Hebrews 10

Hebrews 10:1-99

Chap. 10:1-18. Solemn conclusion of the argument: 1. Christ’ s voluntary self-offering, as contrasted with the yearly offerings of victims under the law, is the carrying out of God’ s real will (vv. 1-10): 2. Christ’ s priestly service, in contrast to the daily repeated service of the priests of the law, is for ever perfected by one High-priestly act, which has issued in His Kingly exaltation and waiting till His foes be subdued under Him (vv. 11-14): 3. Christ’ s finished work is the inauguration of that new covenant before referred to, in which, the law being written on the heart, and sin put away and forgotten, there is no more need for sin-offering (vv. 15-18). And so, as Delitzsch observes, in this passage the leading thoughts of the whole argument are brought together in one grand finale, just as in the finale of a piece of music all the hitherto scattered elements are united in an effective whole.

1-10. See above.

1. For (γάρ connects with the whole passage ch. 9:24-28: hitherto has been shewn the impossibility of Christ’ s offering being repeated as were those of the law: now is to be shewn its absolute perfection as compared with those of the law) the law, having (as it has; the participle has a ratiocinative force, which passes on upon what follows) a shadow (or, ‘ the shadow,’ which in sense would be much the same. The putting forward of the word to the beginning of the sentence would render it anarthrous. I prefer, however, ‘ a shadow,’ because of the meaning of σκιάν , presently to be treated of: see below) of the good things to come (viz. the same good things of which, in ch. 9:11, Christ is said to be the High Priest,— which belong to the μέλλωναἰών of ch. 6:5, whose δυνάμεις are working in the present dispensation,— and to the completion of the οἰκουμένημέλλουσα of ch. 2:5: the good things which are still future to us as they were to those under the law, but are now made sure to us in and by Christ), not the very image of the things (every representation of μελλόντωνἀγαθῶν must be an εἰκών , whether it be in words, or in types, or in any other method of representation. The full description and entire revelation of the things thus designated will be αὐτὴἡεἰκὼντῶνπραγμάτων : which we possess in the gospel covenant: the very setting forth and form of the heavenly realities themselves. So that the gen. πραγμάτων is the ‘ genitivus substantiæ ,’ as in Colossians 3:10, τὸνἀνακαινούμενον … κατ ʼ εἰκόνατοῦκτίσαντοςαὐτόν , and Romans 8:29, συμμόρφουςτῆςεἰκόνοςτοῦυἱοῦ ,— ὁκτίσας in the one and ὁυἱὸςαὐτοῦ in the other, being and furnishing the εἰκών .

But the law had no such εἰκών constructed out of the heavenly realities themselves, “ ipsas res, certa sua forma et effigie præ ditas,” as Stier: it had merely σκιάν , merely a rough sketch or outline: so Chrys., not however to my mind entirely apprehending the identity of the εἰκών with the πράγματα which furnish it,— σκιὰν … τουτέστινοὐκαὐτὴντὴνἀλήθειαν . ἕωςμὲνγὰρἂνὡςἐνγραφῇπεριάγῃτιςτὰχρώματα , σκιάτιςἐστίν · ὅτανδὲτὸἄνθοςἐπαλείψῃτιςκαὶἐπιχρίσῃτὰχρώματα , τότεεἰκὼνγίνεται . See also Thdrt. and Œ c.), year by year with the same sacrifices (most Commentators assume some inversion of arrangement in constructing the words κατ ʼ ἐνιαυτόν : some (Calvin, Erasm.

