were the author, he would not have deviated from his constant practice of mentioning his name in an address prefixed to the epistle. For a tenable ground for such deviation is not to be discovered. Comp. Bleek, Abth. 1, p. 295 ff. (8) Regarded in general, it is very improbable that Paul should have written an epistle to purely Judaeo-Christian congregations, to whom the epistle is, however, addressed (see sec. 2). For he would thereby have been untrue to his fundamental principle of not intruding into another man’s sphere of labour (Rom. xv. 20 ; Gal. ii. 9). The arguments enumerated are in their totality of such constraining force that we can feel no surprise if, upon every revival of the critico-scientific spirit in the church, doubts, too, with regard to the Pauline origin of the epistle should always be excited afresh, after they had long seemed to have died out. At the time of the Reformation, Cajetan and Erasmus within the Catholic Church declared themselves against the claim of Paul to the authorship of the epistle. The former was on Meryer.—HeEs, Ὁ 18 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. that account assailed by Ambrosius Catharinus; the latter was compelled to defend himself against the Sorbonne, and the Council of Trent suppressed all further expression of a freer judgment, in decreeing the epistle to be the fourteenth epistle of Paul.! Yet more decidedly was the Pauline authorship of the epistle denied by the Reformers. Luther separated the Epistle to the Hebrews from the letters of Paul in his editions of the New Testament, and placed it, with the Epistles of James and Jude and the Apocalypse, after “the right certain main books of the New Testament,” since those four books “of old time (vorzciten) had another estimation put upon them.” “First of all,” he says (see Walch, ΤῊ]. 14, p. 146 f), “that this Epistle to the Hebrews is not St. Paul’s or any other apostle’s, is shown thereby, that it stands in chap. ii. 3 thus: this doctrine has come down to us through those who themselves have heard it of the Lord. By this it is made clear that he speaks of the apostles as a disciple to whom such doctrine has come from the apostles, perhaps long after. For St. Paul, Gal. i. 1, powerfully attests that he has his gospel from no man, nor by man, but from God Himself. Besides this, it has a hard knot, in that it in chap. vi. and x. straightway denies and refuses repentance to sinners after baptism, and in xii. 17 says Esau sought repentance and yet did not find it. The which, as it sounds, seemeth to be against all gospels and epistles of St. Paul. And although one may make a gloss thereon, yet the words after all sound so clear, that I know not whether it will suffice. To me it seems that this is an epistle put together out of several parts, and not in regular order treating of one and the same thing. However this may be, it certainly is a wondrously fine epistle, which speaks in a masterly and solid way of the priesthood of Christ out of the Scriptures, and, moreover, finely and fully expounds the Old Testament. This is clear, that it comes from an excellent learned man, who was a disciple of the apostles, had learned much of them, and was firmly experienced in the faith and exercised in the Scripture. And though he, indeed, lays not the foundation of the faith, as he himself 1 Fourth sitting of the 8th April 1546: Testamenti Novi... quatuordecim epistolae Pauli apostoli, ad Romanos . . . ad Philemonem, ad Hebraeos. INTRODUCTION. ' 19 testifieth, chap. vi. 1, that which is the office of the apostles, —yet he builds thereon fine gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 11. 12. On that account we shall not be troubled if perchance a little wood, straw, or hay be there- with mingled, but receive such fine teaching with all honour, without being able to equal it in all respects to the apostolic epistles. Who wrote it, however, is unknown, and will indeed remain unknown for a while yet; but that is no matter. The doctrine shall content us, since this is so firmly based on and in the Scripture, and likewise shows a right fine grasp and measure for reading and handling the word of Scripture.” As Luther, so also Melanchthon, the Magdeburg Centuriators, Lucas Osiander, Balduin, Hunnius, and others, denied the Pauline origin of the epistle; and of the Reformed Church, Calvin, Beza, Jos. Scaliger, Dan. Heinsius, cum multis aliis.’ Later, however, even in the Protestant Church the supposition that Paul was the author became gradually again more general, and was after the beginning of the seventeenth century the ecclesiastically accepted opinion, from which only the Arminians and Socinians ventured to depart. A freer research was first set going again by Semler and Michaelis; it has almost universally decided unfavourably to Paul. Yet the theory of a directly Pauline origin has still found defenders in Storr, Hug, G. W. Meyer (in Ammon and Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal der neuesten theol. Literat., Bd. ii. St. ὃ, p. 225 ff), Heinrichs (but comp. the preface to the second edition), Hofstede de Groot (Disputatio, qua ep. ad Hebr. cwm Paulinis epp. comparatur, Traj. ad Rhen. 1826), Moses Stuart, Gelpke (Vindiciae originis Paulinae ad Hebracos epistolae, nova ratione™ 1 Yet, while the Lutheran Church preserved in its symbols a freer position towards the canon, the Reformed Church in the Confessio Belgica (cap. iv. p- 171sq., ed. Augusti. Comp. also the Helvetica of 1566, cap. xi. p. 25sq., xvi. p. 48, and the Bohemica of 1535, art. iv. p. 281, vi. p. 286, xx. p. 323) adopted the decision that Paul wrote fourteen epistles. * The nova ratio consists in the circumstantial demonstration that the Epistle to the Hebrews betrays an affinity to the writings of Seneca (!), mainly to his little book de Providentia, which reaches so deeply that it cannot have arisen by accident. It is thus in all probability due to a personal intercourse of the writer of the epistle with Seneca,—a fact which is applicable only in the case of Paul, who, according to a trustworthy early tradition, was brought into communication with Seneca. 20 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. tentatae, Lugduni Batav. 1832, 8.), Paulus, Stein, Bloomfield (Greek Testament, 9th ed. vol. ii, Lond. 1855, p. 572 ff), Biesenthal (Zpistola Pauli ad Hebracos cum rabbinico Commen- tario, Berol. 1857; Ztschr. f. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1866, H. 4, p. 616), J. Chr. K. v. Hofmann (Der Schriftbewers, II. 2, 2 Aufl, Nordling, 1860, p. 105, 378; Die hei. Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht, Thi. 5, Nordl. 1873, p. 520 ff, Robbins (in Park and Taylor’s Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xviii, Andover 1861, July, p. 469 1), W. Volck (in the Dorpat Ztschr. fiir Theol. u. Kirche, Jahrg. 1869, Bd. 11, H. 4, p. 504 ff), J. B. M‘Caul (Zhe Epistle to the Hebrews in a Paraphrastic Commentary, with Illustrations Jrom Philo, the Targums, the Mishna and Gemara, the later Rabbinical Writers, ete, Lond. 1871, p. 4, 329), Joh. Wichelhaus (Akadem. Vorless. iiber das N. T., herausgeg. v. A. Zahn, Halle 1875, p. 3 f.), and Jatho (Blicke in die Bedeutung des mosaischen Cultus, Hildesh. 1876, p. 1 ff.); while Woerner (Der Brief St. Pauli an dic Hebréer, Ludwigsb. 1876, p. 253 f.) expresses himself with hesitation, and Guericke (Linleitung in das N. T. p. 441), Delitzsch (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zischr. f. d. Luth. Theol. 1849, p. 266, and in the commentary), Ebrard, and some others seek at least to trace back the epistle indirectly to Paul, inasmuch as they suppose it to have been written by his direction and under his oversight. But that this last modification also is an untenable and unjustified one, is evident. For, of a fact of this kind there must of necessity be some indication found in the epistle itself; whereas this writing everywhere gives the impression of an independent work of an independent Chris- tian teacher. So likewise, inasmuch as then, too, Paul would surely be the only representative of the subject-matter of the epistle, the meaning of such expressions as 11. 3 and others would become more absolutely inexplicable. If the Epistle to the Hebrews can thus be neither directly nor indirectly a work of the Apostle Paul, the question further arises, whether the true author is still to be discovered , with any degree of probability. The decision of some has been in favour of Barnabas, others of Luke, others of Clemens Romanus, others again of Silvanus, and others, finally, of Apollos. INTRODUCTION. 21 Barnabas has been looked upon as the author by J. ἘΝ Chr. Schmidt (Histor.- Krit. Hinleit. in’s N. 7., Abth. 1, Ῥ. 289 ff), Twesten (Dogmatik, Bd. 1, 4 Aufl. p. 95), Thiersch (De Epistola ad Ποῦ». commentatio historica, Marb. 1848, p. 17), Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, Gotting. 1848, p. 504 ff; Untersuchung tiber den Hebréerbrief, namentlich seinen Verfasser u. seine Leser, 1 Halfte [Schriften der Universitit zu Kiel aus dem Jahre, 1860, 4, Bd. VIL; also printed separately, Kiel 1861, 8]), Adalb. Maier (Comment. tb. d. Br. an d. Hebr., Freib. im Br. 1861, p. 13 ff.), Ritschl (Theol. Studd. u. Kritt. 1866, H. 1, p. 89), and Renan (L’Antechrist, Paris 1873, p. xvii. f. 210 [3 According to Wieseler, of all the claims to. the authorship, that of Barnabas is best vouched for by the tradition of antiquity. But in reality there remains only the single testimony (certainly a very definite one) of Tertullian (vide supra, p. 7) in favour of Barnabas. For that it was also held in the majority of churches of the East to be a work of Barnabas, cannot be inferred, with Wieseler (comp. already Ullmann, p. 391), from the words of Jerome (Epist. 129, ad Dardan., Opp. ed. Martianay, t. 11. p. 608): Illud nostris dicendum est, hance epistolam, quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, non solum ab ecclesiis orientis sed ab omnibus retro ecclesi- asticis Graeci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli apostoli suscipi; licet plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbi- trentur, et nihil interesse, cujus sit, quum ecclesiastici viri sit et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. To supply a 1 Yet Thiersch—and similarly Meier—assigns also a part in the composition of the epistle to the Apostle Paul. Thiersch says, /.c. : ‘‘ Barnabam igitur, qui et ipse gentium fuit apostolus, et Paulum communi consilio et conjuncta opera literas illas elaborasse existimo. Ita quidem ut in maxima parte Barnabas, vir 1116 dono prophetiae et fervore παρακλήσεως insignis agnoscatur, epilogum vero Paulus sua manu adjecerit atque ita, concedente Barnaba, suam fecerit epistolam.” Comp. also Thiersch, Die Kirche im apostol. Zeitalter, Frankf. and Erlangen 1852, p. 197 ff. 2 Joh. Cameron is also named as a representative of this view. Bleek (Abth. 1, p- 261, note 364) refers to Cameron’s Quaestio ii. in Hp. ad Hebr., and Ullmann (p. 389, note) to his Myrothecium Evangelicum. But in the latter work, at any rate, there is found no statement of this kind. In this Cameron usually speaks of the author as Apostolus, but certainly distinguishes him from the Apostle Paul. Comp. e.g. on Heb. vii. 18, ed. Salmur., 1677, 4, p. 270. 22 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. nostrorum to the plerique, with Tholuck and Delitzsch, out of the preceding xostris, is indeed impossible; plerique can receive its more precise definition only either from the last member of the sentence beginning with αὖ, or else from the two such members. But it is in an equal degree unjustifiable, in connection with the latter supposition, to assign vel Barnabae, in distinct separation, to the ecclesiae orientis, and vel Clementis to the Graeci sermonis scriptores, and then to help out the verdict thus gained—to wit, that the majority in the East traced the epistle indeed to Paul, but derived its present Greek form from Barnabas—with the conjecture “that the original tradition of those Eastern churches pointed to the sole authorship of Barnabas.” Rather is Jerome’s manner of expressing himself in the fore-cited passage in more than one respect inaccurate; inasmuch as he is, moreover, acquainted with Luke, as a third person who might be mentioned in the same category with Barnabas and Clement, and elsewhere is: able to adduce only a single early authority in favour of the opinion that Barnabas composed the epistle, and this authority belonging not to the Eastern church, but to that of the West. The passage finds its corrective in the words of the Catalogus Scriptorum, ec. 5 (Opp. ed. Martianay, t. iv. p. 103 sq.): Epistola autem, quae fertur ad Hebraeos, non ejus creditur propter stili sermonisque distantiam, sed vel Barnabae juxta Tertullianum, vel Lucae evangelistae juxta quosdam, vel Clementis Romanae ecclesiae episcopi, quem ajunt ipsi adjunctum sententias Pauli proprio ordinasse et ornasse sermone,—according to which Jerome was acquainted only with Tertullian as the representative of the view that Barnabas wrote the epistle. If, further, Philastrius, Haer. 89, observes: Sunt alii quoque, qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostoli, aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi, it is likewise entirely unprovable that the aut Barnabae did not refer merely to Tertullian. In like manner it does not, of course, at all follow, from the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews is placed after the Pastoral Epistles in the Peshito, that the early Syrian Church regarded the epistle as the work of none other than Barnabas. It is, in the last place, a mere assertion INTRODUCTION. 23 when we are told that in the Versus seribturarum sanctarum —an ancient stichometric catalogue of the sacred writings of the O. and N. T., which is preserved to us, inserted in the Codex Claromontanus between the Epistle to Philemon and that to the Hebrews (comp. Cod. Claromontanus, ed. Tischen- dorf, Lips. 1852, 4, p. 468 sq.)—the Epistle to the Hebrews bears the name of an Lpistola Barnabae. (So first Credner in the Theol. Jahrbb. 1857, p. 307 ff. ; Gesch. des Neutest. Kanon., Berl. 1860, p. 175 ff.) That catalogue presents only the words: Barnabae epist. ver. DCCCL; it simply mentions, therefore, the Epistle of Barnabas, and adds how many verses or lines (stichoi) it contains. The supposition is thus only natural, that the same writing is meant which elsewhere in the early church bears the name of the Epistle of Barnabas, and in the Codex Sinaiticus is bound up with the canonical books of the New Testament. Nay, this supposition is raised entirely beyond doubt by the fact that, in addition to the “Barnabae epist.,” and on the same level therewith, the Pastor, the Actus Pauli, and the Revelatio Petri, thus writings which in later time were just as little reckoned among the canonical books (the “sanctae scribturae” of the catalogue) as the Epistle of Barnabas, are likewise enumerated and stichometrically defined in this catalogue. Moreover, the Epistle to the Hebrews, if this had been thought of in connection with the “Barnabae epist.,” must at least have been denoted by the reading Barnabae ad Hebraeos epist.; as also Tertullian (comp. p. 7) did not deem the addition ad Hebraeos, for the designation of our Epistle to the Hebrews, redundant. It is true the assertion has been made, that the number of lines mentioned points to the Epistle to the Hebrews. But we should be permitted to make a deduction from this number of lines, only in case the number of lines for the several books of the New Testament were a fixed one in the mss. It is, however, an altogether wavering and changing one. ‘Thus the accounts of the lines for the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp. Tischendorf, N. T. ed. 7, P. ii p. 596) vary between the numbers 703 and 830. Not one of these numbers reaches the sum of 850 mentioned in the catalogue. If, therefore, we are to make any deduction at 24 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. all from these data, we must rather suppose that the number 850 is much more favourable to the epistle otherwise known as the Epistle of Barnabas than to our Epistle to the Hebrews, since the former exceeds the latter in extent by about a third. (In the Codex Sinaiticus the Epistle of Barnabas occupies 534 columns, and the Epistle to the Hebrews 404.) It is asserted, further, that the Barnabae epist. of the catalogue must be regarded as the Epistle to the Hebrews, because it has obtained a place in the enumeration before the Revelation of John and the Acts of the Apostles, and so by the intervention of the two latter writings is separated from the Pastor, the Actus Pauli, and the Revelatio fetri. But this order of enumeration does not warrant such conclusion, any more than a special mark of design is to be discovered in the unusual order of mentioning the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon only after the Pastoral Epistles, which is observed in the same catalogue. The consideration that, if our view be correct, the Epistle to the Hebrews has been entirely passed over without mention in the catalogue, can present no difficulty. We need not even suppose that the mention thereof has been overlooked in consequence of a mere blunder in copying. This is indeed possible, since the Epistles to the Thessalonians and that to the Philippians have for a like reason been passed over unmentioned, and otherwise the negligence of the copyist displays itself in the catalogue, in the fact that the two Epistles of Peter, eg., bear therein the appellations ad Petrum I. and ad Petrum II. The non-mention of the Epistle to the Hebrews is rather to be explained simply from the fact, well known from other sources, that this epistle was not invested with any canonical authority in the early church of the West, from which this catalogue comes down to us.— Favourable to the claim of Barnabas might appear the historic incident of his receiving this his name (υἱὸς παρακλήσεως), according to Acts iv. 36, on account of his gifts of prophetic or spiritual utterance, with which the eloquent language of the Epistle to the Hebrews might be shown to accord. Nor would there be anything directly opposed to such view in the circumstance that in Acts xii. 9 ff, 16 ff, xiv. 9 ff, not Barnabas but Paul INTRODUCTION. 25 is described as the chief speaker, and that consequently the former is in Acts xiv. 12 compared to Zeus; the latter, on the other hand, to Hermes. For although the Epistle to the Hebrews is superior in point of diction to the Pauline Epistles, a greater facility of graceful writing does not of neces- sity argue a greater facility of oral discourse. In favour of Barnabas, might, further, his birth in Cyprus be supposed to plead, and consequently—since Cyprus was in various ways connected with Alexandria—the Alexandrian type of thought which appears in the epistle would not be inappropriate to him. But absolutely decisive against Barnabas is the fact that, according to Acts iv. 36, 37, he was a Levite, and must have long time dwelt in Jerusalem, since he even possessed land there. He must therefore have been more accurately informed with regard to the inner arrangements of the temple in Jerusalem at that time than was the case with the author of our epistle." For the temple at Jerusalem is meant (see sec. 2), and not that at Leontopolis in Egypt, as Wieseler supposes. Luke has been frequently regarded even in early times as at least the translator or the penman of the epistle; and a share in the work of its composition has been ascribed to him by Hug (in the later editions of his Hinleit. in’s N. T.), and more recently Delitzsch (in Rudelb. and Guericke’s Zettschr. fiir Ue Luth. Theol. 1849, H. 2, p. 272 ff, and in the Kommentar zum Hebr-Br. p. 704) and Ebrard, as also J. V. Déllinger (Christenthuin u. Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung, Regensb. 1860, p. 86), inasmuch as the first-named attributes to him the linguistic garb of the epistle, and the others assign to him the elaboration of the thoughts furnished to him by the Apostle Paul. As the independent composer, on the other hand, Luke has been regarded by Grotius and S. Crell (in the pseudonymous writing, Artemonit initium ev. Joannis ex antiquitate ecclesiastica restitutum, P. 1, 1726, 8, p. 98); and Delitzsch also (comp. his commentary on the Ep. p. 707) 1 Tf the so-called Epistle of Barnabas were genuine, the diversity of character between that and the Epistle to the Hebrews would likewise form a decisive counter-argument against the claim of Barnabas. But the genuineness of that epistle is, to say the least, doubtful. 26 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. now holds this view to be at least possible. To the Pauline Christian Luke, certainly the self-characterizing of Heb. ii. 3 is appropriate (comp. Luke i. 2), as well as the purer Greek and the more skilful formation of periods. There are also to be discovered certain peculiarities in the phraseology —to which Grotius already calls attention—which are met with only in the writings of Luke and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Nevertheless, these points of contact are only of a subordinate nature, whilst side by side with them a thorough diversity of style and presentation is to be observed. In Luke, where he writes independently, there is displayed a mere smoothness in the flow of the language; in the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, a self-conscious majesty of rhetoric reveals itself. Moreover, there is nothing in Luke to corre- spond to the Alexandrian-Jewish spirit of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The proof which Delitzsch has recently sought to establish in his commentary—namely, that the most decided similarity as regards the choice of words and the construction of the sentences connects the Epistle to the Hebrews with the writings of Luke, nay, that even in characteristic points of doctrine a striking coincidence is to be observed between the respective writings—was therefore predestined to failure. The evidence for his assertion has been scattered by Delitzsch through his whole commentary; and it almost seems as though this, for the reader and critic highly inconvenient mode of proceeding, had been chosen under the unconscious feeling that the evidence was not in a position to admit of synoptical classification, without in such case at once being laid bare in all its weakness. For, so soon as we critically sift that which has been uncritically piled together by Delitzsch; so soon as we separate therefrom that which is not exclusively peculiar to Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews; so soon as we also put out of the account that which Luke has only taken up out of the sources employed by him, and cease to lay any weight upon isolated expressions and turns of discourse which were the common property either of the Greek language in general, or of the later Greek in particular, and are only accidentally present in Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews,—there is nothing whatever left of an actual INTRODUCTION. 7g affinity, such as must of necessity admit of being traced out between works of the same author. That, namely, on which Delitzsch founds his argument is the following :— The particle τε, i. 3, and frequently, is but rarely found in the N. T. save in the writings of Paul, and more especially of Luke. — The middle ποιεῖσθαι, i. 3, is a favourite one with Paul, and particularly so with Luke. It is here similarly used, as, eg.,in δεήσεις ποιεῖσθαι, Luke v. 33; Phil. i. 4; 1 Tim. ii. 1; κοπετὸν ποιεῖσθαι, Acts viii. 2; ἀναβολὴν μηδε- μίαν ποιεῖσθαι, Acts xxv. 17.— παρά, after the comparative, i. 4, is also not foreign to Luke (Luke iii. 13). — δέ, i. 13, in the third place, as Luke xv. 17; Acts xxvii. 14; Gal. iii. 23. --- προσέχειν τινί, il. 1, like προσέχειν τοῖς λαλουμένοις, Acts xvi. 14. ----τὰ ἀκουσθέντα, ii. 1, is the word of salva- tion, which in the Epistle to the Hebrews is nowhere called εὐαγγέλιον, as also Luke in his writings (with the exception of Acts xv. 7, xx. 24) loves to express the idea of εὐαγγέλιον by various forms of periphrasis. — suvevipaprtupety, il. 4, is formed after the manner of συνεπιτίθεσθαι, Acts xxiv. 9.— ποικίλαι δυνάμεις, ii. 4, has its analogon in Acts ii. 22 (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 9). — διαμαρτύρεσθαι, ii. 6, is specially frequent in Luke, eg. Acts xx. 23, xxii. 11.— The construction ἐν yap τῷ «.7.X., li. 8, corresponds entirely to that of Acts xi. 15. — ἀρχηγός, ii. 10, xii. 2, is the name which Jesus bears also in Acts 11. 15, v. 31.— καταργεῖν, 11. 14, a favourite word with Paul, is found besides in the N. T. only in Luke xiii. 7. — δήπου, ii. 16, occurs, it is true, only here in the N. T.; but yet 67, which also is rare in the N. T., occurs with the greatest comparative frequency in Luke ii. 7. The colouring of the expression is thoroughly Lucan. The ὅθεν, which is met with six times in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is foreign to the letters of Paul, but occurs Acts xxvi. 19. ὋὉμοιω- θῆναι is employed exactly as Acts xiv. 11 in the cry of the men of Lystra. ἹἸλάσκεσθαι has in Luke xviii. 13 its single parallel in the N. Τ Κατὰ πάντα is, Acts xvii. 22, certainly to no less extent Lucan than Pauline. Ta πρὸς θεόν occurs, indeed, elsewhere only v. 1 and Rom. xv. 17; but at Luke xiv. 32, xix. 42, Acts xxviii. 10 (comp. also Luke xiv. 28, Acts xxiii. 30, according to the textus receptus), τὰ 28 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. πρός is likewise found as a current form of expression. — δύνασθαι, ii. 18, here, as with few exceptions throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews, construed with the infinitive aorist, just as in Luke i. 20, 22, iii. 8, v. 12, and often. — πέπονθεν Tetpac Gets, ii. 18, has again its parallels in Luke ; inasmuch as, according to Acts xx. 19, sufferings, as such, are πειρασμοί; and according to Luke xxii. 28, the sufferings of the Lord in particular were 80. --- μέτοχοι, iii. 1, vi. 4, is found elsewhere in the N. T. only Luke v. 7.— κατανοεῖν, iii. 1, x. 24, is a favourite word with Luke, e.g. xii. 24, 27, and often ; comp. especially Acts xi. 6.— The γάρ, iii. 16, accen- tuating the question, is equally Lucan, Acts xix. 35, viii. 31, as Pauline, 1 Cor. xi. 22.— ἀλλ᾽ οὐ, iii. 16, is placed as in Luke xvii. 7 f.; comp. ἀλλὰ τί, Matt. xi. 7-9. — érrayyerla, in the signification of asswrance, promise, iv. 1, is of most frequent occurrence with Luke and Paul; and the combination with the bare infinitive, instead of τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν, which recurs xi, 15, is like that of Acts xiv. 5.— αὐαγγελέζεσθαι, iv. 2, used passively of the persons to whom glad tidings are pro- claimed, is common to the Epistle to the Hebrews with Luke vii. 22, xvi. 16.— καίτοι, iv. 3, is a particle, attested also Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 27, as well as καίτοιγε and katye.— ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, iv. 3, ix. 26, is not met with in the LXX., but is found in Luke xi. 50, and often elsewhere in the N. Τ᾿ — With ζῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, iv. 12, we may com- pare, in addition to 1 Pet. i. 23, also Acts vii. 38 (λόγια ζῶντα) ; and τομώτερος ὑπέρ, iv. 12, is construed as Luke xvi. 8. — ἐνθυμήσεις, iv. 12, occurs elsewhere only Acts xvii. 29; Matt. ix. 4, xil. 25.— κρατεῖν, iv. 14, vi. 18, with the geni- tive, as Luke viii. 54.— Of ἀσθένειαι, iv. 15, mention is made in Luke v.15 and other places; comp. Matt. viii. 17. ---περικεῖσθαί τι, v. 2, is found elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts xxvii. 20.—The construction ἐδόξασεν yevn- Ojvat, v. 5, is similar to that of Luke ii. 1; Acts xi. 25, xv. 10; ΟἹ. ἰν. 6. -- καθὼς καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ, ν. 6, is similar to the reading of Acts xiii. 35.— μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων, v. 7, reproduces the most salient features with which precisely Luke (xxii. 39-46) describes the agony of prayer in the garden, as these now force themselves upon the INTRODUCTION. 29 mind.—In the use of εὐλάβεια, v. 7, and εὐλαβεῖσθαι, the Epistle to the Hebrews coincides in a characteristic way with the usage of Luke (apart from Acts xxiii. 10).— ἀπό, y. 7, is employed exactly as in Luke xix. 3, xxiv. 41; Acts xii. 14, xx. 9, xxii. 11. — On αὔτιος, v. 9, we have to com- pare ἀρχηγός, ii. 10; Acts ili. 15, v. 31.— φέρεσθαι, vi. 1, expresses the idea of external impulse and forward pressing urgency, as Acts ii, 2. ---Ἣδ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, iv. 1, as ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου oY τοῦ θεοῦ = τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, most frequently in the writings of Luke, who hardly ever uses εὐαγγέλιον. —-The construction μετάνοια ἀπό, vi. 1, is Lucan, Acts viii. 22; moreover, πιστεύειν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν or τὸν κύριον, which is not entirely foreign to Paul’s writings, Rom. iv. 5, 24, is found with Luke, as well as πιστεύειν εἰς, at least more ordinarily than with any other N. T. writer, Acts ix. 42, xi. 17, xvi. 31, xxii. 19; and as to the thing intended, Acts xx. 21 is similar to Heb. vi. 1, inasmuch as in the former place τὴν εἰς θεὸν μετάνοιαν is employed with as little appa- rent significance, and as really deep significance, as in the latter place πίστεως ἐπὶ θεόν. ---- With reference to the delinea- tion of the sin against the Holy Ghost, chap. vi. and x., the Epistle to the Hebrews has its immediate parallel in Luke xii. 8--10. ---- ἐπί with a genitive, after a verb of motion, vi. 7, as Acts x. 11, and frequently. — εὔθετος, vi. 7, is in the N.-T. a word of Luke’s, xiv. 35, ix. 62.—-In vi. 9 also we hear the language of Luke. For as ἡ ἐχομένη, Luke xiii. 33, Acts xx. 15, xxi. 26, xiii. 44, denotes the day imme- diately following, so too ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, that which stands in immediate connection with the salvation, which has reference to the salvation. — The classic ἔχειν with a follow- ing infinitive, vi. 13, is Lucan, Luke vii. 42, xii. 4; Acts iv. 14, xxv. 26. Considering the Lucan form of the expression, it is doubly noteworthy that allusion is made precisely in Luke’s writings, as well Luke 1. 73 as Acts vii. 17, to the solemn confirmation of the promise by an oath, Gen. xxii. 16 (comp. xxiv. 7).— «al οὕτως, vi. 15, is used as Acts vil. 8, xxvii. 44, xxviii. 14, and also frequently with Paul.— The μέν solitarium, vi. 16, belongs to the number of the not rare ana- coluths, as well of Luke, eg. Acts i. 1, as of Paul, eg. Rom. 30 TEE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. xi, 13 f. — βουλή, vi. 17, of God’s gracious will, is an ex- pression current with Luke, vii. 30, Acts 11. 23, and frequently. With Paul, only Eph. 1. 11.— On πράγματα, vi. 18, we have to compare πράγματα, Luke i. 1.— καταφεύγειν, vi. 18, is found also Acts xiv. 6.— πατριάρχης is a Hellenistic word, and in the N. T. Lucan; it occurs elsewhere only Acts 11. 29, vii. 8, 9. — ἱερατεία, vii. 5, the epistle has in common with Luke 1. 9 (comp. 1. 8: ἱερατεύειν). ---- τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, KTX, vii. 5, is a Hebraistic mode of expression, as Acts 11. 30,— μαρτυρεῖσθαι, vii. ὃ, xi. 2, is a favourite expression as well in the Acts, vi. 3, x. 22, xvi. 2, xxii. 12, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is found, besides, only once with Paul and once with John. — ἀνέστασθαι, vii. 11, to be set up by God upon the theatre of history, as Acts iii, 22, vii. 37; and accord- ing to the ordinary interpretation, also Acts xiii. 32. — mpoce- xetv τινί, vii. 13, as 1 Tim. iv. 13, comp. Acts xx. 28. --- εἰς, vil. 14, as Acts 11. 25; Eph. v. 32.— «is τὸ παντελές, vu. 25, is found again in the N. T. only Luke xii. 11.— The ἀνάγκην ἔχειν conjoined with the infinitive, vii. 27, is Lucan, Luke xiv. 18, xxiii. 17; while Luke in the Gospel and Acts employs, instead of ἀναφέρειν in the sense of offer- ing, the expression προσφέρειν, likewise usual in our epistle. — ἀληθινός, viii. 2, the epistle has in common with Luke xvi. 11 and the three Johannine writings, and besides these only 1 Thess. i. 9.— λατρεύειν, vill. 5, is specially frequent in the writings of Luke.— The passive use of χρηματί- Sec Oat, viii. 5, is found also in Acts x. 22, Luke ii, 26, and twice in Matt.—To the passage of Scripture cited, vill. 5, Stephen refers in Acts vii. 44. This is again to be noted as a Lucan parallel. — ἄμεμπτος, viii. 7, passively, as Luke i. 6, and everywhere in the N. T.— The mode of expression, ζητεῖν τόπον, viii. 7 (comp. τόπον εὑρίσκειν, xii. 17), is similar to that of τόπον λαμβάνειν, Acts xxv. 16; τόπον διδόναι, Rom. xii. 19. — ἐπικεῖσθαι, ix. 10, with the subsidiary idea of pressing and burdening, as Acts xv. 10, 28.— With μέχρι καιροῦ διορθώσεως, ix. 10, we have to compare Acts xxiv. 8, where the text wavers between διορθωμάτων and καθορθωμάτων. --- παραγίγνεσθαι, ix. 11, is the usual word for historic self-presentation and presence, Luke xii. 51; Matt. INTRODUCTION. aL ui. 1; 1 Mace. iv. 46.— ov χειροποιήτου, ix. 11, 24, isa word of Luke’s in like connection, Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24, -— To τὸ ἴδιον αἷμα, ix. 12, xiii. 12, a parallel is presented in Acts xx. 28. —AvTpwors, ix. 12, is, along with ὠπολύτρωσις, a word of Luke’s, Luke 1. 68, ii. 38; comp. ἀπολύτρωσις, Luke xxi. 28 (in the usage of Paul the only word); λυτροῦσθαι, Luke xxiv. 21; λυτρωτής, Acts vii. 35.— dvd, ix. 14, of the inner principle, just as Acts 1, 2, xi. 28, xxi. 4. — The mode of expression, λωβεῖν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, ix. 15, xi. 13, in the sense of the taking to oneself the very blessing promised, the epistle has in common with Acts ii. 33.— As to ix. 15, the most apt N. T. linguistic parallel is Acts xiii. 38 ἢ, so also in expression and thought everything is Lucan. To be compared is Acts 111. 25; Luke xxii. 29 f. — On τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα, ix. 20, which, as seems probable, consciously or involuntarily refers to the words of the Supper, we have to observe that in these the ἐστίν is wanting only with Luke, xxii. 20; although they read similarly in Matt. and Mark. — σχεδόν, ix. 22, occurs only twice besides in the N. T., and precisely with Luke, Acts xii. 44, xix. 26. On each occasion it stands in immediate con- nection with πᾶς. --- ἄφεσις, sc. ἁμαρτιῶν, ix. 22, commonly met with in Luke’s writings. —To αἱματεκχυσία, ix. 22, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον, Luke xxii. 20 (comp. xi. 50), forms verbally and really the most natural parallel. — ἐμφανίζειν, ix. 24, xi. 14, is a word common to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and especially Luke, who employs it as well in the significa- tion “make known,” Acts xxiii. 22, as “present oneself, ap- pear,” Acts xxiv. 1 (= ἐμφανίζειν τινὶ ἑαυτόν = ἐμφαίνεσθαι). --- ἀποκεῖσθαι, ix. 27, is in the N. T. common to Luke xix. 20; with Paul, Col. i. 5; 2 Tim. iv. 8.—ék« δευτέρου, ix. 28, as Acts x. 15, xi. 9, and elsewhere. — The construc- tion of παύεσθαι with the participle, x. 2, for the rest the usual one, is the same as Acts v. 42, οὐκ ἐπαύοντο διδάσκοντες. — ἀναιρεῖν, x. 9, 15. a favourite word with Luke.— περιε- λεῖν, x. 11, as Acts xxvii. 20, περιηρεῖτο πᾶσα ἐλπίς. --- παροξυσμός, x. 24, 15 found elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts xy. 39, there in a good sense, and here in a bad sense. — τιμωρία, x. 29, is found only here in the N. T.; to be com- pared, however, is Acts xxii. 5, xxvi. 11. -- τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, 32 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. x. 34, with the genitive, as eg. Luke xi. 21 (with the dative, eg. Luke viii. 3). — προσδέχεσθαι, x. 34, of willing recep- tion, as e.g. Luke xv. 2. — ὕπαρξις,χ x. 54, is a word of Luke’s, Acts ii. 45.— εἶναι τινός, x. 39, with personal subject and genitive of the property, as Luke ix. 55 (Rec.); Acts ix. 2. — The infinitive with τοῦ, xi. 5, a not unclassic form of ex- pression, is in the N. T. specially peculiar to Luke. — ἐκ ζη- τεῖν, xi. 6, as Acts xv. 17; Rom. iii. 11.— The construction of ποῦ with the indicative, xi. 8,is as Acts xx. 18, x. 18, xv. 36, and frequently elsewhere. — παρῴκησεν, xi. 9, is equivalent to παροικεῖν ἦλθεν, of which the style of Luke presents not a few examples. Apart from the most similar passage, Luke xxiv. 18, παροικεῖς εἰς “Iepovoadnp, where this reading is too ill attested, we have to compare Acts vii. 4, εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς νῦν κατοικεῖτε; xii. 19, εἰς τὴν Καισάρειαν διέτρι- Bev; Luke xi. 7; Acts viii. 40, and xviii. 21, xix. 22, Ree. —THS ἐπαγγελίας τῆς αὐτῆς, xi. 9, is written instead of τῆς αὐτῆς ἐπαγγ., as elsewhere only Luke ii. 8. — Correspond- ing to the καὶ αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα, xi. 11, there is found also in Luke καὶ αὐτός in like position with proper names, Luke xx, 42, καὶ αὐτὸς Aavid; xxiv. 15, καὶ αὐτὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς ; comp. Acts vill. 13, Σίμων καὶ αὐτός. --- For the combination δύνα- pts εἰς, xi. 11, only Luke v. 17, δύναμις κυρίου ἣν εἰς τὸ ἰᾶσθαι αὐτούς. --- The 610 καί, xi. 12, xiii. 12, bringing cause and effect, means and end, reason and consequence into very close reciprocal relation, is equally Lucan (Luke i. 35; Acts x. 29, xiii, 35) as Pauline. — droOvyncKespv, xi. 21, to lie a-dying, as Luke viii. 42. — ἀστεῖον, xi. 23, comp. ἀστεῖον τῷ θεῷ, Acts vii. 20.— ἐπί, xi. 30, of the space of time, as Luke iv. 25; Acts xii. 31, xix. 10.— The mode of expression épyd- ζεσθαι δικαιοσύνην, xi. 33, recurs also Acts x. 35 (comp. Jas. i, 20), — The phrase στόμα μαχαίρας, xi. 34, is Lucan, Luke xxi. 24. — To the ἵνα κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχω- σιν, xi. 35, a parallel is presented by τυγχάνειν ἀναστάσεως, Luke xx. 35. — The heightening ἔτι δέ, xi. 36, is met with also Luke xiv. 26; Acts ii, 26.—dtc0repotvpevos, xi. 37, is used absolutely, as in Luke xv. 14; Phil. iv. 12, al.— We are reminded as well by παράκλησις as by διαλέγετα!:, xii. 5, of Luke in the Acts. There we meet with παρά- INTRODUCTION, da κλησίις of apostolic address, going to the heart, Acts xiii. 15, xy. 31 (comp. also 1 Tim. iv. 13); there also διαλέγεσθαι, in the inchoative sense: “ to open a conversation, to enter upon it,” is the constant word for the standing up of Paul among the Jews, Acts xvii. 2, 17, xviii. 4, and often besides. — On ἥτις διαλέγεται, xii. 5, we have to compare Luke xi. 49: ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ εἶπεν. --- μεταλαμβάνειν, xii. 10, is (be- sides 2 Tim. ii. 6) the word common to the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts for “to become possessed of,” δ. to come into the enjoyment or possession of a thing. — δὲ war- λον, xii. 13, as Luke x. 20 (Rec.).— The combination ῥίζα πικρίας, xii. 15, comp. χολὴ πικρίας, Acts vill. 23; and the verb ἐνοχλεῖν, Luke vi. 18 (according to A B 1, al.), comp. ὀχλεῖν, Acts v. 16; and παρενοχλεῖν, Acts xv. 19, is Lucan. — The aceus. cum infin. μὴ προστεθῆναι αὐτοῖς λόγον, xii. 19, governed by the παρῃτήσαντο, employed, as ver. 25, Acts xxv. 11,in the sense of “ begging off from, declining with entreaty” (pure Greek, with μή in the infinitive clause), resembles Luke xx. 27. --- ἔντρομος, xii. 21, is found else- where in the N. T. only Acts vii. 32, xvi. 29. ----ερουσαλήμ, xii. 22, is the form of the name with Luke, Paul, and in the Apocalypse. — ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς, xii, 23, has its parallel in Luke x. 20: τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐγράφη ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ; and the verb ἀπογράφεσθαι, in Luke ii. 1, 3, 5. — λέγων, xii. 26, the Hebrew “iN?, is employed as in Luke i. 63, and frequently in the N. T., specially with Luke. — The neuter plural of the subject, τὰ μὴ σαλευόμενα, xii. 27, is combined with the singular of the predicate μείνῃ, as Acts 1. 18, xxvi. 24; and the perfect is followed by the subjunctive (conjunctive) aorist, as eg. Acts ix. 17. — ἔχειν χάριν, xii. 28, to cherish and manifest gratitude, as Luke xvii. 9; 1 Tim. 1. 12; 2 Tim. i. 3.— The conception in the exhortation, xiii. 7, is out and out Lucan. For ἡγούμενον is the Lucan appellative of the leaders of the congregation, Acts xv. 22, comp. Luke xxii. 26, elsewhere only Heb. xiii. 17, 24. Paul says simi- larily, προϊστάμενοι, 1 Thess. v. 12. Then λαλεῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ is the ordinary Lucanic expression for the preaching of the gospel, Acts iv. 31, vill. 25, xii. 46, and often. The verb ἀναθεωρεῖν, of continued penetrating con- Mryrr.—Hexs. C 34 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. templation, occurs again, outside of the Epistle to the Hebrews, only Acts xvii. 23. And for ἔκβασις (1 Cor. x. 13), of the end of life, or as it is here designedly termed, of the walk, Iuke has at least the synonymous expressions ἔξοδος, Luke ix. 31, and ἄφιξις, Acts xx. 29.— ἀλυσιτελές, xiii. 17, does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., but λυσιτελεῖ is found Luke xvii. 2.— πειθόμεθα, xiii. 18, is Lucan, according to Acts xxvi. 26. — ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ, xiii. 21, is with Luke, much more than with Paul, a favourite expression, and to the pre- face to the wish (ver. 20) there is no more fitting parallel than Acts xx. 28, where the church of the Lord is, as here, designated as a flock which He has purchased by His own blood. — xiii. 22 is altogether Lucan: ἀνέχεσθαι, to give a patient, willing hearing, Acts xviii. 14, comp. 1 Cor. xi. 4; λόγος παρακλήσεως, Acts xiii, 15; ἐπειστέλλειν (like mittere), to write a letter, elsewhere only Acts xv. 20, xxi. 25. — The ἀπολύειν, not occurring with Paul, is employed in the style of Luke, as well of release from custody or prison (apart from Luke xxii. 68, xxiii. 16 ff, eg. Acts 111. 13, iv. 21), as of official delegation, Acts xiii. 3, xv. 30 (for which Paul has πέμπειν ; e.g. 2 Thess. iii. 2); solemn dismission, Acts xv. 33 ; and in general, dismissal, Acts xix. 41, xxiii. 22.— οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας, xiii. 24, denotes the Italiotes, according to the usage of Luke, Acts x. 23, 38, xii. 1, xvii. 13, xxi. 27. That which Delitzsch adduces besides (in the commentary, p. 705 f.) in favour of Luke as the penman of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in favour of a joint-participation of the Apostle Paul in the composition thereof, namely—(1) that the worldly calling of Luke as a physician (Col. iv. 14) is in striking keeping with the conformation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, inasmuch as this, so to speak, contains an anatomic (iv. 12f), a dietetic (v. 12-14), and a therapeutic passage (xii. 12 f.), and much besides which would seem appropriate to the pen of a physician; as, eg. the use of νωθρός, v. 11, vi. 12; βρώματα καὶ πόματα (as with Hippocrates, ed. Littré, i. 622, iv. 380), in connection with which it might perhaps be observed that ἐπιχειρεῖν, as employed Luke i. 1, is a favourite word of Hippocrates; (2) that it is hardly accidental that. the Epistle to the Hebrews, according to its earliest INTRODUCTION. ae . location, followed immediately upon the Epistle to Philemon, among the last words of which occurs the name of Luke; (3) that it is hardly accidental, that just where the author of the Acts begins to relate with “we ” (xvi. 10), the account of the association of Timothy with Paul has preceded; and, finally, (4) that it is hardly accidental that the Epistle to the Hebrews begins in a manner so strongly alliterating on the name ITATAOX,—all these are arguments which ought not to have been found at all, in a work which lays claim to a scientific character. Fully decisive against Luke is the consideration that he, according to Col. iv. 14 as compared with Col. iv. 11, was a Gentile-Christian,’ whereas, as is universally admitted, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews can only have been a born Jew. ‘That this counter-moment is not to be set aside by the shift of Delitzsch (in the dissertation, p. 274), to the effect that Luke, as is made manifest in his other writings, had “enough lived himself into that which was Jewish and Christian” to be able to compose the epistle “in accordance with the hints” of Paul, is self-evident. 11Ὸ J. N. Tiele (in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1858, H. 4, p. 753 ff.) has sought to prove from the many Hebraisms in the writings of Luke that he must have been a Jew by birth, that is altogether wide of the truth, since those Hebraisms in Luke are to be set down only to the account of the sources from which he draws. — Delitzsch also (in the commentary, p. 705) now holds that the deduction of Luke’s Gentile origin, made from Col. iv. 11, 14, is by no means certain (yet without advancing his reasons for this judgment); and Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 11. 2, 2 Aufl., Nordl. 1860, p. 99f., directly disputes the soundness thereof. But neither do passages like Acts xx. 6, xxvii. 9, point to a born Jew as the author of this work, as is supposed by Hofmann ; nor can, in Col. iv. 10, 11, the sense be found, with Hofmann, that while, on the one hand, Aristarchus had come to Rome with Paul and belonged to his well-known surroundings ; of the number of Jewish-Christians, on the other hand, beyond those of his own company, who were teaching the word of the gospel in Rome, only Marcus and Jesus united with him in harmonious working. For of such diversity of character in the relations of the three persons mentioned, towards each other and towards Paul, neither ὃ συναιχιμάλωτός μου, ver. 10,—which, as is evident from ver. 23 of the contemporaneous Epistle to Philemon, can only be understood figuratively,—nor any other expression affords a hint ; οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς᾽ ovros μόνοι x.7.A. (ver. 11) cannot therefore be referred back simply to Μάρκος and Ἰησοῦς, but must at the same time be referred to ’Apicrapyos, unless that which naturally belongs to one whole is to be unnaturally dislocated and rent asunder, The demonstrative force of Col. iv. 11, 14 continues accordingly to assert itself in undiminished vigour. 36 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. The claim of Clemens Romanus to the authorship has been favoured by some among the moderns. Erasmus was inclined to regard him as such; and, finally, Bisping, following the example of Reithmayr (Hinleit. in die kanon. BB. des N. T., Regensb. 1852, p. 681 ff), has decided in favour of Clement. In order, however, not to approach the declaration of the Council of Trent too nearly, Bisping assumes that Clement prepared the epistle independently as a sort of homily, only as far as xiii. 17, to which xiii. 18 ff. was then added as a brief supplement by the Apostle Paul, in order thereby to adopt the whole letter as his own. But—apart from the fact that xii. 18 ff. can proceed from no other author than that of the whole preceding letter, inasmuch as a change of the speaking subject is nowhere indicated, but, on the contrary, the opposite clearly presupposed in ver. 22—the sentences in the first, indisputably genuine, Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, which in point of contents and composition remind of the Epistle to the Hebrews (vid. swpra, p. 7 f.), have evidently only been taken over by him from this epistle, in consequence of a use and imitation thereof. For, as regards originality and grasp of mind, the Epistle of Clement is far inferior to the Epistle to the Hebrews. In other respects, the character of the respective writings is too greatly diverse for them to be able to proceed from one and the same author. Of the Alex- andrian speculative mind, and the oratorical flight of the Epistle to the Hebrews, not a trace is found in the Epistle of Clement. Of Silvanus have Bohme and Mynster (Aleine theol. Schriften, Copenhagen 1825, p. 91 ff, and Studien wu. Kriteken, 1829, H. 2) thought; and Riehm also (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. 11. p. 893) regards this supposition as possible. But Silvanus was, according to Acts xv. 22, originally a member of the Christian congregation at Jerusalem. He, too, must thus have had a more exact acquaintance with the temple of that day, than is displayed by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The opinion that Apollos was the author of this epistle was first broached by Luther. Comp. on Gen. xlviii. 20 (ed. Witeberg. 1561, t. vi. p. 710): autor epistolae ad Hebraeos, INTRODUCTION. ed. quisquis est, sive Paulus, sive, ut ego arbitror, Apollo, — Sermon von den Sekten, 1 Cor. ii. 4 ff. (with Walch, Th. xii. p. 1996): “This Apollo was a highly intelligent man; the Epistle Hebraeorum is of a truth his.” — Epist. am Christtag., Heb. i. 1 ff. (with Walch, Th. xii. p. 204): “ That is a stout, powerful, and lofty epistle, which soars high, and treats of the sublime article of faith in the Godhead of Christ; and it is a credible opinion that it is not St. Paul’s, for the reason that it maintains a more ornate discourse than is the wont of St. Paul in other places. Some think it is St. Luke’s, some St, Apollo’s, whom St. Luke extols as having been mighty in the Scriptures against the Jews, Acts xviii. 24. It is indeed true that no epistle wields the Scripture with such force as this; that it was an excellent apostolic man, be he whosoever he may.” Luther's conjecture has been accepted by Lucas Osiander, Clericus, Heumann (Schediasma de libris anonymis ac pseudonymis, Jenae 1711, 8, p. 38 sqq.), Lorenz Miiller (Dissertatt. de cloquentia Apollinis, virt apostolicit, Schleus. 1717), Semler (in his “ Contributions to a more accurate understanding of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” prefixed to Baumgarten’s commentary, p. 15 f.; yet he expresses himself with hesitation), Ziegler (Vollstdnd. Hinlett. in den Br. an die Hebr., Gotting. 1791, 8, p. 255 ff.), Dindorf (on Ernesti Lectt. p. 1180); and recently by Bleek, Tholuck, Credner, Reuss, Bunsen (Hippolytus und seine Zeit, Bd. I., Leipz. 1852, p. 365), Henry Alford (Greek Testament, vol. iv. P. 1, Lond. 1859, Prolegg. p. 58 ff), Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. 11. p. 894), which last, however, only claims the same degree of probability in favour of Apollos as of Silvanus; Biéumlein (Commentar wb. d. Ev. des Joh., Stuttg. 1863, p. 26), Samuel Davidson (Introduction, Ὁ. 255 ff.), J. H. Kurtz (der Br. an die Hebr. erkl., Mitau 1869, p. 55 f.), Hilgenteld (Aest.-krit. Hinl. in das N. T., Leipz. 1875, p. 556, 386 ff.), and others, even by the Catholics Feilmoser (Zinl. in’s N. 7. p. 359 ff) and Lutterbeck (Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe, Bd. IL, Mainz 1852, p. 101 ff). It is, moreover, the only correct 1 According to Lutterbeck, however, the Apostle Paul must have added the last nine verses, and Apollos, in communion with Luke, Clement, and others of the Pauline school, have issued the epistle. 38 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. one. The mental portrait which we are compelled to form to ourselves of Apollos, in harmony with the notices of the Acts (xviii. 24 ff) and the First Epistle to the Corinthians (chap. i—iv., xvi. 12), harmonizes exactly with the traits in which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has unconsciously depicted himself. This agreement is so striking and reaches so deeply, that as against it, seeing the lack of a definite tradition coming down from the apostolic age, the circumstance becomes of no moment, that among the conjectures of the aneients not one has lighted upon Apollos as the author of the epistle. Apollos was no immediate disciple of the Lord, but belonged to a second generation of Christians. By friends of Paul he was more deeply instructed in Christianity, and lived on terms of intimacy with Paul himself. He was, however, as a Christian teacher, too original and prominent for standing merely in the relation of an apostolic helper. He was a Jew by birth, and his labours as a Christian teacher were directed by preference to the conversion of his Jewish kinsmen; on which account the personal acquaintance of the author of the epistle with the Palestinian Jewish-Christians, presupposed Heb. xi. 19, can least of all surprise us in the case of Apollos, He was a native of Alexandria, versed in the Scriptures, and qualified for expounding and applying the same, and for deducing therefrom the proof that Jesus is the Messiah. Appropriate to him as an Alexandrian is the preponderantly typico-symbolic mode of teaching in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the endeavour to point out under the veil of the letter a deeper spiritual meaning. He was above all distin- guished by the gift of brilliant eloquence. In him, finally, as an Alexandrian Jew, the exclusive use of the LXX., as well as the want of acquaintance with the internal arrangement of the temple in Jerusalem at that time, need cause no surprise. That, if we are to fix upon a particular person as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, this can be no other than Apollos, because contents and form of the epistle are so admirably fitting to no other Christian teacher of the apostolic age as to this, is admitted also by W. Grimm (Zeitschr. 7. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 74 ff.). He finds, however, an instance of decisive counter-evidence against Apollos in the passage Heb. INTRODUCTION. 39 ii. 3 as compared with Acts xviii, 24-28. For, according to Heb. ii. 3, the message of salvation had come to the author of the epistle, equally with his readers, by the instrumentality of those who had heard the Lord Himself; whereas, according to the Acts, Apollos, as a disciple of John, had been only in the vestibule of Christianity, and had been first introduced into the sanctuary thereof by means of the Christians Aquila and Priscilla, who were converts of Paul’s. But apart from the fact that—as Grimm himself acknowledges—the narrative of Acts xvii. 24 ff. is so far obscure and not free from self- contradiction, as it represents Apollos, although he knew only the baptism of John, nevertheless as κατηχημένος τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ κυρίου, and an ἀκριβῶς διδάσκειν τὰ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ is attributed to him (ver. 25)—we must remember that at Heb. ii. ὃ recipients and author of the epistle are characterized only as belonging to a second generation of Christendom. Not that every single one of the persons mentioned ver. 3 had received the word of salvation at the mouth of immediate ear- witnesses, or were by these specially received into instruction; is expressed; but only that the message of salvation was handed down in a certain and trustworthy way from the original ear-witnesses to the totality of the Christian circle which is formed by the ἡμεῖς, and thus came to the knowledge of each single one of this totality. Even, therefore, if Apollos had not been directly brought into any intercourse with the ἀκούσαντες, yet the passages Acts xviii. 24 ff. and Heb. ii. 3 would not be irreconcilable the one with the other. But is it at all conceivable that such a leading Christian teacher as Apollos, who continued in such intimate association with the Apostle Paul, should come into no personal contact whatever with the original apostles? To the further objections brought by Grimm against the Apollos-theory, he himself attaches no decisive weight. They are the following :—(1) In connection with a former disciple of John, it must appear exceedingly strange that he makes no mention, i. 1, of the distinguished position occupied by John the Baptist, as the greatest prophet (Luke vii. 28, Matt. xi. 11) and forerunner of the Lord, towards the kingdom of God; (2) Clemens Romanus, although making frequent use of the epistle, could hardly have known it as a 40 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. work of Apollos, since it would otherwise have only been natural that he should, in the 47th chapter of his Epistle to the Corinthians, have reminded the Corinthian Christians of our epistle as a work of Apollos. But that Clement must necessarily have so acted cannot be maintained. For a reference to John the Baptist, however, Heb. i. 1 offered no occasion whatever; because it was with the author only a question of contrasting with each other the revelations of the Old Testa- ment and that of the New Testament as such. SEC. 2.—THE PERSONS ADDRESSED! That the epistle was designed for a Jewish-Christian circle of readers is not only universally acknowledged, but also becomes so palpably certain from contents and aim (comp. sec. 3), that Roeth’s supposition of the opposite (Zpistolam vulgo “ad Hebr.” inseriptam non ad Hebr., 1.6. Christianos genere Judaeos, sed ad Christianos genere gentiles et quidem ad Ephesios, datam esse, Francof. ad Moen. 1836, 8) can only be regarded as a manifest error. But likewise the view represented by Braun, Lightfoot (Harmony of the New Testament, I. p. 340), Baumgarten, Heinrichs, Stenglein (/.c. p. 61, note, p. 90), and Schwegler (Wachapostolisches Zeitalter, Bd. II. p. 504), that the epistle was addressed, without respect to any particular locality, to all Jewish-Christians in general, is one which is charac- terized a priort as absolutely untenable. For everywhere throughout the epistle are individual wants of the readers pre- supposed, such as were by no means common to all Jewish- Christians ; and even the personal references, v. 12, vi. 10-12, x. 32 ff, xii. 4, xiii. 7, 19, 23, 24, suffice to show that the author had before him a definite, locally-bounded circle of readers. How could the author, among other things, promise his readers a speedy visit (xiii. 23), if he had thought of them as the Jewish-Christians scattered in all lands ? The Jewish-Christians in all Asia Minor, or at least in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Bithynia, and Asia proconsularis, have been regarded as the original recipients of the epistle by 1 Comp. my Whitsuntide Programm: De,literarum, quae ad Hebraeos inscri- buntur, primis lectoribus, Gott. 1853, t INTRODUCTION. ; 41 Bengel, Ch. F. Schmid (Observatt. super ep. ad Hebr. p. 16 sq.), and Cramer; those in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, by W. Wall (Brief Critical Notes, etc., Lond. 1730, p. 318) and Wolf; the Laodiceans, by Stein (Komment. zu dem Ev. des Incas, Halle 1830, p. 289 ff); the Galatians, by Storr and Mynster (Kleige theol. Schriften, Copenhag. 1825, p. 91 ff.) ; the Lycaonians, by Credner (Kini. in d. N. 7., Th. 1, Abth: 2, Halle 1836, p%64) ; the Antiochians, by Bohme and Hofmann (Die ἢ. Schy. N. T., Th. 5, p. 531); the Cyprians, by Ullmann (Studien τι. Kritiken, 1828, Ὁ». 397); those in one of the nume- rous Greek ve on the coast of Asia Minor, or of Syria and Palestine, by Grimm (Theolog. Literat.-Bl. to the Darmstadt Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 660; but not decidedly) ; ' the Macedonians, specially those of Thessalonica, by Semler (in Baumgarten, p. 37 ff.) and Nosselt (Opusce. ad interpreta- tionem sacrarum scripturarum, Fase. I.,Halae 1785, p. 269 sqq.); those of Corinth, by Mich. Weber (De numero epistolarum ad Corinthios rectius constituendo, Wittenb. 1798-1806) and Mack (Theolog. Quartalschr. 1838, H. 3); those of an Italian congregation, perhapsy of the great city Ravenna, by Ewald (Gott. gel. Anzz. 1863, p. 286; cf. Gesch. Isr., Bd. VI. p. 638, Das Sendschreiben an. die Hebr., Gott. 1870, p. 6) ;, those of Rome, by Wetstgin (Nov. Test. II. p. 386 sq.), and recently by R. Kostln, (Theol. Jahrbb. of Baur and Zeller, 1850, H. 2, p. 242), who, hoyvever, afterwards withdrew this opinion (vid. infra); by Holzmann (Fheol. Stud. und Krit., 1859, H. 2, p. 297 ff., in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, VIII., and in Hilgenfeld’s Zectschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1867, H. 1, p.1 8), by Alford (Grech Test., vol. II. part 1, Lond. 1859, Prolegg. p. 62 ff.), by Kurta, p. 42 ff, by Renan {L’Antechrist, Paris 1873, p. xviii. ff, 211), by Mangold (in Bleek’s Hinlett. in das N. T., 3 Aufl, Berl. 1875, p- 612 f.), and by Harnack (Patr. Apostt. Opp. I. p. 1xxxii.) ; those of Spain, finally, by Nicolaus de Lyra (in the Prooemiwm to the epistle) and by Ludwig (in Carpzov’s Sacr. Exzercitt. vn St. P. ep. ad Hebr., Helmst. 1750, p. lix. sq.). All these opinions, however, which in part rest upon the erroneous supposition that the epistle is the work of the Apostle Paul, find their refutation at once in the fact that it cannot have been addressed to so-called mixed assemblies, —— 42 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. consisting of Jewish- and Gentile-Christians, but only to an exclusively Jewish-Christian circle of readers. Not even the slightest reference is made to conditions such as must of necessity arise from the living together of converted Jews with converted Gentiles, and which, by reason of the manifold conflicts to which they would give occasion, were of too great importance to be passed over unnoticed." Nowhere is the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews, and of both to the king- dom of God, spoken of; rather is everything specially referred to the Jewish people of God, already sanctified in their fathers. Unmixed Jewish-Christian congregations, however, cannot be historically proved, in the late time at which the date of the epistle falls (see sec. 4), in any of the fore-mentioned places. The fact, likewise, is opposed to those suppositions, that the readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews regarded the continued participation in the institutions of the Jewish temple-service and sacrifices as so- necessary, that without this they thought they could obtain no complete expiation of their sins. Such a form of Judaism, still continuing to operate in the Christian state, does not apply to the Jewish-Christians of the diaspora, but only to those who had their dwelling-place in the immediate vicinity of the Jewish temple. For in the case of Jews who lived at a greater distance from the temple, the zeal for the Mosaic law manifested itself naturally most of all in a tena- cious clinging to the rite of circumcision, to the injunctions regarding food and purification, to the observance of the Sabbath, and the like. A Jewish temple, however, besides that at Jerusalem, existed at the time of our epistle only in Egypt. The 1 For this reason it cannot be asserted, with Holtzmann (Stud. wu. Krit. 1859, H. 2, p. 298), that there is nothing at all contradictory in the supposition of the epistle being addressed to a large congregation, still outwardly composed of Gentile- and Jewish-Christians ; that there the epistle had naturally sought out its Jewish readers ; and on that account it leads us, without any address properly speaking, in mediam rem. That the epistle presupposes exclusively Jewish- Christian readers has been anew disputed by Wieseler (Schriften der Univers. zu Kiel aus d. J. 1861, p. 21 ff., Stud. u. Krit, 1867, p. 695 ff.), by Holzmann (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1867, p. 26f.), by Mangold (in Bleek’s Einl. in d. N. T. p. 612), and by Hilgenfeld (Hinl. ind. N. T. p. 380, 386), but in a by no means convincing manner. See the detailed and effective refuta- tion of this supposition in Grimm (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 34 ff). INTRODUCTION. 