Schmid, Wolf, Heinrichs, Bleek, De Wette, Stuart, al.) joining them with αἷςπροσφέρουσιν , others (Lü nem., al.) with ταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαις , others (Carpzov, al.) with τοὺςπροσερχομένους . But there is no need to disturb the plain order of the sentence, in which κατ ʼ ἐνιαυτόν belongs to all that follows, viz. to the verb, οὐδέποτεδύναται , with its instrumental clause, ταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαιςαἷςκ .τ .λ . And so Ebrard, Hofmann, and Delitzsch. “ This,” says Del., “ is more accordant with the sense of the Writer: for he does not say, that the law by means of the offerings which were always the same year by year never was able to perfect, &c.,— but that the law, year by year, by the repetition of the same offerings, testified its inability to perfect, &c., viz. on the day of atonement, on which the same expiatory offerings were always repeated, being necessary, not withstanding the many offerings brought throughout the year, and after which the same round of offerings again began anew.” It will be evident that ταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαις must refer, not to the daily offering, but to those of propitiation on the great day of atonement) which they (the ministering priests, not οἱπροσερχόμενοι , as Hofmann ii. 1. 314, which would be against all the terminology of the Epistle, in which προσφέρειν is without exception confined to priests. We have the same distinction as regards the προσερχόμενοι in ch. 7:25) offer continually never (not even at any time) is able to perfect (see on ref., where I have entered into the meanings of τελειοῦν in our Epistle) those who draw near (to God, by means of them. Tholuck well remarks that this threefold κατ ʼ ἐνιαυτόν , ταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαις , εἰςτὸδιηνεκές , graphically sets forth the ever recurring cycle of the yearly sacrifices for sin).

2. For (if it were so, if the law were able to perfect the worshippers) would they not have ceased being offered, on account of the worshippers (the servers in the service of the tabernacle, used here in a wide sense, including priests and people) having no longer any conscience of sins (for construction, see reff.: = guilt of sin on the conscience, consciousness of the guilt of sin), if once (for all) purified?

That this sentence is to be read ἐπεὶοὐκἄν , and as a question, is pretty universally agreed.

Some, as Thdrt. , D-lat. , Beza , Whitby, Valcknaer, read οὐκ , and yet no question; understanding, “ for then they would not have ceased to be offered,” viz. on the coming in of the N. T. dispensation. But this is surely hardly worth refutation. The rec. not reading οὐκ , might indeed be well thus rendered, “ for in that case they would have ceased to be offered.” But then ἀλλά comes in awkwardly, which, when as here without any emphasis, more naturally follows a negative sentence. The taking our verse interrogatively is as old as Œ c.: ἐπεὶοὐκἂνἐπαύσαντοκατ ʼ ἐρώτησινἀνάγνωθι . So also Thl.

3. Which cessation is far from being the case, as is the having no more conscience of sin:— But (on the contrary: ἀλλά opposes the whole question of ver. 2, in both its clauses) in them (the sacrifices: not in the fact of their being offered, but in the course of their being offered on the day of atonement, see below) there is a recollection θυσίανἀναμιμνήσκουσανἁμαρτίαν : De Victim. 7, vol. ii. p. 244, εὔηθεςγάρ , τὰςθυσίαςμὴλήθηνἁμαρτημάτων , ἀλλ ʼ ὑπόμνησιναὐτῶνκατασκευάζειν : and Vita Mos. iii. 10, p. 151, εἰμὲνγὰρἀγνώμωνκαὶἄδικος , ἄθυτοιθυσίαι , καὶἀνίεροιἱερουργίαι , καὶεὐχαὶπαλίμφημοι , παντελῆφθοραὶἐνδεχόμεναι . καὶγὰρὁπότεγίνεσθαιδοκοῦσιν , οὐλύσινἁμαρτημάτων , ἀλλ ʼ ὑπόμνησινἀργάζονται ) of sins year by year:

4. And that on account of inherent defect in the sacrifices themselves: for it is impossible, that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin (the Writer by no means denies the typical virtue of the O. T. sacrifices, but asserts that which the schoolmen explained by saying that they wrought remission of sin not ‘ propria virtute,’ but ‘ per accidens,’ viz. by means of the grace of the true Propitiation which was to come, and of faith directed to it. And thus only is it said, Leviticus 17:11, that the blood upon the altar makes an atonement for the soul: it was shed, as Ebrard well observes, not as the instrument of complete vicarious propitiation, but as an exhibition of the postulate of vicarious propitiation).

5-10. Christ’ s voluntary self-offering shewn to be the perfect fulfilment of the will of God.

5. Wherefore (seeing that the animal sacrifices of the O. T. had no power to take away sin, and that for that end a nobler sacrifice was wanting) coming into the world he saith , Sacrifice (of slain animals) and offering (of any kind: see reff.) thou wouldest not (similar declarations are found frequently in the O. T., and mostly in the Prophets: see Psalms 50:7-15; Psalms 51:16 f.: Isaiah 1:11: Jeremiah 6:20; Jeremiah 7:21-23: Hosea 6:6: Amos 5:21 ff.: Micah 6:6-8), but a body didst thou prepare for me (א ָ ז ְ נ ַ י ִ ם כ ּ ָ ר ִ י ת ָ ל ּ ִ י , “ mine ears hast thou opened,” “ fodisti,” “ concavas reddidisti,” i. e. to hear and obey Thee. The idea of there being any allusion to the custom of boring through the ear of a slave who voluntarily remained subject to his master, Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 15:17, seems to be a mistake. Neither the verb כ ּ ָ ר ָ ה , nor the plural substantive א ָ ז ְ נ ַ י ִ ם , will bear it without forcing: in Exod. l. c., the subst. is singular, and the verb is ר ָ צ ַ ע .

See Bleek, vol. ii. p. 633, note. The difficulty is, how such a clause can be rendered by σῶμακατηρτίσωμοι , as it is in the LXX. Some (e. g. Bleek, Lü nem., after Usher de LXX Int. Vers. p. 85 sq., Semler, Michaelis, Ernesti, al.) have supposed a misreading, owing to the last letter of the foregoing word ἠθέλησαΣ preceding ΩΤΙΑ , the ΤΙ being mistaken for M. The reading ὠτία is now found only in one ms. of the LXX (Holmes, 39), ὦτα in two (Holmes, 142, 156): it is the rendering of Theodotion, of the Quinta and Sexta in Origen, of Jerome , of Eusebius , of the Psalterium San-Germanense , and Irenæ us (Interp. iv. 17. 1, p. 248), which two last Delitzsch suspects, but apparently without ground, of being corrections from the vulgate. Over against this hypothesis, of the present LXX text having sprung from a misreading, we may set the idea that the LXX have chosen this expression σῶμακατηρτίσωμοι by which to render the Hebrew, as being more inteligible to the reader.

This is the hypothesis adopted by Delitzsch, and that which was maintained with slight variation by Jac. Cappellus , Wolf , Carpzov, Tholuck, Ebrard, al. Others again suppose that the Writer of this Epistle has altered the expression to suit better the prophetical purpose. So an old Scholiast in the Lond. edn. of the LXX, 1653: τὸὠτίαδὲκατηρτίσωμοιὁμακάριοςΠαῦλοςεἰςτὸσῶμαμεταβαλὼνεἴρηκεν , οὐκἀγνοῶντὸἙβραϊκόν , ἀλλὰπρὸςτὸνοἰκεῖονσκοπὸντούτῳχρησάμενος . I would leave the difficulty an unsolved one, not being satisfied by either of the above views, and having no other to propound. As Christian believers, our course is plain. How the word σῶμα came into the LXX, we cannot say: but being there, it is now sanctioned for us by the citation here: not as the, or even a proper rendering of the Hebrew, but as a prophetic utterance, equivalent to and representing that other):

6. whole burnt-offerings (ὁλοκαύτωμα , a subst. from the Alexandrine form ὁλοκαυτόω (-τέω . in Xenoph. Cyr. viii. 3. 11: Anab. vii. 8. 3 al.), is the ordinary LXX rendering for the Heb. ע ו ֹ ל ָ ה , an offering of a whole animal to be burnt on the altar. See Winer, Realw. art. Brandopfer) and (sacrifices) for sin (in the LXX also we have the same ellipsis: see reff.) thou didst not approve (it is probable that our Writer had εὐδοκήσας in his ms. of the LXX. He repeats it again below; and Cyr.-alex., even where he expressly cites the Psalm, has it. Possibly it may have come in here from the similarity to Psalms 50:16 (18), ὁλοκαυτώματαοὐκεὐδοκήσεις : it is also possible, as Bl. suggests, that our Writer may have used the word, as a stronger one than ᾔτησας or ἐζήτησας , with reference to that well-known passage. The construction of εὐδοκέω with an accus. is not unfrequent in the LXX and Hellenistic Greek: see reff. εὐδοκεῖντινι or ἔντινι is more usual: Polyb. uses both):

7. then I said (viz. when Thou hadst prepared a body for me), Behold, I am come, in the volume of the book it is written concerning me, to do, O God, thy will .