43 epistle can therefore only have been addressed either to the Christian congregation in Palestine, mainly in Jerusalem, or to Egyptian, specially Alexandrian, Jewish-Christians. The latter supposition has found defenders in J. E. Chr. Schmidt (Hist.-krit. Hinl. in’s N. T., Giessen 1804, p. 284, 293), Bunsen (Hippolytus und seine Zeit, Bd. 1, Leipz. 1852, p. 365), Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1858, H. 1, p. 103; Hist-krit. Hinl. in das N. T., Leipz. 1875, p. 385 ἢ), Volkmar (Gesch. des Neutest. Kanon, von C. A. Credner, Herausgg. v. G. V., Berl. 1860, p. 182), Ritschl (Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1866, H. 1, p. 90), and in particular Wieseler (Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters, Gott. 1848, p. 481 ff; Untersuchung ἀϊδο den Hebrierbricf, namentlich seinen Verfasser τ. 8. Leser. Second half. [Schriften der Universitit ew Kiel aus d. J. 1861, 4, B. VIIL; also separately printed, Kiel 1861, 8.] Comp. also Studien u. Kritiken, 1847, H. 4, p. 840 ff; 1867, H. 4, p. 665 ff.), and R. Kostlin (Theol. Jahrbb. of Baur and Zeller, 1854, H. 3, p. 388 ff.); Davidson, too (Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. I., Lond. 1868, p. 265 ff, 270), although he does not decide, gives it the preference. The prevailing opinion, on the other hand, is the first one. Within recent times it has been maintained by Bleek, Schott, de Wette, Thiersch, Stengel, Delitzsch, Tholuck, Ebrard,' Bisping, Bloomfield, Ritschl (Zntstehung der altkathol. Kirche, 2 Aufl, Bonn 1857, p. 159), Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebr.-Br. I. p. 31), Maier, Langen (Tiibing. theol. Quartalschr. 1863, H. 3, p. 379 ff), Moll, and others? And rightly so. In favour of Alexandria as the place of destination for the epistle, the following arguments have been advanced :— 1 Very arbitrarily, nevertheless, Ebrard represents the epistle as not being written to the whole congregation at Jerusalem, but only to ‘‘a private circle of neophytes” there. For it neither follows from v. 12 ‘‘that all the readers had embraced Christianity at one and the same time, the one with the other ;” nor from vi. 10 that we can think “only of a very narrow and limited circle of individuals in a community ;” nor, finally, from χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδώσκειν ὑμᾶς, v. 12, “that the readers were really again placed under instruction.” 2 W. Grimm also supposes now that the epistle was addressed to a town of Palestine ; only not Jerusalem, but Jamnia. Comp. Zeitschr. 7. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 71f. Nevertheless we know nothing of the existence of a Christian congregation in Jamnia, 44 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (1) Even in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews bore likewise the title of a letter to the Alexandrians, and in general there is seen to be a wavering within the early church itself in the indication of the original circle of readers. Whether, indeed, the superscription Πρὸς ‘ESpaious proceeds from the author himself, a view to which Bleek and Credner are inclined, is doubtful. But not only is this superscription very ancient, since it is found in the Peshito, and with Tertullian, Origen, and many others; but the fact, moreover, is universally presupposed in Christian antiquity as beyond doubt that the “Ε ββραῖοι, whose name the epistle bears at its head, were the Palestinian Christians. The evidence for this statement is afforded by Pantaenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and many others. It is now indeed supposed that we possess a testimony in favour of the Alexandrians as the original recipients of the epistle, namely, in the so-called Canon of Muratori, in which we read: Fertur etiam ad Laudecenses (Laodicenses), alia ad Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine finctae (fictae) ad haeresem Marcionis, et alia plura, quae in catholicam ecclesiam recepi (recipi) non potest (possunt). Fel enim cum melle misceri non congruit. For that by the words alia ad Alexandrinos the Epistle to the Hebrews is meant must be assumed, as is supposed, since otherwise the Epistle to the Hebrews would, remarkably enough, not be even mentioned in the fragment, which, forsooth, is a list both of the genuine and spurious epistles ascribed to the Apostle Paul. Now this epistle, it is argued, not being in the early Roman Church either regarded as a work of Paul, or indeed as canonical, must have been mentioned by name precisely in this passage, in which the writer is speaking of epistles of which the authorship is falsely imputed to the Apostle Paul. But against this it must be said that the characteristics of the epistle ad Alexandrinos, of which the fragment makes mention, are not suitable to the Epistle to the Hebrews. or the former was a forgery, composed “ Pauli nomine,” the meaning of which is too distinct for us to be able, with Wieseler, to subtilize it into the statement that the epistle had only indirectly, from its contents and general bearing, left the impression of its INTRODUCTION. 45 proceeding from Paul; which rather can only indicate that this epistle, in a prefixed address altogether wanting to the Epistle to the Hebrews, put forth the claim to be a work of Paul. Moreover, it was fabricated “ad haeresem Marcionis,” which can mean nothing else but that its contents were in agreement with the errors of Marcion, and were designed ‘to wage a propaganda for the same. With Marcionite errors, however, the Epistle to the Hebrews has confessedly nothing in common; but, on the contrary, “its fundamental doctrine of Mosaism as pointing forward to Christianity, as well as the idea of the incarnation of the Divine Logos, is in glaring contrast with Marcion’s Gnosis” (Grimm, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 55), as accordingly it obtained no reception into Marcion’s canon.’ That, finally, the fragmentist must necessarily have mentioned the Epistle to the Hebrews cannot be asserted, inasmuch as, considering the non-currency thereof within the early Roman Church, it was quite possible that he should not be at all acquainted with it. Comp. also Fr. H. Hesse, das Muratorv sche Fragment neu untersucht und erklart, Giessen 1875, p. 201 ff— But as it cannot be shown that the Epistle to the Hebrews passed in antiquity for an epistle to the Alexandrians, so in like manner it cannot be shown that this epistle was regarded by others in early times as an epistle to the Laodiceans. This last has been inferred from the words of Philastrius (Haeres. 89): Haeresis quorundam de epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos. Sunt alii quoque, qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostoli aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi. Ali autem Lucae evangelistae ajunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses conscriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea quaedam 1 This counter-moment Wieseler now, indeed, seeks to deprive of its force, by giving to the words in Muratori’s fragment another punctuation than that given above, as also formerly by himself, in supposing the comma after Marcionis is to be deleted, and one placed after fictae ; so that the sense shall be: ‘‘ There is also in circulation an epistle to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians, which have been fabricated under the name of Paul; with the sect of Marcion there are also several other things current, which, etc.” But what unnatural twisting and rending by such construction of that which is simply and naturally connected ; and how little can it serve to the recommendation thereof, that ad haeresem Marcionis must be taken in the sense of apud Marcionitas! 46 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. non bene sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia; etsi legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi tredecim epistolae ejus et ad MHebraeos interdum. But manifestly the words Alii autem, etc, are only a concise expression for the declaration that others looked upon the evangelist Luke as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and not only as the author of this, but also of the Epistle to the Laodiceans. The Epistle to the Laodiceans was not at all read in the service of the church; the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, was read indeed in the service of the church, not, however, as the thirteen Pauline Epistles, regularly, but only occasionally." Just as little, finally, is there any indication of a controversy with regard to the original recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when Chrysostom, in the Prooemiwm of his commentary, takes up the question: ποῦ δὲ οὖσιν ἐπέστελλεν ; and then answers this with ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ ἐν ἱΙεροσολύμοις καὶ Παλαιστίνῃ. For Chrysostom perceived that the superscription of the epistle was in and of itself an ambiguous one, inasmuch as it admitted the possibility of thinking of the Jewish-Christians 1 The opinion, still entertained by Wieseler, that the quia addiderunt in ea is to be referred to the Epistle to the Hebrews, is manifestly untenable in face of the contradiction in that case arising from the conflicting statements non legitur in ecclesia and in ecclesia legitur interdum. The new punctuation, more- over, by which Wieseler seeks to help his acceptation of the words of Philastrius out of the difficulty, is no happy one. According’to Wieseler, namely, we have to divide as follows: . . . Episcopi, alii autem Lucae evangelistae. Ajunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses conscriptam. Et quia, etc. Against this arrangement of the words argues—(1) That the proposition Ajunt . . . conscrip- tam would then stand forth quite abrupt and without any connection, whereas when we make the beginning of a new proposition with Alii autem, the gram- matical nexus of the sentence is an entirely simple and natural one ; (2) That if Philastrius had wished first to begin a new proposition with Ajunt, he would have appended the closing member of the previous sentence, not in the form : alii autem Lucae evangelistae, but in the form of expression corresponding to that which precedes: aut Lucae evangelistae; finally, (3) that the position assigned to etiam points to the fact that it serves specially to bring into relief ad Lacdicenses, and consequently opposes the Epistle to the Laodiceans to another epistle already mentioned. If Philastrius had only intended to say that the Epistle to the Hebrews too, so far as its destination is concerned, was considered as belonging to Laodicea, then etiam—inasmuch as it would in that case belong to the whole proposition—must have been placed immediately after Ajunt. INTRODUCTION. 47 in general as the recipients of the letter; he thought it needful, therefore, to state the limitation with which in his estimation the Πρὸς Ἑβραίους, of such wide signification, is to be understood. (2) The description of the Jewish sanctuary (ix. 1-5), as well as the acts of ritual performed in the same (vii. 27, x. 11), is supposed to point to the temple at Leontopolis in Egypt. But even if it could be proved that the temple arrangements at Leontopolis furnished the standard for that description, and that the original regulations of Moses were identified with these, yet only the conclusion would be warranted with respect to the author, that he must have been by birth an Egyptian Jew, but it could not be inferred with equal necessity that his readers also were to be sought in Egypt. Nevertheless, that assertion itself by no means admits of proof. For Josephus,—to whose testimony Wieseler appeals, —— where he is describing in general that ape at Leontopolis, designates the same as ὅμοιον (Antrg. xii. 9. 7), or as παραπλήσιον (Antig. xx. 10) τῷ ἐν “Ιεροσολύμοις, but then observes, Bell. Jud. vii. 10. 3, where he is relating somewhat more exactly, as follows: "Ovias τὸν μὲν ναὸν οὐχ ὅμοιον ὠκοδόμησε τῷ ἐν “Ἱεροσολύμοις ἀλλὰ πύργῳ παραπλήσιον, λίθων μεγάλων εἰς ἑξήκοντα πήχεις ἀνεστηκότα, τοῦ βωμοῦ δὲ τὴν κατασκευὴν πρὸς τὸν οἴκοι ἐξεμιμήσατο καὶ τοῖς ἀναθήμασιν ὁμοίως ἐκό- σμησε, χωρὶς τῆς περὶ τὴν λυχνίαν κατασκευῆς. Οὐ γὰρ ἐποίησε λυχνίαν αὐτὸν δὲ χαλκευσάμενος τὸν λύχνον χρυσοῦν ἐπιφαίνοντα σέλας χρυσῆς ἁλύσεως ἐξεκρέ- pacev, Josephus accordingly relates that the temple of Onias in Egypt was indeed as to its outward form different from the temple at Jerusalem, inasmuch as it stood upon a foundation or sub-structure’ of great stones rising sixty cubits high, and thereby acquired a tower-like appearance ; 1If Josephus had, as Wieseler supposes, ascribed to the ναός only a total height of sixty cubits, he would neither have characterized it as tower-like, nor have designated it as unlike the ναός in Jerusalem. For the latter also had, at any rate, a height of sixty cubits. It is true Wieseler finds actually expressed by ἀλλὰ πύργῳ παραπλήσιον not a dissimilarity, but a resemblance to the temple erected at Jerusalem by Zerubbabel; but he reaches this result only by un- warrantably translating ἀλλά as ‘‘ but yet,” and accordingly taking ἀλλὰ, «. ο 48 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. that, on the other hand, its inner arrangement, with the single exception of the golden candlestick, was constituted in the same manner as that of the temple at Jerusalem, for the altar of burnt-offering and the other sacred objects were similar in both. Now, how does it follow from these state- ments that the golden altar of incense in the Egyptian temple occupied the very site which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews assigns to it at ix. 4, in contradiction with the actual position thereof in the temple at Jerusalem, namely, in the Most Holy Place? Of such a difference—and surely just this point would have called for proof—Josephus says in truth not a single word, but, on the contrary, leaves the opposite impression. And then how could the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, if he had had the temple of Onias before him in his description of the sanctuary, have written ἐν ἡ ἡ λυχνία, ix. 2, when, according to the express state- ment of Josephus, there was not therein a lamp-stand resting on the ground, as in the temple at Jerusalem, but a chandelier suspended by a golden chain ?— In Philo, too, Wieseler has subsequently (comp. Studien αι. Kritiken, 1867, p. 673 ff.) fancied he could discover a support for his opinion. In de sacrificantibus, § 4 (ed. Mangey, 11. p. 253), and de animal. sacrific. ὃ 10 (ed. Mangey, 11. p. 247), it is thought that Philo expressly testifies that in the temple of Onias the altar of incense, aS well as the vessels mentioned Heb. ix. 4, 5, were present in the Most Holy Place. Yet how entirely unsuccessful this attempted proof of Wieseler’s is, has been already convincingly shown in detail by Grimm, Zeztschr. 7. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 60 ff.— But just as little do the notices, Heb. vii. 27, x. 11, lead to think of the temple of Onias. For even supposinge—what is far, however, from being the case—that it could be historically proved, with regard to the Egyptian temple, that the high priest entered into the Most ἀνεστηκότα asa kind of parenthetical insertion: ‘‘ Onias erected the temple not indeed equal to that one in Jerusalem, but yet tower-like, since it was built up of large stones sixty cubits high ; in the construction of the altar, however, he imitated that of his native land.” That ἀλλά, on account of the preceding οὐχ, can signify only but, on the contrary [sondern], and introduces the particular point of difference by which the before-mentioned dissimilarity is evidenced, ought not to have been called in question. INTRODUCTION, 49 Holy Place every day, yet such fact would not so much as accord with the presuppositions of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For, Heb. ix. 7, it is expressly said that the high priest went into the Most Holy Place only once in the year. Nor, as we need hardly remark, can this passage, in connection with ix. 4, vii. 27, x. 11, contain the sense which Wieseler would put into it, that the high priest entered indeed the Most Holy Place every day, but only once in the year with blood. For to εἰς μὲν τὴν πρώτην σκηνὴν διὰ παντὸς εἰσίασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς only the words εἰς δὲ τὴν δευτέραν ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς form the opposition, and not until after the laying down of this opposition is the nearer modality for the final member added, namely, that the high priest, in the (special) case of his entering the Most Holy Place, enters it not without blood. The fact, however, in general, that the original recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews attached so high a value to the temple service and the sacrificial ritual, that even as Chris- tians they regarded continual participation in the same as necessary for the attaining of salvation, is one which points not to Alexandrians, but only to Palestinians. For, quite apart from the consideration that we do not even know from other sources whether the Christian congregation of Alexandria was an unmixed Jewish-Christian one, nay, whether an organized Christian congregation existed there at all so early as the time of our letter, the Alexandrian Jews had been so greatly affected by Grecian culture and philosophy, that their whole bent of mind had become a spiritualistic one. Far from all narrow-minded cleaving to the letter of the Mosaic law, they sought by allegoric interpretation to discover and bring into recognition the deeper spiritual sense underlying the precepts and institutions of Judaism. In addition to this, the temple of Onias in Leontopolis was not able to boast even in Egypt itself of any high estimation. The Egyptian Jews were to a great extent displeased that it did not stand upon Moriah ; the Egyptian Samaritans, that it did not stand upon Gerizim (comp. Jost, Allg. Gesch. des Isracl. Volks, in 2 vols., Bd. I. p. 515 ff.). The yearly temple-gifts, too, were on that account for the most part sent not to Leontopolis, but to Jerusalem Meyerr.—HEs. D 50 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (comp. Frankel, Histor.-krit. Studien zu der Septuaginta, Bd. I. Abth. 1, Leipz. 1841, p. 186, note d); and pilgrimages of Alexandrian Jews to Jerusalem, to offer prayers and sacrifices in the temple there, did not cease so fong as this temple con- tinued to exist. Even Philo vouches for this. (Comp. Opp., ed. Mangey, t. 11. p. 646: καθ᾽ ὃν χρόνον εἰς τὸ πατρῷον ἱερὸν ἐστελλόμην εὐξόμενός τε καὶ θύσων.) (3) In favour of the supposition of Alexandrian readers is the fact further thought to plead, that the epistle is not com- posed in Aramaic; a Greek epistle to Palestinian Jews would at any rate, it is argued, be less probable than an Aramaic letter. But as it is absolutely certain, on the one hand, that the Palestinians understood not only Aramaic, but also Greek ; so, on the other hand, it is altogether doubtful whether the author, who by his whole epistle proclaims himself to be a non-Palestinian, was in an equal degree qualified for writing not only a Greek, but also an Aramaic epistle. (4) “The whole manner of conducting the argument and the spiritual exposition of the ideas employed,” is said to accord best with the supposition of Alexandrian readers. But that this mode of argumentation is thought of “at once as familiar to the readers,” cannot be maintained. There can thus be found therein only an indication as to the author, and not as to his readers. (5) That the author so exactly follows the Septuagint in his Old Testament citations, even in the case of striking devia- tions of the same from the original text, is said not to har- monize with the hypothesis of Palestinian readers, since with them the Septuagint was held in no estimation; but certainly with that of Alexandrians, for whom the Septuagint had long been the accepted book of the synagogues. But were that translation really in so little credit in Palestine, then neither would the Apostle Paul, educated as he was at Jerusalem, have made such frequent use of it, nor would the Palestinian Josephus have fallen back upon that oftener than upon the original text. Moreover, the fact that the Alexandrine recen- sion is to be traced in the text of the Septuagint used in the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp. Bleek, I. p. 372 ff.), and (Heb. ‘xi. 35 f.) reference is made to the second Book of Maccabees INTRODUCTION. ~ =" Dl (Kostlin, 2c. p. 402), ae. ἃ writing peculiar to Alexandrian Judaism, admits only of an inference pointing back to an Alexandrian author, but not to Alexandrian readers. (6) To the Alexandrians as original recipients of the epistle, is the circumstance, finally, supposed to point, that the first mention οἵ the epistle is met with in the Alexandrian fathers. These same Alexandrian fathers, nevertheless, con- fessedly agree in speaking of the epistle as addressed to the congregations in Palestine. ἱ As, however, no valid ground is to be adduced in favour of Alexandria as the place of destination for the epistle, so are the objections urged against the claim of Palestine very easily disposed of. They are the following :—(1) That the readers, according to Heb. x. 32 ff., xii. 4, had already endured perse- cutions, but not μεχρὶ αἵματος, which consistently with Acts viii. 1-3, xii. 1, 2, could not have been said of the Palestinian Christians; (2) That the readers, according to Heb. vi. 10, xiii. 16, had exercised liberality towards other Christians, and were still further enjoined to do so, whereas, according to Acts xi 30, Gal. ii 10, 1 Cor. xvi. 1—3, 2 Cor. viii. 9, Rom. xv. 25 ff., these very Palestinian Christians appear as poor and in need of assistance; (3) That according to Heb. 11. ὃ they had received their knowledge of the gospel only from a secondary source; (4) Finally, that (xiii, 18, 19, 23) they are represented as standing in friendly relations as well towards the author, who was surely an adherent of Paul, as towards the Pauline disciple Timothy. That, nevertheless, these rela- tions were of a particularly close and intimate nature does not follow from the passages adduced ; a friendly footing, however, of a more general kind with Apollos, and, after the death of the Apostle Paul, also with Timothy, has nothing surprising about it. The other statements to which allusion is made all find their justification in the fact that, as is also clearly apparent from xiii. 7 and v. 12, the recipients of the letter already belonged to a second generation of Christians. Whilst the above-mentioned arguments are common to the majority of those who dispute the Palestineo-Jerusalemic destina- tion of the epistle, Késtlin has sought to confirm his position by the following additional counter-moments peculiar to himself :— δ THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (1) The author, as is shown by his entire dependence upon the Septuagint, was acquainted only with Greek. But it results from xiii. 19 that he himself belonged to the congrega- tion to which he is writing. If, therefore, the epistle were directed to Palestine, the author himself would have been a Palestinian Christian ; as such, however, hardly of so exclu- sively Hellenistic culture, but without doubt familiar with the vernacular of Palestine, and notably acquainted with the original text of the Old Testament. Reply: But that the author himself was a member of the congregation to which he is writing, does not at all follow from xii. 19. Comp. the exposition of the passage. (2) It cannot be assumed that in the Palestinian Christen- dom, or rather in the chief congregation thereof, that of Jeru- salem, in the first century, and notably in the years 60—70, there could have been found such great indifference as regards the knowledge of the central truths of the Christian faith, so great want of capacity for understanding the mysteries of the Christian doctrine, such culpable lukewarmness and weakness of faith, a discontent on account of Jewish reproaches and persecutions, which was altogether unworthy of their position, while they must long have been accustomed to these, and such a disloyal inclination to a relapse into Judaism, as the epistle presupposes in its recipients. But where, we ask, could there have been a Jewish-Christian congregation in connection with which the conditions described would have been more easily explicable, than precisely in Jerusalem, where the ancient ritual, with its seductive splendour and its charms for the sensuous nature, stood before the very eyes of the Christian converts, and the tenacious power of resistance on the part of the ancient Judaism most vigorously exerted itself? Comp. also Acts xxi. 20 ff. (3) If Jerusalem had been the place of destination for the epistle, the author (ii. 3) could not have omitted to remind the readers that the Lord Himself had walked, and taught, and wrought among them, had in their midst, nay, before their eyes, suffered the death of the cross, among them had found the first witnesses of His resurrection and ascension ; and the more so, since during the years 60—70 there must still have INTRODUCTION. 53 been a large number of the immediate disciples of Jesus present in Jerusalem. But, in reply, we cannot at all expect to see the personal life and labours of Jesus described 11. 3, because the connection does not lead thereto. For that which is essential in ii. 3 is not the relation to author and readers of the epistle, but that about which the writer is concerned is only to oppose to the Old Testament λόγος, as something higher, the salvation of the Christians. The question thus, in connection with this opposition, is that of the Christians in general, or of the salvation which is the common possession of all Christians; while, then, only as a mere secondary con- sideration, which might have been wanting without prejudice to the connectedness of thought, the remark is yet further added, that the knowledge of this Christian blessedness has been transmitted in a sure and trustworthy manner to the present (second) generation of Christians, to which alike author and readers of the epistle belong. An occasion for speaking more fully of the erewhile personal activity of Jesus among the readers did not accordingly at all present itself; and a reason for urging the declaration 11. 3 against the supposition of Palestinenses as recipients of the epistle is the less to be thought of, inasmuch as the fact that the Lord had once Him- self proclaimed the salvation to the ancestors of the present church members is not excluded by the words. But that a great number of the original disciples must have been still living in Jerusalem during the years 60—70 is a gratuitous assertion, to which may be opposed the consideration that surely Luke too, in the prologue of his Gospel—ie. of a writing, the composition of which at any rate falls within the decade of the seventies, which thus is only a few years later in date than our epistle—without hesitation reckons himself and his contemporaries as belonging to a second generation of Christians. Even supposing, however, that immediate disciples of Jesus were still to be found in Jerusalem, yet these could number towards the close of the sixties, to which time the origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to be assigned (comp. sec. 4), only a few solitary individuals; a possible exception here and there would have been no hindrance in the way of characterizing the members of the congregation of that day as 54 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. belonging to a second generation of Christians, just because only the character of the congregation in general, or as it presented itself in the main and on the whole, was being taken into account. (4) The author presupposes, in various passages, what does not apply to the case of the primitive congregation, that his readers have been for only a comparatively short time members of the Christian church. But from iii, 14, vi. 11, x. 32, vi. 1-5, x. 29, this conclusion does not follow; on the other hand, the opposite is to be inferred from v. 12. (5) The Jerusalemic Christians, he asserts, consisted partly of members who became believers immediately after the resurrection,—some of them, perhaps, even earlier—partly of such as only later acceded to this primitive stock. They composed a congregation which was only gradually formed, and, particularly so long as James was alive, received constant augmentation from the adherents of Judaism; the community of the ‘E@paio. had not arisen in this gradual manner during a long succession of years; but the conversion of all its mem- bers, or at least of by far the greater number, had taken place at one and the same time; it must have been formed by the simultaneous passing over of a considerable number of Jews to the Christian church, and have maintained itself up to the time of our epistle with much the same total of members as it at first counted. But for a conclusion of this kind the words ἐν ais φωτισθέντες πολλὴν ἄθλησιν ὑπεμείνατε παθη- μάτων, xX. 32, afford no warrant. For only the fact is there brought into prominence, that the conflict of suffering, which the readers formerly endured, fell at a period of their life in which they were already Christians. On the peculiar cir- cumstances (modality) of their conversion the words contain nothing. (6) From the carefully-chosen designation τοῖς ἁγίοις, it is evident that the “E8pato: are here presupposed to be a non- Palestinian community, who have aided the Palestinenses with their support. Any other congregation (!) than the primitive one could not have been thus simply designated as ot ἅγιοι, whereas the employment of this name with regard to that congregation is very frequent (1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. INTRODUCTION, 55 viii. 4, ix. 1; Rom. xv. 25,31). A usage to be accounted for by the fact that, as distinguished from all the other ἐκκλησίαι, the Palestinian, and specially the Jerusalemic Christians, were the ἅγιοι κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, who before all others, chosen and separated from the world by Christ and His apostles them- selves, became the first recipients of the divine word and of the Holy Spirit, were the first witnesses and intermediate channels of Christian truth for all other Christian communi- ties, and were also, as such, acknowledged (specially Rom. xv. 27), until, owing to the destruction of Jerusalem and the rending progress of Gentile Christianity, this relation of dependence and filial affection was gradually dissolved of itselfi—In order, however, to show the mistake in such reason- ing, it suffices to point to the use of οὗ ἅγιοι in passages like Me arevin.-2.,xv1. 15: Rome-xit, 13, xvi.2; 1 Tim: 10; to the addresses of the Pauline epistles; to the addition τῶν ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, considered necessary in connection with τῶν ἁγίων, Rom. xv. 26; and many similar instances. (1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, on the other hand, there was no need of such addition,—against Kurtz,—because the collection which is the subject treated of in those passages was a business already known to the Corinthians, and before earnestly enjoined. upon them; while, Rom. xv. 25, it was already apparent from νυνὶ δὲ πορεύομαι εἰς ἱἹΙερουσαλήμ, and, Rom. xv. 31, from ἡ εἰς “Ιερουσαλήμ, of what ἅγιοι the apostle was speaking.) Yea, K6stlin has even overlooked the consideration, that by means of this argument, if it were well-grounded, he would most effectually refute himself! For what further proof, that the readers of the letter are to be sought in Jerusalem, would it then need than the utterance of our epistle itself, xii. 24: ἀσπάσασθε πάντας τοὺς ἡγουμένους ὑμῶν καὶ πάντας TOUS ἁγίους 1 (7) That the Jerusalemic congregation remained, as is clear from Acts 11. 46, 111, 1 (comp. xxi. 20), from the first in connec- tion with the temple ritual. By the recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, all religious connection with Judaism was originally relinquished, and only now had they become involved in peril, as well through the influence of teachings which would urge the necessity of holding firmly 56 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. to the Mosaic law (xiii. 9 ff.), as also, as it seems, through the influence of enticing offers (comp. xii. 16 f.), partly also by harassing manifestations of ill-will on the part of their former Jewish fellow-believers, of being seduced into a return to the Jewish religious constitution. But the actual state of matters is by this assertion inverted into its exact opposite. For that the recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews not only still continued to occupy themselves with the Jewish temple-service and sacrificial ritual, but even regarded participation therein as a necessary requirement for the complete expiation of sins, certainly underlies the whole argumentation of the epistle as an everywhere-recurring presupposition. SEC. 3.—OCCASION, OBJECT. AND CONTENTS. The Epistle to the Hebrews was occasioned by the danger to which the Christians in Palestine, particularly in Jerusalem, were exposed, of renouncing again their faith in Christ, and wholly falling back again into Judaism (comp. specially vi. 4—6, x. 26 ff). This danger had become a very pressing one, inasmuch as many had already as a matter of fact ceased to frequent the Christian assemblies (x. 25). The epistle accord- ingly aims, by the unfolding on every side of the sublimity of the Christian revelation as the perfect and archetypal, above that of the Old Testament as the merely preparatory and typical, as well as by setting forth the terrible consequences of an apostasy, to warn against such falling away, and_ to animate to a faithful perseverance in the Christian course. — Differently, but quite incorrectly, does Thiersch (De epistola ad Hebr.,Marb.1848, p.2 sqq.; Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter, Frankf. and Erlang. 1852, p. 188 ff.) define the object of the epistle, to the effect that it was to be a consolatory letter to the Christians of Jerusalem, on account of the exclusion from the Jewish temple with which they had been visited on the part of their unconverted compatriots at the outbreak of the Jewish war. Nothing in the epistle points to any such state of the matter; but, on the contrary, even the one passage, Heb. xill. 13, serves to place in a clear light the erroneousness of this conjecture. For, instead of mentioning a state of exclusion, INTRODUCTION. 57 and bestowing a word of consolation upon the occasion of an event like that, the author here assuredly summons to a coming forth out of Judaism as a voluntary act, and thus, as in his other reasoning, presupposes that the readers were still in the midst of Judaism, and adhered thereto with narrow-minded and unchristian stubbornness. \ tn / > , - ΄ \ TAT@ τὴν ἀρετὴν υἱῷ, πρός TE ἀμνηστίαν ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ χορηγίαν ἀφθονωτάτων ἀγαθῶν. ---- Quis rer. div. παον. 42, Ῥ. 509 Β (with Mangey, I. p. 501): ‘O δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἱκέτης μέν ἐστι τοῦ θνητοῦ, κηραΐνοντος ἀεί, πρὸς TO ἄφθαρτον. Vv. 20--28. Fourth point of superiority of the priesthood of Christ over the Levitical priesthood, in the form of an establish- ing of ver. 25, The Levitical priests are sinful men, who need Dek THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. daily to offer for their own sins and the sins of the people; Christ is the sinless Son of God, who once for all has offered up Himself as a sacrifice. Ver. 26. Proof for the actual existence of a high priest who is able in a perfect manner to procure salvation, since He ever liveth to represent in the presence of God those who believe in Him (ver. 25), derived from the meetness and adaptedness to our need of just such a high priest: for such a high priest (as had just been described, ver. 25) also beseemed us. Tovod- τος begins no parenthesis, so that ὥσιος «.7.A. were only “the continuation of a series begun with πάντοτε ζῶν eis To ἐντυγ- χάνειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν" (Hofmann), nor is “ οἷος ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς to be supplemented from ver. 22” (Woerner), nor does it serve for the introducing or preparing the way for the following predi- cates, ὅσιος «.7.X. (Grotius, Tholuck, a/.), but refers back to the characterization, ver. 25; while, then, with ὅσιος «.7.d. a newly beginning further description of this so constituted high priest, or a further unfolding of the τοιοῦτος, follows, in such wise that the ὅσεος «.7.X, thus attached is best rendered by: He, since He is holy, ete., beseemed us. — καί] also, 1.6. exactly. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 408.— ὅσιος] holy or pure. In regard to the relation towards God. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 10 ; Eph. iv. 24; 1 Tim. ii. 8; Tit. i. 8. With the LXX. for the most part translation of TDM, eg. Ps. iv. 4 (3), xvi. 10 (Acts 11. 27, xiii. 35), xxx. 5 (4). ----- ἄκακος) free from κακία, from craft and malice. In regard to the relation towards men. Chrysostom: [άκακος τί ἐστιν ; ᾿Απόνηρος, οὐχ ὕπουλος" καὶ ὅτι τοιοῦτος, ἄκουε τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος" Οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ (Isa. 1111. 9). --- ἀμίαντος] unstained by any kind of impurity. In regard to the relation towards Him- self. Comp. Jas. 1. 27; 1 Pet. 1. 4. — κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν] separated from the sinners, 1.0. not: different from them by reason of His sinlessness (so the Peshito, separatus a peccatis ; Vatablus, Calvin, Cameron, Carpzov, Owen, Bohme, KXuinoel, Stuart, Klee, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Kurtz, and others), but—as is evident from the member immediately following— withdrawn by His exaltation to heaven from all contact with the sinners, so that He cannot be defiled by them. As the Levitical priests in general, so must very specially the high CHAP. VII. 27. 285 priest preserve himself free from defilement (Lev. xxi. 10 ff.) ; before the great day of atonement he must, according to the Talmud, spend seven days in the temple, apart from his family, in order to be secured against defilement. See Tract. Joma, i. 1. Comp. also Schottgen, Horae Hebraicae, p. 963 ἢ — καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος] and (not “also” or “even,” as Hofmann contends) raised above the heavens, inasmuch, namely, as He διελήλυθε τοὺς οὐρανούς, iv. 14. Comp. Eph. iv. 10: ὁ ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν. Ver. 27. In the πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν, ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ there is an apparent allusion to the sacrifice of the high priest on the great day of atonement (Lev. xvi.), comp. ix. 7. We are prevented, however, from referring the words to this alone (perhaps to the including of the sin- offering prescribed, Lev. iv. 3 ff.) by καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, instead of which, as at ix. 25, x. 1, 3, κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν must have been placed. For καθ᾽ ἡμέραν can signify nothing else than “daily” or “day by day.” To foist upon it the signification : “ yearly on a definite day” (“καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ὡρισμένην or τεταγ- pevnv”), with Schlichting (secundum diem, nempe statam ac definitam, in anniversario illo videlicet sacrificio), Piscator, Starck, Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, M‘Lean, Storr, and others; or to take it in the attenuated sense, as equivalent to “ saepissime, quoties res fert” (Grotius, Owen), or “πολλάκις " (Bohme, Stein), or “ διὰ παντός " (de Wette), or in the sense of “one day after another” (Ebrard, who supposes the author is over- locking a succession of centuries, and so a succession of days present themselves to his eye, in which the high priest again and again offers a sacrifice !),is linguistically unwarranted. In like manner it isa mere subterfuge and arbitrary misinterpreting of the words, when Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 438), and Alford, concurring in the suggestion of Hofmann (Schriftbew. 11. 1, p. 404 ἢ, 2 Aufl.), seek to put into them the sense: that Christ needeth not to do daily that which the high priests do once every year, but which He—if He is to be a constant mediator of an all-embracing expiation of sin— must needs do day by day. For all that is expressed is the fact that Christ needs not to do daily that which the Levitical 286 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. high priests need to do daily." Nor does it avail anything that Kurtz will take καθ᾽ ἡμέραν in conjunction only with οὐκ ἔχει ἀνάγκην, since these words do not occupy an independent position alone, and only acquire their more precise definition by that which follows. For that καθ᾽ ἡμέραν has “nothing whatever to do with the θυσίας ἀναφέρειν," is a mere asser- tion on the part of Kurtz; and his contention, that only the “daily renewal and daily pressing necessity,” of the O. T. high priest on account of his daily sinning, the necessity, “ ere (on the great day of propitiation) he could offer for the sin of the whole people, of first presenting a sacrifice for his own sins,’ was to be brought into relief, is a violent perversion of the words,—admitting as they do of no misapprehension,— from which even the πρότερον, ἔπειτα, expressive of a relation of parity, ought to have kept him; in place of which, in order to bring out the subsidiary character of the one half of the statement, πρὸ τοῦ with the infinitive, or πρίν (πρὶν 7), must have been written. We have therefore to conclude, with Gerhard, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Wolf, Carpzov, Bleek, and Tholuck, that the author had present to his mind, besides the principal sacrifice on the great day of atonement, at the same time the ordinary daily sacrifice of the Levitical priests (Ex. xxix. 38-42; Num. xxviii. 3-8), and by reason of an inexact mode of expression blended the two together ; to which he might the more easily be led, in that, according to Josephus, the high priest—not indeed always, but yet on the Sabbaths, | new moons, and other festivals (according to the Mishna tr. Tamith, vii. 3: in general as often as he was so minded)— went up with the other priests into the temple, and took part in the sacrificial service. Comp. Josephus, de Bello Judaico, v. 5. 7: Ὃ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀνήει μὲν σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀεί, ταῖς δ᾽ ἑβδομάσι καὶ νουμηνίαις, καὶ εἴ τις ἑορτὴ πάτριος ἢ πανήγυρις πάνδημος ἀγομένη δι’ ἔτους. To be compared also are the words of Philo, who, Quis rer. divin. hacer. p. 505 A (with Mangey, I. p. 497), remarks that in the daily sacrifice the priests offered the oblation for themselves, but the lambs for ' The unsatisfactory character of the above exposition was afterwards acknow- ledged by Delitzsch himself, and the explanation retracted by him (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. die gesammte luther. Theol, u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 595). CHAP. VII. 27. 287 the people (ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἐνδελεχεῖς θυσίας ὁρᾷς εἰς ἴσα διῃρημένας, ἥν τε ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἀνάγουσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς διὰ τῆς σεμιυ- δώλεως καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν δυοῖν ἀμνῶν, ods ἀνα- φέρειν διείρηται), and de Speciall. Legg. p. 797 E (with Mangey, IL. p. 321), equally as our passage, ascribes to the high priest the offering of a daily sacrifice (οὕτω τοῦ σύμπαντος ἔθνους συγγενὴς καὶ ἀγχιστεὺς κοινὸς ὁ ἀρχιερεύς ἐστι, πρυτανεύων μὲν Ta δίκαια τοῖς ἀμφισβητοῦσι κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, εὐχὰς δὲ καὶ θυσίας τελῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν). Recently also Delitzsch (Talmudische Studien, XIIL, in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschr. fiir die luther. Theol. u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 593 f.) has further drawn attention to the fact that like- wise, Jer. Chayiga, ii. 4, and Bab. Pesachim, 57a, it is said of the high priest that he offers daily. —todro] namely, τὸ ὑπὲρ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἁμαρτιῶν θυσίαν ἀναφέρειν. So rightly—as is even demanded by ver. 28 (comp. iv. 15)—Chrysostom, Oecu- menius, Theophylact, Clarius, Estius, Piscator, Clericus, Seb. Schmidt, Owen, Peirce, Carpzov, Whitby, Storr, Heinrichs, Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. Ὁ. 463), Alford, Kurtz, and others. Less suitably do Beza, Jac. Cap- pellus, Limborch, Bengel, and Ebrard supplement τὸ θυσίας ἀναφέρειν ; while, altogether wrongly, Schlichting, . Grotius, Hammond, and Hofmann (Schriftbew. 11. 1, 2 Aufl. pp. 405, 401 f.) refer back τοῦτο to the whole proposition πρότερον ... λαοῦ. For in the application to Christ, to explain the ὥμαρ- tiat as the “dolores, qui solent peccatorum poenae esse, et quas Christus occasione etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit, et a quibus liberatus est per mortem” (Grotius), or as “Christi infirmitates et perpessiones” (Schlichting, Hof- mann, according to which latter in connection with ἑαυτὸν aveveykas, besides Christ’s suffering of death, His prayer in Gethsemane (!) is at the same time to be thought of), becomes possible only on the arbitrary supposition of a double sense to the preceding words, and is equally much opposed to the con- text (ver. 28) as to the linguistic use of ἁμαρτίαι. ---- ἐφάπαξ] once for all; comp. ix. 12, x. 10; Rom. vi. 10. Belongs to ἐποίησεν, not to ἀνενέγκας. ---- ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας} in that He offered Himself, Christ is thus not only the High Priest of the 288 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. New Covenant, but also the victim offered. Comp. viii. 3, ixsel Qbear, x. 10-12-44 ΠΡ ν ὦ: Ver. 28. Establishment of τοῦτο ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ, ver. 27, by the definite formulating of the statement of the fourth point of superiority of the New Testament High Priest over the high priests of the Old Covenant,—a statement for which the way has been prepared by vv. 26, 27. The law constitutes high priests men who are subject to weakness, and thus also to sin (comp. v. 2, 3),on which account they have to offer, as for the people, so also for themselves, and have ofttimes to repeat this sacrifice; the word of the oath, on the other hand (comp. ver. 21), which ensued after the law,—namely, only in the time of David,—and consequently annulled the law, ordains as high priest the Son (see on i. 1), who is for ever perfected, z.e, without sin (iv. 15), and by His exaltation with- drawn from all human ἀσθένεια, however greatly He had part therein during His life on earth; wherefore He needed not for Himself to present an expiatory sacrifice, but only for the people, and, inasmuch as this fully accomplished its end, He needed not to repeat the same. — Entirely misapprehending the reasoning of the author, Ebrard supposes that even the first half of the proposition, ver. 28, is likewise to be referred to Jesus. The author, he tells us, presupposes as well known, that Christ has been as well ἄνθρωπος ἀσθένειαν ἔχων (accord- ing to chap. v.) as υἱὸς τετελειωμένος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (according to chap. vil.), and is here recapitulating (!) the two. Thus, then, ὁ νόμος yap .. . ἀσθένειαν contains a concession (!) having reference to chap. v., and the thought is: “ the law (in so far as it has not (!) been annulled) demands of all high priests (consequently (!) also of Jesus) that they be didpatate ἔχοντες ἀσθένειαν ; the sworn word of promise, however (given after the law), proceeding far beyond and above the same, constitutes as high priest the Son for ever perfected” (ἢ, A misinter- preting of the meaning, against which even the opposition of ὁ νόμος... ὁ δ ὅν» δέ; as a manifest parallel to οἱ μὲν... ὁ dé, ver. 20 f., ver. 23 f., ought to have kept him. — τῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον] The author did not write ὁ μετὰ τὸν νόμον, according to which the Vulgate and Luther translate, because he wished to accentuate ὁρκωμοσία as the principal notion. CHAP, VIII. 289 CHAPTER: VILLI. VER. 1. ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις] B: ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις. Explanatory closs. — Ver. 2. Recepta: καὶ οὐκ ἄνθρωπος. But καί 15 want- ing in B D* ἘΠ 8,17, It. Arabb. Euseb. Already rejected by Mill. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford. — Ver. 4. Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, have εἰ μὲν yap. Detended also by Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 504, Obs.), and Reiche. But γάρ cannot be referred back to ver. 3, and upon the referring of it back to ver. 2 the addition, ver. 3, would become aimless and inexplicable. More in keep- ing logically, and better attested (by A B D* 8, 17, 73, 80, 137, Vulg. It. Copt., αἰ.), is the reading: εἰ μὲν οὖν, already com- mended to attention by Griesbach, and adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, which is accordingly to be pre- terred. — Instead of the Leceptu τῶν ἱερέων τῶν προσφερόντων (approved by Bloomfield, who, however, encloses the first τῶν within brackets, and Reiche), Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have rightly adopted merely στῶν προσφερόντων. Preferred also by Delitzsch. στῶν ἱερέων, to the rejection of which already Grotius, Mill, and Griesbach were inclined, is an elucidatory gloss. It is condemned by the decisive authority of A B D* E* s, 17, 67** 73, 137, αἱ., Vulg. It. Copt. Aeth. Arm. — τόν] before νόμον in the Recepta (recently contended for by Bloom- field and Delitzsch) is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A B s* 17, 57, 80, al., Theodoret. The later addi- tion of the article is more easily to be explained than its omis- sion. — Ver. 5. Elz.: ποιήσης. But all the uncial mss., many cursives, Orig. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl. have πσοιήσεις, Which also is found in LXX. Ex. xxv. 40. Commended by Griesbach. Rightly adopted already in the edd. Erasm. 1, Ald. Stephan. 1, 2, and recently by Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch and Reiche. — Ver. 6. In place of the Recepta vuvi δέ, Lachm. reads, but without sufficient authority (Β D* Ath.): νῦν δέ, The more euphonious νυνὶ δέ is protected by A D** D*** ἘΞ ΚΤ, νὰ, min., and many Fathers.— Instead of the LRecepta τέτευχε (B D*** x*** min. Damase, [once] Theophyl. [cod.]), there Meyer. —HEs. £ 290 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. is found in the edd. Complut. Plantin. Genev. the peculiarly Attic form: τετύχηκε. This is supported by 47, 72, 73, 74, al., Athan. (thrice), Bas. Antioch. Chrys. Theodoret, Damase. Best attested is the form: τέτυχεν (by A Ὁ K L ἈΝ 0. ὙΠῸ ΠῚ al., Athan. Oecum. Theophylact), which is therefore rightly pre- ferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. — Ver. 8. αὐτοῖς} So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, after Β D*** E L x***, likewise, as it seems, almost all min. Chrys. Damase. al. — Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8 read αὐτούς. But the attestation of the latter (A D* K 8* 17, 39, al., Theodoret) is not at all decisive, and the accusative, seeing it requires the conjoining with μεμφ όμενος, opposed to the context ; see the exposition. — Ver. 10. ἡ διωθήκη)] Lachm.: 4 δ [wou], after A Ὁ E. μου is found, indeed, also with the LXX. in most Mss. (but not in the Cod. Alex.); yet, nevertheless, since it forms a tauto- logical addition, and does not correspond to the Hebrew original (ΠΥ ἼΞΠ Nt 53), it probably arose only by a mechanical repeti- tion from the preceding d:ad4xn wov.— Ver. 11. Recepta: τὸν πλησίον. But the weighty authority of all uncial mss. (B: τὸν πολίτην), Most cursives, as well as that of Syr. utr. Arabb. Copt. Arm. It. al., Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret, Damasc. Aug. requires the reading: τὸν eaten v, already presented by the edd. Com- plut. Stephan. 1, 2, al., and later approved by Bengel and Wetstein, as also adopted by Griesbach, Matthaei, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche, and others. — ἀπὸ μικροῦ] Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield : ἀπὸ μικροῦ αὐτῶν. But αὐτῶν is wanting in A Β D* E* (Ὁ Mee, 17, 31,.615) 79; 80). al;,, Copt: Arm. It. Vulg., with Cyr. Chrys. al. Already ‘suspected by Griesbach. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford. — Ver. 12. καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν] The con- cluding words: καὶ τῶν Benes αὐτῶν, have been taken for a closs by Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, and Alford (comp. already Beza and Grotius) ; ; and in accordance with Β s* 17, 23, Vulg. Copt. Basm. Syr. Arab. Erp. rejected. They are also declared suspected by Delitzsch. But in favour of their retention (Lachm. Bloomfield, Tisch. 7, Reiche) decides partly the pre- ponderating authority of A Ὁ E K Ls*** αἱ, partly the recur- rence of the same words on the repetition of the citation x. 17. The addition might easily be overlooked on account of the homoioteleuton. Vv. 1-13. Not merely, however, as regards His person is Christ highly exalted above the Levitical priests; the sanc- CHAP, VIM. 1, 2: 291 tuary, too, in which He fulfils the office of High Priest, is highly exalted above the Levitical sanctuary. For Christ sustains His high-priestly office in the heavenly tabernacle, erected by God Himself, of which as the archetype the earthly tabernacle, in which the Levitical priests fulfil their office, is a mere copy. So much the more excellent is the priestly ministry of Christ, in proportion as the Covenant of which He is the Mediator is a better covenant, because resting upon the foundation of better promises. The character of this promised New Covenant is a more inward, spiritual one; and by the promise of a New Covenant the Old is declared to be outworn and no longer serviceable. Vv. 1,2. Κεφάλαιον δέ] Now a main point is. Κεφάλαιον is not accusative absolute (Bengel), nor yet the ordinary accu- sative with a λέγω τοῦτο to be supplemented (Ebrard), but nominative, and apposition to the whole ensuing proposition : τοιοῦτον... . ἄνθρωπος, ver. 2. Comp. Rom. viii. ὃ. Just as κεφάλαιον δέ are also the kindred formulas: τὸ δὲ μέγιστον, τὸ δὲ δεινότατον, τὸ ἔσχατον, τὸ τελευταῖον, etc., very frequently prefixed to a whole clause by way of apposition. See Kiihner, II. p. 146, Obs. 2. The expression κεφάλαιον itself is here understood by many expositors in the sense of “swum ;” according to which the author would express the intention of immediately comprehending or recapitulating the substance of all his previous disquisition in a single statement. So Laurentius Valla (“in summam autem”), Erasmus, Clarius, Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, H. Stephanus, Grotius (“ post tot dicta haec esto summa ”’), Carpzov (“ut rem summatim et uno verbo complectar”), Stengel, Hofmann (Schriftbew. 11. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 405), Conybeare, M‘Caul, etc. This signification, however, although linguistically justified, is here inadmissible, since the author is passing over to something essentially new; a recapi- tulation of the previous argument accordingly does not take place at all. But neither is the anarthrous κεφάλαιον---- although in itself this is not inadmissible—to be taken as equivalent to τὸ κεφάλαιον, as is done by Theophylact (ἵνα εἴπω TO μέγιστον Kal συνεκτικώτερον), Bleek (“the essential thing, to which all else is subordinated”), Ebrard (“ the key- stone ”), Bisping (“ the core of all”), Stuart, Delitzsch, Riehm, 292 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. pp. 464, 481; Alford, Maier, Ewald, and others. For, besides the further main point in the supe- riority of the N. T. High Priest over the Levitical high priests, here to be mentioned (namely, His ministering in a better sanctuary), the author has yet before his mind the elucidation of a third leading distinction (that of the better sacrifice pre- sented by Christ). Comp. ix. 9 ff.— ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις] cannot be referred back specially, as is assumed by Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Hammond, Carpzov, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, Ebrard, Ewald, and many others, to that which has already been said. For therewith the participle present λεγομένοις does not agree ; εἰρημένοις must have been put instead of it. Nor, accordingly, can the sense be: “in addition to that already treated of” (Calov, Wolf, Rambach, Peirce, Storr, Ebrard, a/.). On the contrary, ἐπί must be taken in the signification : “ upon the supposition of,’ “in the case of,’ as ix. 17 and frequently, and ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις has essentially the same meaning as the genitive τῶν λεγομένων. Thus: now a main point in the case of those things we are speaking of (or: i our argument) is the following. — With the utmost violence does Hofmann tear the words asunder (Schriftbew. 11. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 406, and so still in his commentary, p. 302f.), in that he will have κεφάλαιον δέ separated from ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις, and to the latter would supplement ἀρχιερεῦσιν, and renders: “ besides those who are called high priests, we have a High Priest who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty.” That, more- over, the thought thus resulting would be a senseless one,— inasmuch as it would then follow that Christians have several sorts of high priests,—has already been pointed out by Nickel (in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Feb. p. 110). For how arbitrary it is when Hofmann seeks further to twist the statement, gained with so much toil, in the sense: “that the Christians possess a High Priest, compared with whom those who are so called have for them no significance,’ hardly needs to be observed. — τοιοῦτον] is a preparation for the following ὃς ἐκάθισεν «.7... Wrongly does Bohme refer it back to τοιοῦτος, vii. 26, and Carpzov to ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος in the same verse. The latter, moreover, with an erroneous CHAP, VIII. 2. 293 accentuation of the ἔχομεν : “ habemus omnino talem pontificem se. ὑψηλότερον τῶν οὐρανῶν, quippe qui adeo consedit ad dextram Dei ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς," in connection with which the progress of the discourse is lost sight of, and the fact remains unnoticed that the centre of gravity in the statement, vv. 1, 2, is contained only in ver. 2.— ὃς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς] who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven (Ps. cx.). Comp, i. 3: ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς. --- The opinion of Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Klee, Bleek, and Alford, that the author designed by ἐκάθισεν, too, to indicate a point of superiority in Christ over the Levitical high priests,—inasmuch as the latter, when they entered the Most Holy Place, instead of sitting down were required to stand,—is far-fetched. There is nothing in the context to lead to such supposition. It is otherwise (on account of the express opposition there met with ἕστηκεν... ἐκάθισεν) chap. x. 11, 12. — ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς] belongs to ἐκάθισεν, not to THs μεγαλωσύνης (Bohme), since otherwise the article would have been repeated ; still less to the opening words of ver. 2 (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 405 f.), since in that case τῶν ἁγίων τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς λειτουργός would have been the only natural expression, the rhythmical proportion of vy. 1, 2 would have been destroyed, and the ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, 1. ὃ, parallel to the ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς in our passage, would have remained unnoticed as regards its coherence with that which precedes. Ver. 2. Declaration of the capacity in which Christ has sat down at the right hand of God: as a sacrificing priest of the true sanctuary and tabernacle, which the Lord erected, not a man. Ver. 2 is to be joined without any comma to ver. 1. For only the qualification of the ἐκάθισεν κ.τ.λ,, ver. 1, which is first added by means of ver. 2,—not merely the fact of the καθίσαι in itself, since this had already been often mentioned in the epistle,— contains the new main feature which the author aims at bringing into prominence. — τῶν ἁγίων] is not masculine (Oecumenius: ἀρχιερεύς φησι τῶν ἡγιασμένων παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώπων" ἡμῶν yap ἐστιν ἀρχιερεύς, Primasius, Cajetan, Schulz, Paulus, Stengel) but neuter; it 294 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. denotes, however, neither the holy things (Luther, Hunnius, Balduin), nor that which is required for the priestly service (Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Rambach, Ewald), nor “such holy things as stand in essential relation to the σκηνὴ ἀληθινή" (Kurtz), but the sanctuary (according to Erasmus, Jac. Cappellus, Béhme, Stuart, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. Ὁ. 513; Alford, Maier, and others, specially: the Most Holy Place), in which (or: in regard to which) the priestly service is performed. Comp. ix. 8, 12, 24, 25, x. 19, xiii. 11. — Synonymous with τῶν ἁγίων is the τῆς σκηνῆς, added by way of elucidation; and from the adjective of the latter, τῆς ἀληθινῆς, we have also to supply in thought the corresponding adjective τῶν ἀληθινῶν (comp. ix. 24) to the foregoing τῶν ἁγίων. For even the earthly high priest was a τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργός ; only a τῶν ἁγίων τῶν ἀληθινῶν λειτουργός he was not. — λευτουργός] Comp. λειτουργεῖν, x. 11, and λειτουργία, ver. 6, ix. 21; Phil. ii. 17; Luke i. 23. With the classic writers, λειτουργός denotes the bearer of any public office, or office of the State. In the general sense of a “servant” it stands i. 7; Rom. xiii. 6; Phil. ii, 25. But already with the LXX. (Neh. x. 39; ef. Ecclus. vii. 30, al.) it is spoken specially of him who discharges priestly service. In accordance therewith it has here, too (comp. ver. 3), as well as Rom. xv. 16, the signification: sacrificing priest. — τῆς ἀληθινῆς] The σκηνή is called true, not in opposition to the false, but as the archetype? existing in heaven in contrast with the earthly image of the same (ver. 5), which latter, as is always the case with the copy in relation to the original, could be only something imperfect. — ἣν ἔπηξεν] Comp. Ex. xxxiii. 7.0 κύριος] is here God, as elsewhere in our epistle only in the O. T. citations. —o κύριος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος) Comp. σκηνῆς οὐ χειροποιήτου, ix. 11; οὐ χειροποίητα ἅγια, ix. 24. Ver. 3. Subsidiary remark in justification of the expression NevToupyos, ver. 2. The λειτουργεῖν, or the presenting of sacrifices, is just something essential in the fulfilment of the office of every high priest; a λειτουργός, or sacrificing priest, 1 Comp. Wisd. ix, Cs εἶπας οἰκοδομῆσαι γδδν οι. « WEE 0 0 ἔυσιωαστήριον, μίμημα σχηνῆς ἁγία;, ἣν πσριητοίμωσας ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. CHAP. VIII. 4. 295 must thus Christ also be. — By the statement, ver. 3, the argument itself is not interrupted. For enclosing the verse within a parenthesis, with Cameron, Stengel, and others, there exists therefore no reason. —ydp] the explanatory namely. —On πᾶς yap... καθίσταται, comp. V. 1: πᾶς yap ἀρχιερεὺς . καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, iva προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε Kal θυσίας. ---- ὅθεν ἀναγκαῖον] sc. ἣν (Syriac, Beza, Piscator, Owen, Bengel, Bleek, de Wette, Hofmann, Komm. p. 306; Woerner), not ἐστίν (Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Schlichting, Schulz, Bohme, Stuart, Kuinoel, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 407 ; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 505; Alford, Maier, Moll, Ewald, M‘Caul, αἰ.). For the author knows only one single sacrificial act of Christ, an act performed once for all (not one continually repeated), as is evident partly from the parallel passages, vii, 27, ix. 12, 25, 28, x. 10, 12,.14, partly from the preterite προσενέγκῃ in our passage.— ἔχειν Te καὶ τοῦτον, ὃ προσενέγκῃ] that also this (High Priest) should have somewhat that He might offer up. By the τέ the author understands Christ’s own body, which He gave up to death as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sinful world. The indefinite mode of expression by τί, however, was chosen just because the reference to the sacrifice in this place was only an incidental one, and that which was intended could the less be misunderstood by the readers, in that immediately before, vii. 27, it had been declared by means of ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας in what the sacrifice of Christ consisted. Vy. 4, 5. Return (οὖν) from the subsidiary remark, ver. 3, to the main thought in ver. 2 (τῶν ἁγίων Kai τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς, ἣν K.T.r.), and proof for the same. Ver. 4. A sacrificial priest Christ can only be, either in the earthly ov the heavenly sanctuary; for a third, besides these two, there is not. The author now proves, ver. 4, that He cannot be a priest in the earthly sanctuary, whence it then follows of itself that He must be so in the heavenly one. — εἰ ἣν] not: if He had been (Bohme, Kuinoel), but: if He were. To εἰ μὲν οὖν ἣν ἐπὶ γῆς we have, moreover, neither, with Grotius, Wolf, and others, to supply μόνον, nor, with Zeger, _Bengel, Carpzov, Heinrichs, Bohme, and others, ἀρχιερεύς or ἱερεύς, It signifies nothing more than: if He were now on 296 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. earth, had His dwelling-place upon earth. — οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἣν ἱερεύς He would not even be a priest. Incorrectly Bleek, Bisping, and Ewald: He would not even be a priest—not to say a high priest. For the augmenting οὐδέ can refer only to the whole proposition, not specially to ἱερεύς, since otherwise οὐδ᾽ ἱερεὺς ἂν ἣν must have been written. ἱερεύς is therefore to be taken as a more general expression for the more definite ἀρχιερεύς. Yet more erroneously Primasius, Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Ram- bach, Carpzov, and others: “He would not be that unique, real, or true priest, that everlasting priest after the manner of Melchisedec ”—which, without an addition, the words cannot by any means signify.— The reason why Christ, if He were dwelling upon earth, could not at all be a priest, is contained in the ὄντων... τὰ δῶρα. For on earth there are, of a truth, the legally appointed priests already present, and with these Jesus, since He belonged not to the tribe of Levi, but to the tribe of Judah (vii. 14), has nothing in common. — ὄντων τῶν προσφερόντων κατὰ νόμον τὰ δῶρα] since assuredly there are present (ὄντων has the emphasis), sc. on earth, those who in accordance with law (1.6. according to the norm of the Mosaic law) offer the gifts, namely the Levites, among whom Christ could not be reckoned. ὄντων and προσφερόντων designate that which is still existing at the time of our author. To take the words as participles of the past (Peshito, Vulgate, Grotius,’ Braun, and others), is already forbidden by the present λατρεύουσιν, ver. 5. Ver. 5. The author at once attaches to the proof given, ver. 4,—that Christ must be High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, —the testimony of Scripture that the earthly sanctuary, in which the Levitical priests officiate, is a mere copy of the heavenly, thus only an imperfect sanctuary. Schlichting: Vel rationem quandam div. autor his verbis exprimit, cur Christus, si in terris esset, sacerdos esse non posset, nempe quia sacerdotes illi, qui in terris degentes offerunt, umbrae tantum serviunt coelestium; vel tantum a contrario illustrat id, quod de pontifice nostro dixerat, nempe eum esse veri tabernaculi ministrum, legales vero pontifices 1 This writer with the explanation entirely foreign to the subject: ‘‘ Erant, nempe quum psaimus iste scriberetur,” CHAP. VIII. 5. 297 umbrae tantum et exemplari illius coelestis tabernaculi servire. Not to enclose within a parenthesis (Griesbach, Schulz, Scholz, ai.), since the same easily joins on syntac- tically to ver. 4, and διαφορωτέρας, ver. 6, points back to its subject-matter. —ofriwes] nimirum qui.— ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ] a copy and shadow. ὑποδείγματι corresponds to the δειχθέντα cou in the ensuing citation, and denotes here (otherwise iv. 11) that which is shown only by way of hints, or only in its general outlines (comp. τὰ ὑποδείγματα, ix. 23), has thus the notion of a merely imperfect sketch or copy. Yet more emphatically is the notion of imperfection brought out by means of καὶ σκιᾷ. For σκιά stands not merely opposed to the σῶμα, as the wnsubstantial to the substantial (Col. ii. 17; Josephus, de Bello Jud. ii. 2. 5: σκιὰν aitnoopevos βασιλείας, ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα; Philo, de confus. linguarum, p. 348 ; with Mangey, I. p. 434), but also to the εἰκών, as the shadowy image melting into obscurity, and only to be recognised in its exterior outlines to the likeness distinctly struck off, containing light and colour, and enabling one to recognise the original. Comp. Heb. x. 1: σκιὰν... οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων; Achilles Tatius, i. Ῥ. 47 (in Wetstein ad x. 1): οὕτω τέθνηκεν καὶ τῆς εἰκόνος ἡ σκιά; Cicero, de Offciis, iii. 17: Sed nos veri juris german- aeque justitiae solidam et expressam effigiem nullam tenemus; umbra et imaginibus utimur.— datpevovow] is taken un- naturally by Calvin, Pareus, Bengel, Peirce, Schulz, and others in the absolute sense: “who serve God in a copy and shadow.” The datives ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ τῶν ἐπουρανίων form the object of the verb (comp. xi. 10): “who minister (as priests) to that which is but a copy and shadow of the heavenly.” -- λατρεύειν here, by virtue of the connection, entirely equivalent to λειτουργεῖν; in general, however, of wider signification, and differing from λειτουργεῖν as the Hebrew 72¥ from nw, — τῶν ἐπουρανίων] ποῦ “ofthe heavenly things” (Luther), “of the heavenly relations and facts of redemption” (Ebrard), “of the heavenly relations and divine thoughts” (Moll), “of the ideal possessions in general, belonging to the kingdom of God” (Tholuck); but: of the heavenly sanctuary. Comp. the citation immediately 298 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. following, as also ver. 2 and ix. 23, 24. ---- καθὼς κεχρη- μώτισται Mwiohs] according to the response, or divine revela- tion, which Moses received. The passive χρηματίζεσθαι in this sense only in the N. T. (xi. 7; Matt. 11. 22; Acts x. 22, al.) and in Josephus (Antig. 111. 8. 8, xi. 8. 4). — ἐπιτελεῖν] denotes here not the completion of that which is already begun. What is meant is the execution of that which had previously only been resolved on.—The citation is from Ex. xxv. 40. The yap, even as φησίν, belongs to the author of our epistle, on which account ὅρα yap φησιν is to be written without placing a comma after γάρ. ---- φησίν] se. ὃ χρηματισμός, the divine response, or, since in Exodus (xl. 1) God is expressly named as the speaker: ὁ θεός (Heinrichs, Bleek, Stengel, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kurtz, al.), not ἡ γραφή (Bohme).— πάντα] is wanting with the LXX.— κατὰ τὸν τύπον] in accordance with the pattern (MI3N), we. corresponding to the archetype presented to the contempla- tion of Moses in the manner of a revelation, or by means of a vision, Comp. Acts vil. 44. Over-refined, indeed, although linguistically not less admissible than the other, is the interpretation of Faber Stapulensis, Rivetus, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Storr, Bleek, and Maier, that in connection with τύπος we have to think of a mere copy of the archetype, so that the Levitical priests served in priestly guise the copy of a copy.— τὸν δειχθέντα] LXX.: τὸν dedevypévov. — ἐν τῷ ὄρει] upon the mount, namely Sinai. | Ver. 6 repeats, in the form of an antithesis to vv. 4, 5, the main proposition of the new section, that Christ accomplishes His priestly service in the Acavenly sanctuary (ver. 2); in the progress of the discourse, however, advances an additional argument in favour of this main proposition: in that the naturalness of the fact asserted zs evidenced by the superrority of that covenant which has been brought in by Christ. As, therefore, the author (vii. 20-22) had deduced from the higher priestly rank of Christ the more excellent nature of the covenant brought in by Him; so here, conversely, from the better nature of the covenant established by Him, is inferred the higher order of His priestly ministry. νυνὶ δέ forms the opposition to εἰ μὲν οὖν, ver. 4, while dvadhopwrtépas points CHAP. VIII. 6. 299 back antithetically to the contents of ver. 5. Theophylact: Ἐκείνου τοῦ νοήματος ἤρτηται ταῦτα, τοῦ Ei μὲν yap ἣν ἐπὶ γῆς, οὐκ ἂν ἣν ἱερεύς" νυνὶ δὲ μὴ ὦν, φησίν, ἐπὶ γῆς, ἀλλὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἔχων ἱερατεῖον, διαφορωτέρας ἐπέτυχε λειτουργίας" τουτέστιν, οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ ἡ λειτουργία τοιαύτη, οἵα ἡ τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἀρχιερέων GAN οὐράνιος, ἅτε τόπον ἔχουσα τῆς οἰκείας τελετῆς τὸν οὐρανόν. --- νυνὶ δέ] not in the temporal, but in the logical sense: but now. — διαφορωτέρας λειτουργίας] inas- much, namely, as the σκηνή, in which He fulfils His office, is the ἀληθινή, ἣν ἔπηξεν ὁ κύριος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος (ver. 2). — On the comparative διαφορωτέρας, see αὖ ii. 4. — καί after ὅσῳ renders distinctly apparent the inner correspondence of the two principal members in the proposition, ver. 6. — pecitns| Mediator (ix. 15, xii. 24; Gal. 111. 19, 20; 1 Tim. ii. 5; LXX. Job ix. 33), inasmuch as He has proclaimed the New and better Covenant, and has sealed the same by His death on the cross. — ἥτις] which, as such. Introduction of the proof that the covenant of which Christ is made the Mediator is a better one (vil. 22), ae. affords full satisfaction to the heart seeking salvation and deliverance, which the Mosaic covenant was incapable of pacifying. The proof for this superiority the author derives from the fact that the New Covenant has been enacted upon the ground of (ἐπί [ef. vii. 11; Acts xiv. 3]) better promises, 1.6. promises more excellent with regard to their subject-matter. The expression νενομοθέτηται is chosen not in order to denote the similarity of nature in the two covenant-foundings, but, after the analogy of the Pauline mode of expression, Rom. iii. 27 (ix. 31), in order to oppose to the Mosaic law, hitherto in operation, the New Covenant as in some sense a new law (comp. νόμους μου, ver. 10) now come into force. — κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις] What is meant is without doubt the several factors in the contents of the passage from Jeremiah cited immediately after —to wit, the promise of the forgiveness of sins (comp. ver. 12), which the Old Covenant was not able to bring about (Rom. vill. 3; Gal. 11. 10 ff), in connection with the character of innerness of the New Covenant in general (vv. 10, 11), as opposed to the eaternalism of the Old. — The explaining of the κρείττονες ἐπαγγελίαι, with Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophy- 300 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. lact, Primasius, Clarius, Bengel, Carpzov, Whitby, M‘Lean, Bisping, and others, of everlasting blessedness and the other eternal blessings of Christianity, in opposition to the purely terrestrial and temporal promises of Mosaism (the peaceful possession of the land of Canaan, a long life upon earth, etc.), is to be rejected; because—apart from the contradiction in which this interpretation stands with the elucidation given by the author himself by virtue of the ensuing citation from Scripture—it is, as Bleek rightly observes, improbable that the author should have referred the promises deposited in the Mosaic law to merely earthly things, in place of referring them to the object of which he understands the promise already imparted to Abraham—the bringing in of the great salvation for the people of God in the person of Christ. — The view, too, that the ἐπαγγελίαν of the New Covenant are called κρείττονες because they are better guaranteed (Stengel and others), has the context against it. Vv. 7-13. Evidence from Scripture that the New Covenant rests upon better promises than the Old, and consequently is a better covenant than that. God Himself has, by the fact of His having promised a new covenant, pronounced the former one to be growing obsolete. Ver. 7. Justification of the κρείττονος and κρείττοσιν, ver. 6.— εἰ ἦν] if it were (vii. 11, viii. 4). — ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη) 80. διαθήκη. On the superlative, quite in keeping with the linguistic usage of the Greek, see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. Ῥ. 229, Obs. 1. — ἄμεμπτος) faultless (Phil. ii. 15, iii. 6), satisfactory, sufficient. Theodoret: τὸ ἄμεμπτος ἀντὶ τοῦ τελεία τέθεικε. --- οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος] place would not have been sought (sc. by God, in the O. T., or in the passage of Scripture immediately adduced) for a second (cove- nant); 1.6, it would not have been expressed by God Himself, that a second covenant is to come in beside the first, and replace it. In this general sense ἐζητεῖτο τόπος is to be taken, and the form of expression in the apodosis to be explained from a mingling of a twofold mode of contemplation (οὐκ ἂν δευτέρα ἐζητεῖτο Kai δευτέρας οὐκ ἣν ἂν τόπος : a second would not be sought by God, nor would there be any place for a second). No emphasis rests upon τόπος ; on which CUAP. VIII. 8, 9. S01 account it is over-refining, when Bleek finds in ἐζητεῖτο τόπος the reference that to the New Covenant, according to ver. 10, the place was assigned in the hearts of men, while the Ὁ was written upon tables of stone. Ver. 8. Making good of the assertion, ver. 7, that the Old Covenant was not fas from fault, and God on that account made known His purpose of establishing a New one. Since μεμφόμενος manifestly corresponds to the ἄμεμπτος, ver. 7, and there the non-freedom from blame regards the covenant itself, not the possessors thereof, it is more natural to combine αὐτοῖς with λέγει (Faber Stapulensis, Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Peirce, Michaelis, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Stein, Bloomfield, Reiche, Comment. crit. Ῥ. 65 sq.; Conybeare, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, and others) than—what is certainly possible in a grammatical respect (see the Lexicons)—to join it to μεμφόμενος (Peshito, Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Kir. Schmid, Bengel, Wolf, Carpzov, Heinrichs, Bohme, Stengel, Bisping, Delitzsch; Alford, Maier, Hofmann, al.). — λέγει] se. ὁ θεός. Comp. the thrice-occurring λέγει κύριος in the following citation (vv. 8, 9, 10). — αὐτοῖς λέγει] He saith unto them, namely, the possessors of the πρώτη διαθήκη. ---- The citation beginning with ἐδού, and extending to the close of ver. 12, is from Jer. xxxi, (LXX. xxxviii.) 31-34, after the LXX., with slight deviations. — λέγει. κύριος] so in the LXX. of the Cod. Alex The Cod. Vatican. and others have φησὶ κύριος. --- In place of καὶ συντελέσω ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ισραὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον ᾿Ιούδα, it reads in the LXX.: καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Iopanr καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ ᾿Ιούδα. Ῥει- haps a change designedly made in order to characterize the New Covenant as a completed or perfect one. Ver. 9. Οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην, ἣν ἐποίησα τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν] negative unfolding of the foregoing positive expression καινήν (namely, a covenant), not after the manner of the covenant (Nn 33 N?) which I made for their fathers, 1.0. one qualitatively different therefore, and that as being a better one. — ἣν ἐποίησα] LXX.: ἣν διεθέμην. ---- τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν] in the Hebrew ONIAN"NN, with their fathers. The mere dative with ἐποίησα excludes the notion of reciprocity in the covenant- 302 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. founding which has taken place, and presents it purely as the work of the disposition made by God. — ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλα- βομένου pov x.7.r.] in the day (at the time) when I took hold of their hand, to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt (ὩΣ ΝΡ 7IND Dwsine OVA PINT |P2), An unwieldy but not exactly incorrect construction (see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. Ῥ. 531), in place of which Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. Jud. 11,in citing the same words of Scripture, has chosen the less cumbrous ἐν 7 ἐπελαβόμην. The note of time characterizes the covenant as the Mosaic one. — ὅτι] for; not: “ because,” as protasis to κἀγὼ κιτιλ. as the apodosis (Calvin, Bohme, Hofmann, a/.).— κἀγώ] emphatic personal opposition to αὐτοί: and consequently I also concerned not myself about them. — λέγει κύριος] LXX. (Cod. Alex. too): φησὶ κύριος. Ver. 10. Justification of the διαθήκην καινήν, οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην x.7.r., vv. 8, 9, by a definite indication of the nature of the covenant to be instituted. — ὅτε αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη κιτιλῇ Jor this (or the following) is the covenant which I will institute for the house of Israel. αὕπη introduces with emphasis the material characterization following with δεδοὺς «.7.X. — οἶκος ᾿Ισραήλ)] here embraces the whole nation, while in ver. 8 it denoted one of the two kingdoms into which it had been divided. — μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας] after those days, 1.6. after the days which must first have elapsed, before the ἡμέραι mentioned, ver. 8,—in which the New Covenant is to come into existence,—begin to dawn. Wrongly Oecumenius: ποίας ἡμέρας; τὰς τῆς ἐξόδου, ἐν ais ἔλαβον τὸν νόμον. ---- λέγει κύριος] LXX.: φησὶ κύριος. ---- διδούς] So LXX. Cod. Alez., while Cod. Vatic. and other mss. of the LXX. have διδοὺς δώσω. In the Hebrew AM. διδούς does not stand for δώσω (Vatablus, Schlichting, Bengel, and others). Just as little have we to supplement it with δώσω (Heinrichs, Stengel, a/.), or with εἰμί or ἔσομαι (Kuinoel, Bloomfield), or διαθήσομαι αὐτήν (Delitzsch). Nor have we to join it to the following ἐπυγράψω (so Bohme, but undecidedly, and Paulus), in such wise that we must render καί before ἐπυγράψω by “also.” It attaches itself grammatically to the preceding διαθήσομαι. In order to obviate any unevenness of construction, we may then place a colon after διάνοιαν αὐτῶν. The separation, however, CHAP, VIII. 11. 303 of the καὶ ἐπιγράψω from that which precedes is not actually necessary, since instances of a transition from the participle to the tenupus finitum are elsewhere nothing strange. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 533. — διάνοια] mind, 1.6. soul, innermost part (ΞΡ). Accentuation of the character of innerness in the New Covenant, as opposed to the externalism of the Old. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 3. — καρδίας] either accusative (Deut. iv. 13, v. 22, al.) or genitive (comp. Ex. xxxiv. 28 ; Num. xvii. 2, 3, al.). In favour of the latter pleads the stmgular in the Hebrew original; in favour of the former, the reading of the Cod. Alez.: ἐπὶ Tas καρδίας. We cannot take into account, in favour of the accusative, the greater conformity to the character of the Greek language, according to which, on account of the plurality of persons (αὐτῶν), one must also speak of καρδίαι in the plural. For without regard to this distinction the singular διάνοιαν has already been just placed, and in like manner the singular τῆς χειρός is placed, ver. 9.—In place of ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. has: ἐπιγράψω αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν, and the Cod. Vatie.: ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς. --- καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεὸν κιτ.λ.] Comp. already Ex. vi. 7; Lev. xxvi. 12, al.; also 2 Cor. vi. 16.— The Hebraizing εἶναι εἰς (ὁ πὴ) asi. δ. Ver. 11. The consequence resulting from the διδόναι νόμους eis τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν «.T.r., ver. 10. Comp. Joel iii. 1, 2; 1 John ii. 27. — καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν] and then they shall not instruct (Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 472; Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 183), as regards the sense equivalent to: and then it will not be needful that they instruct each other; the reason for which is stated immediately after, in the ὅτι πάντες εἰδήσουσίν pe κιτιλ. On the intensifying οὐ μή, see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 471 ἢ ---- τὸν πολίτην αὐτοῦ] his fellow-citizen. Soin the LXX., Cod. Vatic., and most ΜΒ5., while Cod. Alex. has in the first member τὸν ἀδελφόν, in the second τὸν πλησίον. ---- γνῶθι] in the Hebrew the plural: 31. — μικροῦ] With the LXX. in most Codd.: μικροῦ αὐτῶν. --- ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν] Young and old (d30p%? ὨΟΥ 9 Ἴ})), Comp. Acts viii, 10; ΠΧΧ. Jer. vi. 13; Jonah ill. 5; Gen. xix. 11, al. 904 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Ver. 12. The inner ground of this communion with God and this knowledge of Him.— ὅτι] not: “that” (Michaelis, ad Peire.), but: for. —trews ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν] I will be gracious (MDS) to their unrighteousnesses, 1.6. will forgive and forget the same. — ἀδικίαι] in the plural, in the N. T. only here, but of frequent occurrence with the LXX. Designation of the alienation from God in its single outbreaks and forms of manifestation. — καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν Kal τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν] LXX. merely: καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν, in accordance with the Hebrew: Tiy773I8 yb DANN, Ver. 13. The author derives the result from the Scripture testimony, vv. 8-12. — ἐν τῷ λέγειν καινήν] in that He (se. God) saith: a new (covenant). Comp. ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι, iii. 15, and ἐν τῷ ὑποτάξαι, ii. 8. — πεπαλαίωκεν τὴν πρώτην] He hath made the first old (contrary to linguistic usage, Ebrard: “relatively older”), 6. has declared it to be out of date, out- worn, and no longer serviceable. — παλαιοῦν] a word belonging to a later period of the Greek language, elsewhere ordinarily used in the intransitive sense: “to grow old,” and generally in the middle voice (as a little below, and i. 11); is found likewise in the transitive sense, “to make old,” in Lam. 11]. 4; Job ix. 5. To abolish or render obsolete the word itself does not signify ; but rendering obsolete is the natural consequence of pronouncing out of date or outworn. The author accord- inely does not directly express notion of abrogation by πεπα- λαίωκεν in this place—a sense, moreover, which, on account of the following παλαιούμενον, would here be inappropriate,— but leaves the reader to divine it. — τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ] but that which is growing ancient and is becoming infirm with years, is near to disappearing or perishing. — γηράσκειν) ordinarily said of human beings (to become enfeebled with age, senescere); then, however, also of things, comp. eg. Xenoph. Ages. xi. 14: ἡ μὲν τοῦ σώματος ἐσχὺς γηράσκει, ἡ δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς poun... ἀγήρατός ἐστιν. --- The author says sparingly : near to disappearing (comp. κατάρας ἐγγύς, vi. 8), in that he takes his standpoint at the time of the divine promises just quoted. But if God in the time of Jeremiah already designated the Old Covenant as that which is nigh unto ruin, it was therein necessarily declared by CHAP. VIII. 13. 305 implication, that now, after so long a time is passed and the New Covenant has already been in reality brought in, the Old Covenant, as to its essence (if not yet as to its external mani- festation), must have been already entirely abrogated, must have entirely lost its force and validity. Meyer. -- ΠΕ}. ᾿ υ 306 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. CHAPTER IX, VER. 1. ἡ πρώτη] Elz.: ἡ πρώτη σκηνή. But the addition σκηνή is condemned as a gloss by the fact of its being wanting in all the uncial mss., in many cursives, in Syr. utr. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg., with Gregory Thaumaturgus, Cyril, Chrys. Damase. Theoph. Photius, αἱ. On the ground, too, of internal evidence it is to be rejected, since, on the one hand, the coherence with viii. 13, and through that with viii. 7 ff, leads to διαθήκη as the main idea to be supplemented ; and, on the other hand, the expression ἡ πρώτη σκηνή, ix. 1, would be made to denote some- thing quite different from that which the same expression denotes in ix. 2. For, while in ver. 2 the outer division of the tabernacle is indicated thereby, in ver. 1 only the first or Old Testament, earthly tabernacle, in opposition to the New Testament, heavenly one, thus something entirely dissimilar, could be intended by this expression. — Ver. 2. After ἄρτων, B, Basmur. add καὶ τὸ χρυσοῦν θυμιατήριον, and in return omit the words χρυσοῦν θυμιατήριον καΐ, ver. 4. Violent intentional transposition, with a view to the removal of the archaeological difficulty. — Instead of ἅγια, Lachm. writes ἅγια. ayiwy, after A (ayia «γιων) D* E, It. But ἅγιω ἁγίων is a mere slip on the part of the copyist, occasioned by ver. 3, and is to be rejected as devoid of sense. — Ver. 5. Χερουβίμ] A: Χερουβείμ, B D*** (and so Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8): Χερουβείν, ΤῊ" 8: Xepou8, In the case of the LXX., too, the Mss. are wont equally to vary as regards the final syllable of the word. — Instead of the Lecepta δόξης, Griesb. and Scholz have erroneously placed in the text τῆς δόξης. The article has against it all the uncial mss. and other witnesses. — Ver. 9. In place of the Recepta xa ὃν (D*** EK L, min. It. Copt. Sah. Basm. Syr: utr. Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph.), Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Delitzsch, Alford have rightly preferred the reading καθ᾽ ἥν, in accordance with A B D* x, 17, 23* 27, al., Vule. Slav. codd. Damasc. Oecum. (comment.). Already approved by Mill, Prolegg. p. 1046, and placed by Griesb. upon the inner margin. The καθ᾽ ὅν, as affording an easier mode of appending to that which precedes, is a later correction of the more difficult. and CHAP, IX. 307 ill-understood χαθ᾽ yv.—Ver. 10. The Recepta reads: zai Gixaiwmacs capzoc. But καί is wanting in A D* s* 6, 17, 27, 31, al., with Cyr. (twice) in Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arm. αἰ. ; and in place of δικαιώμασι, A BS, ten cursives, Cyril., and many versions have δικαιώματα, while in D* It. Sahid. there is found δικαίωμα. Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford have therefore adopted δικαιώματα σαρκός, which was already approved by Grotius, Mill, Prolegg. p. 1355, and Bengel, and recommended by Griesb. Delitzsch and Reiche likewise give it the preference. This reading is in reality to be regarded as the original one. For it is more easily explicable that δικαιώματα should, on account of the foregoing datives, be changed into δικωμώμασι, and joined on to them by means of zai, than that the καὶ δικαιώμασι, if it already existed, should, on account of the closing word ἐπικείμενα, be converted into dimas- ματα. -- Ver. 11. In place of the Lecepta τῶν μελλόντων, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read, after B D* It. Syr. utr. (yet the Syr. Philonex. has the Aecepta in the margin) Arab. petropol. and some codd. of Chrys.: τῶν γενομένων. Defended by Ebrard. But the reading is not in keeping with the carefully chosen diction of our author, and its sense: “High Priest of the good things which have arisen,” does not commend itself. It is manifestly a transcriber’s error, occasioned by the presence of the foregoing παραγενόμενος. ---- Ver. 12. εὑράμενος] D* (Εἰ 2), 27, 44, 80, al., and some Fathers: εὑρόμενος. ---- Ver. 13. Elz.: ταύρων καὶ τράγων. With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, to be transposed into τράγων καὶ ταύρων, in accordance with the decisive authority of A B D E8, Cyr. Theodoret, Bede, Syr. Copt. Basm. It. Vulg. al. — Ver. 14. σνεύματος αἰωνίου] Dee Many cursives, Copt. Basm. Slav. It. Vulg. a@/., Chrys. Cyr. Didym. (?) Damasce. αἰ... πνεύματος ἁγίους Interpretative gloss. —In place of the Recepta συνείδησιν ὑμῶν, Bengel, Knapp, Lachm. Tisch. 1 and 2, Alford read more suitably, in accordance with A D* K, 44, 47, 67, al., Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. ms. αἰ. Athan. Cyr. Chrys. (comment.) Theodoret, Theoph.: συνείδησιν ἡμῶν. Recommended likewise by Griesb., and already placed ‘im the text in the Edd. Complut. Genev. Plant. — To the mere θεῷ ζῶντι in the Kecepta, Lachm., with A, 21* 31, 66 (in the margin), Copt. Slav. Chrys. (comment.) Macar. Theoph., has added the words καὶ ἀληθινῷ. These words are, however, to be deleted. They are a gloss from 1 Thess. i. 9.— Ver. 17. μήποτε] D* 8* and Isidor. Pelus. iv. 113 (... οὕτω γὰρ εὗρον καὶ ἐν παλαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις) : μὴ τότε. ---- Ver. 18. Instead of οὐδ᾽ in the Recepta, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, to write οὐδέ, in accordance with A Ο Ὁ E L, 308 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 4, 44, 52, Chrys. Theodoret, Oecum.—% πρώτη] D* E* It.: ἡ πρώτη διαθήκη. Exegetical gloss.— Ver. 19. Elz.: zara νόμον. But the better attestation by A C D* L x*** 21, 47, 71, al., Copt. Basm. Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theoph. requires the reading preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, and Alford: κατὰ τὸν νόμον. ---- [ἢ like manner is the article τῶν wanting in the fecepta before τράγων to be added, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with the weighty authority of A C D E (Ὁ E, Aeth.: τῶν τράγων καὶ τῶν μόσχων) 8* 80, al. mult. It. Vule. Theodoret, ms.—So, in place of the Recepta ἐῤῥάντισε here and ver. 21, we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with all the uncials, to write ἐράντισεν. -- Ver. 24. The order of the words followed by Lachm. in the stereotype edition, as well as recently by Tisch. in the ed. vii. and viii. : εἰσῆλθεν ἅγια, rests only upon the testimony of A &, 37, 118. In the larger edition of Lachm., therefore, this has rightly given place to the Lecepta ἅγια εἰσῆλθεν. ---- Better attested than the Recepta ὁ Χριστός is the mere Χριστός (A C* 1)" 8, αἱ. [Cod. B in its original form extends only to συνεήδησιν, ix. 147), preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford. — Ver. 26. Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Bloom- field, Delitzsch: viv 6¢ Better Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with A ΟἽ, (ἢ) 8, 37, 39, 40, Orig. Chrys.: vuv? δέ. — ἁμαρτίας] A, 17, 73. Lachm.: τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Against C D*** E K L, almost all the min. Orig. (once) al. mult.— Ver. 28. οὕτως καὶ] Elz. has only οὕτως. Against decisive witnesses (all the uncial mss., most min., many translations and Fathers).— After εἰς σωτηρίαν, Lachm. in the stereotype edition had added, with A, 31, 47, al., Syr. Philonex. Slav. codd. Damasc., the words διὰ πίστεως. Rightly, however, has he deleted them in the larger edition. The addition is a complementary gloss, which has against it the testimony of CD EK LS, many min. versions, and Fathers, and betrays its character as a gloss by its changing position (Arm. 27, 31, 57, 61, al., have it before εἰς σωτηρίων). Vy. 1-14. The author has in chap. viii. insisted upon the fact, as a second main particular of the superiority of Christ as a high priest over the Levitical high priests, that the sanctuary in which He ministers is a more excellent one, namely, the heavenly sanctuary. He has made good this proposition by the consideration that no place would be found for Christ, as regards priestly service, in the earthly sanctuary ; and then has proceeded to show the naturalness CHAP IK. 1. 909 of the fact that He accomplishes His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, by the proof that He is the Mediator of a better covenant, This train of thought is still pursued in the beginning of chap. ix. in that attention is now finally called to the fact that in the arrangement of the Mosaic sanctuary itself, and the order of the priestly service cor- responding thereto, there lies an indication on the part of God that Mosaism is not itself the perfect religion, but only an institution preparatory thereto (vv. 1-8). With this, however, is then connected, by means of one of those sudden transitions of which the author is so fond, the reference to the further truth, that, indeed, the Levitical sacrifices also, since they belong to the domain of fleshly ordinance, are not able really to atone; whereas the sacrifice presented by Christ, by means of His own blood, possesses, by virtue of an eternal Spirit, everlasting power of atonement (vv. 9-14), and thus a third main point in the high-priestly superiority of Christ 1s introduced, the development of which occupies the author as far as x. 18. Vv. 1-5. Description of the arrangement of the O. Τὶ sanctuary as regards its essential component parts. Ver. 1. Εἶχεν μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη] se. διαθήκη. Against the supplementing of σκηνή (Cameron, Peirce, Whitby, Wet- stein, Semler), see the critical remark. —etyev] had. ἔχει is not written by the author, although the cultus of the Old Covenant was still continuing at the time when he wrote, not so much because—as is shown by ver. 2—it was his intention to describe the primitive arrangement thereof (comp. viii. 5), which is the opinion of Bohme, Kuinoel, Stengel, and Tholuck, as, What is more naturally suggested by the coherence with vii. 13, because the Old Covenant had already been declared by God in the time of Jeremiah to be feeble with age and nigh unto disappearing, and consequently now, after the actual appearance of the promised New Covenant, has no longer any valid claim to existence. Chrysostom: ὡσεὶ ἔλεγε, τότε εἶχε, νῦν οὐκ ἔχει" δείκνυσιν ἤδη τούτῳ αὐτὴν ἐκκεχωρηκυΐαν τότε γὰρ εἶχε, φησίν. “Note νῦν, εἰ καὶ ἕστηκεν, οὐκ ἔστιν. ---- μὲν οὖν] now truly. Admission that that which the author is about to detail is indeed something 310 TIE EPISTLE TO THE NEBREWS. relatively exalted. The antithesis, by which again this admission is deprived of its value and significance, is then introduced by ver. 6 (not first with ver. 11, as is supposed by FPiscator, Owen, Carpzov, Cramer, Stuart, Bloomfield, Bisping, Maier, M‘Caul, and others); yet in such wise that the material antithesis itself is first contained in the state- ment, ver. 8, which is connected syntactically only as a parenthetic clause. — καί] also. Indication that with the Old Covenant the New is compared, and possessions of the former are enumerated, which also (although, it is true, in a more perfect form) are proper to the latter. — δικαιώματα λατρείας] legal ordinances* in regard to worship, 1.6. regulations made by virtue of divine authority respecting the cultus. — λατρείας] is genitive. To take the expression as accusative (Cameron, Grotius, Hammond, αἰ.), according to which δικαιώματα, λατρείας, and τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν would as three members be made co-ordinate with each other, is untenable; because the signification of δικαιώματα in itself would be too extensive to fit in with the further development of ver. 1, to which the author himself at once passes over, from ver. 2 onwards. For as the statement τό τε ἅγιον Kooptxov receives its more full explication by means of vv. 2—5, so does the discourse in vy. 6, 7 return to the unfolding of the twofold δικαιώματα λατρείας, blended as this is in a logical respect into a unity of idea. — τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικὸν] and the mundane sanctuary. Since, in accordance with the καί, possessions of the Old Covenant are to be mentioned, such as this has in common with the New,—while to the New Covenant there pertains no mundane, earthly sanctuary,—Td te ἅγιον κοσμικόν must be regarded as a concise mode of designation for καὶ ἅγιόν τι, τὸ κοσμικόν, “and a sanctuary, namely the mundane.” That such is the meaning of the author, is indicated by the fact that the article is placed before this second member, although it ought properly to have been inserted before κοσμικόν also. Yet the omission of the article in the case of adjectives placed after their substantives is not a thing unknown among other writers of the later period. See Bernhardy, Synt. p. 323; Winer, Gramm. 7 Aufl. p. 126. Forced is the 1 Wrongly Stengel: ‘‘ Means of justification.” CHAP: IX, ἢ: Stk explanation of Delitzsch, with the adherence of Kurtz and Woerner, that κοσμικόν as an adjectival predicate is to be taken in association with εἶχεν: “the first covenant had likewise δικαιώματα λατρείας, and its sanctuary as mundanie, 1.6. ἃ, sanctuary of mundane nature.” Had the author intended the readers to suppose such a conjoining, he would also— equally as vii. 24, v. 14—have indicated the same to them by the position of the words. He must, in order to be understood, at least have written: εἶχεν μὲν οὖν Kal ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα λατρείας κοσμικὸν τε TO ἅγιον. Under an entire misapprehension, further, does Hofmann (Schriftbew. Il. 1, p. 408 f., 2 Aufl.) suppose that τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν is not to be taken as a second object attaching itself to the δικαιώματα λατρείας, but as a second subject joining itself on to ἡ πρώτη, -ἃ construction which, upon the presupposition of the Recepta ἡ πρώτη σκηνή being the correct reading, already Olearius adopted (comp. Wolf ad /oc.), and upon the same supposition also more recently M‘Caul maintained, in connection with which, however, τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν would limp behind in an intolerable manner, and would afford evidence of a negligence of style, such as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews would least of all have been guilty of. — The view of Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Zeger, Carpzov, and others, that ἅγιον is to be taken not in the local sense (sanctuary), but in the ethical sense (holiness, ἁγιότης, sanctitas, mundities), is altogether erroneous; since the expression chosen would be a remarkable one, the immediate sequel does not point thereto, and the more exalted seat of the cultus of the New Covenant forms the theme of the fresh train of thought opened up with the beginning of chap. vii. — Quite as much to be disapproved is the opinion of Wolf, who will have ἅγιον to mean “vasa sacra totumque apparatum Leviticum.” — K«ocpixds|] means: belonging to the world, worldly, mundanus. Comp. Tit. 11. 12. The expression is equivalent to ἐπίγειος, and to it ἐπουράνιος stands opposed, as in general ὁ κόσμος in the N. T. very frequently has its tacit contrast in ὁ οὐρανός. Τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν is con- sequently nothing else than ἡ σκηνή, ἣν ἔπηξεν ἄνθρωπος (comp. viii. 2), or ἡ σκηνὴ χειροποίητος, τουτέστιν ταύτης ro pl THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. τῆς κτίσεως (comp. ix. 11), or τὰ χειροποίητα ἅγια (ix. 24), and a twofold idea is expressed in the adjective, first, that the sanctuary of the Old Covenant is one existing in the terrestrial world, then, that it is accordingly something only temporary and imperfect in its nature. Remote from the connection are the suppositions of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others: that the Jewish sanctuary was called κοσμικόν, because the access to the same stood open to the κόσμος, i.e. the Gentiles; a statement, moreover, which possesses historic truth only with reference to a part thereof, the court of the Gentiles (comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 2; Acts xxl. 28), while here the sanctuary as a whole must be indicated ;—of Theodorus Mopsuesten., Theodoret,’ Grotius, Hammond, Wetstein, Bohme, Paulus, and others: because the Jewish sanctuary symbolically represented the universe ; the holy place, earth; the most holy, heaven ; and the curtain before the latter, the firmament ;—of Kypke, because the sense is: toto terrarum orbe celebratum (comp. Josephus, de ello Jud. iv. 5. 2, where the Jerusalem high priests, Ananus and Jesus, are represented as τῆς κοσμικῆς θρησκείας κατάρχοντες, προσκυνούμενοί τε τοῖς ἐκ τῆς οἰκουμένης), which, however, could only be said with reference to the temple, not with reference to the tabernacle itself, of which the author is here specially thinking. — Entirely baseless, finally, is the opinion of Homberg, that κοσμικὸν is to be apprehended in the sense of “adorned, well-ordered.” For: only κόσμιος, κοσμητικός, and κοσμητός are used for the expression of this notion; never is κοσμικές put for it. See the Lexicons. Vv. 2-5. Unfolding of the collective idea τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν, as regards its several essential component parts. That the author has before his mind the Jewish sanctuary in its original form, 1.6. the Mosaic tabernacle, is evident alike from the expression σκηνή, as from the use of the aorist κατε- σκευάσθη. That, however, he likewise thinks of this original at τὶ \ a Ἐν , δι. ~ ΄ ΄ r ΄ NY σκηνήν CUTWS ἐκώλεσε, Τυσον ἐσέχιουσῶν του x07 Lou “σαντος. Καταπετάσματι \ , δ - Σ ~ \ \ \ 3) ~ Oa \ δὲ “ an ag rN γάρ μέσῳ MN pEsTo 4X1 καὶ TH μὲν αυτῆς ἐκώλςι τὸ AYIh, Τὰ OF ἀγιῶ Τῶν ayiloy, Kai 4 nn. ‘ Ν ε \ 2 ~ Le a a i δὲ Wa “ La \ i ? hae MAMLEITO τὰ μεν ayia Τὴν EY Tn yn στο “τᾶν, TH OF ἀγιῶ τῶν ayiwy TO Τῶν ουρᾶνων 3 ὃ ΄ τ Ν δὲ Ν rd με , 2 , »" 4 ἐνδιαίτημα, AUTO δὲ τὸ καταπέτασμα TOU σσερεώμαωτος ἐπλήρου τὴν χρείων, CUAP. IX. 2-5. 910 disposition as still preserved in the temple of his day, is mani- fest partly from the present λέγεται immediately following, partly from the proposition: τούτων δὲ οὕτως κατεσκευασμένων . εἰσίασιν, ver. 6. — σκηνὴ yap κατεσκευάσθη ἡ πρώτη] for a tent was prepared (set up), namely, the first or anterior one (the fore-tent). σκηνή stands first as the general notion, and only acquires its nearer definition by the ἡ πρώτη afterwards brought in, without, however, our having, with Beza, Bloom- field, and others, to place a comma after κατεσκευάσθη. That σκηνὴ ἡ πρώτη is not to be combined immediately in one, as expressing the signification: “the fore-part of the tent” (so Valckenaer, who compares in wltimis aedibus, and the like ; also Delitzsch), is shown—although such acceptation presents no grammatical difficulty—by the corresponding σκηνὴ ἡ λεγομένη ἅγια ἁγίων, ver. 3, whence it follows that the author is regard- ing the two divisions of the tent separated by the veil in front of the Most Holy Place as two tents. — πρώτη] not temporal, but local. — κατεσκευάσθη] namely by Moses, at the behest of God (comp. viii. 5).— ἐν ἡ ἥ τε λυχνία] sce. ἐστίν (not ἦν, Alford, Kurtz, against which λέγεται and ver. 6 are decisive) : in which there is the candlestick (or lamp-stand). Comp. Ex. xxv. 81-39, xxxvii. 17-24; Bahr, Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, Bad. I., Heidelb. 1837, p. 412 ff. In the temple of Herod, too, there was, according to Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5, vii. 5. δ, only one lamp-stand in the Holy Place, while in the temple of Solomon there were ¢en of them present; comp. 1 Kings vii. 49 ; 2 Chron. iv. 7.— καὶ ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων] and the table and the setting forth of the bread (or loaves), 1.06. wherein is found the table, and the sacred custom is observed of placing thereon the shew-bread. Comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 590. Wrongly do Vatablus, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, Bloomfield, and others explain ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων as hypallage or antiptosis for of ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως. Yet more unwarrantably do Valckenaer (and similarly Heinrichs) maintain that ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων is equivalent to ἡ τράπεζα τῶν ἄρτων τῆς προθέσεως. According to Tholuck, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, and Moll, πρόθεσις is, like the Hebrew 219, to be taken concretely, strues panum. But πρόθεσις never has the oO 914 TILE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, passive signification of strues. On the matter itself, comp. Ex. xxv. 23-30, xxvi. 35, xxxvii. 10-16; Lev. xxiv. 5—9); Bal; le. p. 407 ff.— ἥτις] sc. σκηνὴ ἡ πρώτη. Not conjoined with the mere 7%, because the fact alleged is something which is familiar to the readers. — ἅγια] Holy Place (YIP). So (as neuter plur.), not, with Erasmus, Luther, Er. Schmid, Mill, Whitby, Heinrichs, and others, ayia (as fem. sing.), have we to accentuate the word. It stands opposed to the ἅγια ἁγίων, ver. 3, and denotes the Holy Place, or the outer portion of the tabernacle, in opposition to the Most Holy Place, or the more secluded, inner portion of the same. Likewise with the LXX. and with Philo, the plural τὰ ἅγια in this sense is interchanged with the singular τὸ ἅγιον. --- ἅγια, however, not τὰ ἅγια, is placed, because the author was less concerned about mentioning the definite name coined for the expression thereof, than about bringing out the signification which this name has. Ver. 3. Meta] after or behind. Of local succession (Thucyd. vii. 58, αἰ.), in the N. T. only here. — τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα] the second veil (N25B). For before the Holy Place, too, there was a veil (JD). On the former, comp. Ex. xxvi. 31 ff. — σκηνή] sc. κατεσκευάσθη. --- ἅγια ἁγίων) Most Holy Place. Periphrasis of the superlative (see Winer, Gramm., 7 Απῆ., p. 231), and translation of DIP ΦῚΡ. Ver. 4. Θυμιατήριον] is either interpreted as altar of incense or as censer. The latter, and indeed as a golden censer, which was employed by the high priest on the great day of atone- ment, is thought of by Luther, Grotius, de Dieu, Calov, Reland, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Carpzov, Whitby, Schulz, Bohme, M‘Lean, Stuart, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, Bisping, Alford, M‘Caul, and others, after the precedent of the Peshito, Vulgate (twribulum), and Theophylact. The altar of incense, on the other hand (Mp7 M3" or AMT Nar), of which mention is made as a constituent part in the Mosaic tabernacle, Ex. xxx. 1-10, xxxvii. 25-28, xl. 5, 26, as a constituent part in the temple of Solomon, 1 Kings vii. 48, 2 Chron. iv. 19, and as a constituent part in the Herodian temple (Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5), is understood in the case of the Latin trans- lation in D E (altare), as well as by Oecumenius (ad ver. 7), Calvin, Justinian, Piscator, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, CHAP. IX. 4. SLD Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Gerhard, Brochmann, Mynster (Stud. wu. Krit. 1829, p. 342 ff), Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. Ῥ. 489 ἢ, Obs.), Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Cony- beare, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. Instances from the classical writers in favour of either reference, see in Bleek, IL. 2, p. 4808 That a censer is intended may be urged from the language of the LXX., since with them for the indication of the altar of incense the expressions: τὸ θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος (Ex. xxx. 1, 27% Lev. iv. 7), τὸ θυσιαστήριον τῶν θυμιαμάτων (1 Chron. vi. (vii.) /49, xxviii! 18; 2 Chron. xxvi. 16, 19), τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν (Ex. xl. 5, 26, al.), τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ (dv) ἀπέναντι κυρίου (Lev. xvi. 12, 18); and, where the altar intended is clear from the context, merely τὸ θυσιαστήριον (Lev. xvi. 20, al.), are regularly employed, and only in unimportant Mss. of the same θυμιατήριον presents itself in some few passages as a variation of reading. To this usage of the LXX., however, is to be opposed the equally important fact of the usage of Philo and Josephus, according to which, at their time, τὸ θυμιατήριον was quite the ordinary appellation of the altar of incense. Comp. Philo, Quis rerum divin. haeres. p. 511 sq. (with Mangey, 1. p. 504): τριῶν ὄντων ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις σκευῶν, λυχνίας, τραπέζης, θυμιατηρίου; De vita Mos. p. 668 (IL. Ῥ. 149): “Apa δὲ τούτῳ ἐδημιουργεῖτο καὶ σκεύη ἱερά, κιβωτός, λυχνία, τράπεζα, θυμιατήριον, βωμός. ὋὉ μὲν οὖν βωμὸς ἵδρυτο ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ x.7.r.; Josephus, de Bello Jud. ν. 5.5: καὶ TO μὲν πρῶτον μέρος... εἶχεν ἐν αὐτῷ τρία θαυμασιώτατα Kai περιβόητα πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἔργα, λυχνίαν, τράπεζαν, θυμια- τήριον ; Antig. 111. 6. 8: μεταξὺ δὲ αὐτῆς (τῆς λυχνίας) καὶ τῆς τραπέζης ἔνδον... θυμιατήριον, ξύλινον μὲν x.7.r., αἱ. Of the altar of incense, accordingly, the expression must be understood in our passage. For the manner in which the χρυσοῦν θυμιατήριον is mentioned, as a parallel member to τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης, shows that the former must be an object of equally great importance as the latter. But, since that is so, something as non-essential as a golden censer cannot be meant, but only the altar of incense, which formed Rea ets Δ pr ἀεὶ art ' Ut rt ᾿- an essential constituent part of the tabernacle. Besides, there Jy pert 316 THE EPISTLE TO THE IIEBREWS. is nowhere any mention in the O. T. (not Lev. xvi. 12 either) of a particular censer, which had been set apart for the service on the great day of atonement. About the existence of such a censer at the time of the Mosaic tabernacle, which the author after all has mainly before his mind, nothing is known with certainty. Only from the Mishna, tract. Joma, iv. 4, do we ~’ learn something about it. Moreover, according to tract. Joma, v. 1, vil. 4, this censer was first fetched out of the storehouse, earried by the high priest into the Most Holy Place, and upon the completion of the service again carried forth therefrom ; even as it would be @ priori improbable in the highest degree that such instrument should be kept within the Holy of Holies. For, according to Lev. xvi. 12, 13, the high priest was first to enter with incense into the Most Holy Place, in order that through the cloud thereof the glory of God, enthroned above the cover of the ark of the covenant, might become invisible to him, to the end that he died not. And yet ἔχουσα compels us to think of an abiding place of the θυμιατήριον ; to explain ἔχουσα of the mere appertaining of the θυμιατήριον to the Most Holy Place as an object of use for the latter, as is usually done by the one class of expositors (but also by some advocates of the opposite view, as Jac. Cappellus, Piscator, Owen, Mynster, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Conybeare, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebréierbr. p. 490, Obs.; Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and Woerner, with an appeal to W212 N2MA, 1 Kings vi. 22), is—inasmuch as the author sharply separates from each other in his description the two main divisions of the O. T. sanctuary, as well as the objects peculiar to each of these divisions, by means of μετὰ dé, ver. 3, and thus ἔχουσα, ver. 4, unmistakably corresponds to the ἐν 7, ver. 2—altogether arbitrary. If, then, we under- stand θυμιατήριον of the altar of incense, as we are compelled to do, there arises the archaeological difficulty that this altar had its standing-place not in the Most Holy Place, as is here — presupposed by the author, but, on the contrary, in the Holy Place (Ex. xxx. 1 ff.). This point of inconsistency with his- toric truth is to be admitted, and therefrom the conclusion to be drawn, that the author did not himself live in the vicinity 1 Omnibus diebus reliquis suffitum facturus de altari accepit in turibulo argenteo... hoc vero die in aureo. CHAP?) IX: 4, O17 of the Jewish sanctuary, but had drawn his knowledge with regard to the same only from the Scriptures of the O. Τὶ, whence the possibility of an error is explicable. In favour of this possibility, Bleek rightly urges the following considera- tions : first, that Ex. xxvi. 35 there are mentioned as standing within the Holy Place only the table and the candlestick, but not the altar of incense also.° Then, that where the standing place of this altar is actually spoken of, the form of expression chosen certainly, by reason of its indefiniteness, admitted of misconstruction. So Ex. xxx. 6: καὶ θήσεις αὐτὸ ἀπέναντι τοῦ καταπετάσματος, τοῦ ὄντος ἐπὶ τῆς κιβωτοῦ τῶν μαρτυ- play; ibid. xl. 5: καὶ θήσεις τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν εἰς τὸ θυμιᾶν ἐναντίον τῆς κιβωτοῦ: ver. 26: ἀπέναντι τοῦ καταπετάσματος : Lev. iv. 7, xvi. 12, 18: ἐναντίον or ἀπέναντι κυρίου. Finally, that in the Mosaic law the altar of incense was brought into peculiar significance in connection with the solemnity of the atonement, since on this day it was sprinkled and cleansed by the high priest with the same blood which the high priest had carried into the Most Holy Place (Ex. xxx. 10 ; Lev. xvi. 18 f.). — χρυσοῦν] since the emphasis rests on it, is prefixed. The article, however, is wanting, because the sense is: ὦ golden altar, namely, the altar of incense, in distinction from the brazen altar existing in the court, namely, the altar of burnt-offering.— καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης] and the ark of the covenant ; comp. Ex. xxv. 10 ff, XXxvil. 1-9. — περικεκαλυμμένην πάντοθεν χρυσίῳ] overlaid on every side (within and without; comp. Ex. xxv. 11) with gold (plating of fine gold). According to 1 Kings viii., the ark of the covenant was also brought into the temple of Solomon. On the destruction of this temple by the Chaldeans it was lost, and the second temple was without an ark. Comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5.5: Ἔκειτο δὲ οὐδὲν dws ἐν αὐτῷ, ἄβατον δὲ καὶ ἄχραντον Kal ἀθέατον ἣν πᾶσιν, ἁγίου δὲ ἅγιον ἐκαλεῖτο. --- ἐν ἣἧ στάμνος χρυσῆ ἔχουσα τὸ μάννα κ.τ.λ.] wherein was a golden pot with the manna, and Aaron's rod which had budded, and the tables of the covenant. ἐν 4 does not refer back to σκηνή, ver. 3 (Ribera, Justinian, Pyle, Peirce, and others),—for to the ἐν %, ver. 4, the ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς, ver. 5, forms an opposition,—but it refers to κιβωτός. On the 918 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. pot of manna, comp. Ex. xvi. 32-34; on Aaron’s rod, Num. xvii. 16-26 (1-11); on the tables of the covenant, Ex. xxv. 16; Deut. x. 1, 2. According to 1 Kings viii. 9, there was nothing more in the ark of the covenant, at the time of its removal into the temple, than the two tables of the law; and according to Ex. xvi. 33, Num. xvii. 25 (10), the two first- mentioned objects were not to have their place within, but before the ark of the covenant. The same opinion, however, which the author here expresses as to the place of the preser- vation of the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, is found likewise with later Rabbins, as with R. Levi Ben Gerson at 1 Kings viii. 9 and at Num. xvii, 10, and Abarbanel at 1 Kings viii. 9. See Wetstein on our passage. Ver. 5. The author turns from the objects to be found within the ark of the covenant to that which is above the same. — ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς} sc. τῆς κιβωτοῦ. --- Χερουβίμ) comp. Ex. xxv. 18 ff., xxxvii. 7 ff; Winer, Bibl. Realwérterd. I. 2 Aufl. p. 262 ff.; Bahr, Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, Bd. I. p. 311 ff. There existed two of them, of fine gold, one at each end of the cover or lid of the ark of the covenant, upon which, with faces turned towards each other, they looked down, and which they covered with their outspread wings. In the midst of the cherubim was the glory of God enthroned (1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 2; 2 Kings xix. 15; Isa. xxxvi. 16), and from this place God would speak to Moses (Ex. xxv. 22; comp. Num. vi. 89).— Χερουβίμ is here treated as a neuter, as likewise generally with the LXX., with whom the masculine ot Χερουβ. occurs but rarely (e.g. Ex. xxv. 20, xxxvil. 7). The neuter is not, however, to be explained by the supposition that πνεύματα is to be supplied to it im thought (comp. Drusius on our passage), but from the fact that the cherubim were regarded as ζῶα. Comp. Josephus, Antig. iii. 6. 5, where the Mosaic cherubim are described as ζῶα πετεινά, μορφὴν δ᾽ οὐδενὶ τῶν ὑπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἑωραμένων παραπλήσια. Comp. also Ezek. x. 15: καὶ τὰ Χερουβὶμ ἦσαν τοῦτο τὸ ζῶον, ὃ ἴδον κατλ. TLbid. ver. 20.— The cherubim are called Χερουβὶμ δόξης. That may mean cherubim of glory or brightness, to whom glory or brightness is proper (so Camerarius, Estius, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, o CHAP. IX. 6, 7. 319 Stuart, Kuinoel, al.), or the cherubim which pertain to the divine glory, the im! 33, ae. who are the bearers of the divine glory (so the majority). Grammatically the former is easier (on account of the absence of the article before δόξης). But the latter is to be preferred as yielding a more appropriate thought, and the omission of the article is to be justified from the usage of the LXX. Ex. xl 34; 1 Sam. iv. 22; Ezek. ix. 3, x. 18, al.—xKatracKidforvta τὸ ἱλαστήριον] which over- shadow the propitiatory (or mercy-seat). κατασκιάξειν in the N. T. only here. Comp. συσκιάζειν, Ex. xxv. 20; σκιάζειν, Ex. xxxvu. 9; 1 Chron. xxviii.18. A more choice verb than περικαλύπτειν, 1 Kings viii. 7. τὸ ἱλαστήριον (N52), the cover of the ark of the covenant, which on the great day of atonement was sprinkled with the sacrificial blood for the expiation of the sins of the people. Comp. Lev. xvi. 14 f.— περὶ ὧν] goes back not merely to the cherubim (Ebrard, p. 294), but also to all the objects before enumerated. — ov« ἔστιν] it concerns us not, or: is not the place, or: ts impossible. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 20. Of the same meaning as the more definite οὐκ ἔξεστιν. With Kurtz to supply τόπος is inad- missible.