8. The Writer now proceeds to expound the prophecy; and in so doing, cites it again, but in a freer form, and one accommodated to the explanation which he gives. Saying (as he does) above , that (mere particle of recitation: cf. reff.) sacrifices and offerings, and whole burnt-offerings, and sacrifices concerning sin thou wouldest not, nor yet didst approve (observe that the two distinct clauses of the previous citation are now combined, for the sake of throwing into contrast the rejection of legal sacrifices and the acceptable self-sacrifice of the Son of God), of such sort as (αἵτινες does not, like the simple relative αἵ , identify, but classifies, the antecedent) are (habitually) offered according to (in pursuance of the commands of) the law,—

9. then (more logical than chronological; but used probably in allusion to that τότε above, in the passage itself), hath he said, Behold I am come to do thy will. He (Christ again) taketh away the first, that he may set up (establish, see reff.) the second (ποῖόνἐστιτὸπρῶτον ; αἱθυσίαι . ποῖοντὸδεύτερον ; τὸθέληματοῦπατρός . Thl. It is a mistake to understand with Peirce, θέλημα after πρῶτον and δεύτερον : the contrast is between that which God wills not, and that which He wills. This is very plain both on other grounds, and on account of the ἐνᾧθελήματι in the next verse).

10. In (the course of, the fulfilment of: not properly “ by,” which belongs more to the διὰ below) which will , Schö ttgen, and Carpzov. But clearly this cannot be so) we have been sanctified (see on the word ἁγιάζω , and on the use of the present and past passive participles of it, note on ch. 2:11. Here the perfect part. is used, inasmuch as it is the finished work of Christ in its potentiality, not the process of it on us, which is spoken of: see ver. 14, τετελείωκενεἰςτὸδιηνεκὲςτοὺςἁγιαζομένους : which final completion is here indicated by the perfect part.) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all , Schlichting, Jac. Cappell., Limborch, Stein, al., and against Bleek, Lü nem., Hofm., Delitzsch, and most of the best Commentators).

11-14. See summary at ver. 1.

11. And every high priest standeth (see reff. No priest nor other person might sit in the inner court of the temple, except the king. There is perhaps more than a fortuitous contrast to ἐκάθισεν below. So Œ c. and Thl., aft. Chrys.: ἄρατὸἑστάναισημεῖόνἐστιτοῦλειτουργεῖν , τὸδὲκαθῆσθαι , ὥσπερὁχριστὸςἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτοῦπατρός , σημεῖόνἐστιτοῦλειτουργεῖσθαιοἷαθεὸνὄντα . The vulgate rendering, “ præ sto est,” is clearly wrong) day by day ministering (see note, ch. 8:2), and (καί brings out that in the λειτουργία , which the Writer wishes most to emphasize) often offering the same sacrifices, the which (i. e. of a sort which, such as) can never take away (lit. ‘ strip off all round:’ so of a ring, Genesis 41:42: Esther 3:10: Jos.

Antt. xix. 2. 3: Æ lian V. H. i. 21: Herod. iii. 41: of clothes from the body, Genesis 38:14: Deuteronomy 21:13: Jonah 3:6: 2 Macc. 4:38. See reff.: and many more examples in Bleek. And such a word is peculiarly fitting to express the removal of that of which it is said, ch. 5:2, αὐτὸςπερίκειταιἀσθένειαν , and which is called, ch. 12:1, ἡεὐπερίστατοςἁμαρτία . The sacrifice might bring sense of partial forgiveness: but it could never denude the offerer of sinfulness— strip off and take away his guilt) sins:

12. but He (‘ this (man),’ or, (priest): but such rendering should be avoided if possible, as should all renderings which import a new generic idea into the text, as always causing confusion: cf. for a notable example, 1 Corinthians 2:11 end in E. V.) having offered one sacrifice for sins (on the punctuation, see below) for ever (εἰςτὸδιηνεκές may be joined either with the preceding or with the following words. If with the preceding, as Thl. (θυσίαν … εἰςτὸδ . ἀρκοῦσανἡμῖν , and so Œ c.), Luther, Castellio, Beza b, Chr. F. Schmid, Bengel, Bö hme, Stein, al., we observe the usage of the Epistle, which is to place εἰςτὸδιηνεκές after that which it qualifies (reff.): we have μίαθυσίαεἰςτὸδιηνεκές opposed to τὰςαὐτὰςθυσίαςπολλάκις ; and we keep the propriety of the sense, according to what follows, τὸλοιπὸνἐκδεχόμενοςἕωςκ .τ .λ ., and according to 1 Corinthians 15:28, where we are expressly told, that the session of our triumphant Saviour will have its end as such. If we join the words with the following, as Syr., D-lat., Faber Stap., Erasm., Calvin, Schlichting, Grot., Wolf, al., Schulz, De Wette, Bleek, Lü nem., Ebrard, Hofmann, Delitzsch, al., we more thoroughly satisfy the construction, in which εἰςτὸδιηνεκές seems to refer better to an enduring state than to a past act, or at all events not to this last without a harsh ellipsis, “ having offered one sacrifice (the virtue of which will endure) for ever:” we preserve the contrast between ἕστηκενκαθ ʼ ἡμέραν and εἰςτὸδιηνεκὲςἐκάθισεν : we preserve also the balance between the clauses ending προσφέρωνθυσίας , and προσενέγκαςθυσίαν : and we are in full accordance with the ἱερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνα so often insisted on.

And to this latter arrangement I incline, not however laying it down as certain. The objection taken above, as to the change in the nature of Christ’ s session at the end, when all things shall have been put under His feet, may be met by saying that such change, being obviously included in His ultimate state of reception into God’ s presence in heaven, does not here count as a change, where the question is of renewal of sacrifice, with regard to which that session is eternal) sat down on the right hand of God,

13. henceforth waiting (this sense of ἐκδέχομαι is said to belong exclusively to later Greek: but not altogether accurately, cf. Soph. Phil. 123, κεῖνονἐνθάδ ʼ ἐκδέχου . It is, however, much more frequent in the later classics. We have ἐκδέχ . ἕωςἄν in Dion. Hal. vi. 67) until his enemies be placed as footstool of his feet (the ἕως construction is adopted for the sake of preserving the words of Psa 110:1.

I cannot see how Bleek and Lü nem. can find any real discrepancy between this passage and 1 Corinthians 15:23-26. If this seems to date the subjection of all to Christ before the second advent, and that places it after the same event, we may well say, that the second advent is not here taken into account by the Writer, whose object is the contrast between the suffering and triumphant Christ, as it is by St. Paul, who is specially giving an account of the resurrection which is so inseparably bound up with that παρουσία . The second advent is no break in Christ’ s waiting till his enemies be subdued to him, but it is the last step but one of that subjection; the last of all being the subjection of Himself, and his mystical body with him, to Him that did put all things under him. For among the enemies are His own elect, who were enemies: and they are not thoroughly subject to Him, till He with them is subject to the Father, the mediatorial veil being withdrawn, and the One God being all in all).

14. And He need not renew his sacrifice: For by one offering (we might read also μίαγὰρπροσφορά , nominative: and Bengel prefers this, from the fact that in ver. 11 the sacrifices are the subject, αἵτινεςοὐδέποτεδύνανταικ .τ .λ . But here more probably Christ is the subject throughout, and therefore the dative is better: there being no relative to connect with θυσίαν , as there) He hath perfected for ever them who are being sanctified (“ The Writer says not τοὺςτελειωμένους , but τοὺςἁγιαζομένους . Sanctification, i. e. the imputed and implanted purification from sins (for both these are alike contained in the idea), is the way whereby the objective perfection already provided in the self-sacrifice of Christ gradually renders itself subjective in men.” Delitzsch).

15-18. See summary at ver. 1. The prophetic word testifies the same, making absolute and final forgiveness of sins a characteristic of the new covenant.

15. Moreover the Holy Spirit also testifies to us (Christians in general: and ἡμῖν is the dat. commodi, μαρτυρεῖ being used absolutely— testifies the fact which I am maintaining. Raphel, Wolf, al. regard ἡμῖν as signifying merely the Writer, and take the dat. as in Polyb. xviii. 11. 8, μαρτυρεῖδὲτοῖςἡμετέροιςλόγοις … τὸτέλοςτοῦπολέμου : but the other is far better): for after having said (then the citation proceeds much as in ch. 8:10 ff. with some differences, noticed below. On the common points, see notes there),

16. This is the covenant which I will make with them (in ch. 8:10, τῷοἴκῳἸσραήλ . Here the prophecy is taken out of its national limits and universalized) after those days, saith the Lord: giving my laws into their hearts , and on their mind (ἐπὶκαρδίας , ch. 8:10) will I in scribe them:—