— κατὰ μέρος] ὧν detail. The author does not design to set forth the typical significance of every single object enumerated; the indication of the typical significance of the two main divisions of the Jewish sanctuary is that which he at present aims at, and to this task he now addresses himself in that which immediately follows, comp. ver. 8. Vy. 6, 7. After the collective expression τὸ ὥγιον κοσ- μικόν, ver. 1, has been analyzed into its single constituent parts, vv. 2-5, and a recapitulatory reference has been made to the total result of this given analysis by means of τούτων οὕτως κατεσκευασμένων, ---- [Π6 opposition to μέν, ver. 1, being formally introduced by δέ, and then receiving its more precise material definmg by means of the statement, ver. 8, which is attached in a grammatical respect as a subsidiary clause,—the discourse advances to the development of the further general idea, which is placed in the forefront, ver. 1, but has hitherto remained unnoticed, the twofold expression δικαιώματα λατρείας. --- From the present εἰσίασιν, as from προσφέρει, ver. 7 (comp. also ver. 8 ἢ), it follows that 320 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. the Mosaic cultus was still continuing at the time when the author wrote. The participle perfect, κατεσκευασμένων, how- ever, denotes that which is extending out of the past into the present, and is still enduring in the present (see Winer, Gramui., 7 Aufl. p. 254). The present hereby indicated can, of course, only be that in which the author himself is living and writing. The endeavour to explain it of a present into which the author only mentally places himself, is as little warranted gramma- tically as is the asserting, with Hofmann, that the present in which the discourse here moves is “not a past, nor actual, nor something still continuing, but that set forth in the word of God, where it is to be read how the sanctuary erected by Moses was constituted, and what priests and high priests do in the same;” or with Mangold (in Bleek’s inleit. in das N. T. p. 617), to find the Scripture picture of the tabernacle drawn in our passage as a “ purely ideal magnitude, which by no means guarantees the actual continued existence of the temple worship.” For, in order to render possible supposi- tions of this kind, the conjoining of the presents with a parti- ciple aorist would have been indispensably necessary. From the form of discourse chosen: τούτων οὕτως κατεσκευασ- μένων (“in that these objects have been in such wise regu- lated”), in union with the present tenses εἰσίασιν and προσφέρει, it therefore follows of necessity that the author, although here entering only upon the presentation of the typical significance of the two main divisions of the Mosaic sanctuary, nevertheless thinks of these two main divisions, together with all that appertains to them,—which he has just now enumerated,—as still preserved in being, thus also as still present in the Jewish temple of his day; by which supposi- tion, it is true, he becomes involved in contradiction with the historic reality, inasmuch as alike the ark of the covenant as the vessel of manna and Aaron’s rod were wanting in the second temple. Vid. supra ad ver. 4. With very little reflection does Riehm (Lehrbeqr. des Hebrderbr. p. 491, Obs.) object to this conclusion, that “with just the same right one might infer from the present in xiii. 11 that the author supposed the Israelites of his time to be still dwelling in a camp.” The passage xiii. 11 has nothing whatever in common with CLAP. IX. 7. by pa ours, since it is here a question of the combination of a par- ticiple perfect with verbs in the present. That, too, which Delitzsch sets against it, that the τούτων οὕτως κατεσκευασ- μένων, pointing back to κατεσκευάσθη, ver. 2, certainly shows that the author has the Mosaic period before his mind, utterly collapses, inasmuch as the participle perfect, and not the par- ticiple aorist, has been employed. Phrases, however, like those met with in Delitzsch: that the author was writing for just such readers as would not have given him credit for an ignorance like this, are peremptory decisions, for which the result is already fixed before the investigation, and consequently intimidations of the grammatical conscience. — ἣ πρώτη σκηνή] as ver. 2, the fore-tent or Holy Place. — διὰ παντός] continually, ie. day by day. Opposite ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, ver. 7.— οἱ ἱερεῖς] opposite μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, ver. 7.— τὰς λατρείας ἐπιτελοῦντες] performing the religious actions. Daily, morning and evening, an offering of incense was presented, and daily were the lamps of the sacred candlestick placed in readiness and kindled. Comp. Ex. xxx. 7 ff. Ver. 7. ΝΗ δευτέρα] sc. σκηνή, the Most Holy Place. — ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ] once in the year, 1.0. only on a single day of the year, namely, on the tenth of the seventh month (Tisri), on the great solemnity of atonement. The supposition that the high priest on this day more than once entered the Most Holy Place is not excluded by the expression, and the disputed question as to how many times this took place has no bearing on our passage. That the high priest was obliged to enter the Most Holy Place at least twice on this day, follows from Lev. xvi. 12-16. That he entered into it as many as four times is the teaching of the Talmud (tract. Joma, v. 1, vii. 4) and Labbins. — μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς] sc. εἴσεισι. ---- προσφέρει] is not to be explained, as by Calov and others, of the sacrifices owt- side of the Most Holy Place. For in this case we should have to expect the aorist. It is employed of the blood of the victim before slain, which blood the high priest carries into the Most Holy Place, and here in the Most Holy Place presents to God (the Socinians, Grotius, Bleek). — ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων] for himself and the transgressions of the people. To make ἑαυτοῦ likewise depend upon ἀγνοημάτων Muyer.—HExz. Χ 322 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (for his own sins and those of the people: Vulgate, Luther (?), Calvin, Piscator, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Storr, Stuart, Paulus, and others), is, although the thought is not thereby altered (comp. vii. 27), grammatically false; because in that case the article τῶν could not have been wanting before ἑαυτοῦ. ---- ayvonudtwr] see at v. 2, p. 198. Ver. 8. Now follows (apparently as a subordinate thought) the main consideration, with a view to which the author has been led more fully to describe the ἅγιον κοσμικόν and the δικαιώματα λατρείας of ver. 1. ---- τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύ- patos ἁγίου] the Holy Ghost indicating this very thing (follow- ing), — τοῦτο] has the emphasis, and acquires its development of contents by means of μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι... . στάσιν. ---- τοῦ πνεύματος ἁγίου] The arrangement of the sanctuary and priesthood prescribed by God to Moses is thought of by our author as carried into effect by Moses under the assistance and guidance of the Holy Ghost; the idea expressed in that arrangement might therefore very easily be represented as an indication designed by the Holy Ghost. — μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδόν, ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν] that the way of the sanctuary is not yet mantfested, so long as the fore-tabernacle still exists, — τῶν ἁγίων) is erroneously - apprehended by the Peshito and Schulz (comp. also Zeger) as masculine. It is neuter. Does not, however, as ver. 2, denote the Holy Place, but, as vv. 12, 24, 25, x. 19, xii, 11 (comp. also τὸ ἅγιον, Lev. xvi. 16, 17, 20, al.), the Most Holy Place, and that not the earthly one (Kurtz),—for that would be a trifling statement; whereas surely τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύ- ματος ἁγίου prepares the way for a deeper truth, vid. infra,— but the heavenly reality, the throne of the Godhead. — 7 τῶν ἁγίων ὁδός signifies the way to the Most Holy Place. Comp. Matt. x. 5: εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν ; Jer. 11. 18: τῇ ὁδῷ Αἰγύπτου, al. ; Kiihner, II. p. 176, Obs. 4; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 176. — ἔχειν στάσιν further means: to have existence, toexist. We have not, however, with Béhme, to import into it a secondary reference to firmness or legal validity, and ἡ πρώτη σκηνή is not the one first in point of time, 1.0. the earthly, Jewish sanctuary in opposition to the heavenly (Hunnius, Seb. Schmidt, Carpzoy, Semler, Baumgarten, Bloomfield, ai.), still less the CHAP, IX. 9. 320 tabernacle in opposition to the later temple (Peirce, Sykes), but the fore-tabernacle or Holy Place, in opposition to the in- terior tabernacle or Most Holy Place. The thought is: by the ordering that the Most Holy Place, the presence-chamber and place of manifestation of God, might not be entered, save on one single day of the year, and by the high priest alone, while the daily Levitical service of the priests is accomplished in the Holy Place, and thus approach to the former debarred and shut off by the latter, the Holy Ghost proclaims that so long as the Levitical priesthood, and consequently the Mosaic law in general, continues, the immediate access to God is not yet: permitted ; that thus, in order to the bringing about and render- ing possible of a full and direct communion with God, the Old Testament covenant-religion must first fall, and the more perfect one brought in by Christ (ver. 11) must take its place. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 51, as also Josephus, Antig. iii. 8.7: τὴν δὲ τρίτην μοῖραν [τῆς σκηνῆς] μόνῳ περιέγραψε τῷ θεῷ διὰ τὸ καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεπίβατον εἶναι ἀνθρώποις. Vv. 9,10 are closely, indeed, connected grammatically with that which precedes, but, logically regarded, introduce the third and last main point of the disquisition on the high-priestly superiority of Christ over the Levitical high priests. For after (1) it had been shown that Christ, as regards His person, is exalted above the Levitical high priests (iv. 14—vii. 28), and then afterwards (2) it was proved that likewise the sanctuary in which He ministers surpasses in sublimity the Levitical sanctuary (vii. 1—ix. 8), it is now further stated (3) that the sacrifice also which He has offered is more excellent than the Levitical sacrifices (ix. J—x. 18). Ver. 9. Ἥτις] is not synonymous with 7. It is employed argumentatively, in that it presents the following declaration as a fact, the truth of which is manifest. We have not, however, to take ἥτις with παραβολή as a designation of the subject (Calvin, al.: which emblem was only for the present time ; Storr, a/.: which emblem was to continue only to the present; Zeger, Semler, de Wette, al.: which emblem has reference to the present time). For the verb to be supple- mented would not be the mere copula; it would have a peculiar signification, and thus could not be omitted. #rus S24 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. alone is consequently the subject, and παραβολή the predicate. Yet ἥτις is not to be referred back to στάσιν (Chr. Fr. Schmid), for the expression στάσιν does not occupy a sufficiently inde- pendent position in the preceding context to justify this; still less—what is thought possible by Cramer—to τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδόν, by which the idea would be rendered unmeaning. Nor have we to assume an attraction to παραβολή, in such wise that ἥτις should stand in the sense of ὅ,τε (so Bengel, who makes it point back to vv. 6-8 ; Maier, who makes it refer to vy. 7,8; Michaelis, who makes it refer to μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι «.T.»., and others), or, what amounts to the same thing, to supplement to the phrase ἥτες παραβολή, comprehended together as a subject, παραβολή ἐστιν as a predicate: which emblem (described vv. 6-8) is an emblem for the present time (so Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Marz, p. 188 f.). For, in the course of vv. 9, 10, respect is had just to the closing words alone of ver. 8: ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν. The exclusively right construction, therefore, is the referring back of ἥτις to THs πρώτης σκηνῆς, ver. 8. — παρα- βολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα] sc. ἐστίν. παραβολή in the Gospels very frequently a fictitious historic likeness. Here a likeness by means of a fact, an emblem. Not in- correctly, therefore, is it explained, on the part of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, by τύπος. --- εἰς] in reference to, as regards. Instead of εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, Cconse- quently, the mere τοῦ καιροῦ τοῦ ἐνεστηκότος might have been written. — ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐνεστηκώς] the present time. The opposite thereto is formed by the καιρὸς διορθώσεως, ver. 10, by which the reader is referred to the Christian epoch of time, the αἰὼν μέλλων (vi. 5; comp. also ii. 5). ὁ καιρὸς 6 ἐνεσ- τη κώς is therefore synonymous with the αἰὼν οὗτος elsewhere, and indicates the pre-Christian period of time still extending onward into the present.’ The term καιρός, however, is chosen, instead of the more general χρόνος or αἰών, because 1 Quite mistaken (as is already apparent even from the opposition to καιρὸς διορθώσεως, ver. 10) is the opinion of Delitzsch, with whom Alford concurs, that ὁ καιρὸς 6 ἐνεστηκώς denotes the present begun with the καινὴ διαθήκη, the present of the New Testament time, in which the parable has attained its close. See, on the contrary, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 494, Obs., and specially Reiche, Commentar. Crit. p. 74 sq. — That, for the rest, by ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐνεστηκώς CHAP. IX. 10. 320 it is the thought of the author that this period of time has already reached its turning-point, at which it is to take its departure. — καθ᾽ ἣν] conformably to which, or in accordance with which, applies not to παραβολή (Oecumenius, Bleek, Bisping, Delitasch, Nickel, Z.c., Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebréierbr. p: 495, Obs.; Ἀρύτα, Woerner, a/.), but to τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς, as the last preceding main notion ; stands thus parallel to ἥτις, — - μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι τὸν λατρεύοντα] is to be taken in close connection with δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι προσφέρονται (oboinet Bohme, who unwarrantably presses the force of the plural δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι). ---- κατὰ συνείδησιν] as regards the consciousness, or as to the conscience (Theophylact : Ta τὸν ἔσω ἄῤβῃρπον), 1... so that the reality of being led perfection is inwardly experienced, and the conscience in conn€étion thdreyjth feels itself satisfied. — τὸν λατρεύοντα] kim rendering tM service (x. 2). Not specially the priest is meant (Estius, 4" comp. also Drusius), but in general, the man doing hdmage to_Glod by the offering of sacrifice, whether himself, or another who presents ium of the priest. [Matt. iv. 10; 1 . καὶ πόμ. καὶ διαφ. βαπτισμοῖς δικαιώματα σαρκὸς κ.τ.λ.} h, together with meats and drinks and divers washings, are ‘on fleshly ordinances, imposed until ihe time of reformation. Apposition to δῶρά τε Kat θυσίαι, μὴ δυνάμεναι «.7.r., ver. 9.— μόνον] belongs to δικαιώματα σαρκός, but is placed in advance of this on account of the addition ἐπὶ βρώμασιν x.7.r.; and ἐπί expresses the accession to something already present (Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 3670), or the existence externally side by side. Comp. eg. Hom. Od. vil. 120: ὄγχνη ἐπ᾽ ὄγχνῃ γηράσκει, μῆλον δ᾽ ἐπὶ μήλῳ; Thucyd. ii. 101: ὑποσχόμενος ἀδελφὴν ἑαυτοῦ δώσειν καὶ χρήματα ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ. --- Otherwise is it explained by others, in that they take μόνον ἐπί in close combination, give to ἐπέ it be a priest who offe this offering through the cf. 6 προσερχόμενος, Heb. Ver. 10. Μόνον ἐπὶ only that present in which the author lived and wrote can be meant, needs not another word of explanation. When Kurtz and Hofmann deny this,—and the former will understand only an ‘“‘ imagined present,” into which the author ΚΕ only transposed himself ;” the latter, ‘‘ that present in which the Holy Ghost prophesied by means of that which was written in the law,”—this is done only in the interest of their wrong interpretations of ver. 6, 326 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. the signification “in reference to,” and place both words still in relation to ver. 9. They then regard μόνον ἐπὶ «7.2. either as nearer definition to προσφέρονται (so, substantially, Vatablus, Schlichting, and others), or as opposition to κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι (so Schulz, Ebrard, αἰ). But against the first supposition the material ground is decisive, that the presentation of sacrifices in reality had reference by no means exclusively to the expiation of offences against the ordinances regulative of food and lustrations; against the second, the linguistic ground that ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ βρώμασιν μόνον x.7.r. must have been written instead of μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμασιν κιτιλ, Yet others take μόνον ἐπὶ «.7.r. in close conjunction with τὸν Aatpevovta, ver. 9. So perhaps already the Vulgate (per- fectum facere servientem solummodo in cibis), then Luther (« him that does religious service only in meats and drink,” etc.), Estius, Corn. a Lapide, Olearius, Semler, Ernesti, Ewald, Hofmann, and others. But the additional words would too ereatly drag, the thought resulting would be incommensurable with κατὰ nena: τελειῶσαι, and the formula λατρεύειν ἐπί τινι in the sense indicated without example. — The βρώματα καὶ πόματα are interpreted by Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Heinrichs, Maier, and others of the sacrificial meals; by Bleek and de Wette, of the partaking of the paschal supper in particular. But the mention of these practices would be, here at any rate, something too special, and the words xiii. 9 can furnish no standard for the interpretation of our passage. More correctly, therefore, is it thought in general of the meats and drinks permitted, as of those forbidden, in the Mosaic law. Comp. Col. ii. 16; Rom. xiv. 17. With regard to drinks, there are in the Mosaic law prohibitions only for special cases; comp. Num. vi. 3; Lev. x. 9, xi. 34. Comp. however, also Matt. xxiii. 24; Rom. xiv. 21. — καὶ ἐκειμρεὺ βαπτισμοῖς] Comp. Ex. xxix. 4; Lev. xi 25, 28, 32, 40, xw, 6-9; ἐν σὴ, xvi. 4,24 ff; Numi waite See {π| ff, al. — δικαιώματα σαρκός] ordinances of the flesh, 1.6. ordinances that relate to the flesh, and thus bear the impress of the earthly and transitory. — μέχρι καιροῦ διορθώσεως ἐπικείμενα] imposed (only) wntil the time of reformation. The καιρὸς διορθώσεως is the epoch of the promised New and more CHAP. IX. 11, 12. = Af excellent Covenant (viii. 8 ff.), which has begun with the appearing of Christ. — διόρθωσις} only here in the N. T. — ἐπικείμενα] Oecumenius: βάρος yap ἣν μόνον τὰ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, καθώς φασιν oi ἀπόστολοι. Comp. Acts xv. 10, 28. Vy. 11, 12. Antithesis to vv. 9,10. What the religion of the Mosaic covenant was wnable to effect, that has been accom- plished by Christ. — maparyevomevos ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν] having appeared as High Priest of the good things to come. The verb in the same sense as Matt. 1. 1, 1 Mace. iv. 46; synonymous with ἀνίστασθαι, Heb. vii. 11, 15. Strangely misapprehending the meaning, Ebrard: παραγενό- μενος is to be looked upon as an “adjectival attribute” to ἀρχιερεύς, and the thought is, “as a present High Priest,’— an acceptation which is incompatible with the participle of the aorist. — High Priest of the good things to come (comp. x. 1) is Christ called, inasmuch as these good things are the conse- quence and result of His high-priestly activity. They are the blessings of everlasting salvation, which the author, ver. 12, sums up in the expression αἰωνία λύτρωσις ; and they are called futwre, inasmuch as they are proper to the αἰὼν μέλλων (vi. 5), or the οἰκουμένη μέλλουσα (ii. 5), and the full enjoy- ment of them will first come in at the consummation of the kingdom of God, to be looked for with the return of Christ. — διὰ τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς x.T.r.] through the ereater and more perfect tabernacle, which is not made with hands—that is to say, not of this world. The words belong to εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὰ ἅγια, ver. 12, and dca is used in the local sense: “through” (not instrumentally, as the dvd, ver. 12). To join the words to that which precedes, and find in them an indication of that by means of which Christ became ἀρχιερεὺς ᾿ τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθών (Primasius, Luther, Dorscheus, Schulz, Hofmann, Sehrifibew. II. 1, pp. 409, 412 f., 2 Aufl.—which latter will accordingly also take the διά, ver. 12, in both cases along with ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν ; otherwise, how- ever, in the Comm. p. 337,—Moll, and others), is erroneous, because by virtue of οὐδέ, ver. 12, the existence of an already preceding link in the nearer definition of εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὰ ἅγια is presupposed. — But to interpret the σκηνή through which Christ has entered into the Most Holy Place as the body of 328 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Christ, or His human nature (so, on account of x. 20, Chrysos- tom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Clarius, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Piscator, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Ham- mond, Owen, Bengel, Peirce, Sykes, Ernesti, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Friederich, Symbolik des Mos, Stiftshiitte, Leipz. 1841, p. 296 ff, and others; also Hofmann, Schriftbew. 11. 1, p. 415, 2 Aufl, who, however, will have us think of the glorified human nature of Christ), or as the holy life of Christ (Ebrard), or as the (militant) church upon earth (Cajetan, Corn. a Lapide, Calovy, Wittich, Braun, Wolf, Rambach, Michaelis, ad Peire., Cramer, Baumgarten), or, finally, as the world in general (Justinian, Carpzov), is inconsistent with the point of comparison suggested by the comparatives μείζονος and τελειοτέρας in accordance with the foregoing disquisition, in general is opposed to the connection with vv. 1-10, and has against it the antithesis in which τὰ ἅγια, ver. 12, stands to σκηνή, ver. 11, as also the addition οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως. The lower spaces of the heavens are intended—corresponding to the πρώτη σκηνή of the earthly sanctuary (vv. 2, 6, 8)—as the preliminary stage of the heavenly Holy of Holies. Comp. iv. 14: διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς. --- μείζονος Kal τελειοτέρας] sc. than the Mosaie σκηνή. ---- ov χειροποιήτου] Comp. viii. 2: ἣν ἔπηξεν ὁ κύριος, . οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24; Mark xiv. 58; 2 Cor. v. 1. --- οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως] not belonging to the earthly created world (the earth) lying before one’s eyes (ταύτης). Wrongly: Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, Vatablus, Beza, Jac. . Cappellus, Wolf, Bengel, Kuinoel, Friederich, 1.6. p. 296, and others: not of this kind of building, sc. the same as the earthly sanctuary ; or: as earthly things in general. Ver. 12. Οὐδέ] nor. Οὐδέ is written by the author, misled by the foregoing notes of negation: οὐ χειροποιήτου and ov ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως, Whereas, properly, καὶ ov ought to have been written, since that which is introduced by οὐδέ is parallel, — not to the negative expressions further characterizing the σκηνή, but to the preceding διά. --- δι αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων] by (by means of) blood of goats and calves, by which the entrance of the earthly high priests into the Most Holy Place was made possible on the great day of atonement. Comp. Lev. xvi. 14, 15. — διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος} the Levi- CHAP. ΙΧ. 18, 14. 329 tical high priest entered the Most Holy Place not merely by means of the blood of animals, he entered at the same time with this blood (ver. 7). The author, however, has respect, with reference to the Levitical high priest also, only to the former notion, since only this, and not at the same time the latter, was suitable for application to Christ (Schlichting). If he had desired that the notion of the μετά should also be supplied in thought in our passage (Kurtz), he would have known how to express likewise this “ somewhat gross material conception ” (Bleek II.). — ἐφάπαξ] once for all. Corresponds to the following αἰωνίαν. -- εἰς τὰ ὥγια] into the inner sane- twuary of heaven. — αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος] having obtained (by His sacrificial death) eternal redemption. Incorrectly do Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, and Moll take εὑράμενος as something coinciding in point of time with εἰσῆλθεν. If it had been so intended, the participle present would have been placed instead of εὑράμενος. --- εὑρίσκεσθαι signifies: to jind (for oneself), obtain. The λύτρωσις became Christ’s peculiar possession, thus—-since He Himself, as the Sinless One, needed it not—to make it over to those who believe in Him. — This λύτρωσις is the ransoming, 1.6. redemption from the guilt and punishment of sin, and it is called alwv/a, eternal, or of indefeasible validity, in opposition to the sacri- fices of the O. T. priests, which had to be renewed every year, since they were designed each for the [typical] expiation of the sins of a single year. — The feminine formation alwvia in the N. T. only here and 2 Thess. ii. 16. Vy. 13,14. Justification of αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος, ver. 12, by an argument a minore ad majus. With the quanti- tative augmentation, however, expressed by εἰ... πόσῳ μᾶλλον, there is at the same time blended a qualitative augmentation by means of πρὸς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα and τὴν συνείδησιν ἡμ. «.7.r., in such wise that the two follow- ing thoughts are enfolded the one in the other :—(1) If even the blood of animals works cleansing ...how much more the blood of Christ? (2) If that effects the purity of the flesh, this effects purity of conscience. — καὶ σπόδος δαμάλεως) and ashes of an heifer. According to Num. xix., those who by contact with a dead body had become defiled, must be So THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. sprinkled with a mixture of water and the ashes of a spotless red heifer wholly consumed by fire, of which the ashes were preserved in a clean place without the camp (with the so-called m7, Num. xix. 9, 13, 20, 21; LXX.: ὕδωρ ῥαντισμοῦ), in order to become clean again. — ῥαντίζουσα τοὺς κεκοινωμένους] sprinkling those who have been defiled. Free mode of expression for: with which (ashes) those who have been defiled are sprinkled. — τοὺς κεκοινωμένους] belongs, since ῥαντίζουσα most requires an express addition of the object, to this verb (Erasmus, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, Woerner, al.), not to ἁγιάζει (Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Schulz, a/.), which latter stands absolutely: works sanctification. — mpos τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα] to the (producing of the) purity of the flesh. πρός, as v. 14. Indication of the result. Ver. 14.’ Incomparably more efficacious must the sacrifice of Christ be. For—(1) Christ offered Himself, 1.6. He gave up His own body to the death of a sacrifice, while the Levitical high priest derives his material of sacrifice from a domain foreign to himself personally ; then: He offered Himself from a free resolve of will, while the Levitical high priest is placed under the necessity of sacrificing, by the command of an external ordinance, and the sacrificial victim whose blood he offers is an irrational animal, which consequently knows nothing of the end to which it is applied. The Levitical act of sacrifice is then an external one wrought in accordance with ordinance, a sensuous one; Christ’s act of sacrifice, on the other hand, one arising out of the disposition of the heart, thus a moral one. From this it is already evident how it could be said (2) that Christ offered Himself διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου. The ethical belongs to the province of the spirit. Christ accordingly offered Himself by virtue of spirit, because His act of sacrifice was, in relation to God, an act of the highest spiritual obedience (Phil. ii. 8), in relation to the human brethren an act of the highest spiritual love (2 Cor. v. 14,15). Διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου, however, by virtue of eternal spirit did Christ offer Himself, inasmuch as the notion 1A, L. van der Boon Mesch, Specimen Hermencuticum in locum ad Hebr. ix. 14, Lugd, Bat. 1819, ϑνο. CHAP, IX. 14. Sol of the eternal belongs inseparably and essentially to the notion of spirit, in opposition to σάρξ, which has the notion of the transitory as its essential presupposition. The adjective αἰωνίου is added in natural correspondence with αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν, ver. 12. For only by virtue of eternal spirit could a redemption which is to be eternal, or of ever- enduring validity, be accomplished. — The majority have interpreted διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου of the Holy Spirit; then thinking either, as Clarius, Estius, Whitby, and others, of the third person in the divine trias, or as Bleek, de Wette, and others, of the Spirit of God which dwelt in Christ in all its fulness, and was the principle which animated Him at every moment. But this application is too special. For, in accordance with the force of the words and the connection of the thoughts, there can stand as a tacit antithesis to the expression: διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου, only the general formula: διὰ σαρκὸς προσκαίρου, whereby the mode of accomplishing the Levitical acts of sacrifice would be characterized. Moreover, if the Holy Spirit had been intended, the choice of the adjective αἰωνίου instead of ἁγέου must have appeared strange, because indis- tinct and liable to being misunderstood; finally, the absence of the article also is best explained on the supposition that the formula is to be understood generically. Too special, likewise, is the explanation of the words adopted by Aretius, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Gomarus, Calov, Wolf, Peirce, M‘Lean, Bisping, and many others, in part coinciding with the second form of the first main interpretation, according to which, by πνεῦμα αἰώνιον, the divine nature of Christ, or “the principle of the eternal Sonship of God indwelling in Christ” (Kurtz), is designated. This view already finds its refutation in the fact that πνεῦμα has its opposite in σάρξ, and πνεῦμα and σάρξ are contrasted as spirit and body, not as divine and human. To be rejected farther is the procedure of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Carpzov, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 525 ff.), Reuss,’ Kurtz, Woerner, and others, in 1« Hermann; CHAP, X. 8—5. 361 ad Viger. p. 771; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 323 f.— τοὺς λατρεύοντας] see at ix. 9. Ver. 3. Contrast to τὸ μηδεμίαν ἔχειν ἔτι συνείδησιν ἁμαρτιῶν τοὺς λατρεύοντας. In such wise, however, that the offerers should have no more consciousness of guilt, the matter does not stand; on the contrary, there lies in the yearly repetition of the sacrifices the yearly reminder that sins are still remaining, and have to be expiated.' Comp. Philo, de Victim. Ὁ. 841 A (with Mangey, II. p. 244): Einoes γὰρ tas θυσίας μὴ λήθην ἁμαρτημάτων, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπόμνησιν αὐτῶν κατασκευάζειν. --- De plantat. Νοῦ, p. 229 B (I. p. 345): at... θυσία... ὑπομιμνήσκουσαι τὰς ἑκάστων ἀγνοίας τε καὶ διαμαρτίας. ---- Vit. Mos. iii. p. 669 E (II. p. 151): Kat γὰρ ὁπότε γίνεσθαι δοκοῦσιν (sc. the θυσίαι and εὐχαί of the impious), οὐ λύσιν ἁμαρτημάτων ἀλλ᾽ ὑπόμνησιν ἐργάζονται. --ἐν αὐταῖς) sc. ταῖς θυσίαις. --- ἀνάμνησις) ποῦ: commemoratio (Vulgate, Calvin, Clarius, αἱ.) or commemoratio publica (Bengel and others), so that we must think of the confession of sin (tract. Jom. iv. 2, 111. 8, vi. 2) which the high priest made on the great day of atonement with regard to himself and the whole people (Schlichting, Grotius, Braun, al.); but: reminding, recalling to memory. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25; Luke xxii. 19. Ver. 4. Proof that it cannot be otherwise, drawn from the matter itself which is under consideration. By a rudely sensuous means we cannot attain to a high spiritual good. Vv. 5-10. Scripture proof, from Ps. xl. 7-9 [6-8], that deliverance from sins is to be obtained, not by animal sacrifices, but only by the fulfilling of the will of God. On the ground of this fulfilment of God’s will by Christ are we Christians sanctified. Ver. 5. 4ι0] Wherefore, 1.6. in accordance with the im- possibility declared at ver. 4.—Déyer] He saith. As subject thereto is naturally supplied Christ, although He was not mentioned again since ix. 28. This determination of the 1 To join on the words of ver. 3 to those of ver. 1, and then to look upon ver, 2 as a parenthesis (Kurtz, Hofmann), is inadmissible, even—apart from the ἀλλά, of frequent use after a question—because ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν, ver. 3, points back to the kindred συνείδησιν ἁμαρτιῶν, ver. 2. 362 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. subject is already placed beyond doubt by the whole connec- tion, but not less by the pointing back of τοῦ σώματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ver. 10, to σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, ver. 5. According to the view of our author, Christ is speaking’ in the person of the psalmist. The psalm itself, indeed, as is almost universally acknowledyed, refuses to admit of the Messianic interpretation (comp. especially ver. 13 [12]). The present λέγει, Moreover, might be placed, because the utterance is one extending into the present, 1.6. one which may still be daily read in the Scripture. — εἰσερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον at His coming into the world, 1.6. on the eve of coming (see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 249) into the world? (sc. by His incarnation). This determining of time is taken from the ἥκω, ver. 7. According to Bleek, who is preceded therein by Grotius, and followed by de Wette, as more recently by Maier and Beyschlag, die Christologie des Neuen Testaments, Berl. 1866, p. 192, the author in penning the words εἰσερχό- μενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον was thinking “less of the moment of the incarnation and birth than of the public coming forth upon earth to the work assigned to Him by the Father, in connec- tion with which His entrance into the world first became manifested to the world itself.” But in that case εἰσελθών must have been written, and the formula εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς Tov κόσμον (John 1: 9, vi. 14, xi. 27; Rom. v. 12; 1 Tim. i. 15, al.) would lose its natural signification. The same applies against Delitzsch, who, bringing in that which lies very remote, will have the words explained: “incarnate, and having entered upon the years of human self-determination, signified Isa. vii. 16,’—-an exposition which is not any the more rendered acceptable, when Delitzsch adds, with a view to doing justice to the participle present: “we need not regard the εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον as a point; we can also conceive of it as a line.’® For the author cannot possibly 1 Arbitrarily does Kurtz place in λέγει a double sense, in that he will have it understood on the part of the psalmist of a speaking in words, on the part of Christ of a speaking by deeds. 2 Without reason do Delitzsch and Alford object against this interpretation, that the following σῶμα κατηρτίσω μοι is not in harmony therewith. See the exposition of the words. 3 So, in accord with Delitzsch, also Alford, who observes: ‘*It expresses, I CHAP. % 8. 363 have thought of Christ’s εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον, and His λέγειν temporally therewith coinciding, as something constantly repeated and only progressively developed.—@valav καὶ προσ- φορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας] sacrifice and offering (bloody and un- , bloody sacrifices) Zhow didst not will, Kindred utterances in Pew: = Kes Ps. 1, 7-15, li. Lond [16 ff}; 188. i. £1); Jer. vi. 20, vii. 21-23; Hos. vi. 6; Amos v. 21 ff; 1 Sam. xv. 22. That, however, the author founded his Scripture proof precisely upon Ps. xl, was occasioned principally by the addition, very important for his purpose: σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, which is found there.— σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι] but « body hast Thow prepared me, sc. in order to be clothed with the same, and by the giving up of the same unto death to fulfil Thy will, Comp. ver. 7. Thus, without doubt, the author found in his copy of the LXX. But that the Hebrew words : ὃ m2 DIS (the ears hast Thou digged to me, 1.6. by revelation opened up religious knowledge to me), were even originally rendered by the LXX. by σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω por, as is contended by Jac. Cappellus, Wolf, Carpzov, Tholuck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others, is a supposition hardly to be entertained. Probably the LXX. rendered the Hebrew words by ὠτία δὲ κατηρτίσω pot, as they are still found in some ancient Mss. of that version, and σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι arose, not “from the translator being unable to attach any satisfactory meaning to the words ‘the ears hast thou digged to me, and therefore altering them with his own hand” (Kurtz); but only from an accidental corruption of the text, in that Σ΄, the final letter of the ἠθέλησας immediately preceding, was wrongly carried over to the following word, and instead of TI the letter M was erroneously read. Ver. 6. Ln burnt-offerings and sin-offerings hadst Thow no pleasure. —LXX. Cod. Vatic.: ὁλοκαύτωμα... οὐκ ἤτησας ; Cod. Alex.: ὁλοκαυτώματα. .. οὐκ ἐξήτησας. ---- καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας] Oecumenius: τουτέστι προσφορὰν περὶ ἁμαρτίας. believe, the whole time during which the Lord, being ripened in human resolution, was in intent devoting Himself to the doing of His Father’s will: the time of which that youthful question, ‘ Wist ye not that I must be ἐν τοῖς σοῦ πατρός wou?’ was one of the opening announcements.” 364 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Elsewhere also occasionally (Lev. vii. 37; Num. viii. 8, al.) the LXX. denote the sin-offering by the mere περὶ ἁμαρτίας, in that the additional notion of sacrifice is naturally yielded by the context. Stein’s expedient for avoiding all supple- menting of the idea, in translating καί by “also” (“Thou hast also no pleasure in offerings for sin”), is grammatically inadmissible. —- εὐδοκεῖν] with the accusative also not rare elsewhere in Hellenistic Greek. Comp. LXX. Gen. xxxiii. 10; Lev. xxvi. 34, 41; Ps. li. 18, 21, al. Besides this in the Hellenistic εὐδοκεῖν ἐν (x. 38), with Greek writers εὐδοκεῖν TlwWt. Ver. 7. Tore εἶπον) then said 7. In the sense of the writer of the epistle: then, when Thou hadst prepared for me a body. In the sense of the composer of the psalm: then, when such deeper knowledge was revealed to me. Contrary to the usage of the language, Carpzov, Stein, and others take τότε as equivalent to ideo, propterea, while just as eapriciously Heinrichs makes it redundant as a particle of transition. — ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ] is a parenthesis; so that τοῦ πονῆσαι depends not on γέγραπται, as Paulus thinks, but upon ἥκω: Lo, I come to do, O God, Thy will. Comp. ver. 9. Otherwise truly with the LXX. (and in the Hebrew), where tod ποιῆσαι is governed by the closing verb ἠβουλήθην, which is omitted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημά cov, ὁ Oeds μου, ἠβουλήθην: to do Thy will, O God, is my delight). — ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ is in the Hebrew differently connected and applied. In the sense of our author: in the prophecies of the O. T. it is written of me. — κεφαλίς, little head, then the knob at the end of the staff, around which the manuscript roll was wound in antiquity. κεφαλὶς βιβλίου consequently denotes the book- voll, volume. Elsewhere also the LXX. translated the Hebrew mpi (volumen), with and without the addition of βιβλίου, by κεφαλίς. Comp. Ezek. ii. 9, iii. 1-3; Ezra vi. 2.— τὸ θέλημα] in the sense of our author: the obedient presentation of the body as a sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. Vy. 8-10. Contrasting of the two main elements in the citation just adduced, and emphasizing of the fact that the one CHAP, S20 505 element, upon which God lays no stress, is represented by Judaism ; the other, to which value is attached in God’s sight, is represented by Christianity. — ἀνώτερον) above, in the opening words of the declaration. — λέγων] sce. ὁ Χριστός." The participle present, in place of which Schlichting, Grotius, Bleek, de Wette expect that of the aorist, is employed here, even as λέγει, ver. 5, because the utterance, as being recorded in Scripture, is one still enduring. Only the author makes manifest, by the fact that he writes λέγων, not εἰπών or λέξας, that less importance is to be attached to the indication as to the relation of time, in which the two statements are placed to each other, than to the contrasting of these two statements themselves; thus: while He saith above, etc., He has then said, etc. — ὅτι] recitative particle, as vii. 17, xi. 18. — θυσίας καὶ προσφοράς] The plural appropriately serves for the generalization of the utterance. — αἵτινες κατὰ νόμον προσφέρονται] as those things which are presented by virtue of legal precept. Suggestive reference to the imperfection and ineffectiveness of Judaism, since this makes salvation dependent precisely upon those ordinances of external sacrifice which God willed not, and in which He has no pleasure. The words are no parenthetic clause, as is still maintained by Bleek and Kurtz, but an addition essential to the argument of the writer, which does not interrupt the construction. They form the application, thus emphatically appended, of the first half of the thought in the Scripture citation, to Judaism, to which the parallel is formed in ver. 10 by the application of the second half to Christianity.— αἵτινες] refers back to the whole of the preceding substantives. Ver. 9. Tore εἴρηκεν] are words of the author, and form the apodosis to ἀνώτερον λέγων, ver. 8. Quite erroneously does Peirce, who, with Chrysostom, Hom. xvii. and the Vulgate (tunc dixi), instead of τότε εἴρηκεν will read τότε εἶπον, which, however, only arose from ver. 7, make the apodosis begin first with ἀναιρεῖ τὸ πρῶτον. ---- τότε, however, not ὕστερον, which would more exactly accord with the ἀνώτερον, ver. 8, the author wrote, because the τότε εἶπον of the citation was still fresh in his memory. — ἀναιρεῖ τὸ πρῶτον, ἵνα τὸ δεύτερον στήσῃ) he abolishes the first, or 366 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, deprives it of validity, in order to establish the second as the norm in force (Rom. iii. 31). Parenthetic insertion, so that ver. 10 attaches itself closely to τὸ θέλημα, and is to be separated therefrom only by a comma. The parenthesis serves by way of exclamation to call attention to the im- portance of the application to be given in ver. 10 to the ἰδοὺ ἥκω κι. Subject in ἀναιρεῖ is naturally here also Christ ; not “the Spirit of God,” as Kurtz arbitrarily supposes, - τὸ πρῶτον] sc. τὸ προσφέρειν θυσίας καὶ προσφορὰς K.T.A. — τὸ δεύτερον] sc. τὸ ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ. Theodoret : πρῶτον εἶπε τὴν τῶν ἀλόγων θυσίαν, δεύτερον δὲ τὴν λογικήν, τὴν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ προσενεχθεῖσαν. Wrongly does Peirce take τὸ πρῶτον and τὸ δεύτερον adjectivally, in supplementing to each πὸ θέλημα θεοῦ. With equally little warrant Carpzov: the διαθήκη πρώτη and the διαθήκη καινή, or the ἱερωσύνη κατὰ τὴν τάξιν ᾿Ααρών and. the ἱερωσύνη κατὰ ὁμοιότητα Μελ- χισεδέκ, are meant; as also Stein: the O. 1, and the N. 1, economy. Ver. 10. "Ev ᾧ θελήματι) wpon the ground of which will (more exactly: of which fulfilment of His will), and in con- ditioning connection with that will. What is meant is the will of God, of which the author has before spoken. — ἡγιωσμένου ἐσμέν] we (Christians) have been sanctified (delivered from sins), ἁγιάξεσθαι correlative to the notions τελειοῦσθαι, ver. 1, and καθαρίζεσθαι, ver. 2. — By the προσφορὰ τοῦ σώματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ cannot be meant “ the self-presentation of Christ in the heavenly Holy of Holies” (Kurtz), but only (comp. ix. 28) Christ’s death upon the cross on earth. For the indication of the former idea the expression τοῦ σώματος would be altogether unsuitable. Comp. also Riehm,; Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 475 £.— ἐφάπαξ] belongs to ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν, not, as Oecumenius, Theophylact, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Stein, Bloomfield, Alford, and others conjoin, to dua. τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, because otherwise the article τῆς must have been repeated. Vy. 11-14, Renewed emphasizing of the main distinction between the Jewish high priest and Christ. The former repeats day by day the same sacrifices without being able to effect. thereby the cancelling of sin; Christ has by His single CHAP, X. 11-13. 367 sacrifice procured everlasting sanctification. This the main thought of vv. 11-14. Into the same, however, there is at the same time introduced a subordinate feature, by virtue of the opposition of the ἕστηκεν and ἐκάθισεν, by which likewise is manifest the pre-eminence of Christ over the Levitical high priests. The Jewish high priests were required to accomplish their ministration standing (comp. Deut. x. 8, xviii. 7; Judg. xx. 28, al.), were thus characterized as servants or inferiors (comp. also Jas. ii. 8); whereas in Christ’s sitting down at the right hand of God, His participation in the divine majesty and glory is proclaimed. Ver. 11. Καὶ πᾶς] καί is the explanatory: and “indeed. It develops the ἐφάπαξ, ver. 10, and belongs equally to ver. 12 as to ver. 11. — ἀρχιερεύς] comp. the critical remark. —xal ἡμέραν] see at vii. 27.— περιελεῖν] stronger than ἀφαιρεῖν, ver. 4. Literally: take away round about. Ver. 12. Οὗτος] comp. iii. 3.— εἰς τὸ Sinvexés] belongs to ἐκάθισεν. ---- With that which precedes is it conjoined by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Bengel, Bohme, Stein, Ewald, and others; whereby, however, the manifest antithesis, which εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν forms to ἕστηκεν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, ver. 11, is destroyed, and the symmetry of the proposition, ver. 12, is lost. Ver. 13. Τὸ λουπόν] henceforth, sc. from the time of His sitting down at the right hand of God. What is meant is the time yet intervening before the coming in of the Parousia. The taking of τὸ λουπόν in the relative sense: “as regards the rest, concerning the rest” (Kurtz), is, on account of the close coherence with ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως, unnatural, for which reason also the passages adduced by Kurtz as supposed parallels, Eph. vi 10, Phil. ii. 1, iv. 8; 1 Thess. iv. .1, 2 Thess m1. ~d, do not admit of comparison.— The object of the waiting is expressed by our author in the language of Ps. cx. 1.— The ἐκάθισεν... τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος Ews ... involves for the rest the supposition that the destruction of the enemies of Christ is to be looked for even before His Parousia, The author accordingly manifests here, too, a certain diversity in his mode of viewing the subject from that of the Apostle Paul, since the latter (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22-28) anticipates 368 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. the destruction of the anti-Christian powers only after the time of Christ’s Parousia. The supposition, which de Wette holds possible for the removal of this difference, that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews “thought only of the triumph of the gospel among the nations, even as Paul also expected the universal diffusion of the gospel and the con- version of the Jews before the appearing of Christ,” has little probability, considering the absolute and unqualified character of the expression here chosen: ot ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ. Ver. 14. Proof of the possibility of the εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ver. 12, from the needlessness for a fresh sacrifice, since Christ has already, by the sacrifice once offered, brought in perfect sanctification for His believers. — The accentuation: urd yap προσφορᾷ, merits the preference to μιὰ yap προσφορά, to which Bengel is inclined, and which has been followed by Ewald, since by the former the words acquire an immediate reference to Christ.—tods ἁγιαζομένους] them that are sanctified, sc. as regards the decree of God. The participle present is used substantively, as 11. 11, without respect to time. Vy. 15-18. That there is no need of any further expiatory sacrifice, the Scripture also testifies. This Scripture proof the author derives from the declaration, Jer. xxxi. 31-34, already adduced at viii. 8 ff, in that he here briefly compre- hends the same in its two main features. Ver. 15. Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον] More- over, also, the Holy Ghost bears witness to us.— ἡμῖν] has reference to the Christians generally. Without warrant is it limited by JRaphel, Wolf, Baumgarten, and others to the author of the epistle (“the Holy Ghost attests my statement ”). --- τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον] for it is the Holy Spirit of God who in the passage indicated speaks by the prophet. — The subject in εἰρηκέναι is God, in that the author makes his own the words λέγει κύριος following in ver. 16, although they form an originally constituent part of the citation, in such wise that μετὰ γὰρ TO εἰρηκέναι... ἐκείνας forms the former member of the proposition ; and to this former member all the rest, from διδοὺς νόμους μου to the end of ver. 17, is then opposed by the author as a concluding member, by means of λέγει κύριος. CHAP. X. 16-18. 369 The supposition that the second, or concluding, member of the citation begins only with ver. 17, and that thus before this verse a λέγει, an εἶτ᾽ ἐπιλέγει, a τότε εἴρηκεν, or something of the kind is to be supplemented (Primasius, Clarius, Zeger, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Limborch, Wolf, Carpzoy, Stuart, Heinrichs, Alford, Conybeare, Reuss, Hofmann, and others), is to be rejected—although the main consideration, about which the author is quite specially concerned, follows only in ver. 17,—because it is opposed to the literary accuracy elsewhere prevailing in the Epistle to the Hebrews. For the same reason, too, the ὕστερον λέγει, which several Mss. (but only among those of late date) and some translations add at the close of ver. 16, is to be regarded as a gloss. Ver. 16. Instead of τῷ οἴκῳ ᾿Ισραήλ, viii. 10, the auther here places πρὸς αὐτούς. Certainly not unintentionally. By means of the more general πρὸς αὐτούς, the more definite refer- ence to the natural descendants of the patriarch as the recipients of the New Covenant receded into the background. — διδούς] attaches itself here also only to ἣν διαθήσομαι ; here it is true, with yet greater grammatical ruggedness than at viii. 10. Ver. 17. The «aé at the beginning of the verse is held by Bohme and Kuinoel to be a further particle of citation on the part of the author; while Hofmann will have it translated by “also.” Better, however, because more naturally and simply, is it taken as a constituent part of the Scripture citation. Ver. 18. Τούτων] is not a neuter (BOhme: “ ut, quicquid esset peccati, in universum designaretur ”), but feminine, inas- much as it refers back to ἁμαρτιῶν and ἀνομιῶν, ver. 17.—. οὐκέτι] sc. ἐστίν, there expiatory sacrifice no longer takes place, sc. because in connection with such a state it has become unnecessary. Ver. 19-xili. 25, The dogmatic investigations are at an end; on the ground thereof the author now applies himself anew to exhortations to the readers. These are at first of the same kind as those before addressed to the readers, and are distinguished from the latter only by their greater copiousness of detail, afterwards, however, assume a greater generality of contents. These are followed by the close of the epistle. Meryer.—Hes. 2A 370 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Vv. 19-25. The readers, in possession of such an exalted High Priest, and of the blessings obtained by Him, are with decision and constancy to persevere in the Christian faith, to incite each other to love and good works, and not—as had become a practice with some—to forsake the assemblies for Christian worship. So much the more should they thus act, since the Parousia is near at hand. Comp. on vv. 19-25 the similar exhortation iv. 14, 16. Ver. 19. Odv] Conclusion from the investigations made chap. v. onwards. — ἀδελφοί] 111. 1, 12, xiii, 22. — παῤῥη- σίαν] not: freedom or authorization (Vatablus, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Ernesti, Schulz, Bohme, Stengel, αἰ.), but: firm, joyful confidence. — εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων) in respect to entrance into the sanctuary, ie. of entering into the sanctuary, or heavenly Holy of Holies (τῶν ἁγίων, of the same import as εἰς Ta ἅγια, comp. ix. 8). Arbitrarily would Heinrichs refer the words to the entering of Jesus, in that he regards εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν dy. ἐν τῷ αἵμ. ᾿Ιησοῦ as equivalent to εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, which is impossible. — ἐν τῷ αἵματι ᾿]ησοῦ] upon the ground, or by virtue of the blood of Jesus. Belongs to the whole proposition: ἔχοντες παῤῥησίαν εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων, not merely to εἴσοδον (Akersloot, Storr, Schulz, Bohme, Klee, Paulus, Bleek, Bisping). The passage, ix. 25, by no means pleads in favour of the latter mode of apprehending it, since at ix. 25, but not in the present passage, ἐν can be understood in the material sense : “ with;” the reference of the ἐν αἵματι in the two places is an entirely different one. Ver. 20. Hy] sc. εἴσοδον. Not as yet with ὁδόν (Carpzov, Stuart, and others) is ἥν to be combined as indication of object, in such wise that merely πρόσφατον καὶ ζῶσαν would form the predicate; but still less is παῤῥησίαν (Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, al.) to be supplemented to ἥν. For against the former decides the order of the words, against the latter the manifest correspondence in which εἴσοδον, ver. 19, and ὁδόν, ver. 20, stand to each other. The odds, namely, characterized ver. 19 as to its goal (as εἴσοδος τῶν ἁγίων), is, ver. 20, further described with regard to its nature and constitution (as ὁδὸς πρόσφατος and ζῶσα). --- ἣν ἐνεκαίνισεν ἡμῖν ὁδὸν πρόσ- CHAP. X. 21. O71 datov καὶ ζῶσαν which He for us (in order that we may walk in it) has consecrated (inaugurated, in that He Himself first passed through it) as a new (newly-opened, hitherto inacces- sible, comp. ix. 8 ; Theodoret: ὡς τότε πρῶτον φανεῖσαν) and living way. πρόσῴῳφατος, originally: fresh slain; then in general: fresh, new, recens. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 374 f. -- ξῶσα, however, that way or entrance is called, not because it “ever remains, and needs not, like that into the earthly sanctuary, to be consecrated every year by fresh blood” (Bleek, after the precedent of Ernesti, Schulz, and others ; comp. also Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact), but because it is living in its efficacy (comp. 6 ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν, John vi. 51), in such wise that it leads to the goal of everlasting life. The contrast is found in the inefficaciousness of the entrance into the earthly holy of holies. —é:a τοῦ κατα- πετάσματος, τουτέστιν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ] through the veil, that is to say, His flesh. As the high priest must pass through the concealing veil, in order to come within the earthly Holy of Holies, thus also the flesh of Christ formed a veil, which must first be withdrawn or removed (comp. Matt. xxvil. 51; Mark xv. 38; Luke xxiii. 45) ere the entrance into the heavenly Holy of Holies could be rendered possible. — διά] is to be taken locally,—wrongly is it understood by Stein as instrwmental,— and is not to be combined with ἐνεκαίνισεν (Bohme, Delitzsch, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 253; Alford, Kluge), but is to be attached to ὁδόν, as a nearer definition, standing upon a parallel with πρόσφατον καὶ ζῶσαν, seeing that an οὖσαν or ἄγουσαν naturally suggests itself by way of supple- ment. — τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ] depends immediately upon the preceding διά, not first, as Peirce and Carpzov maintain, upon a τοῦ καταπετάσματος to be supplied. Ver, 21 is still governed by ἔχοντες, ver. 19. As τὰ ἅγια, ver. 19, was chosen as a general designation instead of the special τὰ ἅγια ἁγίων, so here (comp. v. 6, vii. 1, 3, ad.) the general ἱερέα stands in the sense of the special ἀρχιερέα, and μέγαν is, as iv. 14, expression of the exaltedness of this High Priest (against Stuart, Klee, Stein, Ewald, M‘Caul, and others, who take ἱερέα μέγαν together as a designation of the High Priest). — ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον tod θεοῦ] over the house of God. 372 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Comp. iii. 6, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Estius, Grotius, Calov, Tholuck, Stengel, Hofmann (Schriftbew. 11. 1, 2 Aufl. p, 454), Maier, Kurtz, and others understand by these words, in accordance with iii. 2, 6, the household of God, or the believers, by which, however, the unity of the figure is needlessly destroyed. The allusion is to heaven or the heavenly sanctuary, as the dwelling-place of God, over which Christ rules as High Priest.’ Ver. 22. Προσερχώμεθα] let us then draw nigh, sc. to this ἅγια, ver. 19, and this ἱερεὺς μέγας, ver. 21, or, what is, as regards the matter itself, not different, to God; in such wise that προσερχώμεθα is here, like τοὺς προσερχομένους, ver. 1, used absolutely, or else receives its supplementation from the τοῦ θεοῦ immediately preceding. Comp. vii. 25, xi. 6; also iv. 16. — per’ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας] with true, 1.6. sincere heart, so that we are really in earnest about the προσέρχεσθαι. --- ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως] in firm conviction of faith, firm inner certainty of faith. Comp. vi.11. Epexegesis of μετ᾽ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας, for the clearer defining of the contents thereof. — ἐῤῥαντισμένοι Tas καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως Tovnpas] inasmuch as our hearts have been sprinkled from an evil conscience, so that we have been delivered from the same (see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 577). Indication of the suljective qualification for the προσέρχεσθαι, while vv. 19-21 contains the objective qualification for the same. What is meant, is the justification of Christians through Christ’s bloody sacrificial death (ix. 14), after the analogy of the sprinkling with blood, whereby the first Levitical priests were consecrated and qualified to approach God. Comp. Ex. xxix. 21; Lev. vi. 30. Ver, 23. The words: καὶ λελουμένοι TO σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ, are, by the Peshito, by Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Luther, Estius, Wolf, Baumgarten, Storr, Kuinoel, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr, des Hebréerbr. p. 741, Obs.), Alford, Maier, Kluge, and others, com- bined in one, and referred still to προσερχώμεθα, ver. 22, as 1 That Delitzsch—who is followed therein by Alford—will have us under- stand, as the οἶκος σοῦ θεοῦ in our passage at the same time ‘the church” and ‘the heaven of glory,” can be looked upon only as an instance of manifest error, CHAP. X. 923. 373 a second participial clause. Better, nevertheless, shall we conjoin καί with xatéywpev; so that λελουμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ becomes a parenthetic clause, which specifies the subjective qualification to the κατέχειν, exactly as ἐῤῥαντισμένοι K.7.r., Ver. 22, brought out the subjective qualification to the προσέρχεσθαι. In connection with the first-named construction,’ the rhythmical symmetry of the members, vv. 22, 23, would be needlessly sacrificed, and κατέ- yopev stand there too much torn from the context. For the supposition that καί might have been wanting before κατέ- χώμεν, since a third verb (κατανοῶμεν) follows at ver. 24, the placing of the καί was thus necessary only before this last, is erroneous ; inasmuch as the author could hardly, from the very outset, comprehend ver. 24 in thought with ver. 22, and ver. 23, on the contrary, only brings in later that which is observed at ver. 24 as a new and independent exhortation, while wpocepywpela ... καὶ κατέχωμεν stands together in the closest inner relation (as a decided approaching to the communion with God opened up by Christ, and a persevering maintenance of the same). — λελουμένον τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ] inasmuch as our body has been washed with pure water [washed as regards the body with pure water]. Reference to the sanctifying of Christians by Christian baptism. Comp. Eph. v. 26; Tit. 11. 