17. Now comes the apodosis of the μετὰγὰρτὸεἰρηκέναι , then,— καὶἔσομαιαὐτοῖςεἰςθεὸνκ .τ .λ ., and καὶοὐμὴδιδάξωσινκ .τ .λ ., ch. 8:10, 11, being omitted (see below), he further says: and their sins and their transgressions will I remember no more (it has been generally held since Beza and Camerarius, that the apodosis is introduced by λέγεικύριος , all that follows belonging to it. The reason for this, alleged by the later Commentators, is, the harshness of understanding ὕστερονλέγει , or the like, inserted in some unimportant mss. at the beginning of ver. 17, as inconsistent with the concinnity of our Writer’ s style. But as against this objection, may fairly be alleged the still greater harshness of breaking διαθήσομαι from its qualifying διδούς , and the improbability that the words λέγεικύριος , which occur in the passage cited, should be taken by the Writer as his own. But still more cogent reasons for making the apodosis begin at ver. 17 are, 1. that there the εἰρημένον ends, not at λέγεικύριος : there a hiatus in the citation occurs, and the Writer first passes on to that which is said after: 2. that ver. 17 itself carries the whole burden of the citation with it. This is the object of the citation, to prove that there needs no more sacrifice for sins.

And the previous portion of it is adduced to shew that this, τῶνἁμαρτ . αὐτ . κ . τῶνἀνομ . αὐτ . οὐμὴμνησθήσομαιἔτι , does form an integral part of the prophecy of the introduction of the new and spiritual covenant. So that both construction and sense are troubled by the modern idea of breaking at λέγεικύριος . With regard to any supposed harshness in the ellipsis at ver. 17, I may remark that our Writer frequently uses καί in a kindred sense, as adducing new quotations: see ch. 1:5; 2:13 bis; 4:5; ver. 30. The break at ver. 17 is adopted by several cursive mss. (see Scholz), by Primasius, Clarius, Zeger, Schlichting, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Limborch, Carpzov, Heinrichs, Stuart, al.: the other, at λέγεικύριος , by Beza, Camer., al., and almost all the recent Commentators).

18. But (or, ‘ now:’ it is the ‘ but’ of the demonstration, referring to a well-known axiomatic fact as contrasting with the contrary hypothesis) where there is remission of these, there is no longer offering concerning sin.

“ Here ends the finale (10:1-18) of the great tripartite arrangement (7:1-25; 7:26-9:12; 9:13-10:18) of the middle portion of the Epistle. ‘ Christ a High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek,’ this was its great theme, now brought to a conclusion. That the Priesthood of Christ, as Melchisedekite, is as high above the Levitical as God’ s heaven is above the earth,— that Christ, with His One High-priestly self-sacrifice, has accomplished that which the Levitical priesthood with its sacrifices was unable to accomplish,— that henceforth, both our present possession of salvation, and our future completion of salvation, are as certain to us as that He is with God, ruling as a priest and reigning as a king, once more to appear, no more as a bearer of our sins, but in glory as a Judge;— these are the three great fundamental thoughts, now brought to their full development. What it is, to be a High Priest after the order of Melchisedek and not of Aaron, is set forth, ch. 7:1-25. That Christ however as High Priest is Aaron’ s antitype, ruling in the true holy place by virtue of His self-sacrifice here on earth,— and Mediator of a better covenant, whose essential character the old covenant only shadowed forth and typified, we learn, 7:26-9:12. And that the self-sacrifice of Christ, offered through the eternal Spirit, is of everlasting power, as contrasted with the unavailing cycle of legal offerings, is established in the third part, 9:13-10:18: the second half of this portion, 10:1-18, being devoted to a reiterated and conclusive treatment of the main position of the whole,— the High-priesthood of Christ, grounded on His offering of Himself,— its Kingly character, its eternal accomplishment of its end, confirmed by Psa_40, Psa_110, Jer_31” Delitzsch.

19-13:25. The third great division of the Epistle: Our duty in the interval of waiting between the beginning and accomplishment of our salvation. And herein, 10:19-39, exhortation to enter boldly into the holiest place, 19-22: to hold fast our profession, 23: to stir up one another, 24, 25: in consideration of the fearful punishment which awaits the rejecters of Christ, 26-31: and in remembrance of the previous sufferings which they underwent when first converted, 32-34. Finally, exhortation not to cast away confidence, for the time until His coming is short, and during that time, faith is the life of the soul.

There has been no exhortation, properly speaking, since ch. 7:1, i. e. during the great doctrinal argument of the Epistle. Before that, argument and exhortation were rapidly alternated. But so exquisite is the skill of arrangement and development, that the very exhortation with which he closed the former portion of the Epistle where first he began to prepare the way for his great argument, ch. 4:14-16, is now resumed, deepened indeed and expanded by the intervening demonstration, but in spirit and substance the same: προσερχώμεθαμετ ʼ ἀληθινῆςκαρδίαςἐνπληροφρίᾳπίστεως here, answering to προσερχώμεθαμετὰπαῤῥησίαςτῷθρόνῳτῆςχάριτος there, and κατέχωμεντὴνὁμολογίαν here to κρατῶμεντῆςὁμολογίας there.

19. Having therefore (as above proved: οὖν collects and infers), brethren (see on ch. 3:1), confidence (see on ch. 3:6 παῤῥησία here as well as there is not justification, right (ἐξουσίαν Hesych.) to enter, but purely subjective, confidence, boldness) as regards the (our, see below) entering into the holy places in the blood of Jesus (the ἐν introduces that wherein the confidence is grounded: cf. ref., ἐνᾧἔχομεντὴνπαῤῥησίανκαὶ [τὴν ] προσαγωγήν . He having once entered in with His blood as our High Priest, and thereby all atonement and propitiation having been for ever accomplished, it is in that blood that our boldness to enter in is grounded. To understand ἐν , with Bleek and Stier, as in ch. 9:25, εἰσέρχεταιεἰςτὰἅγια … ἐναἵματιἀλλοτρίῳ , is in fact to make us, as priests, renew Christ’ s offering of Himself. “ We enter,” says Stier, “ with the blood of Jesus, even with the same, wherewith He entered before us:” which is very like a contradiction in terms, and is at all events inaccurate theology. We do not take the blood of Christ with us into the presence of God: it is there already once for all, and our confidence of access is therein grounded, that it is there. See note on ch. 12:24),

20. which (entrance: so Œ c. (below), Thl. (below), and most Commentators. Some, as Est., Erasm., Calv., Beza, refer the relative to αἵματι , making it attracted into the fem. by ὁδόν . Some again, as Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, al., and D-lat., refer it to παῤῥησίαν . The vulg., “ quam initiavit nobis viam novam,” will bear either) He initiated (first opened: better than E. V., “ consecrated,” which seems as if it existed before: so Œ c., ἢνεἴσοδοντῶνἁγίωννῦννεωστὶἔτεμε : and Thl., ἥντιναεἴσοδοντῶνἁγίωναὐτὸςἡμῖνὁδὸνἐνεκαίνισε , τουτέστινέανὁδὸνἐποίησεν , αὐτὸςταύτηςἀρξάμενος , καὶαὐτὸςταύτηνβαδίσαςπρῶτος .

On the word, see note, ch. 9:18) for us (as) a way recent (ὡςτότεπρῶτονφανεῖσαν , Thdrt.: cf. Romans 16:25, Romans 16:26, μυστηρίουχρόνοιςαἰωνίοιςσεσιγημένου , φανερωθέντοςδὲνῦνκ .τ .λ ., and ch. 9:26. “ On the use of πρόσφατος , see esp.

Wetst. h.l. and Lobeck on Phryn. p. 374 f. The original meaning is ‘ slain before,’ from πρό and σφάζω or σφάττω ; and thus, just before, recently, slain or killed: so Il. ω . 757. According to usage, it means ‘ fresh,’ recens, in contrast to παλαιός , old or antiquated: and is used not only of recently slain meat (Hippocr.), or a fresh corpse, νεκρὸςπρόσφατος (Herod. ii. 89, 121), but also ἰχθύς , αἷμα , πόμα , σταφυλή (Dioscorid. v. 12: Numbers 6:3), ἄλφιτον , φῦκος , ἄνθος , ἔλαιον , ἕλκος , χιών (Polyb. iii. 55. 1), μάρτυρες (Aristot. Rhet. i. 15), νίκη (Plutarch), ἀτύχημα (Polyb. i. 21. 9), εὐεργεσίαι (id. ii. 46. 1), δίκαι (Æ schyl. Choeph. 800), ὀργή (Lys. p. 151. 5: Jos. Antt. i. 18. 3), φθόνος (Plut.