5. Analogon in the Levitical domain the washings, Ex. xxix. 4, xxx. 19 ff, xl. 30 ff; Lev. xvi. 4. To find denoted in a merely figurative sense (to the exclusion of baptism), with Calvin [Owen] and others, in accordance with Ezek. xxxvi. 25 : the communication of the Holy Ghost; or, with Limborch, Ebrard, and others: the being cleansed from sins; or, with [Piscator and} Reuss: the blood of Christ (“I s’agit ici, comme dans toute cette partie de l’épitre, du sang de Christ. C’est ce sang, qui nous lave mieux que l’eau des Lévites ”) ; or, with Schlichting: “Christi spiritus et doctrina, seu spiritualis 1 A third mode of combining, followed by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, 2 Aufl. p- 178 f.), according te which ἐῤῥαντισμένοι is separated by a full stop from that which precedes, and is conjoined with zartywu:y, will—since thereby the harmonic clause-formation of the whole delicately-arranged period, vv. 19-23, is rudely shattered—hardly meet with approval on any side, The period so euphoniously commenced would be lacking in the appropriate conclusion, the supposed new clause in the appropriate beginning. 5.7 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. illa aqua, qua suos perfundit Christus, ipsius etiam sanguine non excluso,” we are forbidden by the addition of τὸ σῶμα, which implies likewise the reminiscence of an outward act. — καθαρῷ] that which 7s pure, and in consequence thereof also makes pure. — κατάχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἀκλινῆ] let us hold fast the confession of hope as an unbending, unswerving one. —— κατέχωμεν] inasmuch as the ὁμολογία became at once, with baptism, the possession of believers. — τὴν ὁμολογίαν] may here be taken actively (the confessing of the hope), but it may also be taken passively (the confession which has as its subject the Christian’s hope). — ἀκλινῆ] stronger than βεβαίαν, iii. 6, 14. — πιστὸς yap ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος) for faithful (so that He keeps that which He promises; comp. 1 Cor. 1. 9, x. 13; 1 Thess. v. 24) 5. He who has given the promises (namely, God). Ground of encouragement for the κατέχειν. Vv. 24, 25. Progress from that which the Christian has to do with regard to himself, to that which he has to do with regard to his fellow-Christians. — καὶ κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους] and let us direct our view to each other (comp. 111. 1), so that we may endeavour to emulate the good and salutary which we discover in our neighbour, and, on the other hand, to put away the bad and hurtful in ourselves and him. For limiting the expression, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Michaelis, ad Pierc., Bleek, and others, to the first-named particular, no reason exists; since the positive εἰς παροξυσμὸν x.T.r. is yet followed by the negative μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες K.T.X. — εἰς παροξυσμὸν ἀγάπης Kal καλῶν ἔργων] that incitement to love and good works may arise therefrom. — παροξυσμός] Acts xv. 39; Deut. xxix. 38; Jer. xxxii. 37, and elsewhere in the bad sense: «vritation, 1.6. embittering. Here, however, as occasionally with the classic writers, the verb is used (comp. Xen. Memor. 111. 3.13: ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν οὔτε εὐφωνίᾳ τοσοῦτον διαφέρουσιν ᾿Αθηναῖοι τῶν ἄλλων, οὔτε σωμάτων μεγέθει καὶ ῥώμῃ, ὅσον φιλοτιμίᾳ, ἥπερ μάλιστα παροξύνει πρὸς τὰ καλὰ καὶ ἔντιμα; Thucyd. vi. 88, αἰ.) in the good sense. — ἀγάπη] brotherly love, and καλὰ ἔργα, the single mani- festations thereof. Ver. 25. My ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, καθὼς ἔθος τισίν] while not forsaking (ceasing to frequent), as CHAP. X. 25. 875 is the custom with some, our own assembly, and thereby, in con- nection with the already prevalent tendency to apostasy from Christianity, setting a pernicious example.— τὴν ἐπισυναγω- γὴν ἑαυτῶν] is taken by Calvin, Bohme, Bleek, and others as designation of the Christian congregation or Christian religious society itself. But in this case the only signification which could be attached without violence to ἐγκαταλείπειν would be that of apostasy from Christianity; to understand the expression, in that case, of the leaving to its fate of the Chris- tian church, sunk in poverty, peril, and distress, by the refusal of acts of assistance (Bohme), or of the escape from the claims of the church to the cherishing and tending of its members, by the neglecting of the common religious assemblies (Bleek), would not be very natural. We are prevented, however, from thinking of an actual apostasy from Christianity by the addi- tion καθὼς ἔθος τισίν, according to which the ἐγκαταλείπειν was an oft-recurring act on the part of the same persons. THY ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, therefore, is best explained as: the assembling of ourselves, in order to be united together (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 1), ie. our own religious assemblies. — ἑαυτῶν) has great emphasis; for otherwise the simple ἡμῶν would have been written. It has its tacit opposition in the alien, z.c. Jewish religious assemblies, and contains the indica- tion that the τινές gave the preference to the frequenting of the latter.— ἀλλὰ παρακαλοῦντες) sc. ἑαυτούς (comp. iii. 13) or ἀλλήλους, which is eatly supplemented from the foregoing ἑαυτῶν : but animating one another, namely, to the uninter- rupted frequenting of our own Christian assemblies. Quite unsuitably, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, 2 Aufi. p. 379) would supply in thought to παρακαλοῦντες, as its object: τὴν ἐπισυ- vayoynv.— Kal τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον ὅσῳ βλέπετε ἐγγίζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν] and that so much the more, as ye see the day itself drawing nigh. Reinforcing ground of obligation to the wapa- καλεῖν. --- βλέπετε] The transition from the first to the second person plural augments the significance of that which has been remarked, since the author can appeal to the verdict of the readers themselves for the truth thereof. — The ἡ μέρα is the day κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the day of the coming in of the Parousia of Christ, which the author thinks of as quite near at hand 376 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (comp. ver. 37), and which the readers themselves already saw drawing nigh in the agitations and commotions which preceded the Jewish war, such as had already begun to appear. Vv. 26-31. In the ἐγκαταλείπειν τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, ver. 25, there was manifested a lukewarmness in Christianity, which might lead to apostasy therefrom. In warning notes, therefore, the author points out that the man who knowingly shehts recognised Christian truth, and sins against it, will infallibly be overtaken by the punitive judgment of God. To be compared vi. 4—8. Ver. 26. ‘Exovciws yap ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας) Lor if we sin wilfully (de. against our better knowledge and conscience) after having received the certain knowledge of the truth ; so that we become recreant to Christianity (comp. ver. 29), to which the ἐγκαταλείπειν τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν forms the dangerous preliminary step. The ἑκουσίως ἁμαρτάνοντες are the opposite of the ἀγνοοῦντες Kal πλανώμενοι, ν. 2,' and the participle present indicates the continuous or habitual character of the action. — ἡ ἀλήθεια is the truth absolutely,as this has been revealed by Christianity. The ἐπίγνωσις of this absolute truth, how- ever, embraces, along with the recognition thereof by the understanding, also the having become conscious of its bliss- giving effects in one’s own experience. Comp. vi. 4, 5.— οὐκέτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία] there remains in relation to sins, 1.0. for the expiation thereof, no more sacrifice ; inasmuch, namely, as the sin-cancelling sacrifice of Christ, the communion of which we then renounce, is a sacrifice which takes place only once, is not further repeated, while at the 1 The assertion of Kurtz, that, if this remark were true, the author would be expressing “ἃ dogma in its consequences truly subversive, and destructive of the whole Christian soteriology,” inasmuch as it would ‘‘imperatively follow therefrom, that even under the New Covenant only those who transgressed from ignorance and error could find forgiveness with God for Christ’s sake, while all who had been guilty of a conscious and intentional sin must beyond hope of deliverance fall victims to the judgment of everlasting damnation,” is a precipitate one, since the special limitation within which the expression ἑκουσίως ἁμαρτάνειν Was used was naturally afforded to the reader, quite apart from the investigation already preceding at vi. 4 ff., even from our section itself, CHAP. X. 27-29. 377 same time the Levitical sacrifices are unable to effect the cancelling of sins. Bengel: Fructus ex sacrificio Christi semper patet non repudiantibus; qui autem repudiant, non aliud habent. Ver. 27. Φοβερὰ δέ τις ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως sc. ἀπολείπεται: but there remains indeed, etc. The ἀπολειπόμενον is of two kinds, something subjective (poBepa ... κρίσεως) and some- thing objective (πυρὸς... ὑπεναντίους). ---- φοβερὰ ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως] denotes not “a terrible banquet of judgment,” as Ewald strangely translates it, nor is it any hypallage in the sense of ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως φοβερᾶς, as Jac. Cappellus, Heinrichs, and Stengel suppose, and to which the choice is left open by Wolf. The terribleness is transferred to the subjective domain of the expectation. For one who has sinned against better light and knowledge, even the expectation of the divine judg- ment is something terrible. — φοβερώ tis] an exceedingly terrible one. On the tes, added with rhetorical emphasis to adjectives of quality or quantity, comp. Kiihner, II. p. 331; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 160. ---- κρίσις] is used here, too, as ix. 27, quite without restriction, of the divine judgment in general. That this will be a punitive judgment is not indicated by the word; it only follows from the connection. — In the second member the emphasis rests upon the preposed πυρός, on which account also the case of the following participle ‘conforms itself to this, not to ζῆλος. We cannot, therefore, with Luther and others, combine together πυρὸς ζῆλος in a single notion (“fiery zeal,” sc. of the divine wrath). The πῦρ is personified, and in such way a ζῆλος, a fury, «scribed to the same. There was probably present to the mind of the author in connection with the last member, LXX. Isa. xxvi. 11: ζῆλος λήψεται λαὸν ἀπαίδευτον Kal viv πῦρ τοὺς ὑπεναντίους ἔδεται. --- τοὺς ὑπεναντίους] the adversaries. The empiric usage of the term forbids our attaching to it, with Braun and Paulus, on account of the ὑπό, the notion of secret foes. See Meyer on Col. 11. 14, 4 Aufl. p. 331. Vv. 28,29. That in reality the consequences of an ἑκουσίως ἁμαρτάνειν μετὰ TO λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας are 50 terrible as was asserted at ver. 27, the author renders evident by a conclusion a minore ad majus. Apostasy from the 378 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Mosaic law itself is punishable with death; how much greater thus must be the punishment of him who, by apostasy from Christ, has treated with contumely the Son of God, of whose redeeming benefits he has already had experience! With the conclusion in vv. 28, 29 we may compare, as regards the thoughts, ii. 2, 3, xii. 25; as regards the form, however, the utterances just noticed differ from that before us, in the respect that there the first member of the comparison appears as a hypothetical premiss, here as an independent statement. ἀθετήσας τις νόμον Mwicéws κιτ.λ.] He who has set at nought the Mosaic law, has in opposition to his better knowledge and conscience violated or broken it, dies, without any one com- passionating him, wpon the deposition of two or three witnesses. Although death was imposed as the punishment for many single transgressions of the Mosaic law (Ex. xxi 15 ff, xxxl, 14; Lev. xvii. 14; Deut. xxii. 22 ff, al.), yet the author certainly has reference, as is evident from the addition: ἐπὶ δυσὶν ἢ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν, and as is required also by the parallel _ relation to ver. 29, quite specially to the ordinance, Deut. xvii. 2-7 [cf. also Num. xv. 30, 31], in conformity with which the punishment of death was inflicted upon the man who, by idolatry, apostatized from Jehovah. Comp. Jc. ver. 6, LXX.: ἐπὶ δυσὶ μάρτυσιν ἢ ἐπὶ τρισὶ μάρτυσιν ἀποθανεῖται. ---- ἐπί] as ix. 17: wpon condition that two or three witnesses depose against him. Ver. 29. Of how much more severe punishment, think ye, will he be counted worthy, who, ete.— With δοκεῖτε the author leaves the decision to the readers, inasmuch as on the question how this will be given, no doubt whatever can prevail. — ἀξιωθήσεται] sc. by God at the judgment. — τομωρία in the N. T. only here. — ὁ καταπατήσας] who has trodden under foot, as though it were a contemptible, useless thing. A strong expression. Designation of the bold contemning and insulting of Him who is nevertheless the Son of God, and with whom one has become personally acquainted as the Redeemer. — τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης] the blood of the covenant, i.e. the blood which Christ shed for the sealing of the New Covenant for the redemption of mankind. Comp. ix. 15 ff. — κοινόν] either: as common, ordinary blood, not distinguished in any respect CHAP. X. 30. 379 from other blood (Peshito, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, Beza, Schlichting, Bengel, Schulz, Stuart, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, and others), or— what is better, because stronger, and on that account more in accord with the other statements—as wnpure (Vulgate, Luther, Grotius, Carpzov, Michaelis, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Bohme, Tholuck, Ebrard, Riehm, Lehrbegr: des Hebréerbr. p. 769 ; Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others), 1.6. as the blood of a trans- gressor, which Christ must be, if He was not the Son of God and the Redeemer. — ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη) contrasting addition to κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος, and paronomasia: by the communion with which he was nevertheless sanctified, or: the sanctifying efficacy of which he has nevertheless felt in his own person.— καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος ἐνυβρίσας) and has done despite to the Spint of Grace, sc. by scorn and mockery of the wondrous unfolding of that Spirit’s power in the life of the Christians. The compound form ἐνυβρίζειν τινί or τί, found, apart from the poets (Soph. Phil. 342), only with the later Greeks. In the N. T. a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. --- τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος] the Holy Spirit, who is a gift of the divine grace. Ver. 30. The χείρονος ἀξιωθήσεται τιμωρίας, ver. 29, is a matter for the most serious consideration. This the declara- tions of God Himself in the Scriptures prove. — οἴδαμεν yap τὸν εἰπόντα] for we know Him who hath spoken, 1.6. we know what it means when God makes predictions like those which follow.— The first utterance is without doubt from Deut. xxxii. 35. It deviates from the Hebrew original (0v4 Dp3 ‘?), but still more from the LXX. (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως ἀντα- ποδώσω) ; on the other hand, it agrees to so great an extent with Paul’s mode of citing the same in Rom. xii. 19, that even the λέγειν κύριος, which is wanting in Deuteronomy, is found in both these places. This agreement arises, according to Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, and Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 97 (comp. also Bohme), from a deriving of the citation from the Epistle to the Romans; while according to Meyer (at Rom. xii. 19, 2, 3, and 4 Aufl.) the identical words: ἐγὼ ἀντα- ποδώσω, are to be traced back to the paraphrase of Onkelos (abwis N2N}) as the common source employed by Paul and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet with much ereater 380 THE EPISTLE TO THE IEBREWS. probability is the coincidence to be explained by the supposi- tion that the utterance, in the form adopted here as with Paul, had become proverbial. This was also the later view of Meyer (see Meyer on Rom. xii. 19, 5 Aufl. p. 551 f.). — The second utterance: κρινεῖ κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, attached by means οἵ καὶ πώλεν (i. 5, ii. 13), is found in like form, Deut. xxxil. 36 and Ps. exxxv. 14. This κρίνειν tov adv αὐτοῦ has, in the mind of the author of the epistle, the general signification of the holding of judgment upon His people, so that the recreant members among the same will not be able to escape punishment. Different is the sense of the original: He shall do justice for His people. Delitzsch, it is true, who is followed therein by Maier, Kluge, Moll, and Hofmann, will not acknowledge such diversity of the sense. But he is able to remove such diversity only, in that—mani- festly led thereto in the interest of a mistaken harmonistic method—he foists upon the author of the epistle the state- ment: “the Lord will do justice for His church, and punish its betrayers and blasphemers;” a statement of which the first half—as opposed to the grammatical meaning of κρίνειν, as well as to the connection with ver. 26, since this latter leads of necessity not to the idea of rendering justice to any one, but exclusively to the idea of punitive judgment—is only arbitrarily imported. At ver. 31 the whole train of thought, vv. 26-30, is briefly summed up, and with this the warning brought to a close. Fvarful is τέ to fall into the hands of the living God, 1.6. to fall a victim to the divine punitive judgment. Comp. Matt. x. 28; Luke xii. 4, 5.— ἐμπίπτειν εἰς χεῖρας κυρίου occurs also with the LXX. 2 Sam. xxiv. 14, 1 Chron. xxi. 13, Ecclus, i. 18, but is there used in the mild sense, in that it is opposed to falling into the hands of men. Bengel: Bonum est incidere cum fide; temere terri- bile. — θεοῦ ζῶντος] see at 11]. 12. Vy. 32-89. There follows after the warning an arousing. Mindful of the Christian manliness which the readers had displayed in former days, they are not to lose Christian joyfulness, but rather with patience to persevere in the Christian life; for only quite a short time will now elapse CHAP. X. 32, 33, 381 before the return of Christ and the coming in of the promised fulness of blessing. Comp. vi. 9 ff.— Theodoret: ᾿Επειδὴ δὲ ταῦτα ἱκανὰ ἣν αὐτοὺς ἀνιᾶσαι, ὀλυγωρίαν αἰνιττόμενα καὶ τῶν θείων ἀμέλειαν, κεράννυσι τῶν εἰρημένων τὸ αὐστηρὸν τῇ μνήμῃ τῶν ἤδη κατορθωμένων. Οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτως εἰς προθυμίαν διεγείρει, ὡς τῶν οἰκείων κατορθωμάτων μνήμη. ---- Of the facts themselves, of which mention is made vv. 92--894, nothing further is known from other sources. That the author, as Bleek, II. 2, p. 707, thinks possible, had before his mind “the whole first period of the Christian church at Jerusalem, in which the church still held firmly together, and particularly the persecutions which preceded and followed the martyrdom of Stephen,” is hardly to be supposed. For only in a very indirect way could praise be bestowed upon the recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews for their behaviour under these afflictions, seeing they formed a second generation of the Palestinian Christians, who, according to xii. 4, had as yet been spared persecutions having a bloody termination. Ver. 32. Φωτισθέντες] after ye were illumined, ie. after ye had recognised Christ as the Saviour of men, and ranked yourselves among His confessors. Comp. vi. 4. — ἄθλησιν] a word of the later Greek style, in the N. T., however, a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, combines with παθημάτων into a single idea: contest of sufferings. Chrysostom: οὐχ ἁπλῶς εἶπεν ἄθλησιν ὑπεμείνατε, ἀλλὰ μετὰ προσθήκης τοῦ πολλήν. Καὶ οὐκ εἶπε πειρασμούς, ἀλλὰ ἄθλησιν, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐγκωμίου ὄνομα καὶ ἐπαίνων μεγίστων. ---- ὑπομένειν) to sustain, here with the subsidiary notion of stedfastness and unweariedness. Ver. 33. Τοῦτο μὲν... τοῦτο δέ] on the one hand... on the other; partiy ... partly. A genuinely Greek formula (comp. Wetstein ad loc.). In the N. T. only here. — τοῦτο μὲν ὀνειδισμοῖς τε καὶ θλίψεσιν θεατριζόμενοι)] in that, on the one hand, by conditions of infamy (xi. 26, xiii, 13) and by tribulations, ye were made a spectacle (were exposed publicly to reviling). ὀνευδισμοί (belonging to the later period of the Greek language; see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512) has reference to the assaults upon honour and good name, θλίψεις to assaults upon the person (the life) and outward possessions. — θεατριξζόμενοι)] comp. 1 Cor. iv. 9: θέατρον ΕΘ: THE EPISTLE TO TOE HEBREWS. ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ Kal ἀγγέλοις Kat ἀνθρώποις. The verb only here and with the Church Fathers. — τοῦτο δὲ κοινωνοὶ ... γενηθέντες] and, on the other hand, ye became associates (fellow-sufferers) ... sc. by the administering of consolation, and by efforts for the alleviation of their sufferings. κοινωνοὶ γενηθέντες is elucidated by συνεπαθήσατε, ver. 34, thus alludes equally as the first half of the sentence to historic facts. Arbitrarily therefore Ebrard: the expression indicates that the readers, “ by the act of their conversion, had become once for all associates in that community, of which they knew that it thus fared, or was thus wont to fare with it.” ---τῶν οὕτως ἀναστρεφομένων] of those who were in such condition (sc. ἐν θλίψεσιν καὶ ὀνειδισμοῖς). » Kypke, Storr, Bohme, Kuinoel, and others supplement the οὕτως from the πολλὴν ἄθλησιν ὑπεμείνατε παθημάτων, ver. 32: of those who thus walked, 1.6. sustained with great stedfastness the contest of sufferings. In favour of this interpretation the authority of the ordinary Biblical use of ἀναστρέφεσθαι may no doubt be urged. Since, however, πολλὴν ἄθλησιν ὑπεμείνατε παθημάτων, ver. 32, is the general statement, which after- wards, ver. 33, separates into two special subdivisions by means of τοῦτο μὲν... τοῦτο δέ, so οὕτως in the second member can only refer back to the immediately foregoing characterization in the first member. Ver. 34. Confirmatory elucidation of ver. 33, and that in such form that καὶ... συνεπαθήσατε corresponds to the latter half of ver. 33, and cal... προσεδέξασθε to the former half thereof.— καὶ yap τοῖς δεσμίοις συνεπαθήσατε] for ye had both compassion (iv. 15) on. the prisoners, in that ye bestowed upon them active sympathy. —«al τὴν ἁρπαγὴν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ὑμῶν K.T.r.| and also accepted (comp. xi. 35) with joy the plundering of your goods, with joy, or willingly submitted to it. Wrongly Heinrichs, according to whom προσδέχεσθαι here expresses, at the same time, the idea of “exspectare” and of “recipere,” so that we have to translate : “ye looked for 1ἰ. --- γινώσκοντες ἔχειν ἑαυτοῖς κρείττονα ὕπαρξιν καὶ μένουσαν] indication of motive for καὶ τὴν ἁρπαγὴν κτλ, : knowing that ye have for yourselves (as your true possession) a better. property (Acts 11. 45), and that an CHAP. X. 33, 36. 383 abiding one, namely, the spiritual, everlasting blessings of Christianity, of which no power of the earth can deprive you. Comp. Matt. vi. 20; Luke xii. 33. Ver. 35. Exhortation deduced from vv. 32-34. The self- sacrificing zeal for Christianity displayed in the past ought to animate the readers to a joyful maintenance of the same likewise in the present, since of a truth this very stedfastness in zeal leads to the longed-for goal. — ἀποβάλλειν) here not the involuntary losing (Jac. Cappellus, Losner, and others), but the voluntary casting from one, or letting fall away (comp. Mark x. 50), as though it were a question only of a worthless, useless thing; μὴ ἀποβάλλειν thus the same as κατέχειν, ver. 23, iii. 6, 14, and κρατεῖν, iv. 14, vi. 18.— τὴν παῤῥη- ciav ὑμῶν] your joyful confidence, sc. towards Christ as your Saviour. The free, courageous confession of Christianity before the world, of which Beza, Grotius, and others under- stand the expression, is only the consequence of the παῤῥησία, which here, too, as ver. 19, iil. 6, iv. 16, denotes a frame of the mind. — ἥτις] which of a truth. Introduction of a well- known, indisputable verity. — μεγάλην μισθαποδοσίαν) great rewarding retribution (see at 11. 2), namely, the promised everlasting blessedness (ver. 36). — The present ἔχει, although the μισθαποδοσία is as yet something future, of the undoubted certainty of its containing in itself, or having as a consequence. Ver. 36. Justification of the foregoing exhortation μὴ ἀπο- βώλητε. It is true the readers have already distinguished themselves by Christian manliness; but what is needing to them in order to reach the goal is stedfastness and perse- verance, since they are beginning to grow Iukewarm in Christianity. ὑπομονῆς is therefore, as the principal notion, emphatically prefixed. —7o θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ] that which God wills, or requires, 1.6. in accordance with the context: not merely the having become believers in Christ, but also the stedfast continuance wm faith unto the end. Theophylact: θέλημα θεοῦ τὸ ἄχρι τέλους ὑπομεῖνα. Against the connec- tion Bleek: τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ is “ the sanctification of men by the sacrifice of the Son of God” (vv. 7, 9, 10), and con- sequently the ποιεῖν thereof the willing submission to be sanctified by the Redeemer. Too general the acceptation of 384 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Tholuck (similarly Stein and others): “the regulation [Normirung] of the life in accordance with the divine will,” without further limitation, is that which is meant. — ποιή- σαντες] refers not to that which, according to ver. 32 ff., has already been accomplished by the readers (Bengel); nor does it denote something simultaneous with the κομίζεσθαι, or rather without regard to time therewith coinciding (Delitzsch, Alford) ; it is employed in a strictly aoristic sense, and points on to the future, inasmuch as the ποιῆσαι must already have become a completed fact, before the κομέξεσθαι, as yet belonging to the future, can be realized.— τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν] the promise, 1.6. that which is promised, the promised ever- lasting blessedness. Vv. 37, 38. Ground of encouragement to the ὑπομονή, of which the readers stood in need, expressed with a free application of the words of Hab. ii. 3, 4, according to the LXX. Continuance is necessary for the readers, and that continuance, indeed, only for a short time, since the return of Christ is to be looked for within a very short space of time, and then to those who have persevered in the faith everlasting life will be the portion conferred ; the apostates, on the other hand, shall be overtaken by destruction. — The words ἔτι yap μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον are not a constituent part of the citation, but proceed from the author himself.-— μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον] is found Isa. xxvi. 20, and signifies literally: a little, how much, how much! 1.6. a very, very little, or ὦ very short time. μικρόν (John xiv. 19, xvi. 16 ff.) is nominative,—not accusative to the question when, as is supposed by Bleek (but only in his larger Comm.; otherwise in his later Vorleswngen, p. 417), Bisping, Alford, and Hofmann, as also Meyer on John xiii, 33,—and nothing more than ἐστίν is to be supple- mented to the same (see Winer, Gramm. 7 Aufl. p. 544), The reduplication of the ὅσον, however, serves for the significant strengthening of the notion. To be compared Aristoph. Vesp. 213: τί οὐκ ἀπεκοιμήθημεν ὅσον ὅσον στίλην; Arrian, Indic, xxix. 15: ὀλίγοι δὲ αὐτῶν σπείρουσιν ὅσον ὅσον τῆς χώρης. See Hermann, ad Viger. 726. — ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονιεῖ] and then He that cometh will come, and will not delay. —LXX. Le. ver. 3: διότι ἔτι ὅρασις εἰς καιρὸν CHAP. X. 88. 385 Kal ἀνατελεῖ εἰς πέρας καὶ οὐκ εἰς Kevov' ἐὰν ὑστερήσῃ, ὑπόμεινον αὐτόν, ὅτι ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ. In the sense of the prophet, the discourse is of the certain fulfilment of the prophecy regarding the overthrow of ths Chaldees. The LXX., however, wrongly translated the words, and as the ἐρχόμενος looked upon either God or the Messiah, of whom also the later Jewish theologians interpreted the passage (see Wetstein ad loc.). Of the Messiah the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also understands the expression, and therefore adds the article ὁ to ἐρχόμενος. In like manner ὁ ἐρχόμενος appears, Matt. xi. 3, Luke vii. 19, as a current appellation of the Messiah (based upon Dan. vii. 13; Zeek; ix.9 ; Mal. iii. 1; Ps. xl. 8 [7], exviti: 26).* Only in the instances mentioned the jist appearing of the Messiah upon earth is intended, whereas in our passage (as also very frequently by ἔρχεσθαι elsewhere in the N. T., eg. 1 Cor. meer; Acts-i. 11 :Matt. xvi 27,028; Johm xxis 22,''23) the return of Christ, as of the Messiah crucified upon earth and exalted to heaven, for the consummation of the kingdom of God, is that which is referred to. Arbitrarily Carpzov, Heinrichs, Bloomfield, Ebrard, and others: a coming for the destruction of Jerusalem is here to be thought of. Ver. 38. Continuation of the citation, yet so that the author adduces the two clauses of Hab. ii. 4 in inverted order. For in the O. T. passage the words read: ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ Ψυχή μου ἐν avT@ ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου [ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως] ζήσεται. The transpcsition is intentional, in order to avoid the supplying of the subject ὁ ἐρχόμενος to ὑποστείληται. --- ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται] my (of God, not of Christ: Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. Ὁ. 621, Obs.) righteous one (the devout man belong- ing to me), however, shall live by faith. ἐκ πίστεως, namely, is, in the sense of the author of the epistle, to be referred to ᾿ξήσεται. To conjoin it here, too, as Rom. i. 17 and Gal. 111, 11, with δίκαιος (so Baumgarten, Schulz, Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stengel, a/.), is inadmissible, because, according to the connection, the design is not to state by what any one becomes δίκαιος, but by what he will obtain the ἐπαγγελέα, or, what is the same thing, the ζωὴ αἰώνιος. The notion of the Mryer.—HEs. 2B 386 THE EPISTLE TO THE IIEBREWS. πίστις here closely attaches itself to the Hebrew 178, The meaning, in harmony with the conception prevailing elsewhere in the Epistle to the Hebrews, divergent from that of Paul, is the believing, faithfully enduring trust in God and His promises. The second member, καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληται «.T.X., has been misunderstood by the LXX. In the Hebrew: mDBy nat 12 iwE) TIAN? behold, lifted up, not upright is his (se. the Chaldean’ °s) soul in him. —— ἐὰν ὑποστείληται] if so be that he with faint heart draws back. Comp. Gal. 11. 12. In the application: if he becomes lukewarm in Christianity, and apostatizes from the same. ὑποστείληται does not stand impersonally ; nor have we, with Grotius, Maier, and others, to supply τίς, or, with de Wette, Winer, Gramm, 7 Aufl. p. 487 (less decidedly, 5 Aufl. p. 427), and Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 117, to supplement from the foregoing ὁ δίκαιος the general idea ἄνθρωπος as subject. The subject is still the foregoing ὁ δίκαιός μους This is, moreover, placed beyond doubt, since δίκαιος above is not to be taken in the narrower Pauline sense, but in the general sense of the devout man; he, however, who is in this sense δίκαιος, ceases by the ὑποστέλλεσθαι to be a δίκαιος. ---- ἡ ψυχή μου] μου has reference to God, not to Christ (Oecumenius, as likewise, but with hesitation, Theophylact, as more recently Riehm, /.c.), still less to the author of the epistle (Calvin: perinde accipiendum est, ac si ex suo sensu apostolus proferret hance sententiam. Neque enim illi propositum fuit exacte recitare prophetae verba, sed duntaxat locum notare, ut ad propriorem intuitum invitaret lectores). Ver. 39. The author expresses his confidence that the readers and himself belong not to the class of men who, because they draw back from Christianity out of cowardly misgiving, fall a prey to destruction, but rather to the class of those who do not grow weary in the Christian faith, and therefore attain to life. This expression of confidence is in its essence an admonition, and indeed a more urgent one than though the direct form of exhortation had been chosen. — To ἐσμέν Grotius, Wolf, Carpzov, Heinrichs, and many others erroneously supplement τέκνα or υἱοί. For εἶναι, with the mere genitive, is a well-known genuinely Greck manner of CHAP. X. 39. 387 expressing a relation of pertaining toa thing. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 165; Kiihner, 11. p. 167. — εἰς ἀπώλειαν... εἰς περιποίησιν ζωῆς) Corroborative allusion to the result of the two opposite lines of action. — ἀπώλεια is everlasting per-’ dition, and περιποίησις ψυχῆς (comp. 1 Thess. v. 9: εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας) gaining of the soul, 1.6. everlasting life and everlasting blessedness. Wrongly Ebrard: of the bodily deliverance from the judgment impending over Jerusalem, is the discourse to be understood. — Ψυχῆς, moreover, belongs simply to περιποίησιν, not already, as Bohme and Hofmann will have it, to ἀπώλειαν, since only περιποί,, not also ἀπώλ,, stood in need of an addition. o9 [9,2] ios) THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. CH AUP ALE Tei, VER. 3. μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων] Instead thereof there is read in the Peshito: ex illis, quae non cernuntur; in the Vulgate: ex invisibilibus ; in Lat. D E: ex non apparentibus. These trans- lations, however, are a mere interpretative gloss, from which the actual existence of an early reading: ἐκ μὴ φαινομένων, cannot at all be inferred. — The preference to the Recepta: τὰ βλεπό- weve, is merited by the reading rd βλεπόμενον, commended to attention by Griesbach, adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, approved also by de Wette, Tholuck, Delitzsch, and others. To be preferred partly on account of the better attesta- tion by means of A D* E* x, 17, It. Copt. Clem. Didym. Ath. Cyr. al., partly because a mutation from the singular into the plural was more naturally suggested than the opposite. — Ver. 4. Elz.: μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. Instead of this, A D* s* 17 have: μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τῷ θεῷ. Adopted by Lachm. But the thought: “in that Abel, in regard to his offerings, gave testimony to God,” would be unintelligible, and, moreover, incorrectly and unhappily expressed. Besides, since μαρτυροῦντος x.7.A. 18 the un- mistakable nearer definition to ἐμωρτυρήθη, the context naturally points to God as the subject in μαρτυροῦντος. Beyond doubt, therefore, τῷ θεῷ arose only from the eye of the copyist wander- ing to the τῷ θεῷ at the beginning of the verse. — In place of the Recepta λαλεῖται, Griesbach (who, however, attaches equal value to the Recepta), Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche rightly read λαλεῦ In favour of this is de- cisive, on the one hand, the important authority of A δὲ, 17, 23, 31, 39, al. mult., Syr. utr. Arabb. Copt. Armen. Slav. rec. Vulg. Clem. Orig. Athan. Nyss. Chrys. (in comment.) Epiphan. Austerius Damasc. Chron. alex. Theodoret (in textu), Photius ms. Oecum. Theophyl. on the other hand, the wsus loquendt. For neither in taking λαλεῖται in the middle sense, with Beza, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Carpzov, Baumgarten, nor yet in the passive: praedicatur, laudatur, in omnium ore est, with Jos. Scaliger, Lud. de Dieu, Wetstein, Heinrichs, Stengel, should we be warranted on linguistic grounds; quite apart from the fact that, in the CHAP. XI. 389 latter acceptation, the statement would be a very trivial one. — Ver. 5. Elz.: εὑρίσκετο. Better attested, however (by A Ὁ Ex, 109, Epiphan.), is the form ηὑρίσκετο, which is found likewise in the LXX. Gen. v. 24,in the Cod. Alex. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. — In place of the Recepta: τῆς μεταθέσεως αὐτοῦ, we have to write, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, and others, after A D* x* 17, 67** 80, Vulg. It. Copt., merely: τῆς μεταθέσεως, and in place of the received form εὐηρεστηκένωι, with Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, Delitzsch, and Alford, the form better attested (by A K L, 46, 71, 73, al., Theophyl.) : εὐαρεστηκέναι. — Ver. 8, Elz.: καλούμενος But A Ὁ (EK?) Vulg. It. Arm. Theodoret, Jer. Bed. have ὁ καλούμενος. Approved by Mill. Rightly placed in the text by Lachm. and Tisch. 1.— The article τόν, inserted in the Recepta before τόπον, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, and Alford, after A D* &*, to delete; and, after A D* K, many min. Chrys. Damasc. Theophyl., with Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, and Alford, to write ἔμελλεν in place of the Recepta qwerre. — Ver. 9. καὶ παρῴκησεν, Which D* E, together with their Latin translation, furnish in place of the Recepta: πίστει παρῴκησεν, is a later corruption, inasmuch as in ver. 9 a fresh evidence is given of the σίστις of Abraham. — εἰς γῆν] Elz.: cis τὴν γῆν. But the article is wanting in A D** K Ls, very many cursives, with Damasc. and Oecum. It is suspected by Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford. — Ver. 11. καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας] Elz: καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας ἔτεκεν. But ἔτεκεν is a later gloss, which is condemned by A D* 8* 17, Vulg. It. Copt. Sah. Aeth. utr. Chrys. (codd.). It was already regarded as spurious by Beza, Grotius, Mill (Prolegg. 1355), Bengel ; and is rightly deleted by Griesbach, Knapp, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others. — Ver. 12. In place of the Recepta ἐγεννήθησαν, Lachm. Bleek, Delitzsch, and Alford read ἐγενήθησων, which, on account of the stronger attestation by A D* K, 109, 219* al. (Vulg. It.: orti sunt), is to be preferred. — ὡς ἡ ἄμμος] So already the Editt. Complut. and Steph. 2, then Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others. Elz.: ὡσεὶ ἄμμος. Against A Ὁ (* and ** and ***)! EK ΚΤ, καὶ, 23, 37, 46, 47, al. mult., Chrys. (codd.) Damase. Oecum. Theophyl. — ἡ παρὰ τὸ χεῖλος] 15 wanting in D* E, in their Latin translation, and in Aeth. utr. The origin of the omission is to be traced back to a mere error in writing, to which the resemblance of sound of the closing letters in ἄμμος and χεῖλος gave occasion. — Ver. 13. In place of the Recepta μὴ 1 Ὁ" 31: xabos n. 390 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. raBéovres, Lachm. reads μὴ προσδεξάμενοι. But the Recepta is supported by the considerable authority of D E K Ls*** almost all the cursives, Theodoret, and others ; while the reading of Lachm., probably arising from ver. 35, has only the testimony of A in its favour, and is devoid of meaning. For προσδεξά- μενοι could, in accordance with the usage prevailing else- where, only signify either the subjective having expected (having awaited), or the subjective having admitted. But neither of these meanings would be compatible with the statement of ver. 13, which would be suitably expressed only if προσδεξάμενοι could be explained of the objective having received, what is never denoted by this verb. The reading μὴ κομισάμενοι In S* some cursives (17, 23* 39, al.), and, with Chrys. (in comment.) Damasc. Theophyl. (adopted by Tisch. 8), was only called forth by the similar turn x. 36, xi. 39. — δόντες] Elz.: ἰδόντες καὶ πεισθέντες. But the addition καὶ πεισθέντες has almost all the witnesses (also 8) against it. It is found in only two or three cursives, and is an explanatory gloss to ἀσπασάμενοι. Comp. Chrysostom : οὕτω πεπεισμένοι ἦσαν περὶ αὐτῶν ὡς καὶ ἀσπάσασθαι αὐτάς ; Oecumenius: καὶ ἀσπασάμενοι" πεισθέντες. -- Ver. 15. ἐξέ- βησαν] Elz. Griesbach (who, however, has placed ἐξέβησαν on the inner margin), Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bloomfield: ἐξῆλθον. Against A D* E* s* 17, 73, 80, Athan. (ed. Bened.; edd. al.: ἐξεβλήθησαν) Chron. alex. Damasc. — Ver. 16. νῦν 62] Elz. Matt. Bloomfield: νυνὴ 62 Against decisive witnesses (A D ER, 44, 48, al. perm., Athan. Chrys. Theodoret, Oecum.). — Ver. 19. The Receptu ἐγείρειν has the support of D E K Τ, δὲ, almost all min. Orig. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasce. a/.; Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read, after A (εγειρε), 17, 71, Cyr. Chron. alex.: ἐγεῖραι. —Elz.: δυνατός: A D**: δύναται. Adopted by Lachm. into the text. — Ver. 20. In place of the Recepta πίστει, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, Alford have adopted σίστσει καί, after A D* 17, 23, 37, al., Vulg. It. Chrys. (but not in all mss. and editt.) Theodoret, Damasc. Sedul. Bede. Rightly. καὶ might appear superfluous, and on that account was more likely to be omitted than added. — Ver. 23. Instead of the Lecepta διά- raya, Lachm, reads δόγμα. But this reading is founded only in a conjectural manner upon A, inasmuch as all the letters of the word except the 6 have been torn away from the Codex. Apart from this, δόγμα is found only in one cursive MS. of the twelfth century (Cod. 34). It is probably a gloss from Luke ii. 1. — At the close of ver. 23, D* E (as also their Latin trans- lation, as well as three codd. of the Vulgate) further add the words: sors [LEYUS γένομενος μωυσῆς αἀνιδεεν τὸν αἰγυπτιον κατανοων Thy ταπινώσιν τῶν ἀδελῴων aurov, as to the spuriousness of which, CHAP. XI. 391. although Zeger and Mill (Prolegg. 496) held them to be genuine, no doubt can exist, even on account of the μέγας γενόμενος, ver. 24. They are a complementary addition in conformity to Acts vii. 23 ff. — Ver. 26. τῶν Αἰγύπτου] Elz.: τῶν ἐν Αὐγύπτῳ. Against D EK LX (also against the later supplementer of B), 31, 44, 46, al. plur., Syr. utr. Copt. al., Clem. Euseb. al. Rejected by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, αἱ. The τῶν ἐν Αὐγύπτου, adopted by Lachm., after A and some cursives (3, 71), owes its origin to an uncom- pleted correction. — Ver. 28. Instead of the Recepta ὁλοθρεύων, A Τὸ E, Damasc. have the more correct (ὔλεθρος) form ὁλε- θρεύων, which is rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, and Alford. — Ver. 29. Elz. has merely ws διὰ ξηρᾶς. But, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, and Alford, we have to add γῆς, after A D* Ex, 17, 31, 47, al., Chrys. Theodoret (cod.), and probably all the versions. Since γῆς was no neces- sary addition, it could easily get omitted. — Ver. 30. Recepta: ἔπεσε. But, after A D* s, 17, 23, 31, a/., Chrys. ms., ἔπεσαν (in favour of which, also, ἔπεσον in 37, and Chrys. ms., testifies) is to be looked upon as the original reading. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford. Approved by Delitzsch. — Ver. 32. Elz. : ἐπιλείψει yap we. With Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8, and Alford, after A D* δὲ, we have to transpose into: ἐπιλείψει we yap. — In that which follows, the Recepta reads: περὶ Tedewv, Bupax σε καὶ Σαμψὼν καὶ Ἰεφθάε, Anvid re καὶ Σαμουήλ. --- Instead thereof, Lachm. reads (and so also Tisch. 1 and 8), as it also stands in the Codex Sinaiticus: περὶ Τεδεὼν Βαρὰκ Σαμψὼν Ἰεφθάς Δαυείδ τε καὶ Σαμουήλ. On internal grounds neither of these forms of the text commends itself. For, in the case of both, the persons here further mentioned would have been enumerated, in contradiction with the mode of proceeding hitherto observed, without regard to the chronology ; inasmuch as, historically, Barak was to have been mentioned before Gideon, Jephthah before Samson, Samuel before David. And yet the regularity with which each time the second name designates a person earlier in a chronological respect, points to an order of succession chosen with design. Observe, further, that in the last member, Δαυΐδ τε καὶ Σαμουῆλ)., there is nowhere found a variation with regard to the particles. There can thus hardly be room for doubt that the foregoing names also were originally arranged in groups of two. It appears, accordingly, the better course to retain the Recepta, with the two modifica- tions,—that, with D*, καὶ Βαράκ is read in place of the mere Βαράκ; and then, with A, 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Clem. Cyr. Al. Epiphan. Ambr. Bede, the mere Σαμψών is read instead of τε 392 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. καὶ Σαμψών. (The καί before I , , 1 Τοῦτο λέγει, ὅτι ἀκολούθως ἔτυχεν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει" TH γὰρ ἀναστάσει πιστεύσας, διὰ συμβόλων τινῶν ἀποθανόντα αὐτὸν ἐκομίσατο. Τὸ γὰρ ἐν πολλῇ τοῦ ἐανάτον προσ- CITAP. XI. 19. 413 Wittich, Limborch, Zachariae, Dindorf, Koppe (in Heinrichs), Huét, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. ‘The sense is, according to Bleek: “as accordingly he’ received him from thence in a resemblance; so that Isaac was indeed not really delivered out of death, but yet his deliverance was a kind of restoration from the dead, since Abraham already regarded him as the prey of death.” But this “in a resemblance” is, strictly taken, nothing else than “in a manner,’ with which it is also exactly identified by Stengel and others; for the expression, however, of the notion “in a manner,” the author would hardly have chosen the altogether unusual, and therefore unintelligible, formula ἐν παραβολῇ ; much more natural would it have been for him to employ instead thereof, as at vii. 9, the familiar ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν. Moreover, since that addition could only be designed to exert a softening effect upon the ὅθεν (sc. ἐκ νεκρῶν), it must also have followed immediately after this word. The author would thus have written ὅθεν, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκομίσατο. ---- Yet more untenable is the exposition akin to that just mentioned: as a type (Luther: zwm Vorbildc), se. in regard to the resurrection in general (Hunnius, Balduin, Michaelis, Bohme, a/.), or specially in regard to the sacrificed and risen Christ (Primasius, Erasmus, Clarius, Vatablus, Zeger, Calov, Carpzov, Cramer, Ebrard, Bisping, Reuss), or in regard to both alike (Theodoret: τουτέστιν ὡς ἐν συμβόλῳ καὶ τύπῳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. --- ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ προεγράφη καὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους ὁ τύπος). For the express indication of that which was typically represented by this event could not have been wanting. — Equally far wrong, because far-fetched and un- natural, is the supplementing of ὧν to ἐν παραβολῇ on the part of Bengel (“ Abraham... ipse factus est parabola.... Omnis enim posteritas celebrat fidem Abrahae, offerentis unigenitum”), and the explanation of Paulus: “against an equalization,’ 1.6. in return for the ram presented as a substitute (comp. already Chrysostom: τουτέστιν ἐν ὑποδείγ- δοκίᾳ γενόμενον μηδὲν παθεῖν, τοῦ ἀληθῶς ἀναστησομένου σύμβολον ἦν, ὅσον τοῦ θανάτου πρὸς βραχὺ γευσάμενος, ἀνίστη μηδὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐανάτου παθών" πὸ γοῦν ἐν παραβολῇ ἀντὶ τοῦ ty συμβόλεις, 414 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. ματι ἐν τῷ κριῷ φησιν... ὡς ἐν αἰνίγματι. ὥσπερ γὰρ παραβολὴ ἣν ὁ κριὸς τοῦ ᾿Ισαάκ). ---- To the interpretation of ἐν παραβολῇ, above regarded as correct, several expositors approach, to the extent of likewise thinking that we must make the usage with regard to the verb παραβάλλεσθαι our guide in determining the signification of παραβολή. They deviate, however, essentially from the above interpretation, in that they take ἐν παραβολῇ adverbially, in the sense of παραβόλως ; consequently refer the expression, which above was equally referred to subject and object, to the subject, and that without any advantage to the peculiarity of thought. So Camerarius, who, besides other possibilities of apprehension, suggests also this: in that he exposed himself to danger, namely, that of losing his son; Loesner, Krebs, Heinrichs: in summo discrimine, παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα, παραδόξως: Raphel: praeter spem praeterque opinionem ; Tholuck: in bold venture. Ver. 20. Zhe example of Isaac. Comp. Gen. xxvii. — Πίστει καί] καί is the more nearly defining: and in truth, and in sooth. A faith was manifested in the imparting of the blessing, by the very circumstance that this benediction extended with inner confidence to facts as yet belonging to the future.’ Comp. Theodoret: Οὐ yap ἂν τὰς οὐχ ὁρωμένας ἔδωκεν εὐλογίας, εἰ μὴ τοῖς λόγοις ἀκολουθήσειν TO ἔργον ἐπίστευσεν. --- περὶ μελλόντων] concerning things as yet future, 2.6. concerning the future lot of his two sons, and the pre- eminence of the younger son over the elder.— Jacob, the younger son, is here first mentioned, since he was first blessed by Isaac, and was altogether of greater significance for the history of the people. Ver. 21. The conduct of Jacob, Gen. xlviii., analogous to the fact adduced ver, 20. Here, too, the blessing related to the future, and in like manner as ver. 20, to the pre-eminence of the younger son (Ephraim) over the elder (Manasseh). — ἀποθνήσκων] when he was dying. Reference to Gen. xlvii. 31: ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποθνήσκω. --- καὶ προσεκύνησεν ἐπὶ TO ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ] and he worshipped (bowing) upon the top of his 1 How Delitzsch has been able so greatly to misunderstand the above words as to read in them the assertion, that περὶ μελλόντων is to be combined with περὶ καί instead of ηὐλόγησεν, I do not comprehend, CHAP. XI.. 21. 415 staff, 1.0. in that from weakness he supported himself with his face resting upon the top of his staff. Addition from LXX. Gen. xlvii. 31 (inexactly referred to this place), for the bring- ing out of the solemn, devotional frame of Jacob in uttering this benediction [the same spirit being breathed in xlix. 18]. In the Hebrew the words read : 780 wirmdy oe ‘AW (ae. according to Tuch: “and Israel leaned back wpon the head of the bed ;” but, more correctly, according to Knobel: “ and Israel bowed himself upon the head of the cowch, imasmuch as he had before, during his conversation with Joseph, been sitting upright upon his couch (comp. xlvili. 2), but now leaned forward to the upper end thereof, and blessed God for the granting of the last wish”). The LXX., however, read the vowels 757, and their translation was followed by our author in this passage as elsewhere. Strangely does Hofmann per- ceive in the subordinate particular καὶ προσεκύνησεν k.T.r., a “second thing” adduced as proving the faith of Jacob. The first is, according to him, Jacob’s last testament, the second his departure from life (!).— The supposition that τῷ ᾿Ιωσήφ is to be supplemented to προσεκύνησεν (so Chrysostom : τουτέστι Kal γέρων ov ἤδη προσεκύνει τῷ ᾿Ιωσήφ, τὴν παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ προσκύνησιν δηλῶν τὴν ἐσομένην αὐτῷ ; Theodoret, Photius in Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others), is, equally with the view akin thereto, that αὐτοῦ is to be referred to ΙΙωσήφ, and ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ is to be regarded as the object to προσεκύνησεν (so the Vulgate: et adoravit fastigium virgae ejus; Primasius: virgae ejus i. e. virgae Jos.; Oecumenius: τοσοῦτον... ἐπίστευσε τοῖς ἐσομέ- vous, ὅτι καὶ προσεκύνησε τῇ ῥάβδῳ, δοκῶν ὁρᾶν τὰ ἐσόμενα ; Clarius, Bisping, Reuss: “ Jacob, after having received the oath of Joseph, bowed (sinclina) towards the head of the Jatter’s staff, in token of submission, that is to say, in order solemnly to acknowledge Joseph as head of the family. The staff is the symbol of power;” and others), to be rejected as untenable. The first-named has against it the fact, that in that which precedes, the discourse is not of Joseph himself, but of his sons; the latter, that the making of ἐπί τι a note of object to προσκυνεῖν is opposed to all the usage of the language. 416 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Ver. 22. The example of Joseph. Comp. Gen. 1. 24, 25. Firm faith, that the promise already given to Abraham (Gen. xv. 13-16) should be fulfilled, was it that Joseph, when he was near to death, gave direction as to that which should be done with his bones at the time of the accomplishment of that promise. — τελευτῶν] the same as ἀποθνήσκων, ver. 21; the choice of the expression was called forth by Gen. 1. 26: καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν ᾿Ιωσήφ. -- περί] in connection with μνημο- νεύειν, Which as at ver. 15 signifies to make mention, stands instead of the bare genitive, after the analogy of μνᾶσθαι περί twos. See Kiihner, 11. p. 186, Obs. 1.—1 ἡ ἔξοδος τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραήλ] the (future) departure of the children of Israel out of Eyypt.— ἐμνημόνευσεν καὶ . .. ἐνετείλατο] Form οὗ parallel arrangement; while, as regards the matter itself, the second member as an accessory point is subordinated to the first member as the main point. Vv. 28-29 the author passes over from the patriarchs to Moses, dwelling upon a series of facts in the history of the latter which bear a typical character. First— Ver. 23 he points to the faith manifested by the relatives of Moses at the time of his birth. Comp. Ex. 11. 2. The special beauty of the new-born child awakened in them the belief’ that God had chosen him for great things and would be able to preserve his life, and in this belief they hid the child in opposition to the commandment of the Egyptian king. — ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων] 1... by his parents. For this elsewhere unusual employment of πατέρες, Wetstein aptly directs the reader to Parthenius, Hrof. 10: Κυάνιππος εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν “Δευκώνης ἐλθών, Tapa τῶν πατέρων αἰτησάμενος αὐτὴν ἠγάγετο γυναῖκα, as well as to the Latin patres, Stat. Theb. vi. 464: Incertique patrum thalami. Bengel understands πατέρες of the still living ancestors of Moses (“a patribus, id est a patre [Amram] et ab avo... paterno, qui erat Kahath ”), and he is followed by Chr. Fr. Schmid, Bohme (yet with wavering), and others; while Stein, who expressly rejects both explanations, 1 Kurtz is in a position to add further particulars on this point, inasmuch as he supposes the ‘‘ presupposition” is to be derived from the state of things narrated, ‘* that a special divine admonition spoke to the parents out of the eyes of the child.” CHAP. XI. 23. 417 wonderfully supposes “the mother,” together with “a few concurring friends, who as it were took the place of parents,” to be intended. In the Hebrew, Ex. ii. 2, the κρύπτειν is predicated only of the mother; the LXX., however, with whom the author agrees, have: ἰδόντες δὲ αὐτὸ ἀστεῖον, ἐσ κέ- πασαν αὐτὸ μῆνας τρεῖς. ---- ἀστεῖον] fair and graceful in form. Theophylact: ὡραῖον, τῇ ὄψει χαρίεν. In the Hebrew stands 3ib. — καὶ οὐκ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸ διάταγμα τοῦ βασιλέως] might, on account of the plural οὐκ ἐφοβήθησαν, be considered, together with εἶδον, in opposition to the passive ἐκρύβη, as still dependent upon διότ. But more logically exact is the taking of the words, as also is mostly done, as a parallel to ἐκρύβη. For much more natural does it appear that the author wished to represent that κρύπτειν as an act from the accomplishment of which fear did not deter, than that he should think of fearlessness as the motive cause of that action. — 70 διάταγμα τοῦ βασιλέως] the command of Pharaoh, to drown all new-born male children of the Israelites. Comp. Ex. i. 22. Vv. 24-26. Progress from the child Moses to the adult Moses. μέγας γενόμενος, namely, corresponds (comp. Ex. ii. 11) to the γεννηθείς, ver. 23, and μέγας is to be under- stood not of worldly power and honour (Schulz, Bretschneider), but of being grown up. Comp. viii. 11; LXX. Gen. xxxviil. 11,14; Hom. Od. ii. 314, xviii. 217, xix. 532.— npvncato λέγεσθαι] refused or disdained to be called. — θυγατρός] not τῆς θυγατρός is placed (as Ex. ii. 5 ff.), since the author combines θυγατρός with Φαραώ into one single (more general) notion : of α Pharaoh's daughter, i.e. of an Egyptian royal princess. Ver. 25. Justificatory explanation of the ἠρνήσατο, ver. 24: in that he preferred to suffer evil treatment with the people of God, in place of possessing a temporary sinful enjoyment. — μᾶλλον αἱρεῖσθαι ἤ] in Holy Scripture a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον ; in profane literature, on the other hand, of very frequent occur- rence. Instances in Wetstein.— The compound συγκακου- χεῖσθαι only here; the simple form κακουχεῖσθαι alone (ver. 37, xiii. 3) is found elsewhere. — τῷ λαῷ τοῦ θεοῦ] see at iv. 9.— πρόσκαιρον ἀπόλαυσιν] an enjoyment only tempo- rary, of brief duration, sc. of the earthly joys of life. Contrast to the enjoyment of everlasting blessedness. — ἁμαρτίας] not Meyer.—HEs. 2D 418 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. genit. oljectt (Theophylact, Schlichting, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, al.), but gent. auct.: Enjoyment, such as (the committing of) sin affords. By ἁμαρτία is meant apostasy from God, by the abandoning of the communion with the people of God. Ver. 26. Indication of cause for ver. 25, in such wise that ἡγησάμενος, ver. 26, is subordinated to the μᾶλλον ἑλόμενος, ver. 25. —- τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ] the reproach of Christ. That signifies not: the reproach for Christ’s sake, which he endured, namely, by virtue of the hope in the Messiah (Castellio, Wolf, Carpzov, Bohme, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, and others). For by the mere genitive this notion cannot be expressed. The sense is: the reproach, as Christ bore it, mas- much, namely, as the reproach, which Moses took upon him to endure in fellowship with his oppressed people at the hand of the Egyptians, was in its nature homogeneous with the reproach which Christ afterwards had to endure at the hands of unbelievers, to the extent that in the one case as in the other the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom was the end and aim of the enduring. Comp. τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν αὐτοῦ φέροντες, xiii. 13, and τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 2 Cor. 1, δ; as also τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Col. i. 24.— ἀπέβλεπεν γὰρ εἰς τὴν μισθαποδοσίαν] for he looked stedfastly to the bestowal of the reward. The determining ground for his action. — ἀποβλέπειν in the N, T. only here. - ἡ μισθαποδοσία is the promised heavenly reward, the ever- lasting salvation; comp. vv. 39,40. Unsuitably does Grotius limit the expression to the promised possession of the land of Canaan, Ver. 27 is referred either to the flight of Moses to Midian (Ex. ii. 15), or to the departure of the whole people out of Egypt. The former supposition is favoured by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius, Calmet, Bengel, Michaelis, Schulz, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bouman (Chartae theolog. lib. 11. Traj. ad Rhen. 1857, p. 157 sq.), Delitzsch, Nickel (in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Marz, p. 207), Conybeare, Alford, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Ewald; the latter by Nicholas de Lyra, Calvin, Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Calov, Braun, Baumgarten, Carpzov, Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Huét, Bohme, Stuart, Kuinoel, Paulus, CHAP, XI. 27. 419 Klee, Bleek, Stein, Bloomfield, Ebrard, Bisping, Kurtz, Hof- mann, Woerner, and others. Only the opinion first mentioned is the correct one. Against it, indeed, the objection appears to be not without weight, that Ex. ii, 14 a φοβηθῆναι of Moses is spoken of, whereas here, by means of μὴ φοβηθεὶς x.7.X., the opposite is asserted. But the contradiction is only an apparent one. For in the account of Exodus a fear on the part of Moses is mentioned only in the objective relation, whereas the fearlessness, which the author of our epistle intends, belongs. purely to the subjective domain. Moses was alarmed that, contrary to his expectation, the slaying of the Egyptian had already become known, and apprehended as a consequence being exposed to the vengeance of the king, if the latter should obtain possession of him. On this very account also he took steps for the saving of his life, in that he withdrew by flight from the territory of Pharaoh. With this fact, however, it was perfectly reconcilable that in the con- sciousness of being chosen to be the deliverer of his people, and in the confidence in God, in whose hand alone he stood, he felt himself inwardly, or in his frame of mind, raised above all fear at the wrath of an earthly king. There is therefore no need of the concession (de Wette), that the author of the epistle, when he wrote down his μὴ φοβηθείς, did not remember the words ἐφοβήθη δὲ Mwiofs, Ex. ii. 14. But just as little is it permissible, with Delitzsch, to press the expression κατέλιπεν, chosen by the author, and to assert that καταλιπεῖν expresses the repairing hence without fear, whereas φυγεῖν would denote the repairing hence from fear. The author might also have written without difference of signification—what is denied by Delitzsch—iores ἔφυγεν εἰς γῆν Μαδιάμ, μὴ φοβηθεὶς τὸν θυμὸν tod βασιλέως. ---- The referring, on the other hand, of the statement, ver. 27, to the leading forth of the whole people, is shown to be entirely inadmissible—(1) from the consideration that, in the chrono- logical order which the author pursues in the enumeration of his models of faith, the departure of Israel from Egypt could not have been mentioned before the fact on which he dwells in ver. 28, but only after the same; (2) that to the departure of the people out of Egypt the expression κατέλιπεν (se. 420 THE EPISTLE TO TILE HEBREWS. ἹΜωϊσῆς) Αἴγυπτον is unsuitable; (3) finally, that according to Ex. xii. 31 that departure was commanded by Pharaoh him- self; in connection with the departure, therefore, any fear whatever at the wrath of the king could not arise. — τὸν γὰρ ἀόρατον ws ὁρῶν éexaprépynoer] for having the invisible (God) as it were before his eyes, he was strong and courageous, τὸν ἀόρατον ws ὁρῶν belongs together, and τὸν ἀόρατον stands absolutely, without, what is thought most probable by Bohme, as also Delitzsch and Hofmann, our having to supplement βασιλία to the same. Contrary to linguistic usage, Luther, Bengel, Schulz, Paulus, Stengel (wavering), Ebrard combine τὸν ἀόρατον With ἐκαρτέρησεν : he held firmly to the invisible one as though seeing Him ; according to Ebrard, καρτερεῖν τινα signifies: “to comport oneself stedfastly in regard to some one” (!), and the expression of our passage is supposed to acquire a pregnancy in the sense of τὸν ἀόρατον τιμῶν ἐκαρτέρησεν (!). καρτερεῖν te can only denote: stedfastly to bear or undergo something ; καρτερεῖν Tiva, however, cannot be used in Greek. Ver. 28. Comp. Ex. xii. — Πίστει) in believing confidence, sc. in the word of God, at whose command he acted, that the blood of the paschal lambs would become the means of deliver- ing the Israelites. — πεποίηκεν τὸ πάσχα | he ordained the Pass- over. In the perfect there lies the characterization of the regulation then adopted as something stil continuing in force even to the present. With the notion of the meet ordering of the Passover blends consequently the idea of the institution thereof; although it is true only τὸ πάσχα, not likewise the addition καὶ τὴν πρόσχυσιν τοῦ αἵματος, is suitable thereto. - καὶ τὴν Tpocxvow τοῦ αἵματος] and the affusion of the blood. What is intended is the sprinkling or anointing of the door-posts and lintels of the Israelite houses with the blood of the slain paschal lambs, enjoined by Moses at the command of God, Ex. xii. 7, 22 f£.— πρόσχυσις) in Holy Scripture only here. — ἵνα μὴ ὁ ὀλοθρεύων τὰ πρωτότοκα θίγῃ αὐτῶν] that the slayer of the first-born might not touch them. By ὁ oXo- θρεύων, the destroyer, the LXX. at Ex. xii. 23 have translated the Hebrew Mnvian, the destruction, thinking in connection therewith of an angel of destruction sent forth by God. Comp. CHAP. XI. 29, 30. 421 1 Chron. xxi. 12, 15 (ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐξολοθρεύων) ; 2 Chron. xxxii. 21; Ecclus. xlviii, 21; 1 Cor. x. 10 (ὁ ὀχοθρευτηςὶ, - τὰ πρωτότοκα] Ex. xii. 12: πᾶν πρωτότοκον... ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους. Comp. ibid. ver. 29. We have to construe τὰ πρωτότοκα with ὁ ὀλοθρεύων, not, as Klee, Paulus, Ebrard, and Hofmann will, with @yy, since the com- bination of θυγγάνειν with an accusative is not usual. — αὐτῶν] namely the Israelites, This reference of the αὐτῶν was self- evident from the connection, although the Israelites are not previously mentioned. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 138 f. Ver. 29. Comp. Ex. xiv. 22 ff.— Πίστει] Oecumenius : ἐπίστευσαν yap διαβϑήσεσθαι καὶ διέβησαν" τοσοῦτον οἶδεν ἡ πίστις καὶ τὰ ἀδύνατα δυνατὰ ποιεῖν. ---- διέβησαν] namely, the Israelites under Moses. — ὡς διὰ ξηρᾶς γῆς] as through dry, firm land. The less usual 6ca with the genitive, alternating with the ordinary accusative in connection with διαβαίνειν, was probably occasioned by the reading of the LXX. Ex. xiv. 29 (οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐπορεύθησαν διὰ ξηρᾶς ἐν μέσῳ τῆς θαλάσ- ons). — ἧς πεῖραν λαβόντες οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι κατεπόθησαν] in the essaying of which the Egyptians were drowned. — ἧς refers back to τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν, not, as Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Kurtz suppose, to Enpas γῆς. For the former is the main thought, of which the readers are reminded anew by κατεπόθησαν, whereas ὡς διὰ ξηρᾶς con- tains only a subsidiary feature, attached by way of comparison. --πεῖραν λαμβάνειν τινός stands here in the active sense. Otherwise ver. 36.—xatamivec@at, however (comp. Ex. xv. 4), is a more general expression for the more definite κατα- ποντίζεσθαι, which latter (κατεποντίσθησαν) is found also in our passage, in some cursives, as likewise witli Chrysostom and Theodoret. Ver. 50. The example of faith afforded by the Israelite people in connection with the siege of Jericho, Josh. vi. — Πίστει] on the ground of faith, which, namely, the people displayed. Wrongly Grotius, who supposes πίστει is to be con- strued with κυκλωθέντα. --- ἔπεσαν] On the plural of the verb with the neuter plur., see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 479. — κυκλωθέντα] after they (daily with the ark of the covenant, heralded by trumpet blast) had been encireled (incorrectly 422 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Schulz, and others: beleaguered). — ἐπὶ ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας for seven days, seven days long. Comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 381. Ver. 31. The example of the Gentile woman Rahab, Josh. ii, vi 17, 22 ff Her conduct had proceeded from the recog- nition that the God of the Israelites is a God in heaven and upon earth, and from the confidence thereon based, that this God would lead them to victory. Comp. Josh. 11. ὃ Τῇ - “Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη] Comp. Jas. ii. 25; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. ο. 12. ‘The epithet ἡ πόρνη is to be left in its literal sense. ΤῸ inter- pret it, with Jac. Cappellus, Valckenaer, Heinrichs, and others, after the precedent of the Chaldee paraphrase and the Arabian version, by the hostess, or, with Hofmann, the harlots’ hostess, or, with Braun and others, the heathen woman, or finally, with Koppe (in Heinrichs) and others, the cdolatress, is arbitrary. The designation of Rahab as ἡ πόρνη is an historic characteri- zation, in accordance with Josh. ii, 2, vi. 17 ff., and without any ground of offence. For it has already been rightly observed by Calvin: “hoe (epitheton) ad anteactam vitam referri cer- tum est; resipiscentiae enim testis est fides.” Comp. further, Matt. xxi. 31, 92. -- τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν) the inhabitants of Jericho. They had shown themselves disobedient, because they had resisted the people of God (Josh. vi. 1), although not to them either had the mighty deeds of this God remained unknown (Josh. ii. 10).— δεξαμένη τοὺς κατασκόπους μετ᾽ εἰρήνης] seeing she had received the spies with peace, 1.6. without practising acts of hostility towards them, to which she might have been incited by reason of their nationality. Vv. 32-40. On account of the multitude of models of faith which are still to be found in the O. T., the author must abandon the attempt of presenting them singly to the readers. He relinquishes, therefore, the previous description in detail, and briefly sums up that to which he could further call atten- tion. He mentions first, at ver. 32, another series of heroes of the faith; and then portrays in general rubrics their deeds of faith, and that in such form that ver. 33 ... ἄλλοι, ver. 35, deeds of victorious faith are brought into relief, and thence to the end of ver. 38 deeds of suffering faith. Ver. 32. Καὶ τί ἔτι λέγω 3] And to what end do I still speak ? 1.6. what need is there yet, after that which has already CHAP. XI. ss. 423 been mentioned, of a further description in detail? and what end can it serve, since, considering the abundance of the his- toric material, an exhaustive presentation is surely impossible ? -- λέγω] is indicative. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 267. --- ἐπιλείπειν] only here in the N. T.— ἐπιλείψει. pe yap διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος περὶ Γεδεὼν x.7.r.] for the time will not suffice me for relating of Gideon, etc. Comp. Demosth. de Corona, ed. Reisk. p. 324: ἐπιλείψει, we λέγοντα ἡ ἡμέρα τὰ τῶν προδοτῶν ὀνόματα ; Julian. Orat. 1, p. 341 B: ἐπιλείψει με τἀκείνου διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος. Parallel is also the Latin: deficit me dies, tempus, e.g. Liv. xxviii. 41: Dies me deficiat, si... numerare velim; Cic. pro Rose. Amer. Ὁ. 32, init.: tempus, hercule, te cua quam oratio deficeret. Further instances (also from Philo) see in Wetstein and Bleek. —o χρόνος] Oecumenius: ὁ χρόνος ὁ TH ἐπιστολῇ, φησίν, ἁρμόδιος καὶ οἷον ἡ συμμετρία; Theophylact: ποῖος ; ἢ ὁ πᾶς" εἴρηται δὲ τοῦτο, ὡς σύνηθες ἡμῖν λέγειν, ὑπερβολικῶς" ἢ ὁ τῇ ἐπισ- τολῇ σύμμετρος. --- περὶ Γεδεὼν καὶ Βαρὰκ κ-τ.λ.] of Gideon, as well as of Barak, etc. That here too, in connection with the correct text, the regard to chronology is not lost sight of, see in the critical remark. — On Gideon, comp. Judg. vi.—viil.; on Barak, Judg. iv., v.; on Samson, Judg. xiii—xvi.; on Jephthah, Judg. xi. 1-xii. 7.— The last double member is yet enlarged by the addition καὶ τῶν προφητῶν to Σαμουήλ, because Samuel opened the series of the prophets; cf. Acts ii. 24. Ver. 33. Οἱ διὰ πίστεως κατηγωνίσαντο βασιλείας] who by virtue of faith subdued kingdoms. The δεὰ πίστεως with emphasis placed at the head dominates the whole description following, so that it continues equally to sound forth in con- nection with all the finite verbs as far as περιῆλθον, ver. 37. — of, however, connects in a lax manner that which follows with that which precedes, in so far as, vv. 33, 34, respect is had, in part at least, to yet other persons besides those men- tioned ver. 32. As regards the subject-matter, therefore, there would have been more accurately written in place of the mere of: “who with others like-minded.” — catayovi- ζεσθαι further, in the N. T. a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, signifies to get the better of or overpower. With Bohme to attach to the same the signification: “to acquire by fighting” (“certamine sibi 424 THE EPISTLE ΤῸ TIIE IEBREWS. paraverunt regna; quod nostra lingua succinctius ita dixeris: ste haben sich Herrscherwiirden erkémpft”), is opposed to the usus loguendi.— The statement itself for the rest is true, as of David, who vanquished the Philistines (2 Sam. v. 17—25, vil. 1, xxi. 15 ff), Moabites, Syrians, Edomites (2 Sam. vil. 2 ff.), and Ammonites (2 Sam. x., xii. 26 ff.), so also of the four judges, mentioned ver. 32, inasmuch as Gideon smote the Midianites (Judg. vii), Barak the Canaanites (Judg. iv.), Samson the Philistines (Judg. xiv. ff.), Jephthah the Ammonites (Judg. xi.). — εἰργάσαντο δικαιοσύνην] wrought righteousness and justice, namely, for their subjects, in virtue of their quality as judges or kings. Comp. ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην, 2 Sam. viii. 15; 1 Chron. xviii. 14; 2 Chron. ix. ὃ, al. Too generally Erasmus, Schlichting, Gro- tius, Schulz, Stein, and others (comp. already Theodoret : τοῦτο κοινὸν τῶν ἁγίων ἁπάντων) : they did that which was morally good ov pious, — ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελιῶν] obtained promises, i.e. either: came into the possession of blessings which God had pro- mised them (Piscator, Owen, Huét, Bohme, Stuart, de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Hofmann, Woerner, and the majority), or: recewed words of promise on the part of God (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Primasius, Schlichting [Whitby ?], Bleek, Ebrard, Kurtz, a/.). Either interpretation is admissible. Yet in the first case, that no contradiction with ver. 39 (comp. also ver. 13) may arise, only, what the absence of the article . before ἐπαγγελιῶν also permits, blessings and successes of earthly nature could be meant. In the first case, one may think of Judg. vii. 7 and the like, while in the second case the words are specially to be referred to the Messianic pro- mises given to David and the prophets. — éfpafav στόματα λεόντων closed the jaws of lions. Comp. with regard to Daniel, Dan. vi. 22 (1 Mace. ii. 60); with regard to Samson, Judg. xiv. 6; with regard to David, 1 Sam. xvii. 34 ff. Ver. 34. "EoBecav δύναμιν πυρός] Quenched the violence of Jire (fire’s violence). Theophylact: οὐκ εἶπε δὲ ἔσβεσαν πῦρ ἀλλὰ δύναμιν πυρός, ὃ καὶ μεῖζον: ἐξαπτόμενον γὰρ ὅλως δύναμιν τοῦ καίειν οὐκ εἶχε Kat αὐτῶν. To be compared is the statement with regard to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, the three companions of Daniel, Dan. iii Comp. 1 Mace. CHAP. XI. 35. 425 ii. 59: ᾿Ανανίας, "Afapias, Micanrd πιστεύσαντες ἐσώθησαν ἐκ φλογός. --- ἔφυγον στόματα μαχαίρας] escaped the sword- points; eg. David, comp. 1 Sam. xviii. 11, xix. 10, 12, xxi. 10; Elijah, comp. 1 Kings xix. 1 ff; Hlisha, comp. 2 Kings vi. 14 ff, 31 ff. — ἐνεδυναμώθησαν ἀπὸ ἀσθενείας out of weakness were made strong. These words Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylact refer to the strengthen- ing of the whole people by liberation from the Babylonian captivity; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Owen, Heinrichs, Huét, Bohme, Stuart, Stein, Tholuck, Ebrard, and the majority, partly exclusively, partly, among other things, to the recovery of Hezekiah (2 Kings xx.; Isa. xxxviii.); certainly more correct, however, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Bleek, de Wette, Hofmann, to the rein- vigoration of the weakened Samson (Judg. xvi. 28 ff.). — ἐγενή- θησαν ἰσχυροὶ ἐν πολέμῳ] waxed valiant in battle. Theodoret καὶ οἱ προῤῥηθέντες καὶ of τοῦ Ματταθίου παῖδες ᾿Ιούδας καὶ ᾿Ιωνάθης καὶ Σίμων. That the author was thinking of the Maccabees also, in particular, in addition to the judges and David, is certainly very probable. — παρεμβολὰς ἔκλιναν ἀλλοτρίων] Made armies of aliens flinch or give way. Theo- doret: τὸ αὐτὸ διαφόρως εἴρηκεν. ---- παρεμβολή, as MM, in the signification of army; likewise Judg. iv. 16, vil. 14; 1 Mace. v. 28, 45, and frequently. With the Greeks this signification of the word is rare; comp., however, Aelian, Var. Hist. xiv. 46: Ἡνίκα δὲ ἔδει συμμίξαι, ἐνταῦθα οἱ μὲν κύνες προπηδῶντες ἐτάραττον τὴν παρεμβολήν. ---- κχίνειν, in the sense indicated, is found in Holy Scripture only here. Ver. 35. Ἔλαβον γυναῖκες ἐξ ἀναστάσεως τοὺς νεκροὺς αὐτῶν] Women received back their dead (their sons) through resurrection. Those meant are the widow of Sarepta (1 Kings xvii. 17 ff.), whose son was awakened out of death by Elijah, and the Shunammite woman (2 Kings iv. 18 ff.), whose son was raised by Elisha. Far-fetched is the supposition of Biesen- thal (in Guericke’s Zeitschr. 7. die ges. luther. Theol. w. Kirche, 1866, H. 4, p. 616 ff): reference is made to the tradition, preserved to us in the rabbinical and talmudic literature, of the cessation of the dying away of the male population in the wilderness on the 15th Ab. — Syntactically ver. 35 begins 426 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. a new proposition (against Bohme, who, as unnaturally as possible, makes the statement ἔλαβον... αὐτῶν still depen- dent on οἵ, ver. 33, and regards γυναῖκες as apposition to of). — With ἄλλοι δέ, to the close of ver. 38, the discourse passes over to examples of a suffering faith, which remained still unrewarded upon earth.— ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν] Others, on the other hand, were stretched on the rack. Allusion to the martyr-death of Eleazar (2 Mace. vi. 18 ff), and of the seven Maccabean brothers, together with their mother (2 Mace. vii.). τυμπανίζεσθαι means: to be stretched out upon the τύμπανον (comp. 2 Macc. vi. 19, 28), an instrument of torture (probably wheel-shaped, Josephus, de Mace. c. 5, 9, 10: τροχός), —to be stretched out like the skin of a kettledrum, in order then to be tortured to death by blows (comp. 2 Mace. vi. 30). — ov προσδεξάμενοι] not accepting, 1.6. since the expression, by reason of the objective negation ov, blends into a single notion: disdaining. — τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν] the deliverance, namely the earthly one, which they could have gained by the renouncing of their faith, Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 21 ff, vii. 27 ff. — ἵνα κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν] that they might become par- takers of a better resurrection. Motive for the contemning of earthly deliverance. Comp. 2 Macc. vii. 9, 11, 14, 20, 23, 29, 36, as also 2 Mace. vi. 26. κρείττονος stands not in opposition to the resurrection of the ungodly unto judgment, Dan. xii. 2 (Oecumenius: κρείττονος... ἢ οἱ λουποὶ ἄνθρωποι" ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀνάστασις πᾶσι κοινή, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτοι ἀναστήσονται, φησίν, εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον. Comp. Theophylact), neither does it form any antithesis to ἐξ ava- στάσεως in the beginning of the verse (Chrysostom: ov τοιαύτης, οἵας τὰ παιδία τῶν γυναικῶν ; Theophylact, who does not, however, decide; Bengel, Schulz, Bohme, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Stengel, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm, ZLehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 617, Obs.; Alford, Maier, Kurtz, and others), which is too remote; but corresponds to the ἀπολύτρωσιν immedi- ately preceding. A much higher possession was the resurrec- tion to the eternal, blessed life, than the temporal deliverance from death; which latter could be regarded, likewise, as a sort of resurrection, but truly only as a lower and valueless one. CHAP. XI. 36, 37. τιν Τῇ Ver. 36. Others endured mockings and scowrges, yea, moreover, bonds and prison. “Erepot, in accordance with its verbal signification, introduces a heterogeneous class of heroes of the faith, 1.6. a particular species of the ἄλλοι, mentioned as the genus ver. 35. As regards the subject itself, indeed, inexact, since, ver. 35, with ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν K.T.r. reference was made not merely to 2 Macc. vi., but—as the addition ἵνα κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν clearly shows—at the same time to 2 Macc. vii.; the mention, however, of the scourging along with the mocking seems to admit of explanation only from the author's referring to 2 Mace. vi. 30 (μαστιγούμενος) and vii. 1 (μάστιξι Kal vevpais αἰκιζομένους), as indeed the enduring of public mockery is expressly mentioned (in addi- tion to 1 Macc. ix. 26) at 2 Mace. vii. 7 (τὸν δεύτερον ἦγον ἐπὶ τὸν ἐμππαυγμόν), and again 2 Mace. vii. 10 (μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον ὁ τρίτος éverraifero). On the other hand, however, it seems evident that it was the intention of the writer at ver. 36 in reality to draw attention to a dissimilar class of men; from the fact, even apart from the choice of the expression ἕτεροι, that in the case of the previous ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν κτλ. We are constrained to think of a death by martyrdom, while at ver. 36 the enhancing ἔτε δέ forbids our thinking of the martyr’s death, since, according to this, bonds and dungeon were a more severe trial than mocking and scourging. We must therefore suppose that the author designed further to refer to those, as forming a special category, who, without suffering actual death, were exposed to other kinds of tortures and miseries; that he still derived, however, the main colours for this new picture from the historic figure which but just now had been present to his mind in connection with the ἐτυμπανίσθησαν «.t...— The enhancing éte δέ is to be explained from the fact that ἐμπαιγμοὶ καὶ μάστιγες denotes the more transient suffering, in point of time more brief; δεσμοὶ καὶ φυλακή, on the other hand, the longer enduring sufferings. — πεῖραν λαμβάνειν] here in the passive sense: to have experience of something. Otherwise ver. 29.— δεσμῶν καὶ φυλακῆς) Comp. 1 Mace. xiii. 12; 1 Kings xxii. 27; Jer. Xxxvii, xxxviii., al. Ver. 37. ᾿Ελιθάσθησαν] They were stoned. To be referred 428 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. to Zechariah, son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22; comp. Matt. xxiii. 35; Luke xi. 51), and probably also to Jeremiah, of whom at least later tradition reports death by stoning. Comp. Tertull. Scorpiac. 8; Hieronym. adv. Jovinian. ii. 37; Pseudo-Epiphan. (Opp. 11. p. 239), al. Less suitably do Oecu- menius, Theophylact, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, and others think also of Naboth, 1 Kings xxi. — érploOnoav] were sawn asunder. Death by sawing asunder (comp. 2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Chron. xx. 3) was, according to early tradition, that suffered by Isaiah at the hands of Manasseh, king of Judah. See Ascens. Jes. vat. v. 11-14; Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph.120; Tertull. de Patient. 14, Scorpiac. 8 ; Origen, Epist. ad African.; Lactant. Institt. iv. 11, al.; Tr. Jevamoth, f.49. 2; Sanhedrin, f. 103. 2. — éreipdcOnaar] were tempted. This general statement has about it something strange and inconvenient, inasmuch as it occurs in the midst of the mention of different kinds of violent death. Some, therefore, have been in favour of entirely deleting ἐπειράσθησαν (Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Marloratus, Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, Calmet, Storr, Valckenaer, Schulz, Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, Delitzsch, Maier, al.), in doing which, however, we are not justified by external evidence ;’ while others have thought that ἐπειράσθησαν is a corruption, in itself early, of the original text, which latter must be restored by conjecture. It has been conjectured by Beza, edd. 3, 4, 5, that we have to read ἐπυρώθησαν ; Gataker, Miscell. 44, Colomesius, Observ. 5, Moll, and Hofmann: ἐπρήσθησαν ; Fr. Junius, Parall. lib. iii., and Piscator: ἐπυράσθησαν ; Sykes and Ebrard: ἐπυρίσθησαν, they were burned.’ Further, Luther (transl.), Beza, edd. 1 and 2, Knatchbull, Fischer, Proluss. de vitiis Lexic. N. 1. p. 538; Ewald, p. 171, read ἐπάρθησαν (2), from πείρω, they were pierced, transfixed; Wakefield, Silv. crit. 11. 62: ἐπειράθησαν, 1 Tt is wanting only in some cursives, in the Peshito,—whose daughter, the Arabian version in Erpen., also omits it,—in the Aethiopic version, which also omits ixpiséncey, with Origen (once, as compared with four times), Euseb, and Theophyl. * Reuss, too, regards ἐσυρίσθησαν [as does Conybeare ἐσυράσθησαν] as the most likely conjecture, but regards it, likewise, as possible: ‘‘ que le ἐπειράσθησαν dans le texte vulgaire ne ffit qu’une conjecture trés-superflue, destinée ἃ remplacer le mot ἐπρίσθησαν (ils furent sciés), parce que l’Ancien Testament ne fournit pas d’exemple de ce dernier supplice.” CHAP. XI. 37. 429 from περάω (2), they were spitted, impaled ; Tanaq. Faber, Epp. crit. ii. 14, and J. M. Gesner in Carpzov: ἐπηρώθησαν, they were mutilated; Alberti: ἐσπειράσθησαν or ἐσπειράθησαν, from σπεῖρα (?), they were broken on the wheel; Steph. le Moyne in Gronov. Ant. Gr. vii. p. 301: ἐπράθησαν, they were sold. Others yet other conjectures; see Wetstein, Griesbach, and Scholz ad loc. Bleek, too, assumes an error in the text, in that he holds a word which signifies “to be consumed, to perish by fire,” as ἐπρήσθησαν, which is found with Cyrill. Hieros., and in Codd. 110, 111 for ἐπρίσθησαν, or ἐπυρίσθησαν, or even one of the forms more commonly employed for the expressing of this idea,—éverpncOncav and éverrupic@ncav,—to be the original reading, and then supposes the author perhaps to have thought once more of martyrs under the tyranny of Antiochus Epi- phanes, 2 Mace. vi. 11, vii. 4f; Dan. xi. 33, al. Comp. also Philo, ad Flace. p. 990 A (with Mangey, II. p. 542): κατελύ- θησάν τινες (sc. Alexandrine Jews, by Flaccus) καὶ ζῶντες οἱ μὲν ἐνεπρήσθησαν οἱ δὲ διὰ μέσης κατεσύρησαν ἀγορᾶς, ἕως ὅλα τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐδαπανήθη. Similarly Reiche, Commentar. Crit. p. 111 sqq., who leaves open the choice between ἐπρήσθησαν and ἐπυρώθησαν. ----Τὖ ἐπειράσθησαν is genuine, it must have been added by the author for the sake of the paronomasia with ἐπρίσθησαν, and be referred to the enticements and temptations to escape a violent death by means of apostasy (comp. eg. 2 Mace. vii. 24).— ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας ἀπέθανον) died by slaughter of the sword. Comp. 1 Kings xix. 10: τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ ; Jer. xxvl. 23: καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ (namely, the prophet Urijah). For the expression ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας, comp. LXX. Ex. xvi. 13; Num. xxi. 24; Deut. xiii. 15, xx. 13. — περιῆλθον... τῆς γῆς, ver. 38, now further emphasizes the fact that the whole life of the last-named class of the heroes of faith was one of want and distress. — περιῆλθον ἐν μηλω- ταῖς, ἐν αἰγείοις δέρμασιν] refers specially to single prophets. Comp. Zech. xiii. 4, also Clemens Romanus, ad Corinth. 17: μιμηταὶ γενώμεθα κἀκείνων, οἵτινες ἐν δέρμασιν aiyelous Kal μηλωταῖς περιεπάτησαν, κηρύσσοντες τὴν ἔλευσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ" λέγομεν δὲ ᾿Ηλίαν καὶ ᾿Ελισσαῖον, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιεζεκιὴλ τοὺς προφύτας. ---- περιῆλθον] they went hither and thither, without 430 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. being in possession of a fixed dwelling-place. Theophylact : τὸ δὲ περιῆλθον τὸ διώκεσθαι αὐτοὺς δηλοῖ καὶ ἀστατεῖν. ---- ἐν] in, i.e. clothed with. — ἐν μηλωταῖς, ἐν αἰγείοις δέρμασιν] in sheep-skins, in goat fells. The latter, as designation of a yet rougher clothing, is an ascent from the former, and on that account placed last. μηλωτή, the hide of smaller cattle in general, and specially of sheep. A μηλωτή is mentioned as the garment of Elijah, which, on his being caught up to heaven, he left behind to Elisha, 1 Kings xix. 13,19; 2 Kings vill. 13, 14. — ὑστερούμενοι, θλιβόμενοι, κακουχούμενοι] in want (50. of that which is necessary for the sustenance of life), affliction, evil-treatment (comp. ver. 25). Ver. 38. Ὧν οὐκ ἣν ἄξιος ὁ κόσμος] Men, to possess whom the (corrupt) world (ver. 7) was not worthy. Theophylact : Οὐκ ἔχετε, φησίν, εἰπεῖν ὅτε ἁμαρτωλοὶ ὄντες τοιαῦτα ἔπασ- χον, ἀλλὰ τοιοῦτοι, οἷοι καὶ τοῦ κόσμου αὐτοῦ τιμιώτεροι εἶναι. Calvin: Quum ita profugi inter feras vagabantur sancti prophetae, videri poterant indigni, quos terra sustineret. Qui fit enim, ut inter homines locum non inveniant? Sed apostolus in contrariam partem hoc retorquet, nempe quod mundus illis non esset dignus. Nam quocunque veniant servi Dei, ejus benedictionem, quasi fragrantiam boni odoris, secum afferunt.— ὧν] goes back to the subject in περιῆλθον, ver. 37. In a forced manner Bohme (as also Kuinoel, Klee, and Stein): it points to that which follows, and the sense is: oberravisse illos in desertis tales, quibus vulgus hominum, ut esse soleat, pravum ac impiuim, haud dignum fuerit, quocum illi eodem loco versarentur. Not less unnaturally does Hof- mann look upon ὧν οὐκ ἣν ἄξιος ὁ κόσμος as only a following definition of subject to περιῆλθον, in that he begins a new section of the discourse with περιῆλθον. To a yet greater extent, finally, has Carpzov missed the true interpretation, when, taking ὧν as a neuter, he supplies κακῶν (ὑστερήσεων, θλίψεων), and gives as the sense: quorum indignus malorum erat mundus. Id est: tam erudelibus affecti sunt suppliciis, ut illa mundo indigna sint; ut orbem terrarum non deceat, tam horrenda ac φοβερώτατα de eo dici— ἐν ἐρημίαις πλα- νώμενοι K.T.V.] wandering in deserts and upon mountains, and in caves and the clefts [clifts] of the earth. Comp. 1 Kings CHAP. XI. 39, 40. 431 xvii. 4, 13, xix. 4, 8,9,13; 1 Mace. u. 28, 29; 2 Maec. v.27, we LY, x6. Vv. 39, 40. General remark in closing. — Καὶ οὗτου πάντες] And these all. Refers back to the totality of the persons named, from ver. 4 (not merely, as Schlichting, Hammond, and Storr suppose, to those mentioned from ἄλλου δέ, ver. 35).— μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως] although by virtue of their faith they received a (glorious) testimony (in Scripture). — οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν] did not bear away the promise (wrongly Ebrard: the aorist stands “ pro plusquamperf.”), 1.6. attained not, so long as they lived, to the possession of that which was promised, namely, the Messianic blessedness. Ver. 40. The ground for the οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τὴν ἐπαγ- γελίαν lay in the decree of God, that those believers should not apart from us attain to the consummation. — τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ ἡμῶν κρεῖττόν τι προβλεψαμένου] God having, with regard to us, foreseen (predetermined) something better. — πτρο- βλέπειν) in the N. T. only here.— On account of the em- phatically preposed περὲ ἡμῶν, which forms the contrast to οὗτοι πάντες, ver. 39, κρεῖττόν Te cannot be placed abso- lutely: “Something better than would otherwise have been our portion” (Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Huét). With this thought, moreover, iva μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν τελειωθῶσιν would not have been in keeping, since, instead thereof, ἵνα σὺν αὐτοῖς τελειωθῶμεν must have been written. The sense can only be: in regard to us something better than wm regard to them. In regard to us something better, inasmuch as when they lived the appearing of the Redeemer as yet belonged to the distant future, and was an object of longing desire (Matt. xiii. 16 f.; Luke x. 23 f.); but now Christ has in reality appeared, has accomplished the redemption, and presently after a brief interval will return, to bring to full realization the Messianic kingdom with all its blessings of salvation. Comp. x. 25, 36 f.—iwva μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν τελειωθῶσιν] Declaration of the divine design: that they not without us should attain to the consummation. Without us, 1.6. without our having entered into the joint participation in the consum- mation, they would have attained to the consummation, if 432 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Christ had already appeared in their time, and so they had already attained during their lifetime to the possession of the: promised Messianic bliss. For then we should not have been born at all; since, according to the declaration of the Lord (Matt. xxii. 30; Mark xi. 25; Luke xx. 35 ἢ), in the con- summated kingdom of God a marrying and being given in marriage will no longer take place. CHAP, XII. 433 CHAPTER XII. Ver. 2. κεκάθικεν)] Elz.: ἐκάϑισεν. But the perfect, adopted into the Editt. Complut. Genev. Plant., as also by Bengel, Griesb. Matth. Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, teiche, and others, has the preponderant attestation of all the uncials, most cursives, and many Fathers in its favour; and is likewise preferable on internal grounds, since it represents the having sat down as a result extending into the present time. — Ver. 3. In place of the Recepta εἰς αὑτόν or εἰς αὐτόν, which has the support of D*** K IL, almost all the cursives and many Fathers, there is found εἰς αὐτούς in N**, with Theodoret (τὸ εἰς αὐτοὺς ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰς ἑαυτούς), and in Cod. 17; εἰς ἑαυτούς, how- ever, in 8*, in the Peshito (quantum sustinuerit a peccatoribus, qui fuerunt adversarii sibi ipsis), in D* ἘΠ, together with their Latin version (recogitate igitur, talem vos reportasse a peccatoribus in vobis adversitatem), and in some mss. of the Vulgate; while the Sahidic and Armenian vss. entirely omit the words, and Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, de Wette write εἰς ἑαυτόν. The latter, which is attested by A and the Vulgate (in semetipsum), indirectly also by D* E*, is to be held the original reading ; the plural, on the other hand, to be rejected as devoid of sense. — ἀντικατέστητε] In place of this, Tisch. 2 writes, after L* 46, al, Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theophyl. ms. : ἀντεκατέστητε. This form of the word (see on the twofold augment, Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 69 f.) must, it is true, be adopted upon strong attestation, but is not in a position here to set aside the Recepta ἀντικατέστητε, where durex. has against it the preponderating testimony of A D E L** x, etc. Rightly, therefore, has Tisch. restored dyziz. in the editt. vii. and viii. — Ver. 5. Elz.: Υἱέ μου. D*, some seven cursives, as also the Latin translation in D E, have only riz Bleek has on that account suspected μου, and enclosed it within brackets. Ex- ternal authority, however, does not warrant our deleting the pronoun. The occasion for its omission might be afforded by the occurrence of a similar initial letter in the following word, or by the text of the LXX. in which it is wanting. — Ver. 7. εἰ παιδείαν ὑπομένετε] Instead of this, Matth. Lachm. Tisch. 1, Meyer. —HEz. 2E 434 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 7 and 8, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbcqr. des Hebrdéerbr. p. 758), and Alford read εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε, and Griesbach has placed εἰς upon the inner margin. In favour of εἰς pleads, it is true, the greatly preponderating authority of A D δ (ὃ Καὶ L δὲ, of more than thirty cursives, Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Damasc. Procop., while εἰ is found only with Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Slav. (?), and, as it seems, in many cursives. Nevertheless εἰς is inadmissible. For, whether εἰς παιδείαν is taken still with παραδέχεται, or, as Hofmann will have it, with waoryo7%;—whereby, however, that which follows would become deformed,—or it be combined with ὑπομένετε, in any case παιδεήα must be understood in the sense of “ education,” whereas of a certainty, alike from that which precedes as from that which follows, the signification “ chastisement” becomes a necessity. Consequently the Recepta εἰ παιδείαν ὑπομένετε is to be looked upon as that written by the author. The originality and correctness of this reading (defended also by Reiche, p. 115 sqq.) becomes manifestly apparent from the fact that upon its recognition vv. 7, 8, in accordance with the usual accuracy of diction prevailing in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are in perfect mutual correspondence as type and autitype, alike as regards the protasis as also the apodosis. — In place of the Recepta rig γάρ ἔστιν, we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A, s* Vulg. Sahid. Orig., to write merely: τῆς yap. — Ver. ὃ. Elz.: νόθοι ἐστὲ καὶ οὐχ, υἱοί. With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Delitzsch, Alford, we have to trans- pose into: νόθοι καὶ ody viot gore, after A D* and D*** [in Cod. E all the rest is wanting from πάντες, ver. 8, to the close of the Epistle] 8,17, 37, 80, a/., Vulg. It. Chrys. (codd.) and Latin Fathers. — Ver. 9. Elz.: οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον. But A D* s (ΟΣ »x** with the addition of δὲ) have οὐ πολὺ μᾶλλον. Rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford. — Ver. 15. In place of the received διὰ rairns, we have to adopt, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 2, and Alford, after A, 17, 67** 80, 137, 238, Copt. etc., Clem. Chrys. (comment.): δ αὐτῆς; and in place of the Recepta πολλοί, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A &, 47, Clem. Theodoret: of πολλοί. The article was lost sight of in the homoioteleuton oro — Ver. 16. Lachm. (and Tisch. 2 and 7, as well as Alford, have fol- lowed him therein!) has placed in the text, from A C, the form of the word ἀπέδετο; but this, although not altogether unexampled (see Buttmann, Gramm. des neutestam. Sprachgebr. p. 40 f.), is manifestly a corruption of the Recepta ἀπέδοτο, which is confirmed by the Cod. Sinait.— On the other hand, the reading ἑαυτοῦ, given by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, merits, CHAP, XII. 435 on account of its more decided attestation by A Ο D** and D*** »*, the preference over the Recepta αὑτοῦ or αὐτοῦ. ---- Ver. 18. Elz.: ψηλαφωμένῳ ὄρει. ὕρει, furnished by Ὁ Καὶ L, in like manner, as it seems, by almost all cursives, Vulg. (ed. Clem.) Arab. polygl. Slav. Athan. Theodoret, Damasc. Oecum., is wanting indeed in A C 8, 17, 47, in many mss. of the Vulg., in Copt. Sahid. Syr. Arab. Erp. Aeth., with Chrys. (comment.), Theophyl. Mart. pap. Bed., and was already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 1071) as a gloss, and then deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, as likewise by Alford, is, however, indis- pensable, and is naturally called for by the opposition ἀλλὰ προσεληλύθατε Σιὼν ope, ver. 22 (comp. also τοῦ ὄρους, ver. 20), as well as the confusion of idea in a πῦρ ψηλαφώμενον. Rightly, therefore, has Tisch. 2 and 7 placed ὄρει again in the text. — καὶ ζόφῳ] Elz.: καὶ σκότῳ Against A C D* s* 17, 31, 39. al. Suspected by Griesb. Rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford. σκότῳ was introduced from the LXX. Deut. iv. 11, v. 22. — Ver. 19. In place of the Recepta προστεθῆναι, Lachm. in the stereotype edition had adopted προσθεῖναι, after A. Rightly, however, has he retained the fecepta in the larger edition. This reading is borne out by CDK LS, by, as it seems, all the cursives and many Fathers. — Ver. 20. After λιθοβοληθήσεται, Elz. adds further: ἢ Bor/d: κατατοξευθήσεται. Against all uncials (A C Ὁ Κα LM»), most min., all translations, and many Fathers. The words, deleted by Griesbach, Scholz, and all later editors, are a gloss from LXX. Ex. xix. 138.— Ver. 23. Elz.: ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀπογε- γραμμένων. But the decisive testimony of ἃ Ο DL Mx, 37, al. m., Syr. Copt. Vulg. and many Fathers demands the trans- position adopted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others: ἀπογεγραμιμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς. ---- Ver. 24. κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι] Hlz.: χρείττονα λαλοῦντ. Against A Ο Ὁ K L M &, most min. Syr. Arr. Copt. Sahid. Armen. Vulg. a/., and many Fathers. — Ver. 25. Elz.: ἔφυγον τὸν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς παραι- σησάμενοι YpnuariCovra, πολλῷ μᾶλλον. Instead of this, however, we have to read, with Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. (who, however, in the edit. vii. has given the preference to the verbum simplex ἔφυγον, over the verbum compositum ἐξέφυγον) Alford: ἐξέφυγον ἐπὶ γῆς παραιτησάμενοι τὸν χρή- μωτίζοντα, πολὺ μᾶλλον, in that ἐξέφυγον (already approved by Grotius) is demanded by A Ο ἢ 57, 118, al. (Vulg. D, Lat. Slav. Epiph. in cant. cantic.: effugerunt), Cyr. Chrys. Philo Carpas. Oecum.; the deleting of the article τῆς before γῆς (already omitted in the Editt. Erasm. Complut. Colin., after- wards also by Bengel, Griesb. Matth. Scholz) is required by all 426 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. the uncial mss. (including δ), most min., and very many Fathers; further, the placing of the article σόν only after παραιτησάμενοι is required by A C Ὁ Μ s* Cyril. Damasc.; finally, πολύ is required by A C D* x, Sahid. — Ver. 26. Elz.: σείω.ς But A C MX, 6, 47, al., Syr. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Slav. Athan. Cyril. Cosm. Andr. Areth. have csicw. Approved by Grotius, recommended by Griesb., rightly adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Alford, Reiche. — Ver. 27. Recepta: τῶν σαλευομένων τὴν μετάθεσιν. Better accredited, however (by A Ο s8*), is Lachmann’s order of the words: τὴν τῶν carevomevay μετάθεσιν, Which on that account is to be preferred. Bleek and Tisch. 1 have entirely rejected the article τήν. It is wanting, however, only in D* and M. — Ver. 28. The reading ἔχομεν, Which Calvin, Mill (Prolegg. 750), Heinrichs, and others approve, and which Luther also followed in his translation, is unsuitable, and insufficiently attested by Κα &, more than twenty min., most mss. of the Vulg., Aeth. Cyr. Antioch., while the reading ἔχωμεν rests upon the testimony of AC D LM, ete., Copt. Syr. Aeth. a/., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasce. al., as also ams. of the Vulg.— In that likewise which follows, the in- dicative λατρεύομεν, which Griesbach has placed on the inner margin, stands in point of external attestation below the Recepta narpebwmev. The former is found in K Μ 8, about fifty min., with Athan., in mss. of Chrys., with Oecum. and Theophy]. On the other hand, A C D L, very many min. and many Fathers have λασρεύωμ εν. ---- At the close of the verse the Recepta reads: μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ εὐλαβείας, instead of which, however, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, to adopt the reading (recommended also by Griesb.): μετὰ εὐλα- Being χαὶ déovc, after A C D* ΝΕ 17, 71, 73, 80, 137, Copt. Sahid. Slav. ed. (al.: μετὰ δέους καὶ εὐλαβείας. Vulg.: cum metu et reverentia. D, Lat.: cum metu et verecundia). Vv. 1-13. In possession of such a multitude of examples, and with the eye uplifted to Jesus Himself, are the readers with stedfastness to maintain the conflict which lies before them, and to regard their sufferings as a salutary chastisement on the part of that God who is full of fatherly love towards them. Ver. 1. Conclusion from the total contents of chap. xi— In the animating summons expressed vv. 1, 2, the addition du’ ὑπομονῆς, appended to the main verb τρέχωμεν, has the principal stress; comp. x. 36, xi. 1. Of the participial clauses, however, the first and third are of the same kind, CHAP. XII. 1. 437 and are distincuished in equal degree from the second; as accordingly the former are introduced by participles of the present, the latter by a participle of the aorist. The first and third contain a ground of animation to the δι’ ὑπομονῆς τρέχωμεν ; by the second, on the other hand, the historic preliminary condition to the δι’ ὑπομονῆς τρέχειν is stated. The euphonious τοιγαροῦν elsewhere in the N. Τὶ only 1 Thess. iv. 8.—xal ἡμεῖς] we also, namely, like the saints of the Old Covenant described chap. xi.— τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες Teps- κείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων] since we have so great a cloud of witnesses around us, or: since so great a cloud of witnesses surrounds us. ἔχοντες περικείμενον is intimately con- nected together, and is a periphrasis of the mere verbal notion, inasmuch as a genitive absolute: τοσούτου περικειμένου ἡμῖν «.7.r., might have been employed instead. νέφος is a figurative designation (also of frequent occurrence with classical writers) of a densely compact crowd. Theodoret: πλῆθος τοσοῦτον, νέφος μιμούμενον τῇ πυκνότητι. Comp. Hom. JI. iv. 274: ἅμα δὲ νέφος εἵπετο πεζῶν, al. Eurip. Hee. 901 f.: τοῖον ᾿Ελλάνων νέφος ἀμφί σε κρύπτει. Phoeniss. 1328 ff: πότερ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν ἢ πόλιν στένω δακρύσας, ἣν πέριξ ἔχει νέφος τοσοῦτον, ὥστε δι᾽ ᾿Αχέροντος ἰέναι; Herod. viii. 109: νέφος τοσοῦτον ἀνθρώπων. Similarly also is the Latin nubes em- ployed. Comp. eg. Liv. 35, 49: rex contra peditum equi- tumque nubes jactat——Those meant by the τοσοῦτον νέφος μαρτύρων are the persons mentioned chap. xi. When, however, these are characterized as a cloud of witnesses, the author does not intend to imply that these witnesses are present as spectators at the contest to be maintained by the readers (Hammond, Calniet, Bohme, Paulus, Klee, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Hof- mann), but represents them thereby as persons who have borne testimony for the πίστις which he demands of his readers,' and who consequently have become models for imitation to the readers as regards this virtue. To this signification of μαρτύρων points with necessity the whole reasoning immediately foregoing. For as δι’ ὑπομονῆς, 1The supposition of Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 757), Alford, Maier, and Moll, that in μαρτύρων, ver. 1, the idea of ‘‘ spectators” 438 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. xii, 1, attaches again the discourse to ὑπομονῆς yap ἔγετε χρείαν κιτιλ., X. 36, so also the contents of chap. xi., which stand in close connection with the latter, are recapitulated by the words: τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες περικείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων. On account, however, of this close connection of the first participial clause, xii. 1, with chap. xi, μαρτύρων cannot be otherwise interpreted than after the analogy of the charac- terization there made: μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως, xi, 39 ; ἐν ταύτῃ ἐμαρτυρήθησαν, xi. 2; δι’ ἧς ἐμαρτυρήθη, xi. 4; and μεμαρτύρηται, xi. 5, in that only the slight distinction is made, justified in a natural manner by the varying form of designation, that while the persons named were before repre- sented as those to whom a laudatory testimony was given in scripture on account of the πίστις manifested by them, they now appear as those who, by their conduct, have delivered a testimony in favour of their virtue of πέστις, and consequently have become patterns of the same for others. On account of this intimate coherence of the first participial clause, xi. 1, with chap. xi, a more nearly-defining addition, τῆς πίστεως to μαρτύρων, was, moreover, superfluous. That, however, μαρ- τύρων is in reality employed with reference to the πίστεις which the author demands of his readers, is further shown by τῆς πίστεως, xii. 2, from which it is clearly apparent that the notion πίστις is still before the mind of the writer at ver, 2. It is therefore to be supposed that the discourse turns round to the ficure of the vace—to which, indeed, περικείμενον would already be appropriate, but to which this participle is not at all of necessity to be referred—only with ὄγκον ἀποθέμενοι K.T.A.— ὄγκον ἀποθέμενοι πάντα] having put off every hindrance (opposed to the context, Bengel and others: every kind of pride or arrogance; Hofmann: all earthly care and sorrow). The man contending in the race avoided, in order to keep his body light, oppressive clothing and the like. In the application, the clinging of the readers to external Judaism is certainly, in particular, thought of as the hindrance, Yet the expression is quite general, and sin in the strict blends with that of ‘‘witnesses to the faith,” bears its refutation upon the face of it. For the combining of that which is logically irreconcilable is not exegesis, CHAP, XII. 1. 439 sense of the term, which is immediately after quite specially emphasized, is likewise included thereunder. For καί is not, with Grotius and others, to be taken explicatively, but further brings into relief, in the form of a parallel classification, a definite species, taken, on account of its special importance, out of the before-named genus.—Sin is termed εὐπερίστατος. This adjective exists only here in the whole range of Greek literature. It is most naturally derived from the middle voice: περιΐστασθαι, to place oneself round, or encompass. The sense is therefore: sin, which easily surrounds us and takes us captive. So the majority. Others derive εὐπερίστατος from the active περιΐστημι, then taking the word either in a passive or active sense. The explanation of Ernesti (ad Hesych. gloss. sacr. Ὁ. 140 sq.), that “as περίστατον denotes that which is thronged about by people who come to admire it, and ἀπερίστατος is said of a man about whom others do not stand, thus, who is destitute of friends; so εὐπερίστατος characterizes sin as rich in friends and patrons, as generally esteemed and liked,” has against it the consideration that from εὐπερίστατος, in this acceptation, the idea of that which is public and manifest is inseparable; but this idea is out of keeping with the notion of sin, which is just as often perpetrated in secret as in public. The interpretation: sin, which is easily to be gone round, encircled, or avoided (Chry- sostom: ἢ τὴν εὐκόλως περίστασιν δυναμένην παθεῖν λέγει: μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦτο ῥάδιον γάρ, ἐὰν θέλωμεν, περιγενέσθαι [get the better of | τῆς ἁμαρτίας ; Pseudo-Athanasius, de parabol. Script. quaest. 133: εὐπερίστατον εἶπε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἐπειδὰν μόνιμον στάσιν οὐκ ἔχει, ἀλλὰ ταχέως τρέπεται καὶ κατα- λύεται; Clericus, Morus, Ewald p. 172), would yield an unsuitable thought, since it could not possibly be the design of the author to represent the power of sin as small. The active explanation: seductive or enticing (Carpzov, Schulz, Stein), has against it the fact that all the other derivatives from ἵστημι, such as στατός, ἄστατος, etc., have an intransitive or passive signification. Others, again, in their explanations of εὐπερίστωτος, follow the significations of the substantive περίστασις : sin, which easily plunges us into danger (Er. Schmid, Raphel, Bengel, Storr; comp. already Theophylact : 440 TILE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, ἢ δι’ ἣν εὐκόλως τις εἰς περιστάσεις ἐμπίπτει: οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω κινδυνῶδες ὡς ἁμαρτία) ; which brings with it many hindrances (Kypke, Michaelis, Dindorf, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Bloomfield) ; which has circwmstantias (surroundings), whereby it commends itself and seduces us (Hammond); guae bonis utitur rebus curcumstantibus, 1.6. quac habet suisque affert bonam fortunam atque voluptates (Bohme).—The ἁμαρτία is sin in general; not specially: the sin of apostasy from Christianity. On account of ἀποθέμενοι, the ἁμαρτία is thought of as a burden which we bear within us as a propensity, or about us as an encumbering garment. — τρέχειν ἀγῶνα] to run a race. Comp. Herod. viii. 102.; Dion. Hal. vii. 48 ; Eurip. Orest. 875. — δ ὑπομονῆς] Rom. vil. 25. Ver. 2. Second factor in the encouragement. Not only the example of the O. T. witnesses for the faith, but also the example of the Beginner and Perfecter of the faith, Christ Himself, must animate us to a persevering τρέχειν. --- ἀφορῶν- τες] in that we look forth (for our encouragement and for our ardent imitation). ἀφορᾶν (as, immediately after, τελένω τής) only here in the N. T. — εἰς τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελειωτὴν ᾿Ιησοῦν] to the Beginner and Perfecter of the faith, Jesus, 1.6. to Jesus, who has begun or awakened in us the Christian faith, and carries it on in us to perfection, or to the close (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, and the majority), which last particular then naturally includes the attaining of salvation. But it is going too far when one finds—as Grotius, Bloomfield, and many others—in τελειωτής the figure of the βραβευτής, the judge or umpire of the games, who, on the completion of the contest, awards the prize of victory ; for the expression itself does not warrant this special application. According to Bengel, Baumgarten, Schulz, Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, Grimm (Zheol. Literaturbl. 2. Darmst. Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 667), Nickel (Reuter’s Repertor. March 1858, p. 208 f.), Riehm (Lehrbeqr. des Hebriierbr. Ὁ. 326), Maier, Moll, Kurtz,—comp. also Theodoret: Κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἀμφότερα τέθεικεν, ---- ὁ τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸς καὶ τελειωτὴς ᾿Ιησοῦς has the sense: Jesus, who in manifestation of the faith has preceded us by His example, and in the manifestation of this faith has carried on the work CHAP. XII. 2. 441 unto perfection’ But the virtue of faith the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could not possibly predicate of Christ in like manner as he does of the Christians. From the lofty conception he had of the person of the Redeemer, he must, like the Apostle Paul, regard Him by whom the divine decrees of salvation were to be realized, as object of the πίστις. More than this, τελειωτής can be used only transitively, not also intransitively. ἀρχηγὸς τῆς πίστεως stands, therefore, in a sense quite analogous to that of the ἀρχηγὸς τῆς σωτηρίας, ii. 10; and the exemplary characteristic in Jesus, to which the author directs his readers, is not already expressed by His being designated as ἀρχηγὸς καὶ τελειωτὴς THs πίστεως, -- which, on the contrary, is only designed to make us aware of the assistance which Christ affords the Christians in the tpéxewv,—but first 7s expressed by means of the following relative clause. — ἀντὶ τῆς προκειμένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶς] who for the (heavenly) joy lying ready for Him, the obtaining of which should be the reward of His sufferings. So Primasius, Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Bengel, Whitby, Schulz, Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr, p. 357), Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner, and the majority. ἀντί, as ver. 16. For χαρά, however, comp. Matt. xxv. 21. Comprehended under the προκειμένη αὐτῷ χαρά is also the joy over the completed work of redemption, with its blessings for mankind; yet it is erroneous, with Theodoret (χαρὰ δὲ τοῦ σωτῆρος τῶν ἀνθρώ- Tov ἡ σωτηρία), to limit it thereto. The sense is not: instead of the heavenly glory which He already had as the premundane Logos, and which He might have retained, but which He gave up by His incarnation (Peshito, Gregory Nazianz. in Oecum.: @ ἐξὸν μένειν ἐπὶ τῆς ἰδίας δόξης te καὶ θεότητος, οὐ μόνον ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν ἄχρι τῆς δούλου μορφῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ σταυρὸν 1 Inconsistently does Delitzsch adhere to this explanation (and similarly Alford and Kluge),—in reference, indeed, to the notion ὁ τῆς πίστεως ἀρ χηγός, —but rejects it in reference to the notion, necessarily combining in homogeneity therewith, 6 τῆς πίστεως rerAcinris. The sense is supposed to be: ‘‘ Jesus is the Prince of faith: for upon the path on which faith has to run, He has gone first to open the way; He is faith’s Completer : for upon this path He leads us to the goal.” That Jesus Himself reached the goal upon this path, is then supposed to be an unuttered intermediate thought (!). 442 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. ὑπέμεινεν x.7..; Beza, Nemethus, Heinrichs, Ewald). Nor is it: instead of the earthly freedom from suffering, which, as the sinless One, He could have procured for Himself (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Calov, al.) ; or: instead of the joys of the world, which Jesus, had He willed it, could have partaken of (Calvin, Wolf, Carpzov, Stein, Bisping, al.). For the immediate concern of the author must evidently be to point to the prize which Christ was to receive in return for His sufferings, in order thereupon further to indicate that to the readers likewise, upon their persevering in the conflict, the palm of victory will not be wanting. A further con- sideration is, that also the closing member of the verse, which is closely attached by means of τέ to that which precedes, has for its subject-matter still the thought of the reward conferred upon Christ. — ὑπέμεινεν σταυρόν, αἰσχύνης καταφρονήσας] endured the cross, in that He contemned the infamy. For the death of the cross was crudelissimum teterrimumque sup- plicium (Cie. Verr. 5. 64). — ἐν δεξιᾷ τε τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ κεκάθικεν] and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God) (Compea) SB viii x. A: Ver. 3. Γάρ] is here, on account of the imperative, the corroborative: Yea! (comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 415 1); and ἀνωλογίξεσθαι, in the N. T. a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, denotes the comparing or reflecting contemplation. Bengel: Compara- tione instituta cogitate: Dominus tanta tulit; quanto magis servi ferant aliquid ? — ἀντιλογία, however, denotes nothing else than contradiction; and what is meant is, the contending against Christ's divine Sonship and Messianic dignity. The notion of opposition and ill-usage in act, which is ordinarily assigned to it (still also by Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and Maier) along with that of contradiction, this word never has. Even ἀντιλέγειν, to which appeal is made, has nowhere the sense of a hostile resistance manifesting itself in outward actions. See Meyer on Luke ii. 34; John xix. 12; Rom. x. 21.— τοιαύτην such, Le. one so great, sc. that He was compelled to undergo the ignominious death of the cross (ver. 2), in comparison with which your sufferings are something insignificant. — ἵνα μὴ κάμητε K.7.r.] that ye may not grow weary, desponding in your CHAP. XII. 4. 443 sowls. ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν is to be conjoined with ἐκλυό- μενοι (Beza, Er. Schmid, Hammond, Kuinoel, Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Hof- mann, a/.), not with κάμητε (Luther, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Schulz, Bohme, and others), since otherwise something of a dragging character would be imparted to the participle. Ver. 4 “ff. “The sufferings which have come upon the readers are only small, and a salutary chastisement at the hand of God. — Οὔπω μέχρις aipatos «.7.r.] Not yet unto blood, 1... to such extent that bloodshed should result, that a martyr’s death’ among you should be a necessity (as such death had but just now been mentioned of the O. T. saints, chap. xi, and of Christ Himself, xii. 2), have ye offered resistance in your contest against sin. The author has, as x. 32 ff, only the present generation of Palestinian Christians, to whom he is speaking, before his eyes. It is otherwise at xiii. 7. πρὸς τὴν ἅμαρ- tiav] belongs to ἀνταγωνιζόμενοι (against Bengel, who conjoins it with ἀντικατέστητε), and ἡ ἁμαρτία stands not in the sense of οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί, ver. 3 (Carpzov, Heinrichs, Stuart, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Maier, Kluge, Grimm in the Zéschr. 7. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 43, a/.)—for there would exist no reason for the avoiding of this concrete expression,?—but is the inner sin, conceived of as a hostile power or person, which entices the man (visited with sufferings and persecutions) to an apostasy from Christianity. Comp. ἀπάτῃ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, iii. 13. — In 1 Wrongly is it supposed by Holtzmann (Stud. τι. Krit. 1859, H. 2, p. 301; Zischr. 7. wiss. Theol. 1867, p. 4) that a reminder of a martyrdom not yet endured is remote from the connection. The discourse is said to be of a resist- ance πρὸς σὴν ἁμαρτίαν. Sin, in this conflict with the flesh, would not allow it to be continued unto blood. For this very reason it is necessary to resist sin μέχρις αἵματος, ever anew to reanimate the weary limbs for the continuance of the conflict (xii. 12). In the same manner, too, does Kurtz find only a proverbial figurative expression for an earnest, decided, and unsparing resistance to the sinful desire in μέχρις αἵματος. But though in German “bis auf’s Blut” (even to blood) has proverbial figurative acceptance in the sense of ‘‘ to the very utter- most,” yet assuredly neither αἷμα nor yet sanguis is anywhere else employed in this proverbial sense. 2 At least no one will recognise as apposite that which Ebrard adduces as such,—to wit, that in ver. 3 ‘‘the whole (!) of mankind as the sinners (the class of sinners) might be opposed to Christ; whereas to the readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who were themselves ἁμαρτωλοί, the enemies of Chris- tianity could not be opposed as the sinners, 444 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. ἀντικατέστητε avtayovelopevor—both verbs in the N. T. only here—the author has, what is wrongly denied by de Wette and Maier (in like manner as Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 26), passed over from the figure of the race to the kindred one of the combat with the fists. Vy. 5,6. Kal ἐκλέλησθε «.7.r.] And have ye forgotten, ete. 1 The words are most naturally to be taken, with Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Braun, Jos. Hallet, Heinrichs, Bohme, Stuart, Lachmann, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Ewald, as a question. If we would, as is usually done, take them as an assertory state- ment (“and ye have forgotten”), the reproach contained in the same would come out more strongly than is consonant with the mild character of the discourse in this section. The verb éxravOdvec@at, as presently after ὀλεγωρεῖν, in the N. T. only here. — τῆς παρακλήσεως] the consolation (or else: the animating address). — ἥτις ὑμῖν ὡς υἱοῖς διαλέγεται] which, of a truth, speaks to you as to sons. By virtue of ἥτες (Gin place of which there is no sufficient ground for writing, with Hofmann, ἡ ts) the following consolatory utterance (Υἱέ... παραδέχεται), adduced from Proy. 111. 11, 12,—from which also Philo, de congressu quaer. erudit. gr. p. 449 D (with Mangey, I. p. 544 f.), reasons in a similar manner,—is_ pre- supposed as one sufficiently familiar to the readers. By διαλέ- γεται, however, the same is personified; since διαλέγεσθαί tive denotes conversing with any one (here, as it were, the answering in reply to the complaint breathed forth by the readers). — Υἱέ μου] With the LXX. only: Υἱέ. --- - μὴ ὀλιγώ- ρει παιδείας κυρίου] despise not chastening from the Lord, 1.6. be thankful for it, when the Lord chastens thee. — μηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόμενος] nor despond when thou art corrected of Him (by means of sufferings which He imposes upon thee). Ver. 6. Παιδεύει] him He chasteneth. So in the LXX. Cod. A, and fifteen other Mss. The remaining manuscripts of the LXX. have, what is probably the original reading: ἐλέγχει. — μαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται] and scourges every son whon He receives (adopts as His). According to present punctuation, the words in Hebrew read: ΠΥ [2-8 ANH, and (He chastens) as a father the son in whom he delights. Instead of 283, the LXX., however, read 383 (¢o cause pain). CHAP. XII. 7—10. 445 Vv. 7, 8. Application of the word of scripture to the readers. — Ei παιδείαν ὑπομένετε] If ye endure chastening. The opposite of this is formed by the εἰ δὲ χωρίς ἐστε παιδείας, ver. 8. The emphasis falls, therefore, upon παιδείαν ; and to explain ὑπομένειν as a “ stedfast” or “ persevering ” enduring (Theodoret, Erasm. Paraphr., Stein, Ebrard, Bloom- field, αἴ.) is inadmissible. — ὡς υἱοῖς ὑμῖν προσφέρεται ὁ θεός] God deals with you as with sons, treats you as sons. By as harsh a construction as possible (comp. ὑμῖν ὡς υἱοῖς, ver. 5), Ebrard will have ὡς taken as a conjunction, and translates, —espousing the incorrect reading (see the critical obs.) εἰς παιδείαν, --“ for your instruction endure manfully, even as (or when, so long as) God offers Himself to you as to sons !” — For the genuine Greek formula προσφέρεσθαί τινι, which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., see examples in Wetstein. — τίς yap υἱὸς K.7.r.] sc. ἐστίν : for what son is there, 1,6, where is there a son, whom the father chastens not? This comprehend- ing together of tis υἱός (Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Alford, Maier, Kurtz, Ewald) is more natural than that one should regard tis alone as the subject: who is indeed a son, whom, ete. (Delitzsch, Moll, and others); or, with Bohme, as the predicate: of what kind is a son, whom, ete. Ver. 8. Ei δὲ χωρίς ἐστε παιδείας] If, on the other hand, ye are free from chastisement (have been spared 10). Wrongly Theodoret: εἰ τοίνυν καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν παιδείαν ἐκκλίνετε. ---- ἧς μέτοχοι γεγόνασιν πάντες] of which all (sc. whom God—like the saints of the O. T. enumerated chap. xi.—has really ac- knowledged as His sons) have become partakers, That the relative clause contains no statement of entirely universal import, applicable also to the relation towards the earthly fathers (Camerarius, Beza, Limborch, a/.), but, on the contrary, one affecting exclusively the relation towards God, is clear from the parallel with ver. 7, as well as from the perfect γεγόνασιν. ---- νόθοι] bastards, begotten out of wedlock, for whose weal or woe their father is not wont to be greatly concerned. Vv. 9, 10, a second argument follows. The readers must not become disheartened at the sufferings imposed upon them. For not only is there to be seen, in the fact of their having 446 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. to struggle with afflictions, the manifestation that God treats them as His children; it is, moreover, the heavenly Father who visits them with this chastening, and that for the very reason that He has their own highest good in view. — εἶτα then, further, deinde. Not to be taken as an “interrogative particle, with Alberti, Raphel, Heinrichs, and others. For otherwise the discourse would have proceeded in the second half of the verse with καὶ od πολὺ μᾶλλον, instead of the mere ov πολὺ μᾶλλον. Ingeniously, but without constraining reason, does Reiche (Commentar. crit. Ὁ. 121) conjecture ev te instead of εἶτα, while quite unsuitably Hofmann will com- prehend εἶτα with the closing words of ver. 8.— τοὺς τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν πατέρας] fathers of our flesh, i.e. our bodily, earthly fathers. — εἴχομεν παιδευτὰς καὶ ἐνετρεπόμεθα] we had as chasteners, and heeded them, ie. we gave heed when we had them as chasteners. Inasmuch as the author is addressing grown-up persons, the imperfects characterize the period of the bygone youth (we used to give heed). The combining of ἐντρέπεσθαι, however, with the accusative of the object is in later Greek style the ordinary one. With the earlier authors the genitive is used. — The absolute state- ment εἶτα... ἐνετρεπόμεθα takes the place of a hypo- thetical premiss (comp. x. 28 f.; 1 Cor. vii. 18, 21, ai.), and the whole verse contains an argument ὦ minore ad majus. — οὐ πολὺ μᾶλλον ὑποταγησόμεθα τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ ζήσομεν ;] shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and (i.e. so that we in consequence thereof) live? By ὁ πατὴρ τῶν πνευμάτων naturally God is meant. With Hammond, to think of Christ, is forbidden by the con- nection (comp. ver. 7). To the Futher of spirits, i.e. God, who is Father in regard to the higher spiritual domain of life. That God, as the Creator of all things, is the Final Cause also of the bodily life of man, is a fact not excluded by the expression ; only that which is the main thing as concerns God’s fatherly relation is here emphasized. ὁ πατὴρ τῶν πνευμάτων does not designate God as Creator of the souls, in the sense of Creatianism as opposed to Traducianism (Calvin, Estius, Justinian, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Drusius, Carpzov, Delitzsch, Riehm, Zehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 678 ; CHAP. XII. 10. 447 Kurtz, al.). Nor as the One who makes provision for our souls (Morus, Dindorf, Kuinoel, Bohme, and others). Just as little is πνεύματα to be understood of the angels (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact: ἢ τῶν ἀσωμάτων δυνάμεων), or the gifts of the Spirit (Theodoret: πατέρα πνευμάτων τὸν πνευ- ματικὸν πατέρα κέκληκεν ὡς τῶν πνευματικῶν χαρισμάτων πηγήν. Comp. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact). It is possible there was present to the mind of the author the characterization of God, LXX. Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16, as a θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ πάσης σαρκός. --- καὶ ζήσομεν] Declaration of the result of this obedience, in the form of a parallel arrangement. ζῆν of the enjoyment of the everlasting life of bliss, as x. 88; Rom. viii. 13, and frequently. Ver. 10. Justification of the πολὺ μᾶλλον, ver. 9, by pre- senting in relief the diversity of character borne by the disciplinary correction of the earthly fathers from that of the heavenly Father. The emphasis falls upon κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς and upon ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον, while πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας is an unaccentuated addition, which belongs equally to both members of the sentence." For if πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας belonged only to the first member, and served for the indication of a further particular of diversity, an antithetic addition corresponding to the same could not have been wanting in the second member. But to find such antithesis, with Bengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Hofmann, and others, in εἰς τὸ μεταλαβεῖν x.7.r., is inadmissible, since these words are oniy an epexegetical amplification of ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον. Πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας denotes, therefore, not the period of the earthly life, brief in comparison with eternity (Calvin, Estius, Justinian, Cornelius a Lapide, Schlichting, Limborch, Er. Schmid, Bengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, Kluge, a/.), in such wise that the thought would be expressed, that the earthly fathers aimed in connection with 1 Riehm’s objection to this (Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 762, Obs.), that in such case κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς must have been placed before πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας, is entirely without weight. Just the preposing of σπρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας was, if these words were to be referred to both members of the sentence, the most appropriate order; because xara σὸ δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς and ἐπὶ σὸ συμφέρον then as contrasts stood in so much the more immediate opposition to each other in the two halves of the sentence. 448 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. the παιδεύειν at a benefit or gain merely in regard to the earthly lifetime; God, on the other hand, at a gain for eternity,—by which at any rate a false opposition would arise, since the first half of the statement could not be at all conceded as a universally valid truth. Rather do the words affirm that the chastisement on the part of the natural fathers (and not less that on the part of the heavenly Father) continued only a few days, lasted only during a brief period. In a sense quite corresponding is πρός employed immediately after, ver. 11, as well as 1 Cor. vil. 5; 2 Cor. vii. 8; 1 Thess. ii. 17, and very frequently elsewhere. — κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς] according to their judgment, which was not always an erroneous one.— The imperfect ἐπαίδευον stands there for the same reason as the imperfects, ver. 9.—o δέ] sc. πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας παιδεύει. --- ἐπὶ TO συμφέρον] with a view to that which is salutary (our infallible welfare). — εἰς τὸ μετα- λαβεῖν τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐτοῦ] in order that we may be made partakers of His holiness, may become ever more free from sin, and in moral purity ever more like God Himself. Ver. 11. Zhe blessing of every chastening. Comp. Diog. Laert. v. 18 (cited by Wetstein): τῆς παιδείας ἔφη (se. Aristotle) τὰς μὲν ῥίζας εἶναι πικράς, γχυκεῖς δὲ τοὺς καρπούς. — πᾶσα παιδεία comprises the human and the divine chas- tening; yet the author in connection with the second clause (ὕστερον δὲ x.T.r.) has no doubt mainly the latter before his mind. — πρὸς μὲν τὸ παρὸν x.t.r.] scems indeed for the pre- sent (so long as it continues) to be no olject of joy, but an object of grief ; later, however (1.6. when it has been outlived), it yields to those who have been exercised by it (comp. v. 14) the peace-fraught fruit of righteousness. — δοκεῖ) characterizes the opinion of man; since the matter is in reality very different. — δικαιοσύνης] Genitive of apposition: peaceful fruit, namely rightcousness, 1.6. moral purity and perfection. It is called a peaceful fruit because its possession brings with it peace of soul. δικαιοσύνης is not to be understood as a genitivus subjectt (Piscator, Owen, Stuart, Heinrichs, Stein, and others): a peaceful fruit which is yielded by righteousness ; for surely παιδεία is mentioned as the subject producing the καρπὸς εἰρηνικός. CHAP. XII. 12, 13. 44) Vv. 12, 13. Animating conclusion of the exhortation to stedfastness continued up to this point. — διό] Wherefore, se. because the sufferings you have to undergo manifest to you that ye are sons of God, and are salutary for you. — τὰς παρειμένας χεῖρας Kal τὰ παραλελυμένα γόνατα ἀνορθώσατε) make firm again the slackened hands and the weary knees. Comp. LXX. Isa. xxxv. 3: ἰσχύσατε χεῖρες ἀνειμέναι καὶ γόνατα παραλελυμένα. LEcclus. xxv. 23: χεῖρες παρειμέναι καὶ γόνατα παραλελυμένα. Comp. also Deut. xxxii. 36: εἶδε yap παραλελυμένους αὐτοὺς καὶ... Tapetpévous. — Theo- phylact: δεικνύων ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν κυριωτέρων μερῶν, ὅτι ὅλοι παρειμένοι εἰσὶ τῇ ψυχῇ᾽ αἱ μὲν γὰρ χεῖρες ἐνεργείας, οἱ δὲ πόδες κινήσεως σύμβολον. ---- ἀνορθοῦν) literally, to make the crooked straight again ; then in general to restore any- thing to its original right or perfect condition. [Cf Luke xili. 13; Acts xv. 16.] Ver. 13. Καὶ τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιήσατε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν] and make straight tracks with your feet, 1... advance with straight course upon the Christian path of life you have once entered upon, without bending aside to the right or to the left ; that is to say, without mingling up that which is Jewish with that which is Christian, or suffering yourselves to be enticed to a relapse into Judaism. Incorrectly do Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 789), Alford, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, Hofmann, and others explain τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν : for your feet. For, apart from the fact that this interpretation destroys the harmony with the figure employed at ver. 12, that of the παρειμέναι χεῖρες and παραλελυμένα γόνατα, the author cannot possibly intend to say that the readers themselves have first to prepare the way for themselves. The way has already been prepared for them by Christ (x. 20), and it is now only a question of their making advance upon the same in the right way. — For the expression, which accidentally forms a hexameter’ (see Winer, Gramm. 7 Aufl. p. 595), comp. LXX. Prov. iv. 26: ὀρθὰς 1 Quite improbable is the supposition of Ewald (pp. 139, 172), that the words consist of a verse which ‘‘ was derived from some one of the many Hellenistic poets (2), whose books were at that time greatly read even by Christians,” Mrrer.—HEx. 2F 450 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. τροχιὰς ποίει σοῖς ποσί.-- iva μὴ τὸ χωλὸν ἐκτραπῇ, ἰαθῇ δὲ μᾶλλον] that not (even) that which is lame may turn aside from the way, but rather be healed. τὸ yorov denotes not the suffering member in an individual, but within the larger community, thus the member of the Christian communion who is lame or halting, 1.6. who makes only a tottering pro- eress in Christianity, and falls away from the same if he does not gain a support in the rest of the community ad- vancing in a straight course [Gal. ii. 14]. On τὸ χωλόν, as figurative designation of the wavering between two different bents of belief, comp. LXX. 1 Kings xviii. 21: ἕως πότε ὑμεῖς χωλανεῖτε ἐπ᾿ ἀμφωτέραις ταῖς ἐἰγνύαις ; how long do ye halt upon both knee-joints (sides), 46. do ye hesitate between the service of Jehovah and that of Baal?——To the verb ἐκτρέπεσθαι, Fr. Junius, Grotius, Wolf, Carpzov, Heinrichs, and many others, finally Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Kurtz, Ewald, on account of the opposition ἐαθῇ δὲ μᾶλλον, assign the passive signification: to be dislocated. But justified by the usage of the language (see Wetstein at 1 Tim. i. 6) is the middle signification alone: bend aside (from the way), turn aside. This signification is therefore to be maintained here also, and ἐαθῇ δὲ μᾶλλον continues in an abbreviated form the figure employed, in that its meaning is: but rather through the animating example given by the whole body, may be ewred of his wavering, and briskly advance with the rest. Vy. 14-17. Lzhortation to concord and to growth in hinted Ver. 14. Mera πάντων] with all, even the non-Christians. Comp. Rom. xii. 18. For limiting the πάντες, with Michaelis, Zachariae, Storr, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Tholuck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, to the members of the Christian community, there exists no reason; and it has against it the mode of expression, since we should then have expected μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων. ----- καὶ τὸν ἁγιασμόν] the general virtue, of which the endeavour after concord is only a particular outflow. ἁγιασμός, namely, is here sanctification or moral purification in general; too restricted is the reference of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Jac. Cappellus, Bengel, Bloomfield, and others, who explain it as—what at 1 Thess. iv. 3 (see at that place) is certainly the correct explanation— CHAP. XII. 15, 16. 451 the virtue of chastity. — τὸν κύριον] By this expression some understand God (comp. Matt. v. 8), others Christ (comp. ix, 28). A certain decision is impossible. The beholding repre- sents in an emblematic manner the idea of innermost union, and the whole is a designation of the Messianic blessedness in the consummated kingdom of God. Vy. 15, 16. Further amplification of διώκετε τὸν ἁγιασμόν, ver. 14. That endeavour after holiness is not only to be in active exercise in the case of each one with regard to his own person; it is also, in equal degree, to be watchful that the Christian brethren preserve themselves free from immorality. —The subject in ἐπισκοποῦντες consists, as in διώκετε, ver. 14, with which the participle is conjoined, of all members of the congregation, not specially the presidents thereof (xiii. 17) or ἐπίσκοποι (Béhme); and ἐπισκοπεῖν signifies: to direct one’s view to a thing with close attention or solicitude. — μή τις ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ] is no independent clause, so that 7 would have to be supplemented (so the majority, as also Bohme, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Ebrard, and Maier). For the choice of the tempus periphrasticum would be here unnatural and justified by nothing." The words are a mere introducing of the subject, which is then further resumed by μή τις ῥίζα «.7.X., in such wise that ἐνοχλῇ forms the common predicate to both parts of the sentence intro- duced by μή (Heinrichs, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, Kurtz, Ewald)—jy tis ὑστερῶν x.7.r.| that no one, in that he remains far from the grace of God, i.e. in that he turns the back upon the grace of God which was afforded him in Christ, by immorality withdraws from it, and loses it (1 Cor. vi. 9,10). The unusual ὑστερεῖν ἀπό τινος is consequently by no means equivalent in signification to the ordinary ὑστερεῖν τινος. While the latter would represent the coming short of the possession of the divine grace absolutely, as an objective result, the former includes the idea of voluntary activity or of one’s own culpability. Comp. Ecclus. Vil. 34: μὴ ὑστέρει ἀπὸ κλαιόντων. Analogously stands also the mere ὑστερεῖν, Num. ix. 7: μὴ οὖν ὑστερήσωμεν προσε- 1 Hofmann will on that account have ἢ indeed added in thought, but then have this explained not as a mere copula, but in the sense : there being present. 452 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. veyxat τὸ δῶρον κυρίῳ. Num. ix. 13: ἄνθρωπος, ὃς... ὑστερήσῃ ποιῆσαι τὸ πάσχα.--- μή τις ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ] that, I say, no root (plant) of bitterness (of which the fruit is bitterness)—7.e. a man’ in whom, in consequence of his unholy walk, the bitter fruit of everlasting perdition is ripening—growing wp (as in the case of a plant, of which the root was before covered with earth) cause trouble or disquiet (to the congregation). The words are moulded after the LXX. of Deut. xxix. 18, according to the corrupted text of the Cod. Alexandr.: μή τις ἐστὶν ἐν ὑμῖν ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ καὶ πικρία (distorted from the original text contained in the Cod. Vatic.: μή tus ἐστὶν ἐν ὑμῖν ῥίζα ἄνω φύουσα ἐν χολῇ καὶ πικρίᾳ). That the reading in the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. only arose from a regard to our passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Jos. Hallet, Wolf, Delitzsch, Hof- mann, and others) is not probable, since the author elsewhere in the O. T. citations follows the form of text in the Cod. Alex. — πικρίας] Chrysostom: οὐκ εἶπε πικρά, ἀλλὰ πικρίας" τὴν μὲν γὰρ πικρὰν ῥίζαν ἔστι καρποὺς ἐνεγκεῖν γλυκεῖς, τὴν δὲ πικρίας ῥίζαν... οὐκ ἔστι ποτὲ γλυκὺν ἐνεγκεῖν καρπόν" πάντα γάρ ἐστι πικρώ, οὐδὲν ἔχει ἡδύ, πάντα πικρά, πάντα ἀηδῆ, πάντα μίσους καὶ βδελυγμίας γέμοντα. --- ἐνοχλεῖν] in the N. T. only here (and Luke vi. 18 7). --- καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς μιανθῶσιν οἱ πολλοί] and by it the many (the multitude or the great mass) become defiled (namely, by infection), 1.0. likewise led astray into an unholy walk. Comp. Gal. v. 9. Ver. 16. Μή τις πόρνος] sc. ἐνοχλῇ (comp. ver. 15): that no fornicator trouble you. Yet we may, with Grotius, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Alford, Maier, Kurtz, and the majority, supplement merely 7: that no one be a fornicator. πόρνος is to be taken in the natural sense, as xiii 4. The taking of it as a figurative designation of one who is unfaithful to Christ, in order to hold unlawful intercourse with Judaism (Bohme, Tholuck, Ebrard, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. Ὁ. 155, and others), is unsuitable, because ver. 16 is nothing else but the continued amplification of the διώκετε τὸν ἁγιασμόν, ver. 14.— 1%) βέβηλος ὡς ᾿Ησαῦ] or a profane person (a man of unhallowed, common mind, centred upon the 1 Comp. 1 Mace. 1. 10: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐξ αὐτῶν pila ἁμαρτωλός, ᾿Αντίοχος ᾿Ἐπιφανής. I i) P up ? Xx CHAP. XII. 17. 453 earthly), as Esau. ὡς ᾿Ησαῦ belongs only to βέβηλος. It is not to be referred also to πόρνος (so still Delitzsch and Alford), since nothing is related in scripture concerning a πορνεία of Esau (more, it is true, the later Rabbis have to tell us; see Wetstein at our passage), and the elucidatory relative has respect only to βέβηλος. ---- ὃς κιτ.λ.] Comp. Gen, xxv. 33. — ἀντί] indication of the price, as ver. 2. ----- τὰ πρωτοτόκια] the birthright with its privileges. Classic writers employ for it ἡ πρεσβεία or τὸ πρεσβεῖον. Ver. 17. Warning reference to the pernicious result of Esau’s behaviour. Comp. Gen. xxvii. — ἔστε] not imperative (Vulgate: scitote; Luther: wisset aber), but indicative, since to the readers as born Jews the fact itself was a perfectly familiar one.— ὅτε καὶ μετέπειτα, θέλων κληρονομῆσαι τὴν εὐλογίαν, ἀπεδοκιμάσθη]) that later alsv, when he wished to inherit (to receive as a possession) the blessing, he was rejected. kat accentuates the ἀπεδοκιμάσθη, as the appropriate natural consequence of the ἀπέδοτο, ver. 16. ἡ εὐλογία, however, is the blessing absolutely, ic. the more excellent blessing, which was appointed to the first-born as the bearer of the promises given by God to Abraham and his seed. To ἀπεδοκιμάσθη, finally, there is naturally supplemented: by Isaac, in consequence of the higher occasioning or leading of God. — μετανοίας yap τόπον οὐχ εὗρεν, καίπερ μετὰ δακρύων ἐκζητήσας αὐτήν] for he found no room for change of mind, although he eagerly sought it with tears, 1.6. for Esau did not succeed in causing his father Isaac to change his mind, so that the latter should recall the blessing erroneously bestowed upon the younger brother Jacob, and confer it upon himself the elder son; in this he succeeded not, though he besought it with tears. This acceptation of the words, which Beza, H. Stephanus, Piscator, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Owen, Er. Schmid, Seb. Schmidt, Calmet, Wolf, Carpzov, Cramer, Michaelis, Storr, Schulz, Bohme, Klee, Paulus, Stengel, Tho- luck, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Bisping, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmst. A. K-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 677), Nickel (Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, March, p. 210), Maier, Moll, Kurtz, 1Yet Beza, as likewise Fr. Schmid and Bisping, then refers back, without justifying reason, αὐτήν to σὴν εὐλογίαν instead of μετανοίας. / 7 454 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. and others insist on, is most naturally suggested by the context itself, yields a clear, correct thought, and best accords with the narrative in Genesis. Comp. LXX. Gen. xxvii. 33: εὐλόγησα αὐτὸν καὶ εὐλογημένος ἔσται. Ver. 34: ᾿Εγένετο δέ, ἡνίκα ἤκουσεν ᾿Ησαῦ τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ᾿Ισαάκ, ἀνεβόησε φωνὴν μεγάλην καὶ πικρὰν σφόδρα καὶ εἶπεν. εὐλόγησον δὴ κἀμὲ πάτερ. Ver. 35: Εἶπε δὲ αὐτῷ ἐλθὼν ὁ ἀδελφός σου μετὰ δόλου ἔλαβε τὴν εὐλογίαν σου. (It was thus a question ποῦ of a blessing in general,—that Esau also still received afterwards, comp. ver. 39 f.—but about the definite blessing pertaining to the first-born.) Ver. 38: Εἶπε δὲ ᾿Ησαῦ πρὸς tov πατέρα αὐτοῦ" μὴ εὐλογία μία σοι ἔστι πάτερ; εὐλόγησον δὴ κἀμὲ πάτερ. Κατανυχθέντος δὲ ᾿Ισαάκ (this addition, peculiar to the LXX., accentuates afresh the fact that Isaac’s resolution remained inflexible, since he regarded the blessing already bestowed as irrevocable), ἀνεβόησε φωνῇ Ἡσαῦ καὶ éx- Aavoev. Nor is that which Bleek, de Wette, and Delitzsch have advanced against this mode of interpretation of great force. They assert (1) that there is here nowhere any mention of Isaac, so that we cannot think of him in con- nection with μετανοίας either. But a distinct allusion to Isaac, though not an express mention of him, is certainly contained in that which precedes. Partly in τὴν εὐλογίαν, partly in ἀπεδοκιμάσθη, there is found a reference to him; since it was just he who had to bestow the blessing, and afterwards under God’s disposing refused it to Esau. An addition of τοῦ πατρός to μετανοίας was therefore unnecessary. (2) That the formula: “he found no place or room for a change in the mind of his father,’ in the sense: “he could not bring about such change in him,” would be a very unnatural one. But why, pray, may not τόπον μετανοίας εὑρίσκειν equally well and naturally signify: “to gain room for a μετάνοια to unfold and assert itself,” as at Acts xxv. 16 τόπον ἀπολογίας λαμβάνειν signifies: “to obtain room for an ἀπολογία to unfold and maintain itself,’ or τόπον διδόναι τῇ ὀργῇ, Rom. xii. 19 (comp. Eph. iv. 27): “to give room to the divine wrath to unfold itself and make itself felt”? (3) That the expression μετάνοια itself is unsuitable, inasmuch as CHAP, XII. 17. 455 “this word can surely only denote an inner emotion of the mind, but not the bare outward recalling of a measure or a verdict” (Bleek), or, as de Wette expresses himself, “in the N. T. is ordinarily employed of human penitence.” Never- theless there attaches likewise to the notion of the “ change of mind,” as above insisted on as its primary requisite, the notion of a proceeding in the inner or spirit-life of the man ; which, however, naturally does not exclude the accessory notion that this inner process has also as its necessary consequence an external action. If, further, μετώνοια in the N. T. “ordinarily” serves for the designation of human penitence, this presents no difficulty to the supposition of its having on one occasion preserved its original verbal significa- tion (comp. eg. Josephus, de Bello Jud. 1. 4.4: ἐμίσουν τὴν μετάνοιαν αὐτοῦ Kal τοῦ τρόπου τὸ ἀνώμαλον) ; specially in ὃ passage where not an article of faith is to be expressed, but simply an historic fact to be related. (4) That the thought thus obtained would not accord with the object of the author and the parallel vi. 4-6 (de Wette). But the author’s object is no other than to show, by the warning example of Esau, that the member also of the Christian community who is βέβηλος may for ever come short of the attainment of salvation; that, however, ver. 17 is to be explained in accordance with the standard furnished by vi. 4—6, is an arbitrary presupposition. (5) That this interpreta- tion did not enter into the mind of the Fathers. But this argument, added by Delitzsch, as it in like manner frequently recurs with him, is an unscientific one. For to the Greek Fathers and their expositions can only be applied that which was said of them long ago by Joh. Gerhard (tom. I. of the Loci Theologici, chap. v. p. 30): “sint et habeantur lumina, non autem numina.’—Others, as Theophylact, Calvin, Bengel, Chr. Τὺ, Schmid, Bleek, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 771), Ewald, Hofmann, Rénsch in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1874, H. 1, p. 127 ff., and already revés in Oecumenius, refer μετανοίας to Esau himself, and then regard the words μετανοίας yap τόπον οὐχ εὗρεν as a parenthesis, and make αὐτήν glance back to τὴν εὐλογίαν. The statement: μετανοίας yap τόπον οὐχ εὗρεν, is then understood either 456 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. objectively: he found no place for the repentance which he actually eaperienced, or subjectively: he found no place in his heart for the feeling of repentance ; in the former sense, ¢.g., Calvin: “nihil profecit vel consequutus est sera sua poeni- tentia, etsi cum lacrymis quaereret benedictionem, quam sua culpa amiserat,’ and Bleek: “he found no longer any place for repentance, change of mind, inasmuch as it was too late for that, and it could avail him nothing now, however much he might regret it;” in the latter sense, eg, Bengel: “It could no longer be awakened in Esau. Natura rei recusabat.” But against the first modification of this rendering decides the thought which would thus arise, false at least for the applica- tion of the statement, since in the Christian domain a re- pentance that is worthy of the name can never be too late, never ineffectual (comp. Luke xxiii. 39-43); against the second, the internal contradiction in which this interpretation is involved with the concession καίπερ peta δακρύων ἐκζη- τήσας αὐτήν, since surely by this very fact the actual presence of a repentance was manifested; against both, finally, the harshness and unnaturalness of the grammatical construction, by which the syntactical order is forced out of its simple connection. Others, finally, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Pri- masius, Luther, Grotius, Nemethus, de Wette, Alford, Reuss, rightly indeed refer αὐτήν back to μετανοίας, but then understand μετάνοια of Hsau’s change of mind. Luther: “ for he found no room for penitence, although he sought it with tears.” De Wette: “For repentance (penitence, amendment, 1.6. for the return to the theocratic union by the laying aside of his unhallowed, frivolous character) he found no room, no place, no scope (ae. there was not granted him, by the delaying of the sentence of reprobation, the possibility of manifesting a more worthy spirit, and of becoming reconciled to God), although he sought it with tears.” But if one takes the statement with Luther subjectively, it yields a harsh, repulsive, contradictory thought ; if one takes it, with de Wette, objectively, it would be incorrectly expressed, since in that case αὐτόν (sc. τόπον) must of necessity have been written in place of αὐτήν (se. μετάνοιαν). Moreover, for this whole mode of explanation the narrative in Genesis affords no point of support. CHAP. XII. 18; 457 Vy. 18-29. To the endeavour after sanctification the readers are bound, by the constitution of that New Covenant to which they have come. While the Old Covenant bore the character of the sensuous, earthly, and that which awakens merely fear, the New Covenant has the character of the spiritual, heavenly, brings into communion with God and all saints, and confers reconciliation (vv. 18—24). Against apostasy, therefore, from the New Covenant (by an immoral walk), are the readers to be on their guard; for their guilt and culpability would be thereby incomparably enhanced. Rather are they to be filled with thankfulness towards God for the participation in the immovable kingdom of the New Covenant, and with awe and reverence to serve Him (vv. 25-29). On vv. 18-24, comp. G. Chr. Knapp in his Seripta varii argum., ed, 2, Hal. Saxon. 1823, tom. I. pp. 231-270. Ver. 18. Γάρ] enforces, by a reason adduced, the exhorta- tion to sanctification at ver. 14 ff, inasmuch as there is an underlying reference to the fact that, according to Ex. xix, 10 ἢ, 14 ἢ, the people of Israel in their day, before they were permitted to approach Mount Sinai in order to receive the law, had to sanctify themselves (Ex. xix. 10: ἅγνισον αὐτούς ; ver. 14: καὶ ἡγίασεν αὐτούς), to wash their clothes, and to preserve themselves free from all defilement.— οὐ yap προ- σεληλύθατε] for ye did not, sc. when ye became Christians, draw near. Comp. Deut. iv. 11: καὶ προσήλθετε καὶ ἔστητε ὑπὸ τὸ ὄρος. --- ψηλαφωμένῳ ὄρει] to a mountain which és touched, 1.6. felt, or laid hold of with hands. That which is intended is Mount Sinai, the place of revelation of the Mosaic law, mentioned also Gal. iv. 24, 25 as the representative of Judaism. As a mountain, however, which is touched or felt with hands this mountain is spoken of, in order thereby to express its character of externally perceptible, earthly, in opposition to the supra-sensuous, heavenly (ἐπουράνιον, ver. 22). The form ψηλαφώμενον is not to be taken as synonymous with ψηλαφητόν, that could be touched, as is still done by Knapp, Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Ebrard, Bisping, Kurtz, Ewald, and the majority of modern expositors. For the participle is indeed employed for the verbal adjective in the Hebrew, but never in the 458 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Greek. Neither can ψηλαφώμενον signify: “touched of God by lightning, and therefore smoking” (Schottgen, Kypke, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Heinrichs, and others; comp. Ex, xix. 18: τὸ ὄρος τὸ Σινὰ ἐκαπνίζετο ὅλον διὰ τὸ καταβε- βηκέναι ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸν θεὸν ἐν πυρί; Ps. civ. 32: ὁ ἁπτόμενος τῶν ὀρέων καὶ καπνίζονται), since ψηλαφᾶν signifies not the contact made with the view to the producing of an effect, but only the touching or feeling (handling), which has as its design the testing of the quality or the presence of an object. Comp. Luke xxiv. 39; 1 John i.1; Acts xvii. 27. Moreover, the participle present is unsuitable to this explanation, instead of which a participle of the past must have been chosen. — «al κεκαυμένῳ πυρί] is understood by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Knapp, Paulus, Stuart, Stengel, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. Ὁ. 114), Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, a/., as a new particular, co-ordinate with the ψηλαφωμένῳ ὄρει: “and enkindled fire.” On account of the like nature of the additions, καὶ γνόφῳ x.7.r., immediately following, this acceptation seems in itself the more natural ; but since, in the passages of the Pentateuch which were before the mind of the writer in connection with this expression, there are found the words: καὶ τὸ ὄρος ἐκαίετο πυρί (comp. Deut. iv. 11, v. 28, ix. 15), it is more probable that the author referred κεκαυμένῳ still to ὄρει, and would have πυρί taken as dativus instrum. to κεκαυμένῳ : and which (mountain) was enkindled, or set on flame, with fire. — καὶ γνόφῳ καὶ ζόφῳ καὶ θυέλλῃ] and to gloom and darkness and tempest. Comp. Deut. iv. 11, v. 22: σκότος, γνόφος, θύελλα. Ver. 19. Καὶ σάλπυγγος ἤχῳ] and to the sound of trumpet. Comp. Ex. xix. 16: φωνὴ τῆς σάλπιγγος ἤχει μέγα. Lbid. ver. 19, xx. 18.— kal φωνῇ ῥημάτων} and clang (piercing note) of words, which, namely, were spoken by God at the publication of the law, Ex. xx., Deut. v. Comp. Deut. iv. 12: καὶ ἐλάλησε κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐκ μέσου τοῦ πυρὸς φωνὴν ῥημάτων, ἣν ὑμεῖς ἠκούσατε. --- ἧς of ἀκούσαντες K.T.r.] they that heard which begged to be spared (ver. 25; Acts xxv. 11), that it should be further spoken to them (sc. on account of the terribleness of that already heard). Calvin: Caeterum quod dicit populum excusasse, non ita debet accipi, quasi populus CHAP. XII. 20, 21. 459 renuerit audire Dei verba, sed deprecatus est, ne Deum ipsum loquentem audire cogeretur. Persona enim Mosis interposita horrorem nonnihil mitigabat. Comp. Deut. v. 25: καὶ viv μὴ ἀποθάνωμεν... ἐὰν προσθώμεθα ἡμεῖς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν φωνὴν κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἔτι; Deut. xviii. 106 ; Ex. xx. 18, 19.— ἧς] goes back to φωνῇ, and is dependent not on λόγον (Storr), but upon ἀκούσαντες. ---- μή] after verbs of seeking to be excused, denying, warding off, etc., quite ordinarily. See Kiihner, IT. p. 410; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 561.— αὐτοῖς] looks back to the Israelites (of ἀκούσαντες), not to ῥημάτων. Vy. 20, 21 form a parenthesis, and γάρ adduces a reason for the thought of the terribleness of the mode of revelation under the Old Covenant. The words οὐκ ἔφερον yap τὸ διαστελλόμενον, however, contain no independent statement, in such wise that τὸ διαστελλόμενον should refer back to that which is before mentioned (Oecumenius, Theophylact ; comp. Schlichting). or in that case κἂν θηρίον «.7.r. would stand without connection. Rather are the words an introductory formula for the citation immediately attached. τὸ δεαστελ- λόμενον, further, does not stand in the sense of a middle: that which ordained, or the divine voice ordaining (Storr, Schulz, Heinrichs, Delitzsch), which is constrained, but in a passive sense: that which was ordained, the divine commandment. The sense is, consequently: for they endured not the mandate, “Though only a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned.” — The citation is freely reproduced from Ex. xix. 12, 13, in an abbreviated form, and one bringing out at once the gist of the narrative. In Exodus the words read: καὶ ἀφοριεῖς τὸν λαὸν κύκλῳ, λέγων: προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς τοῦ ἀναβῆναι εἰς TO ὄρος καὶ θίγειν τι αὐτοῦ: πᾶς ὁ ἁψάμενος τοῦ ὄρους θανάτῳ τελευτήσει. Οὐχ ἅψεται αὐτοῦ yelp ἐν γὰρ λίθοις λιθοβολη- θήσεται ἢ βολίδι κατατοξευθήσεται. ἐάν τε κτῆνος, ἐάν τε ἄνθρωπος, οὐ ζήσεται. Ver. 21. Καί] is the ordinary conjunctive “and.” It belongs not to οὕτως φοβερὸν ἣν τὸ φανταζόμενον, in such wise that ἹΜωῦσῆς εἶπεν κιτιλ. “is added by way of appendix, with an accentuation of the subject which renders any connecting particle unnecessary” (Hofmann), but to Mwiojs εἶπεν, in such wise that οὕτως φοβερὸν ἣν τὸ φανταζόμενον forms 460 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. an exclamation, inserted parenthetically within the greater parenthesis : and—-so terrible was the appearing !—MosEs said, I am sore afraid and tremble. καί cannot be taken, with Jae. Cappellus, Carpzov, Schulz, Knapp, Bohme, Bloomfield, and others, for the enhancing “even.” For, from its position, it can only serve for the connection of the clauses, while for the indication of the sense alleged an additional καί immediately before Μωῦσῆς (or even an αὐτός before the same) would have been required. Yet the right feeling underlies this interpretation: that, regarded as a fact, ver. 21 contains an ascending gradation from ver. 20, inasmuch as the being seized with fear, which at ver. 20 was asserted of the people, is now in like manner predicated of Moses, the leader of the people. -- τὸ φανταζόμενον] equivalent to τὸ φαινόμενον, the appear- ing, the visible covering in which the invisible God manifested Himself to the Israelites. Theodoret: φανταζόμενον δὲ εἶπεν, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ αὐτὸν ἑώρων τὸν τῶν ὅλων θεὸν ἀλλά τινα φαν- τασίαν τῆς θείας ἐπιφανείας. ---- The verb φαντάξεσθαι in the N. T. only here. — ἔκφοβός εἰμι καὶ ἔντρομος] In the accounts of the promulgation of the law given in the Pentateuch, an expression of this kind on the part of Moses is not met with. According to Zeger, Beza, Estius, Schlichting, Chr. Fr. Schmid [M‘Lean, with hesitation], Heinrichs, Stuart, Stein, and others, the author drew the same from tradition ; according to Owen and Calov, he gained the knowledge even from immediate inspiration ; while Carpzov will not have an actual utterance of Moses thought of at all, but, on the contrary, takes the formula: “ Moses dicit: horreo et tremo,’ as of the same meaning with the bare “ Moses horret et tremit ;” and Calvin has recourse to the not less violent expedient: “ Mosem nomine populi sic loquutum, cujus mandata quasi internuntius ad Deum referebat. Fuit igitur haec communis totius populi querimonia; sed Moses inducitur, qui fuit veluti commune et omnium.” Without doubt the words of LXX. Deut. ix. 19 [cf. ver. 15] were present to the mind of the author, where in another connection Moses says: καὶ ἔκφοβός εἰμι. These words he then transferred, by virtue of an inexact reminiscence, to the time of the promulgation of the law. Vv. 22-24. Contrast to vv. 18,19. Positive characteriza- CHAP. XII. 22—24. 461 tion of the communion into which the readers have entered by the reception of Christianity. The description, vv. 22-24, corresponds not in detail to the particulars enumerated, vv. 18, 19 (against Bengel, who ingeniously constructs a sevenfold antithesis; as likewise against Delitzsch, Kluge, and Ewald, who have followed the same), although we should be led to expect this from the corresponding words of com- mencement, vv. 18, 22. Moreover, the succession of clauses contained in vv. 22—24 is no strictly logical one, since at least καὶ πνεύμασιν δικαίων τετελειωμένων would have been more appropriately placed before than after καὶ κριτῇ θεῷ πάντων. ---- ἀλλὰ προσεληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει καὶ πόλει θεοῦ ζῶντος, ἱΙερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ] but drawn near have ye to the mountain Zion and the city of the living God, namely, the heavenly Jerusalem. The three substantive-appellations con- tain a single idea, in that to the closely connected twofold expression: Σιὼν ὄρει καὶ πόλει θεοῦ ζῶντος, the following “Ιερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ forms an explanatory apposition. As Mount Zion (in opposition to the Mount Sinai, ver. 18) the heavenly Jerusalem is designated, because in the O. T. the Mount Zion is very frequently described as the dwelling- place of God, and the place whence the future salvation of the people is to be looked for. Comp. Ps. xlviii. 3 [2], 1. 2, Prawn 9. ἐκ (25 exxxi. .1 5. >. Isa. 115: 24,3 sioelitiits)| 5 [ii. 32]; Mic. iv. 1,2; Obad. 17, αἰ. Likewise also is the heavenly Jerusalem called’ the city of the living God (comp. too in relation to the earthly Jerusalem: πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως, Matt. v. 35), not so much because the living and acting God is its architect (xi. 10), as because He has His throne there.—xal μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων] and to myriads of angels, the servants, and as it were the court of God. καὶ μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων belongs together (Beza, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Calov, Braun, Kypke, Carpzov, Cramer, Baumgarten, Storr, Dindorf, Tholuck, Kurtz, Hofmann, and others), without, however, our having, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, Vatablus, Calvin, Corn. a Lapide, Piscator, Grotius, Tischendorf (ed. 2), Bloomfield, Conybeare, Ewald, and others, to refer likewise πανηγύρει, ver. 23, to the same as an apposition. For such 462 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. apposition, consisting of a bare individual word, would be out of keeping with the euphonious fulness of the whole de- scription ; and, if ¢izs construction had been intended, καὶ μυριάδων ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει would have been written. But just as little must we with others (also Bleek and de Wette) take καὶ μυριάσιν alone, as standing independently ; whether, as Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, Griesbach, Knapp, Bohme, Kuinoel, Stengel, Bisping, Maier, Moll, we regard as apposition thereto merely ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει, or, as Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Ernesti, Schulz, Lachmann, Bleek, Tischen- dorf (ed. 1), Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 117), Alford, Kluge, Woerner, both the following members : ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει Kat ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς ----ἴὰ connection with which latter supposition, however, the more nearly connecting τε καί, of frequent use with the author (11. 4, 11, iv. 12, al.), would have been more naturally expected than the bare cai before ἐκκλησίᾳ. For μυριάσιν is a very indefinite notion, which, where its reference is not self-evident from the connection, requires a genitival addition ; besides, the accentuation of the idea of plurality alone would here be meaningless. Further, the reasons ad- vanced against our mode of explanation, that in such case we ought, after the analogy of the following members, to expect a καί before πανηγύρει (Seb. Schmidt, Bleek, Ebrard) ; that πανηγύρει and that which follows would become in the highest degree dragging (Bleek); that πανηγύρει would be superfluous (de Wette),—are without weight. For καί was omitted by reason of the euphonious. πανηγύρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ, into which a καί placed also before πανηγύρει would have introduced a discordant note; the charge of dragging would have been justified, only if a καί had really been added before πανηγύρει ; nor, again, is πανηγύρει superfluous, since it con- tains a very significant notion, and one different from that of ἐκκλησίᾳ. Ver. 23. Πανηγύρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων, ἀπογεγραμ- μένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς] to the festive assembly and congregation of the first-born, who are enrolled in heaven. πανήγυρις, in the N. T. a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, designates the total gathering under the form of conception of a being gathered together in festivity CHAP. XII. 23. 463 and jubilant joy [οἷ Joseph. Antt. v. 2.12]; whereas ἐκκλησία characterizes those assembled as bound together in inner unity. To be enrolled in heaven, however, signifies to stand recorded upon the book of heaven’s citizens, or to have part in the rights and privileges of the heavenly citizens. From the con- nection (προσεληλύθατε ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ καὶ μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων) beings must be intended, who already dwell in heaven, are actually in possession of the civil rights and immunities of heaven, not those by whom the enjoyment of the same is only to be looked for in the future. Since, then, they are by means of πρωτότοκον represented as those who in point of time /irst (before others as yet) became sons of God, we have to think most naturally, with Calvin, Bengel, Chr. Fr, Schmid, Woerner, and others, of the patriarchs and saints of the Old Covenant (comp. chap. xi.), who, it is true only upon the condition of union with Christ (xi. 40), but yet by reason of their filial relation to God, did, in a temporal respect before the Christians, receive a dwelling-place and rights of citizenship in heaven. According to Nosselt, Storr, Kurtz, and others, we have to understand by the πρωτότοκοι still the angels before mentioned, as being the earliest inhabitants of heaven; but for the designation of the angels, the charac- teristic ἀπογεγραμμένοι ἐν οὐρανοῖς is unsuitable, The majority discover in πρωτότοκον a reference to the Christians ; and that either, as Primasius and Grotius suppose, specially to the apostles—against which, however, stands πανηγύρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ, Which involves the idea of a great host; or, as Schlichting, J. L. Mosheim (de ccelesia primogenitorum γι coclo adscriptorum, Helmst. 1733, 4to), Schulz, Bleek, Ebrard, and others, to the jirst believers from among the Jews and Gentiles, particularly the former, quite apart from the question of their being now dead or still living; or, as Knapp, Bohme. Kuinoel, Tholuck, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr Ῥ. 117), Alford, Hofmann (Schrifthew. II. 2, p. 147, 2 Aufl), Moll, and others, specially to the church which is still wpon carth, so that in connection with πρωτότοκοι we have to hold fast only to the particular fact of the dignity, while we retain no reference to time; or, as de Wette and Maier, specially to those who have fallen asleep in the faith of Christ, and perhaps 464 {HE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. even were glorified by martyrdom; or finally, as Piscator, Owen, Carpzov, Stein, Stuart, Stengel, and others, to the members of the New Covenant in general. But the thought of Christians in this place is a remote one; since the mention of them, in harmony with the order of relating now chosen, would more naturally take place only later, in connection with the mention of Christ Himself, and not already here, between that of the angels and God.— καὶ κριτῇ θεῷ πάν- των] and to Him as Judge, who is God over all. πάντων is usually construed with κριτῇ. But from its position it can depend only upon θεῷ. πάντων is masculine, and refers not merely—as Knapp and Bleek suppose—to the fore-mentioned angels and πρωτότοκοι. It stands absolutely; so that God, in delicate opposition to the Jewish particularism, is character- ized as in general the God of all. The apparently unsuitable characterization of God in this connection (because one con- taining nothing specifically Christian), namely, as the Judge, is justified from the aim of the writer, to warn the readers against laxity of morals, and consequently against apostasy from Christianity (comp. vv. 25, 29). — καὶ πνεύμασιν δικαίων τετελειωμένων] and to the spirits of the perfected just ones. πνεύματα: designation of the departed spirits, as divested of the body (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 19; Luke xxiv. 39; Acts vii. 59), inasmuch as these only at the resurrection will be clothed with a new body. Most probably the Christians fallen asleep are those meant (Grotius, Mosheim, Bengel, Sykes, Baum- garten, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, and many). Others, as Corn. a Lapide, Schlichting, Wittich, Wolf, Schulz, Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Maier, think of the saints of the O. T. (chap. x1.) ; or, as Knapp, Bohme, Tholuck, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. Ὁ. 122), Alford, Moll, Kurtz, alike of the departed saints of the O. T. and those of the New. The δίκαιοι, however, are called rereXecwmpmévoe not in the sense of the “ perfect just ones” (Theophylact, Luther, Stengel, al.),—for which the expression τέλειον would much more naturally have presented itself—nor yet because they have finished their life’s course and overcome the weaknesses and imperfections of the earthly life (Calvin, Limborch, Bohme, Kuinoel, Kurtz, and others), but because they have CHAP. ΧΙ. 24, 25. 465 already been brought by Christ to the goal of consummation. Comp. ii. 10, x. 14, xi. 40. Ver. 24. Νέας] characterizes the covenant as new in regard ; to the time of its existence (foedus recens), whereas καινή, viii. 8, 13, ix. 15, described it as new in respect of its quality (foedus novum). Wrongly Béhme, Kuinoel, and others (de Wette likewise wavers): véas is here to be taken as of the same import with καινῆς. -- καὶ αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ] Jesus’ atoning blood is called blood of sprinkling, inasmuch as those who believe in Him, in spirit sprinkled therewith, are cleansed from their sins and sanctified to God. Comp. ix. 13 f, x. 22, xiii. 12. — κρεῖττον] is an adverb. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 38. Needlessly will Kurtz have it taken as a substantive ad- jective. Better does the blood of Christ speak than Abel with his blood; since the latter calls for the divine vengeance, the former, on the other hand, for God’s grace upon sinners. — παρά] See at i 4.— παρὰ tov”ABedr] may be looked upon as a well-known brachylogy for παρὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ "Αβελ. This is not, however, at all necessary, seeing that, at xi. 4 likewise, Abel himself is represented as speaking after his death (by means of his blood which was shed). Ver. 25. The author has but just now, vv. 18-24, in order to enforce with reasoning his exhortation to the ἁγιασμός, ver. 14 ff, described, in a comparison of the Old Covenant with the New, the exalted nature of the communion into which the readers had entered by the reception of Christianity. As a conclusion therefrom, he warns them against falling away again from Christianity through laxity of morals (comp. also ver. 28 f.), in pointing out, similarly as 11. 2 ff, x. 28 ff, that if the Israelites in old time incurred punishment by dis- obedience to the O. T. revelation of God, an incomparably severer judgment would overtake those Christians who should turn back again from the N. T. revelation of God. —The simple βλέπετε, without the addition of οὖν, renders the warning so much the more powerful. Entirely mistaken, Delitzsch : οὖν is not added, in order that one may not sup- pose the warning to attach itself to od yap προσεληλύθατε .. ἀλλὰ TpoceAndAVOaTe ..., but, on the contrary, it should be manifest that the author thinks of the One speaking, Mryer.—Hes. 2G 466 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. against the refusing of whom he warns, as in most intimate connection with the speaking blood of the Mediator of the Covenant which has just been mentioned. — βλέπετε μὴ παραυτήσησθε Tov λαλοῦντα] take heed that ye do not beg off Jrom Him that speaketh (to you), that ye turn not away from Him and despise Him. ὁ λαλῶν is not Christ (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Vatablus, Bohme, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Bloomfield, a/.), but that God who still continues to speak to the readers by means of the Christian facts of salvation. For by τὸν λαλοῦντα the same person must be designated, as subsequently by τὸν ἀπ᾽ οὐρανῶν, sc. χρηματίζοντα. By the latter, however, can be meant, on account of the od referring back to it at ver. 26, and by reason of the ἐπήγγελται there occurring (comp. also ver. 29), only God. From this it follows, too, that by ἐπὶ γῆς ὁ χρηματίζων is meant, not Moses (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Carpzov, and others), but likewise God,’ so that there is not an insisting upon a diversity of persons in connection with the O. T. and the N. T. revela- tion, and thence a difference of degree inferred; but the diversity of the mode of revelation is accentuated, and thereby the higher value of the one revelation above the other on the one hand is marked, and on the other the higher culpability of apostasy from the one than from the other. To the Jews God spake upon the palpable earthly mountain Sinai, choosing as His interpreter an earthly man, Moses; to the Christians, on the other hand, He speaks from heaven, in sending to them His own Son from heaven as His interpreter.— οὐκ ἐξέφυ- γον} did not escape, did not evade the divine punishment. Comp. ii. ὃ. Wrongly Delitzsch, even because the πολὺ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς xK.T.A. does not harmonize therewith: were not able to withdraw, but were obliged to stand fast. — ἐπὶ γῆς τὸν χρηματίζοντα] the One speaking upon earth words of revelation. Belongs together, in that ἐπὶ γῆς was placed on account of the greater emphasis before the article. Similarly the post- posing of iva, Gal. ii. 10, and the like. — πολὺ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς] se. οὐκ ἐκφευξόμεθα. ---- ἀποστρέφεσθαί twa] to turn away Jrom any one, reject his fellowship. Ver. 26. Like as the author has stated the fact, ver. 25, Ebrard will have us think of Christ as the second person of the Godhead ! CHAP. XII. 27. 467 as a sign of the inferiority of Judaism to Christianity, that God in connection with the former was One ἐπὶ γῆς χρηματί- tov, in connection with the latter, on the other hand, One ἀπ᾽. οὐρανῶν χρηματίζων, so does he now in like manner urge, as a further proof of that inferiority, the circumstance that God then only shook the earth, but now in accordance with the prophecy will shake not only the earth, but at the same time also the heavens. — ἐσάλευσεν] is to be understood in the literal sense, not, with Estius and others, in the figurative. — τότε] then, sc. at the promulgation of the Mosaic law. Comp. Ex. xix. 18 (where, however, the LXX., probably in reading py instead of 797, translate: καὶ ἐξέστη πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ofédSpa); Judg. v. 4f£; Ps. Ixviii. 9 [8], cxiv. 7: azo προσώπου κυρίου ἐσαλεύθη ἡ γῆ. -- νῦν δὲ ἐπήγγελται λέγων] who now, on the other hand, has promised as follows. A con- structio ad sensum, since the words form the second member of the relative clause; but, notwithstanding that, a bound is suddenly made from the preceding subject ἡ φωνή to the subject contained in the οὗ, namely, God Himself. — viv] now, has certainly the sense: in regard to the present - Christian period (more exactly: in regard to the epoch of the consummation of the divine kingdom by the coming again of Christ). Grammatically, however, viv κτλ. has arisen from the contracting of two statements in one, and is to be resolved, with Schlichting, into: nunc vero commovebit non solum terram sed etiam coelum, sicut promisit apud prophetam, dicens, etc. — ἐπήγγελται] in the middle sense, as Rom. iv. 21. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 246.— The citation is from Hag. i. 6, but reproduced in a free and abbreviated form (LXX.: ἔτε ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν Kal τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηράν). --- ἔτι ἅπαξ] Faulty rendering of the LXX. instead of: yet a little while. Ver. 27. The author, arguing from the ἔτι ἅπαξ of the prophetic word of scripture just adduced, brings out as a second feature of the superiority of Christianity, that it is abiding and intransitory.— To δέ- Ἔτι ἅπαξ] The expression, however, Yet once more, sc. and then not again. ἔτι ἅπαξ, namely, is taken by the writer absolutely.— δηλοῖ τὴν τῶν σαλευομένων μετάθεσιν] declares (points to) the changing of 468 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. that which is being shaken, sc. the earth and the (visible) heavens, inasmuch as it is a well-known matter (τήν) that, at the epoch of the consummation of the kingdom of God, the present earth and the present heavens will be transformed into a new earth and new heavens (comp. Isa. lxv. 17 ff., Ixvi. 22; 2 Pet. iii. 13; Rev. xxi. 1); the shaking, however, of the heavens and the earth predicted by the prophet will be the only one, and consequently the last one, which will take place at all.— ὡς πεποιημένων] because they are created, 1.6. visible, earthly, and transitory, things. The words draw attention to the constitution of the σαλευόμενα, thereby to make it appear as something natural that these should undergo a change or transformation. They are not to be taken to- gether with the following ἵνα; in connection with which construction we have either the explanation: which namely has been made, to the end that that which 1s immovable may remain (Grotius, Bengel, Tholuck, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbeqr. des Hebréerbr. Ὁ. 130, Obs.; Kluge, Moll, Woerner, al.),— which, however, without more precise indication, yields arbitrary variations of the meaning, but no clear thought or: which was made indeed only for the purpose of awaiting that which is immovable, and giving place to the same when this comes in (Bauldry in Wolf, Storr, Bohme, Kuinoel, Hofmann, a/.). Grammatically there is nothing to be alleged against this acceptation of the words, although the expression μένειν is not elsewhere employed by the author in the sense of “to await anything;” nor even against the thought in itself can any objection be raised. But then it appears unsuitable to the connection; since upon this interpretation that which the author will derive from the ἔτε ἅπαξ, namely, the coming in of that which is eternal and intransitory, is brought out in much too subordinate a form. ἵνα is there- fore to be taken as dependent on τὴν τῶν σαλευομένων μετάθεσιν, inasmuch as it adduces the higher design of God in the transformation of the present earth and the present heavens: in order that there may then abide (have a per- manent existence) that which cannot be shaken, sc. the eternal blessings of Christianity, into the full enjoyment of which the Christian will enter so soon as a new earth and new CHAP. XII. 28, 29. 469 heaven is formed, and the kingdom of God attains to its consummation. Ver. 28. Exhortation to be thankful to God, and to serve Him in an acceptable manner. — Aco] infers from the con- ‘eluding words of ver. 27: Wherefore, because that which will have an everlasting existence is no other than the kingdom of God, in which we Christians have obtained part. The author himself expresses this thought in the participial clause eluci- datory of the 60, βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον παραλαμβά- vovtes: since the kingdom which we Christians obtain (which becomes the possession of us Christians) is an immovable, intransitory one. The participle present παραλαμβάνοντες, of that which is indeed future, but which with certainty comes in. Erroneously do Calvin, ¢ransl., Schlichting, Limborch, Bengel, and others understand the participial clause as a constituent part of the exhortation: “let us receive the im- movable kingdom, appropriate it to ourselves by faith,’ which is already rendered impossible by the anarthrous βασιλείαν in itself. — ἔχωμεν χάριν] let us cherish thankfulness, 80. towards God. Comp. Luke xvii. 9. Wrongly Beza, Schlicht- ing, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Carpzov, Bisping, and many others: let us hold fast the grace. For in that case the article could not be wanting in connection with χάριν, and instead of ἔχωμεν must stand κατέχωμεν (comp. iii. 6, 14, x. 23) or κρατῶμεν (comp. iv. 14).— δ ἧς λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως τῷ θεῷ] and by the same serve God in an acceptable manner. τῷ θεῷ belongs to AaTpevwpev. — μετὰ εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους] with reverential awe (in that we watch against that which is displeasing to God) and fear. Amplification of the εὐαρέστως. Ver. 29. Warning justification of the μετὰ εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους. The words cannot, however, signify: for owr God too (the God of Christians), even as the God of the Old Covenant, 4s @ consuming fire (so still Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, and others). For to this end καὶ yap ἡμῶν ὁ θεὸς κ-τ,λ. must have been written. Just as little may καὶ yap, with Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 60, Obs.), Alford, Moll, and Kurtz, be weakened into the mere notion of “etenim.” For καί is the enhancing “more than this,” and 470 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. belongs to the whole clause, in connection with which it would be a matter of indifference (against Delitzsch) whether the author should write καὶ yap ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν πῦρ κατανα- λίσκον or καὶ γὰρ πῦρ καταναλίσκον ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, since in either case the main emphasis in connection with the few words would fall upon πῦρ καταναλίσκον. According to the order of the words, and by reason of the intensive force of καί, the sense can therefore only be: for our God is also a consuming fire, 1... He is not merely a God of grace, but likewise a God of punitive righteousness. A diversity, conse- quently, of the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New, which would also have been an unsuitable notion, the author does not by any means assert. Moreover, comp. LXX. Deut. iv. 24: ὅτε κύριος ὁ θεός σου πῦρ καταναλίσκον ἐστίν. CHAP, XIII. 471 CHAPTER: Xb LE Ver. 4. The preference over the Recepta πορνοὺς δὲ is merited on account of the better attestation (A D* D, Lat. Ms, Vulg. Copt. Anton. Max. Bed.) by πορνοὺς yap. Commended to atten- tion by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Alford, and Tisch. 8.— Ver. 8. Elz.: dé. But A C* D* M & have ἐχθές. Rightly admitted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford.— Ver. 9. μὴ παραφέρεσθε] Elz.: μὴ περιφέρεσθες. Against A Ο Ὁ MX, the later supplementer οὗ B, the preponderant majority of the cursives, Vulg. Copt. a/., and very many Fathers. Already rejected by Grotius, Bengel, and Wetstein, then by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Lachm. Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, and others. Correction to accord with Eph. iv. 14.—Instead of the Recepta περι- πατήσαντες, A D* &* present περιπατοῦντες. Placed in the text by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading. — Ver. 10. In place of the Recepta οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν, Tisch. 2 and 7 reads only οὐκ ἔχουσιν, and already Mill (Prolegg. 1292) has condemned ἐξουσίαν asa gloss. But ἐξουσίαν is lacking only in D* Gr. and Lat., in M and with Damascen., whereas it is present in A C D** and *** K δ, etc. (with Chrysostom before οὐκ ἔχουσιν). It was erroneously omitted by reason of its similarity in sound to the foregoing οὐκ ἔχουσιν. ---- Ver. 11. Elz. Tisch. 8: τὸ αἷμα περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ ἅγια. So DK ΜΝ, etc. In place of this, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 write, after C* al., Copt. Syr. al.: τὸ αἷμα εἰς τὰ ἅγια περὶ ἁμαρτίας. By means of its varying position, however, περὶ ἁμαρτίας betrays itself as a glossematic elucidation, seeing that it is entirely wanting in A, in Aeth.,and with Chrysostom, and seeing, moreover, that some cursive Mss. (14, 47) present in place of the singular the plural περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. Rightly therefore have Bleek, Tisch. 2 and 7, and Alford deleted the addition. — Ver. 17. ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες] Instead of which Lachm. in the stereotype ed. and Tisch. 1 chose the order: ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν. But the authority of A, Vulg. Bede does not suffice for the ἘΠ THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. transposing. Rightly therefore did Lachm. in the larger ed., and Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, return to the Lecepta.— Ver. 18. Elz.: πεποίθαμεν. Against the preponderating testimony of A C* D* D, Lat. (suademus) M, 17, 67** 137, which demands the reading, commended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford: σειθόμεθα. To the latter points also the ba yap ors καλὴν in the Cod. Sinait., since in this codex or zaAj. has been placed immediately before, only in consequence of a manifest oversight of the copyist.— Ver. 21. To the Recepta ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ, instead of which the Cod. Sinait. presents only ἐν σαντί (adopted by Tisch. 8), had Lachmann in the stereo- type ed. further added: καὶ λόγῳ, which he has yet rightly struck out again in the larger edition. The addition καὶ λόγῳ is found only in A, and once with Chrysostom, whereas it is twice wanting with the latter. It is a gloss from 2 Thess, 1]. 17.— Instead of the mere ποιῶν of the Recepta, Lachmann reads in the Edit. Stercotypa: αὐτὸς ποιῶν; in the larger edition: aira ποιῶν. But αὐτός rests only upon 71 and 1), Lat. (ipso faciente); the alleged testimony of C in favour thereof is founded on an error of Wetstein. αὐτῷ, however, which has for it the authority of A C* x* and of Gregor. Nyssen., is a disturbing addition, and manifestly arose only from a twofold writing of the αὐτοῦ immediately foregoing.— Elz. Lachm. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reiche, Tisch. 8: εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. But τῶν αἰώνων Is wanting in C*** D, in many cursives, in Arab. Armen., with Clem. Alex. and Theodoret. Suspected by Bengel and Griesbach ; rightly rejected by Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, and Alford. For it is more probable that the simpler formula, occurring for the rest Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, would be enlarged into the ampler formula more usual in the case of doxologies, than that the ampler would be abbreviated into the simpler one.— Ver. 22. D* 46, 57, al., Vulg. Syr. Arm. have ἀνέχεσθαι. Adopted by Lachmann. But the imperative ἀνέχεσθε, presented by the Recepta, is to be retained, as imparting more animation to the discourse. This reading is protected by the preponderating authority of AC D*** Καὶ M δ, etc., Am. Copt. Aeth. a/., Chrys. Theodoret (also in the Commentary), al.— Ver. 23. Elz.: τὸν ἀδελφόν. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, de Wette, Delitzsch: τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν. The latter is to be preferred on account of the stronger attestation by A C D* M s* 17, 31, 37, 39, al., all vss. Euthal. Maxim. Athan. Vv. 1-25. Concluding exhortations partly of a general nature, partly in special relation to the main purport of the CHAP. XIII. 1, 2. 473 epistle, and concluding notices, followed by a twofold wish’ of blessing. Ver. 1. Exhortation to enduring brotherly love. —‘H φιλαδελφία)] The love of the brethren, 1.6. love to the fellow- Christians. Comp. Rom. xii. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 9; 1 Pet. 1. 22; 2 Pet. i. 7. — μενέτω] abide, cease not. For, according to vi. 10, x. 33, the readers had already exercised this virtue before, and were still exercising it. Yet in their case, since they had become doubtful regarding the absolute truth of Christianity, and in part already sought to withdraw from the outward fellowship of Christians (x. 25), and, moreover, in particularistic prejudice closed their hearts against a brotherly intercourse with the Gentile Christians, the renewed inculca- tion of this virtue was of special importance. ‘Vv. 2, 3. Summons to two particular forms of expression of the general virtue, ver. 1. Ver. 2. Exhortation to hospitality. Comp. Rom. xu. 13; 1 Pet. iv. 9; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i 8. Owing to the hatred of the Jews towards the Christians, and the almost entire absence of public places of entertainment, hospitality towards fellow-Christians on their journeys became, for the Palestinians also, an urgent necessity. — διὰ ταύτης yap ἔχλαθόν τινες Eevicavtes ἀγγέλους] Enforcement of the command uttered, by calling attention to the high honour’ which, by the exercise of this virtue, accrued to single remote ancestors of the Jewish people; for by the manifestation of hospitality some have unwittingly entertained angels. The author was certainly, in connection with this statement, thinking specially of Abraham and Lot (Gen. xviii. 19). We have, moreover, to compare the declaration of the Lord, Matt. xxv. 44, 45, according to which he who entertains one of His people, entertains the Lord Himself.— The ἔλαθον, written in accordance with genuine Greek praxis, but not occurring elsewhere in the N. T., forms a paronomasia with ἐπιλανθάνεσθε. 1 Comp. Philo, de Abrah. p. 366 (with Mangey, II. p. 17 f.) : ᾿Εγὼ δὲ οὐκ οἶδα φίνα ὑπερβολὴν εὐδαιμονίας καὶ μακαριότητος εἶναι φῶ περὶ τὴν οἰκίαν, ἐν ἢ καταχθῆναι καὶ ξενίων λαχιεῖν ὑπέμειναν ἄγγελοι πρὸς ἀνθρώπους, ἱεραὶ καὶ θεῖαι φύσεις, ὑποδιώκονοι καὶ ὕπαρχοι τοῦ πρώτου Θεοῦ δ ὧν οἷα πρεσβευτῶν ὅσα av θελήσῃ τῷ γένει ἡμῶν αροθεσπίσαι, διαγγέλλει. Av4 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Ver. 3. Exhortation to have ἃ care for the prisoners and distressed. — ΜΠιμνήσκεσθε τῶν δεσμίων) Be mindful (50. in order to aid them with ministering love) of the prisoners, — ὡς συνδεδεμένοι] as fellow-prisoners, 1.6. with as much devotion to them as though the captivity had fallen upon yourselves. For the Christians are members of the same body; as in the prosperity, so also are they to share in the sufferings one of the other. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 26. Bohme (in like manner Heinrichs too) explains: “quippe ejus naturae et conditionis homines, qui ipsi quoque pro captivis sint, nimirum in ecclesia pressa degentes.” Upon this interpretation, it is true, the twofold ὡς retains its full significance; but in order to represent the readers as “in ecclesia pressa degentes,” an addition to συνδεδεμένοι could not have been dispensed with. -- τῶν κακουχουμένων] of those who suffer evil treatment. τῶν κακουχουμένων is the genus, under which the foregoing τῶν δεσμίων are ranged as a particular species. — ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες ἐν σώματι] as sojourning yourselves in a body, thus likewise still subjected to the earthly order of the world, and not secured against the like ill-treatment. According to Calvin and others, the sense is: since ye indeed are members of the same body (to wit, the church),—which, however, must have been indicated by ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ σώματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὄντες. According to Beza: as though im your own person ye were Kakovyovpevor,—a sense which can only with violence be put upon the words. Ver. 4. Exhortation to chastity in the narrower sense. — Tipsos| held in estimation, honourable, sc. ἔστω. Others supplement ἐστίν. So already the Peshito (honoratum est connubium inter omnes), then Beza, Grotius (apud omnes gentes moratas honos est conjugio), M‘Caul, and others. But against this stands the addition: καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος, since the latter could not be asserted as a truth in point of fact. Rather might the indicative rendering thereof be preserved by taking the clauses descriptively : “Marriage honourable in all things,” etc., which then would not be different in sense from the direct requirement that marriage should be honour- able. Nevertheless, this mode of interpretation too—recently adopted by WDelitzsch—could only be justified if it were CHAP. XIII. 5, 6. 475 followed by a long series of similar statements; here, on the other hand, where imperatives are placed in close proximity before and after, it is unnatural.—o γάμος] marriage. In this sense the word occurs frequently with the Greeks. In the N. T. it has everywhere else the signification: wedding, and its celebration. — ἐν πᾶσιν) is neuter: im all things. The majority take ἐν πᾶσιν as masculine. There is then found expressed in it the precept, either, as by Luther and others, that marriage should in the estimation of all be held in honour, ze. not desecrated by adultery; or, as by Bohme, Schulz, and others, that it should not be despised or slighted by any unmarried person (according to Hofmann, by any one, whether he live in wedlock, or he think that he ought for his own part to decline it); or finally, as by Calvin and many, that it is to be denied to no order of men (as later to the Catholic priests). In the two last cases it is generally supposed that the reference is to a definite party of those who, out of ascetic or other interest, looked unfavourably upon the married life. But for all three modes of explana- tion, παρὰ πᾶσιν would have been more suitably written than ἐν πᾶσιν; and a preference for celibacy on the part of born Jews in particular, to whom nevertheless the Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed, is an unexplained presupposition, because one not in accordance with the teaching of history. — καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος] and the marriage bed (against the ordinary wsus loguendi, Valckenaer and Schulz: the cohabita- tion) be undefiled. —mopvous yap καὶ μοιχοὺς κρινεῖ ὁ Θεός] for fornicators and adulterers will God judge (condemn at the judgment of the world). Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9f, a. The ὁ Θεός placed at the close of the sentence is not without em- phasis. It reminds that, though such sins of uncleanness remain for the most part unpunished by earthly judges, the higher Judge will one day be mindful of them. Vy. 5, 6. Warning against covetousness; exhortation to contentedness. — ᾿Α φιλάργυρος] free from greediness of money, from covetousness and avarice, 1 Tim. 111. 3. Comp. vi. 24 ff. - ὁ τρόπος] sc. ἔστω: let the mind and comportment, the character, be.— ἀρκούμενοι τοῖς παροῦσιν] sc. ἔστε: be con- tented with that which is present. τὰ παρόντα here, as Xen, 476 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Sympos. iv. 42 (οἷς γὰρ μάλιστα τὰ παρόντα ἀρκεῖ, ἥκιστα τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ὀρέγονται), and often with the classic writers, of the earthly possession which one has. — αὐτὸς yap εἴρηκεν] for He Himself has said, namely, God, as He who is speaking in the scripture ; not Christ (Beza, Bohme, Klee). — οὐ μή σε av@ οὐδ᾽ ov μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω) I will in no wise fail thee, nor by any means forsake thee. To this citation the most similar passages are Deut. xxxi. 6 (οὔτε μή σε ἀνῇ, οὔτε μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ), ibid. ver. 8 (οὐκ ἀνήσει σε, οὐδὲ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ), and 1 Chron. xxviii. 20 (οὐκ ἀνήσει σε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃ) ; although, in these passages, instead of the first person singular the third person is used. Less corre- sponding in point of expression are Josh. 1. 5 (οὐκ éyxata- λείψω σε οὐδ᾽ ὑπερόψομαί ce), Gen. xxviii. 15 (od μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω), and Isa. Χ]. 17 (οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω αὐτούς). On the other hand, there is found a citation entirely corre- spondent to ours in Philo, de Confus. Linguar. p. 344 C (ed. Mang. I. p. 430). It is possible that, as Bleek and de Wette suppose, the author adopted the same immediately from Philo. It is, however, also possible that the utterance, in the form in which we meet with it here and in Philo, had become pro- verbial. According to Delitzsch and Kluge, the utterance of Deut. xxxi. 6 assumed this form in the liturgic or homiletic usage of the Hellenistic synagogue, in that reminiscences of other similar O. T. passages blended with the original passage. [According to Piscator, Owen, and Tischendorf, the reference is to Josh. 1. 5.] Ver. 6. Ὥστε θαῤῥοῦντας ἡμᾶς λέγειν κ,τ.λ.] so that we boldly say (namely, in the words of Ps. exvuli. 6): the Lord is my helper, and I will not fear; what can a man do to me? — τί ποιήσει μοι ἄνθρωπος ;] is an independent direct ques- tion. Grammatically false is the construction of the Vulgate (so also Jac. Cappellus and others), which takes the words as dependent on ov φοβηθήσομαι: non timebo, quid faciat mihi homo. Ver. 7. Exhortation to a remembrance of the former teachers, and an emulation of their faith. — οἱ ἡγούμενοι] the presidents and leaders of the congregation. Comp. vv. 17, 24; where, however, those still living are indicated, CHAP. XIII. 8 477 while here we have to think of those already fallen asleep. By virtue of the characteristic οἵτινες ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ they appear as identical with the persons mentioned ii. 3, the immediate disciples of Christ, from whom the readers had received the gospel.—ov] has reference equally to τὴν ἔκβασιν τῆς ἀναστροφῆς and τὴν πίστιν. ---- ἀναθεωρεῖν) the prolonged, closely observing contemplation. Comp. Acts xvii. 293. --- τὴν ἔκβασιν τῆς ἀναστροφῆς) not: the course or path of development of their walk (Oecumenius, but without deciding, and Lud. de Dieu)—which is opposed to linguistic usage; nor yet: the result for others of their believing walk, inasmuch as many were thereby converted to Christianity (Braun, Cramer)—which must have been more precisely defined by means of additions; just as little: the result of their believing walk for the ἡγούμενοι themselves, as regards their rewarding in heaven (Storr, Bloomfield, and others), for an ἀναθεωρεῖν of the latter, to which the author is supposed to exhort, would not have been possible; but: , the outlet or end of their walk on earth [1 Cor. x. 13]. Comp. τὴν ἔξοδον, Luke ix. 31, 2 Pet. i. 15, and τὴν ἄφιξιν, Acts xx. 29. That which is intended, seeing that in combination with the ἀναθεωρεῖν τὴν ἔκβασιν τῆς ἀναστροφῆς a μιμεῖσθαι τὴν πίστιν is spoken of, is beyond doubt the martyrs death, endured by the earlier leaders and presidents of the Palestinian congregations, Stephen, James the elder, James the brother of the Lord, and Peter, whereby they had manifested the strength and immovable stedfastness of their faith. Vv. 8-15. Exhortation to hold aloof from unchristian doctrines and ritual observances. Ver. 8 is ordinarily comprehended in one with ver. 7. Expositors then find in the utterance either, as Bleek, Ebrard, Bisping, and others, an adducing of the motive for the emula- tion of the faithful leaders enjoined at ver. 7; or, as Zeger, Grotius, Schulz, Kurtz, and others (comp. already Theophylact), the encouraging assurance that, as to these leaders, so also to the readers, provided they only take the faith of these leaders as a model for themselves, the gracious aid of Christ—of which, however, there was no mention in ver. 7—will not 478 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. be wanting; or finally, as Carpzov,' the more precise informa- tion as to that in which their faith had consisted. More correctly, however, on account of the antithetic correspondence between ὁ αὐτός, ver. 8, and ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις, ver. 9, are the words, ver. 8, taken as constituting the foundation and preparation for the injunction of ver. 9. Jesus Christ is for ever the same; the Christian therefore must give no place in his mind and heart to doctrines which are opposed to Christ, His nature and His requirements. — ἐχθὲς... σήμε- pov... εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας] Designation of the past, present, and future; exhaustive unfolding of the notion de’ The expression is rhetorical; ἐχθές is consequently not to be further expounded, in such wise that we must think of the time of the former teachers (Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Limborch, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kluge, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner, al.), or of the time before the appearing of Christ (Bengel, Cramer, Stein), or to the whole time of the Old Covenant (Calvin, Pareus, al.), or even to the eternal pre-existence of Christ (Ambrose, de Fide, v. 1. 25 ; Seb. Schmidt, Nemethus, and others). — ’Incots Χριστὸς is the subject, and ὁ αὐτός (sc. ἐστίν, not ἔστω) the common pre- dicate to all three notes of time. Wrongly Paulus: “Jesus is the God-anointed One; yesterday and to-day is He alto- gether the same ”—which must have read: "Incods ὁ Χριστός. But mistaken also the Vulgate, Oecumenius, Luther, Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, and others, in that they interpunctuate after σήμερον : Jesus Christ yesterday and to-day; the same also in cternity. For that which is to be accentuated is not the eternity of Christ, as would be the case by means of the ἐχθὲς καὶ σήμερον taken alone, but the eternal wnehangeableness of Christ. Ver. 9. The exhortation itself, for which preparation was made at ver. 8, now follows. — Avdayais ποικέλαις καὶ ξέναις μὴ παραφέρεσθε] By manifold and strange doctrines do not be seduced, borne aside from the right path. As is shown by the connecting of the two halves of the verse by the γάρ, expres- sive of the reason or cause, the διδαχαὶ ποικέλχαι καὶ ξέναι" 1 «*Tmitamini vestrorum praefectorum fidem, nimirum hane: Jesus Christus heri, hodie et semper ὁ αὐτὸς Deus est.” CHAP. XIII. 9. 479 are related to the βρώματα mentioned immediately after as the genus to a species coming under particular notice; and, as is manifest from ver. 10 ff, both belong to the specifically Jewish domain. By διδαχαὶ ποικίλαι καὶ ξέναι, there- fore, the ordinances of the Mosaic law in general are to be understood, the observance of which was proclaimed among the readers as necessary to the attainment of salvation, while then under βρώματα a special group of the same is men- tioned. ποικίλαι the same are called, because they consist in commands and prohibitions of manifold kind; ξέναι, however, because they are opposed to the spirit of Chris- tianity. — καλὸν γάρ] for it is a fair thing, ie. praiseworthy and salutary. —ydpite βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν] that by grace the heart be made stedfast, in it seek and find its support. For no other thing than the grace of God is that which de- termines the character of the New Covenant, as the law that ἡ of the Old, Rom. vi. 14, al. Erroneously, therefore, Castellio and Bohme, χάριτι means by thanksgiving or gratitude towards God; yet more incorrectly Bisping and Maier: by the Christian sacrificial food, the Holy Communion. — οὐ βρώμα- σιν] not by meats. This is referred by the majority, lastly by Bohme, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. Ὁ. 158), Alford, Moll, Ewald, and Hofmann, to the Levitical ordinances concerning pure and impure food. (But only of the sacrificial meals can οὐ βρώμασιν be understood.) For rightly have Schlichting, Bleek, and others called attention to the fact that (1) the expression, ver. 9, is more applicable to the enjoyment of sacred meats than to the avoiding of unclean meats. Schlich- ting: Cor non reficitur cibis non comestis, sed comestis. Ciborum ergo usui, non abstinentiae, opponitur hic gratia; that (2) it is said of the Christians, at ver. 10, in close con- junction with ver. 9, that they possess an altar of which the servants of the Jewish sanctuary have no right to eat; that, finally, (3) at the close of this series of thoughts, ver. 15, the reference to the sacrifices is retained, inasmuch as there, in opposition to the Levitical sacrifices, it is made incumbent on Christians through Christ continually to offer sacrifices of praise unto God. Tholuck, it is true, objects to this reasoning: 480 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (1) that βρώματα may denote “the clean, legally permitted meats, with (the mention of) which is at the same time implied the abstinence from the unclean.” But this expedient is artificial and unnatural; since, if we had in reality to think of the Levitical precepts with regard to food, in the exact converse of that which happens the avoiding of unclean meats would be the main idea brought under consideration. (2) That the connection of ver. 10 with ver. 9 would only apparently be lost, since one may warrantably assume the following line of thought : “Do not suffer yourselves to be led astray by a variety of doctrines alien to the pure truth— surely it is a fairer thing to assure the conscience by grace than by meats, by means of which no true appeasement is obtained; we Christians have an altar with such glorious soul-nourishment, of which no priest may eat.” But this supposed thought of ver. 10 would be highly illogical. For how does it follow from the fact that Christians have an altar of most glorious soul-nourishment, that no priest may partake of the same? Logically correct, certainly, would be only the thought: for we Christians possess an altar with such glorious soul-nourishment, that we have no need whatever of the Levitical ordinances regarding food. Then again, at ver. 10, nothing at all is written about “ glorious soul-nourishment ;” but, on the contrary, the design of this verse can only be to make good the incompatibility of the Christian altar with the Jewish. (3) That the exhortation to the spiritual sacrifices, ver. 15, may be more immediately referred back to ver. 10. But ver. 10 stands to ver. 9, in which the theme of the investigation, vv. 8-15, is expressed, in the relation of sub- ordination. The following οὖν, ver. 15, may therefore serve for the introducing of the final result from the whole pre- ceding investigation. (4) Finally, that it cannot be perceived how the participation in sacrificial meals could have been looked upon as a means of justification, But the participation in the sacrificial meals was certainly a public avouchment of participation in the sacrifices themselves. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 18. Very easily, therefore, might the author be led finally to take up this preference of his readers for the Jewish sacri- ficial cultus in this particular form of manifestation, which CHAP. XIII. 10. 481 had hitherto remained unnoticed in the epistle.— The supports, too, which Delitzsch has more recently sought to give to the referring of οὐ βρώμασιν to ordinances regarding clean and unclean meats, are weak. For that βρώματα is a word unheard of in the sacrificial thora, but familiar in the legislation regarding food, and that βρῶμα is used elsewhere in the N. T. of that which is prohibited or permitted for eating, does not in any way fall under consideration ; because our passage claims before everything to be intelligible per se, nothing thus can be determinative of its meaning which is opposed to its expression and connection. That, however, the author cannot by διδαχαὶ ποικίλαι καὶ ξέναι have meant the ordinances of the law in general, because he has recognised their divine origin, and therefore could not have indicated them with so little reverence, is a mere prepossession. For the Apostle Paul, too, speaks of them, as is already shown by Gal. iv. 9 ἢ, v. 2, with no greater reverence. We are pre- vented from thinking, with Delitzsch, of “erroneous doctrines invented in accordance with one’s own will, though it may be attaching themselves to the O. T. law,” by the relation in which διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις stands to βρώμασιν, ver. 9, and this again to ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες, ver. 10.— ἐν οἷς οὐκ ὠφελήθησαν οἱ περιπατοῦντες) from which those busred therein have derived no profit, imasmuch, namely, as by such partaking of the sacrifice they did not attain to true blessedness. — ἐν οἷς belongs to ol περιπατοῦντες, since these words cannot stand alone, not to ὠφελήθησαν. Ver. 10. Justification of οὐ βρώμασιν, ver. 9, by the em- phasizing of the incompatibility of the Christian altar with that of Judaism. We possess an altar, of which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle, 1.6. he who seeks in the Jewish sacrificial meals, and consequently in the Jewish sacrificial worship, a stay and support for his heart, thereby shuts himself out from Christianity, for he makes himself a servant of the tabernacle; but he who serves the tabernacle has no claim or title to the altar of Christians. That the subject in ἔχομεν is the Christian, is acknowledged on all sides. But equally little ought it ever to have been disputed that by MryEr.—HEs, 2H 482 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. ol τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες persons must be denoted who are contrasted with the Christians. For, in accordance with the expression chosen, the author can only mean to say that the Christians possess the right to eat of the altar; those τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες, on the other hand, forego this right. Quite in a wrong sense, therefore, have Schlichting, Schulz, Heinrichs, Wieseler (Schriften der Univ. Kiel aus d. J. 1861, p. 42), Kurtz, and others, referred οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες likewise to the Christians,’ in that they found expressed the thought : for Christians there exists no other sacrifice than one of which τ is not permitted them to eat. They then suppose to be intended by οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες either, as Schlichting, “omnes in universum Christiani,” or, as Schulz, particular officers of the society, who conducted the Christian worship. But in the first case—apart from the fact that then, what would alone be natural, ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν would have been written instead of ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ NaTpevovtes—the Christians would, as Bleek has already justly observed, have been designated by a characteristic which could not possibly be predicated of them ; in the second, an anachronistic separation into clerics and laity would be imputed to the author, and the sense arising would be unsuitable, since the proposition, that the warrant for eating of the Christian sacrifice is wanting, could not possibly hold good of the clergy alone, but must have its application to Christians in general. By ἡ σκηνή can thus be understood nothing other than the earthly, Jewish sanctuary, as opposed to the ἀληθινή and τελειοτέρα σκηνή of Christians, vill. 2, ix. 11. The τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες, however, are not specially, as Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. Ὁ. 161), Alford, and others suppose, the Jewish priests (vill. 5), but the members of the Jewish covenant people universally (ix. 9, x. 2).—The θυσιαστήριον further is the altar, upon which the sacrifice of the New Covenant, 1. 50. also Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 457 ff.), who will have only the twofold fact to be accentuated at ver. 10: ‘‘that we are priests,” and ‘‘ that Wwe possess a means of expiation,” and brings out as the sense of the verse : ‘*that we, whose only propitiatory sacrifice, and one for all alike, is Christ, have no other profit from our means of expiation, than that we are reconciled.” (!) CHAP. XIII. 11, 12. 483 namely, the body of Christ (comp. ver. 12), has been pre- sented. Not “ipse Christus” (Piscator, Owen, Wolf; comp. Calvin), or the θυσία itself which has been presented (Lim- borch, Whitby, M‘Lean, Heinrichs, and others), nor yet the cultus (Grotius), can be denoted thereby. But likewise the explaining of the table of the Supper, the τράπεζα κυρίου, 1 Cor. x. 21, with Corn. a Lapide, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Bohme, Bahr (Stud. wu. Krit. 1849, H. 4, p. 938), Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, and others (comp. also Riickert, das Abendmahl. Sein Wesen und seine Geschichte in der alten Kirche, Leipz. 1856, pp. 242-246), is inadmissible. For then there would underlie our passage the conception that the body of the Lord is offered in the Supper, Christ’s sacrifice is thus one constantly re- peated ; but such conception is unbiblical, and in particular is remote from the thought of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which the presentation of the sacrifice of Christ once for all, and the all-sufficiency of this sacrifice by its one presentation, is frequently urged with emphasis; comp. vii. 27, ix. 12, 25 ff., x. 10. Exclusively correct is it, accordingly, to under- stand by the altar, with Thomas Aquinas, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Bengel, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Delitzsch, Riehm, lc, Alford, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Woerner, and others, the spot on which the Saviour offered Himself, 4.6. the cross of Christ. But to eat of this altar, ὁ. to partake of the sacrifice presented thereon, signifies: to attain to the enjoyment of the spiritual blessings resulting from Christ’s sacrificial death for believers ; the same thing as is represented, John vi. 51 ff, as the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ. On vv. 11-13, comp. Bihr in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 4, p. 936 ff. Vv. 11, 12. Proof for ver. 10. The proof lies in the fact that Christ’s sacrifice is one which has been presented without the camp, and consequently has been freed from all community with Judaism. Ver. 11 and ver. 12 are, as a proof of ver. 10, closely connected, and only in ver. 12 lies the main factor, whereas ver. 11 is related to the same as a merely preparatory and accessory thought (Bihr). For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest are burned without the camp; wherefore Jesus also, in order "484 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered without the gate. That is to say: The N. T. sacrifice of the covenant is typically prefigured by the great atoning sacrifice under the Old Covenant. Of the victims, however, which were devoted to the latter, neither the high priest nor any other member of the Jewish theocracy was permitted to eat anything. For of those animals only the blood was taken, in order to be brought by the high priest into the Most Holy Place as a propitiatory offering; the bodies of those animals, on the other hand, were burned without the camp or holy city (Lev. xvi. 27), wherein was contained the explanation in an act (comp. Bihr, l.c.), that they were cast out from the theo- cratic communion of Judaism. But thus, then, has Jesus also, in that He entered with His sacrificial blood into the heavenly Holy of Holies, made expiation for the sins of them that believe in Him; His sacrificial body, however, has, since He was led out of the camp, or beyond the gate of the holy city, in order to endure the infliction of death (comp. Lev. xxiv. 14 ; Num. xv. 35 f.; Deut. xvii. 5), declared by this act to be cast out from the Jewish covenant-people. Eat of His sacrificial body, 1.6. obtain part in the blessing procured by His sacrifice, can therefore no one who is still within the camp, 1.6. who still looks for salvation from the ordinances of Judaism. Con- sequently he who will eat of the altar of Christ must depart out of Judaism, and go forth unto Christ without the camp (ver. 18). ---- τὰ ἅγια] as ix. 8,12, 24, 25, x. 19, the Most Holy Place. — The tenses in the present mark the practice as one still continuing. — παρεμβολή] Characterization of the dwelling- place of the Jewish people at the time of the lawgiving, while it was still journeying through the wilderness and had tents for its habitation. The camp was the complex of the tents, enclosing the totality of the people together with the sanctuary. Thus there was combined with the idea of locality the religious reference to the people as one covenant-people, and “ without the camp” became equivalent in signification to “ without the bounds of the Old Covenant.” But, since afterwards the city of Jerusalem, with the temple in its midst, took the place of the παρεμβολή, the ἔξω τῆς πύλης standing in ver. 12, without the gate, sc. of the city of Jerusalem, says in effect CHAP. XIII. 13—15. A485 the same thing as ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς, vv. 11, 13. — διό] wherefore, 1.6. because the sacrificial death of Jesus has been prefigured by the type mentioned, ver. 11. — ἰδίου] opposition to the animal blood in the O. T. sacrifices of atonement. — τὸν λαόν] see at ii. 16, p. 132. — ἔπαθεν] comp. ix. 26. Ver. 13. Deduction from vv. 10-12, in the form of a summons: Let us then no longer seek salvation for ourselves within the bounds of Judaism, but come forth from the camp of the Old Covenant and betake ourselves to Christ, untroubled about the reproach which may fall upon us on that account. Theodoret: ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔξω τῆς κατὰ νόμον γενώμεθα πολιτείας. False, because opposed to all the con- nection, is it when Chrysostom 1, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus, Paraphr., Clarius, and others find in ver. 13 the exhortation to renounce the world and its delights; or Chry- sostom 2, Limborch, Heinrichs, Dindorf, Kuinoel, Bloomfield : willingly to follow the Lord into sufferings and death; or Schlichting, Grotius, Michaelis, Zachariae, Storr: willingly to submit to expulsion by the Jews from their towns and fellow- ship ; or Clericus: to forsake the city of Jerusalem on account of its impending destruction (Matt. xxiv.).— τοίνυν] as the commencement of a sentence only rare. Comp. LXX. Isa. πὶ. 10, v. 13, xxvii. 4, xxxili. 23 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 342 sq. — τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν αὐτοῦ] See at xi. 26. Ver. 14. Ground of encouragement to the φέρειν τὸν ὀνει- δισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ver. 13. — ἔχομεν] namely : we Christians. Not: we men in general. — ὧδε] here upon earth. Erroneously Heinrichs: in the earthly Jerusalem. — τὴν μέλλουσαν] 80. πόλιν: the city to come, which, namely, is an abiding one. Comp. xii. 22: Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουράνιος, and xi. 10: ἡ τοὺς θεμελίους ἔχουσα πόλις, ἧς τεχνίτης Kal δημιουργὸς ὁ Θεός. Rightly, for the rest, does Schlichting observe: Futuram autem civitatem hanc vocat, quia nobis futura est. Nam Deo, Christo, angelis jam praesens est. Ver. 15. Closing exhortation, through Christ, to offer to God sacrifices of praise. Deduced from vv. 8-14. — Δι αὐτοῦ] is with great emphasis preposed: through HIM (se. Christ), but not through the intervention of the Jewish sacrificial institution. Through Him, inasmuch as by the all- 486 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. sufficiency of His expiatory sacrifice once offered, He has qualified believers so to do. — θυσίαν αἰνέσεως) a praise- offering (ANN M31), thus a spiritual sacrifice, in opposition to the animal sacrifices of Judaism. — διὰ παντός] continually. For the blessings obtained through Christ are so abundant and inexhaustible, that God can never be sufficiently praised for them. — τουτέστιν καρπὸν χειλέων ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ] that is, fruit of lips which praise His name. FElucida- tion of the meaning in θυσίαν αἰνέσεως, in order further to bring into special relief the purely spiritual nature of this Christian thankoffering already indicated by those words. The expression καρπὸν χειλέων the author has derived from Hos. xiv. 3, LXX.: καὶ ἀνταποδώσομεν καρπὸν χειλέων ἡμῶν (in the Hebrew : 2 N5¥ OM mv, let us offer for oxen our own lips). For the thought, comp. Vajikra R. 9. 27, in Wetstein: R. Pinchas, R. Levi et R. Jochanam ex ore R. Menachem Galilaei dixerunt: Tempore futuro omnia sacrificia cessabunt, sacrificium vero laudis non cessabit. Omnes preces cessabunt, sed laudes non cessabunt. Philo, de Sacrificantibus, p. 849 E (with Mang. IIL. p. 253): τὴν ἀρίστην ἀνάγουσι θυσίαν, ὕμνοις καὶ εὐχαριστίαις τὸν εὐεργέτην καὶ σωτῆρα Θεὸν γεραίροντες. ---- The referring οἵ αὐτοῦ to Christ (so Sykes, who finds the sense: confessing ourselves publicly as the disciples of Christ) is unnatural, seeing that God has been expressly mentioned only just before as the One to whom the θυσία αἰνέσεως is to be presented. Ver. 16. Exhortation to beneficence. By means of δέ this verse attaches itself to the preceding, inasmuch as over against the Christianly devout mind which expresses itself in words, is placed the Christianly devout mind which manifests itself in deeds. — Τῆς δὲ εὐποιίας καὶ κοινωνίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε] Of well-doing, moreover (the substantive εὐποιΐα only here in the N. T.; εὖ ποιεῖν, Mark xiv. 7), and fellowship (1.6. com- munication of earthly possession, comp. Rom, xv. 26; 2 Cor. ix. 13), be not forgetful (ver. 2). — τοιαύταις yap θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ Θεός] for in such sacrifices God has pleasure. — τοιαύταις] refers back only to εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας, not like- wise to ver. 15 (Theophylact, Schlichting, Bengel, Bohme, Kuinoel, Hofmann, Woerner). — The formula evapectodpat CHAP, XIII. 17-19. 487 tive is elsewhere foreign to the N. T. as to the LXX.; with later Greek writers, however, not unusual. Ver. 17. Exhortation to obedience to the presidents of the assembly. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. — Πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγου- μένοις ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπείκετε] Obey your leaders, and yield to them. Bengel: Obedite in iis, quae praecipiunt vobis tanquam salutaria ; concedite, etiam ubi videntur plusculum postulare. The demand presupposes, for the rest, that the author knew the ἡγούμενοι as men like-minded with himself, who had kept themselves free from the hankering after defection. — αὐτοὶ yap ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν] for it is they who watch for your souls, for the salvation thereof.— ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες] as those who must give an account (of the same), sc. to God and the Lord at His return. — ἵνα] is the subse- quently introduced note of design to πείθεσθε καὶ ὑπείκετε. On that account, however, it is not permitted, with Grotius, Carpzov, and others, to enclose αὐτοὶ yap... ὑμῶν within a parenthesis ; because the subject-matter of the clause of design refers back to the subject-matter of the foregoing establishing clause. — μετὰ χαρᾶς] with joy, namely, over your docility. — τοῦτο] sc. τὸ ἀγρυπνεῖν. Erroneously do Owen, Whitby, Michaelis, M‘Lean, Heinrichs, Stuart, and others supplement TO λόγον ἀποδιδόναι. For the latter takes place only in the future, whereas the conjunctive of the present ποιῶσιν points to that which is already to be done in the present. — καὶ μὴ στενάζοντες] and without sighing, sc. over your intractableness. — ἀλυσιτελές] unprofitable, inasmuch as it will bring you no gain, but, on the contrary, will call down upon you the chastisement of God. A litotes. — τοῦτο] sc. τὸ στενάζειν. Vv. 18, 19. Summons to the readers to intercession on behalf of the author. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 25; 2 Thess. 111. 1; Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 19; Col. iv. 3.— περὶ ἡμῶν] The plural has reference exclusively to the author of the epistle. In addition to himself, to think of Timothy (Seb. Schmidt, a/.), or of the ἡγούμενοι spoken of ver. 17 (Carpzov, Kluge), or of the fellow-labourers in the gospel in the midst of the Gentile world, remote from the Hebrew Christians (Delitzsch, comp. also Alford), or of the companions in his vocation, with regard to whom it was to be made known that they wished 488 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. to be looked upon as joint-representatives of the subject- matter of the epistle (Hofmann), is arbitrary. For—apart from the fact that no mention has been made of Timothy until now, and that the presupposition that the author wished himself to be numbered among the ἡγούμενοι spoken of in ver. 17 is a wholly baseless one—the singular, which in ver. 19 without any qualification takes the place of the preceding plural, is in itself decisive against this view. For, even if perchance at ver. 19 the person of the writer had to be brought into special relief, out of a plurality of persons indicated at ver. 18, a distinguishing ἐγώ as addition to the simple παρακαλῷ could not have been wanting. — πειθόμεθα yap ὅτι K.7.r.] for we persuade ourselves, 1.06. we suppose or take it to be so (comp. Acts xxvi. 26), that’ we have a good conscience, since we endeavour in all things to walk in a praise- worthy manner. Indication of the reason on the ground of which the author believes he is entitled to claim an interest on the part of the readers, manifesting itself in intercession on his behalf. But in the fact that he regards such explana- tion as necessary, there is displayed the consciousness that the Palestinian Christians took umbrage at him and his Pauline character of teaching; to remove this umbrage is therefore the object of the justificatory clause. — ἐν πᾶσιν. belongs to that which follows, not still, as Oecumenius and Theophylact suppose, to ἔχομεν ; and πῶσιυν is not masculine (Chrysostom: οὐκ ἐν ἐθνικοῖς μόνον ἀλλὰ Kal ἐν ὑμῖν; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Er. Schmid, Tholuck, Hofmann, al.), but neuter. Ver. 19. Περισσοτέρως] is on account of its position more naturally referred to παρακαλῷ than, with Seb. Schmidt, Rambach, Bengel, and Hofmann, to ποιῆσαι. --- ἵνα τάχιον 1 Bengel, Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, and others take ¢7,—in reading the received πεποίθαμεν γάρ, and then supposing this to be put absolutely—as the causal **for” or ‘‘ because,” which, however, even supposing the correctness of the Recepta, is forced and unnatural. Yet more unsuitable, however, is it when Hofmann, even with the reading σπειθόμεθα, will have ὅτι taken causally. The sense is supposed to be: ‘‘if we believe that ye are praying for us, this has its ground in the fact that we have a good conscience.” But to derive the more precise indication of contents for the dependent σπειθόμεθα from that which pre- cedes, is altogether inadmissible, CHAP. XIII. 20, 21. 489 ἀποκατασταθῷ ὑμῖν] that I may the sooner be restored to you, may be in a position to return to you. There is to be inferred from these words, neither that the author, at the time of the composition of the epistle, was a prisoner (Euthalius, Calov, Braun, Bisping, and others), nor yet that he belonged, as member, to the congregation of those to whom he was writing (R. Kostlin in the Theol. Jahrb. of Baur and Zeller, 1853, H. 3, pp. 423, 427, and 1854, H. 3, pp. 369, 406). The former not, because the notice, ver. 23: μεθ᾽ οὗ, ἐὰν τάχιον ἔρχηται, ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς, shows beyond refutation that the writer at the time of the composition of the epistle was able to dispose freely of his own person. The latter not, because it is illogical to place the general notion of a “ being restored” to a community upon a level with the special notion of the “return of one who has been torn from his home.” Only two things follow from the words, namely (1) from the τάχιον, that the author was still prevented, in some way or other which had nothing to-do with his personal freedom, from quitting his temporary place of residence so quickly as he could wish; (2) from ἀποκατασταθῶ, that he had already, before this time, been personally present in the midst of his readers. Vv. 20, 21. A wish of blessing. Chrysostom: Πρῶτον παρ᾽ αὐτῶν αἰτήσας τὰς εὐχάς, τότε Kal αὐτὸς αὐτοῖς ἐπεύχεται πάντα τὰ ἀγαθά. ---- ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης] A designation of God very usual with Paul also. Its import may either be, as 1 Thess. v. 23 (see at that place): the God of salvation, Le. Ged, who bestows the Christian salvation; or, as Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20, Phil. iv. 9, 2 Cor. xiii. 11: the God of peace, Le. God, who produces peace. In favour of the first acceptation, which is defended by Schlichting, may be urged the tenor of the benediction itself, In favour of the latter acceptation decides, however, the connection of thought with ver. 18 ἢ For, since the closing half of ver. 18 betrayed the pre- supposition that the receivers of the epistle were biassed by prejudice against the person of the writer, there lies indicated in the fact, that in the following wish of blessing God is designated as the God who creates peace, the further idea, that He will also make peace between the readers and the 490 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. writer, 1.6. will bring the Christian convictions of the readers into harmony with that of the writer. So im substance Chrysostom (τοῦτο εἶπε διὰ τὸ στασιάζειν αὐτούς. Ei τοίνυν ὁ θεὸς εἰρήνης θεός ἐστι, μὴ διαστασιάξζετε πρὸς ἡμᾶς), Oecu- menius, Theophylact, Jac. Cuppellus, and others. Wrongly do Grotius, Bohme, de Wette, Bisping, and others derive the appellation “the God of peace” from the supposition that reference is made to the contentions which prevailed amongst the members of the congregation itself. For the assumption of a state in which the congregation was rent by internal dissensions, is one warranted neither by xii. 14 nor by anything else in the epistle.—o ἀναγαγὼν «.7..| Further characterizing of God as the God who, by the raising of Christ from the dead, has sanctioned and attested the redeem- ing work of the same. — ὁ ἀναγαγὼν ἐκ νεκρῶν] He who has brought up from the dead, 1.06. who has raised from death. Wrongly do Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Maier, Kluge, and Kurtz suppose that in ὁ ἀναγαγών is contained at the same time the exaltation into heaven. For, since ὁ ἀναγαγών does not stand absolutely, but has with it the addition ἐκ νεκρῶν, so must that idea also have been made evident by a special addition. There would thus have been written ὁ ἐκ νεκρῶν εἰς ὕψος ἀναγωγών, or something similar. Compare, too, Rom. x. 7, where in like manner, as is shown by ver. 9, by the Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν avayayev is denoted exclusively the resurrection of Christ, and not likewise His ascension. — τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν the exalted (comp. iv. 14) Shepherd of the sheep. For the figure, comp. John x. 11 ff; Matt. xxvi. 31; 1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 4 (ὁ ἀρχιποιμήν). Accord- ing to Theophylact, Bengel, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, Kurtz, Hofmann, and others, the author had in connection with this expression present to his mind LXX. Isa. lxiii. 10, where it is said in regard to Moses: ποῦ ὁ ἀναβιβάσας ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης τὸν ποιμένα τῶν TpoBdTwy,—a supposition which, considering the currency of the figure in the N. T,, may certainly be dispensed with. — ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης αἰωνίου) in virtue of the blood of an everlasting covenant, 1.6. in virtue of the shed blood of Christ, by which the New Covenant was sealed; comp. ix. 15 ff, x. 29. Oecumenius, CHAP, XIII. 20, 21. 491 Theophylact, Clarius, Calvin, Bengel, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Kluge, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner, and others conjoin these words with ὁ ἀναγαγών, but then again differ from each other in the determining of the sense. According to Bleek and Kurtz (similarly Bisping), the author intends to say: “God brought up Christ from the dead in the blood of the everlasting covenant; in such wise that He took, as it were, the shed blood with Him, in that He opened up to Himself by the same the entrance into the heavenly sanctuary, and it retained continually its power for the sealing of an everlasting covenant.” But this interpretation falls with the erroneous presupposition that ὁ ἀναγαγών includes in itself likewise the idea of the exaltation to heaven. According to Oecumenius 2, Theophylact 2, and Calvin, ἐν, on the other hand, stands as the equivalent in signification to σύν: who has raised Christ from the dead with the blood of the everlasting cove- nant, so that this blood retains everlasting virtue ; while Clarius (comp. the first interpretation in Oecumenius and Theophylact) understands the words as though εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἡμῖν εἰς διαθήκην αἰώνιον had been written, and Bengel, as likewise Hofmann, makes ἐν αἵματι the same as διὰ τὸ αἷμα (for the blood’s sake). But all these acceptations are lin- guistically untenable. Equally inadmissible is it to take ἐν, in this combination, instrumentally (Delitzsch, Kluge: “by means of, by the power of, by virtue of;” Alford: “through the blood”). For if one insists on the strict signification of the instrumental explanation, there arises a false thought, since the means by the application of which the miraculous act of the resurrection was accomplished is not the blood of Christ, but the omnipotence of God. If, however, we mingle the notion of mediately effecting with that of the meritorious cause, as is done by Delitzsch and Alford, inasmuch as the former dilutes the “kraft” (by virtue of) into “ virtute ac merito sanguinis ipsius in morte effusi,” the latter the “through” into “in virtue of the blood,” we come back to Bengel’s ungrammatical equalizing of ἐν αἵματι with διὰ τὸ αἷμα. Another class of expositors combine ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης αἰωνίου with the μέγαν immediately foregoing; either, as Sykes and Baumgarten, in taking τὸν μέγαν as a notion per 492 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. se; or, as Starck, Wolf, and Heinrichs, prolonging in connec- tion with it the idea of the shepherd. Nevertheless, it is most natural, with Beza, Estius, Grotius, Limborch, Schulz, Bohme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Stengel, Ebrard, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 601), Maier, Moll, and others, to regard ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης αἰωνίου as instrumental nearer definition to the total idea τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν ; in such wise that by the addition is indicated the means by which Christ became the exalted Shepherd, with whom no other shepherd may be placed upon a parallel. Comp. Acts xx. 28: προσέχετε... παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς TO πνεῦμα TO ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ idiov, — διαθήκης αἰωνίου] Comp. Jer. xxxii. 40, 1. 5; Isa. lv. 3, lxi. 8. Theodoret: Aléviov δὲ τὴν καινὴν κέκληκε διαθήκην, ὡς ἑτέρας μετὰ ταύτην οὐκ ἐσομένης" ἵνω γὰρ μή τις ὑπολάβῃ, καὶ ταύτην δι᾽ ἄλλης διαθήκης παυθήσεσθαι, εἰκότως αὐτῆς τὸ ἀτελεύτητον ἔδειξεν. Ver. 21. Karapricat ὑμᾶς ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ] cause that ye become ἄρτιοι, ready or perfect, in every good work, Oecumenius: πληρώσαι, TeXerwoat, That, for the rest, Katapticat is optative, and not, as Kurtz strangely supposes, imperative aorist middle, is self-evident.— εἰς τὸ ποιῆσαι]. Statement of the design, not of the effect (Schlichting and others): that ye may accomplish.—to θέλημα αὐτοῦ] His will, 1.0. that which is morally good and salutary. There is certainly comprehended under the expression the faithful continuance in Christianity.— ποιῶν ἐν ὑμῖν τὸ εὐάρεστον ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] working in you (wrongly Bohme: among you) that which ts well-pleasing in His sight, through Christ Jesus. Modal definition to καταρτίσαι. --- τὸ εὐάρεστον ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ] Comp. 2 Cor. v. 9; Rom. xii. 1, xiv. 18; Eph. v. 10; Phil. iv. 18.— διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] belongs neither to καταρτίσαι (Bloomfield) nor to τὸ εὐάρεστον ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (Grotius, Hammond, Michaelis, Storr, and others), but to ποιῶν. ---- ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας] 80. ἔστω. - ἡ δόξα] the glory due to Him.— The doxology is referred by Limborch, Wetstein, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Enrnesti, Delitzsch, Alford, Kluge, Woerner, and others, to God; and CHAP, XIII. 22. 493 in favour of this it may be urged that in the wish of bless- ing ὁ θεὸς forms the main subject. More correctly, however, shall we refer it, partly on account of the immediate joining of & to ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, partly on account of the design of the whole epistle, to warn the readers, who had become wavering in their faith in Christ, against relapse into Judaism, with Calvin, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Owen, Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, Stengel, Tholuck, Bisping, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Lebricrbr. p. 286), Maier, Moll, and the majority, to Christ. Ver. 22. Request for friendly reception of the epistle. — ἀνέχεσθε τοῦ λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως) bear with the word of the exhortation, grant it entrance with you, close not your hearts against it. Mistakenly do the Vulgate, Stein, and Kluge make παράκλησις here have the signification of “consolation.” Neither the verb ἀνέχεσθε nor the tenor of the epistle is in keeping therewith.—o λόγος τῆς παρα- κλήσεως} Comp. Acts xiii. 15. Not merely the admonitions scattered here and there in the epistle (Dindorf, Kuinoel) are to be understood under this expression; and just as little is merely chap. ΧΙ], (Semler), or the last specially hortatory sections, chap. x. 19-- χη]. (Grotius, Calov, and others), thought of in connection therewith. Rather is there intended by it, as also the following ἐπέστειλα proves, the epistle in its full extent. — καὶ yap διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα ὑμῖν] Argument for the reasonableness of the request on the ground of the brevity of the epistle: for I have also (i.e. apart from the fact that, by reason of your perilous wavering in the Christian faith, the admonishing of you was laid as a duty upon my conscience), as you see, written to you only with brief words. Theophylact: Τοσαῦτα εἰπών, ὅμως βραχέα ταῦτά φησιν, ὅσον πρὸς ἃ ἐπεθύμει λέγειν. Quite remote from the mean- ing is that sense which Kurtz would put upon the words: the readers were also to take into accownt the fact that the epistle has, owing to its brief compass, often assumed a harsher and severer form of expression, than would be the case in con- nection with a more detailed amplification and a more careful limitation. — διὰ βραχέων] of the same import as ou’ ὀλίγων, 1 Pet. v. 12. — ἐπιστέλλειν] in the signification “ to write a letter,’ elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts xv. 20, xxi. 25. 494 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Ver. 25. Communication of the intelligence that Timothy has been set free, and the promise, if the arrival of Timothy is not long delayed, in company with him to visit the readers. — γινώσκετε] is imperative (Peshito, Vulgate, Faber Stapulensis, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Junius, Owen, Bengel, Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, I. p. 278; Stein, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, Hofmann, Woerner, and others), not indicative (Vatablus, Nosselt, Opuse. 1. p. 256; Morus, Schulz, Bleek ad loc., and LHinl. in d. N. T., 3 Aufl. p. 583; de Wette, a/.). For, that the author would be obliged to communicate further details concerning the libera- tion of Timothy in the case that the readers had not yet known of it, cannot be maintained; while, on the other hand, upon the supposition of the indicative, the whole notice would become superfluous. — γινώσκετε ἀπολελυμένον) know as one released, 1.6. know that he has been released. Comp. Winer, Gramm. 7 Aufl. p. 324. Wrongly will Storr, Schleussner, Bretschneider, Paulus have γινώσκετε taken in the sense: hold in honour, or: receive with kindness, against which, equally as against the interpretation of Schulz: “ye know the brother Timothy, who has been set at liberty,” the non-repetition of the article τόν before the participle is in itself decisive. — ἀπολελυμένον] is to be understood of liberation from imprisonment. So Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact (all three, however, with hesitation), then Beza, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, Wolf, Bengel, Sykes, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, ‘Stengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, Hofmann, and others. Of an imprisonment of ‘Timothy nothing is known to us, it is true, from other sources, but the possibility of the same cannot be disputed. ‘The suppositions, that ἀπολελυμένον signifies: sent away to the Hebrews with our epistle (Theodoret, subscription of the .epistle in many cursives: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ ᾿Ιταλίας διὰ Tipo- ιθέου ; Faber Stapulensis, a/.), or: sent away somewhither, and consequently absent from the author (Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Carpzov, Stuart, and others), have the simple signification of the word against them. — ἐὰν τάχιον ἔρχηται) af he very speedily (earlier, sooner than I leave my present CHAP. XIII. 24, 25. 495 abode) comes to me (incorrectly Grotius, Heinrichs, Stuart, al.: returns). — ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς} Oecumenius: ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς. Ver. 24. Request for the delivering of salutations, together with the conveying of salutations to the readers. — πάντας τοὺς ἡγουμένους ὑμῶν Kal πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους) This designa- tion of persons has about it something surprising, since according to it the letter would have the appearance of being addressed neither to the presidents of the assembly, nor to the whole congregation, but to single members of the latter. Probably, however, the meaning of the author is only that those to whom the epistle is delivered, for reading to the congregation, should greet as well all the presidents as also all the other members of the congregation. — ot ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας] is not to be explained from the absorption of one local preposition into another; in such wise that it should stand for of ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιταλίᾳφ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, which is thought possible by Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 584. It signifies: those from Italy, te. Christians who have come out of Italy, and are now to be found in the surroundings of the writer. The general expression: of ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, seems to point to a compact number of persons already known to the readers. It is highly probable, therefore, that those referred to are Christians who, on the occasion of the Neronian persecution, had fled from Italy, and had settled down for the time being at the place of the authors present abode. The expression shows, moreover, that the epistle was written outside of Italy. See p. 13. Ver. 25. Concluding wish of blessing, entirely in accord with that of Tit. iii, 15. MORRISON AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE. υ δ! ΒΕ ΜΝ - ᾿ are ( + 5 - 3 = Ψ ' > Aime ‘ . . a ᾿ é Pet Les ‘ \ ‘ ᾽ Σ ὅ ματος 2 τάν Κν ΚΒ) 1 * εν it ΜΠ! ἊΝ ᾿ ‘ i] “τ \ -- ἈΦ: Ϊ 4 Ό ἧς. τς ἢ δ hed ‘, : Apr ie. © 7 ᾿ με νηόν. ᾿ πον δὴν . oats aig “Δ: ΓΝ a ᾿. : j -ν ᾿ ce ¥ (Prine ais Aiiliee: si ua us ως Fae . τὰ J ΣΦΙΝ a ee ΩΣ ΩΝ Ρ. ga ~ Ve? = a νι. oe ~~ ᾿ ἡ 101, as : - φου ἐνὼ eo a . ay oa ᾿ ee! Ἢ iN Ady ᾿ ὗ \ eae Ae ik 3 | ay hi We LEP is ἢ ΓῪΨ Ψ “Uy ΤῊ LBC Dee Pa ies Ut ἣν" ΠΝ ET AB Fan) ONTIRDS eee es Ἂ i Ny Ul) ἡ δ goo FL ihe am (Pak § se ὰ BS2344 .M613 19 c.2 Critical and so ma iene to the Princeton Theol A 2 00032 8718 148500_ mi 63-18-07 321 88 - 7 pe οἱ δὺς ΠΗ Peri gate een eye