Themistocl. p. 124 a), Demosth. p. 551. 15, ἕκαστος , ἄντισυμβῇ , πρόσφατοςκρίνεται (see also reff.): and Ecclesiastes 1:9, οὐκἔστιπᾶνπρόσφατονὑπὸτὸνἥλιον .” Bleek. Others, as Passow, derive the word from πρό , and φένω .

But πρόσφατος has not, as Ebrard would make it, the meaning of “ ever fresh:” only that of new, ‘ of late origin.’ “ None before Him trod this way: no believer under the O. T. dared or could, though under a dispensation of preparatory grace, approach God so freely and openly, so fearlessly and joyfully, so closely and intimately, as we now, who come to the Father by the blood of Jesus, His Son.” Stier) and living through the veil, that is, his flesh (on καταπέτασμα , see note, ch. 6:19. The Flesh of Christ is here spoken of as the veil hung before the holiest place; that weak human mortal flesh was the state through which He had to pass before He could enter the holiest in heaven for us, and when He put off that flesh, the actual veil in the temple was rent from top to bottom, Matthew 27:51.

And so in the main, the great body of interpreters: the Greek Commentators however, not quite accurately: e. g. Chrys., ἡγὰρσὰρξαὕτηἔτεμεπρώτητὴνὁδὸναὐτῷἐκείνην , ἣνκαὶἐγκαινίσαιλέγει , τῷκαὶαὐτὸςἀξιῶσαιδιὰταύτηςβαδίσαι · καταπέτασμαδὲεἰκότωςἐκάλεσετὴνσάρκα · ὅτεγὰρᾐρέθηεἰςὕψος , τότεἐφάνητὰἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς . And similarly Thl. and Œ c., the latter however giving an alternative, καὶὅτιἔκρυπτενἐνἑαυτῇτὴνθεότητα · καὶτοῦτογὰρἴδιονκαταπετάσματος . Thdrt. understands it of the body of the Lord partaken in the Holy Communion: no less strangely than erroneously: for it is not the Body, but the Flesh of Christ which is the veil: and what our Writer means by that expression is evident from ch. 5:7, where ἐνταῖςἡμέραιςτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ points to the time of His suffering Humanity),—

21. and (‘ having:’ τὸἔχοντεςἀπὸκοινοῦ , Œ c.) a great Priest (i. e. a great High Priest; but here his Priesthood, not his High-priesthood, is more brought into prominence. Do not suppose that μέγαςἱερεύς imports ‘ High Priest,’ as ὁἱερεὺςὁμέγας in the LXX and Philo: our Writer always uses ἀρχιερεύς for it, and in ch. 4:14, calls our Lord ἀρχιερέαμέγαν . He is ἱερεὺςμέγας , because He is a Priest on his throne, a “ sacerdos regius et rex sacerdotalis,” as Delitzsch quotes from Seb. Schmidt) over the house of God (this substitution of the preposition of motion for that of rest, is indicative of a later phase of a language, and requires the supplying of τεταγμένον , or some similar word, to make it good Greek: so Ξενοκλέαἔταξενἐπὶτοὺςἱππεῖς , Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 19. The οἶκοςθεοῦ here need not be more limited in meaning than in the similar passage ch. 3:2: οἶκονδὲθεοῦτοὺςπιστοὺςπροσηγόρευσεν , Thdrt., Œ c., Estius, al.

But it is alleged that the expression here must mean the heaven: Thl. having mentioned the other, says, ἤ , ὅπεροἶμαιμᾶλλον , τὸνοὐρανόν · ἐκεῖνονγὰρκαὶἅγιακαλεῖ , καὶἐνἐκείνῳλειτουργεῖντὸνἱερέαλέγει , ὑπὲρἡμῶνἐντυγχάνοντα : and so many Commentators. But Delitzsch well observes that the one meaning, the narrower, need not exclude the other, the wider. It is hardly probable, to begin with, that our Writer should in two places describe Christ as set ἐπὶτὸνοἶκοντοῦθεοῦ , in meanings entirely different from each other. Clearly, the heavenly sanctuary is regarded by him as also including the earthly, the Church above as the home of the Church below: see ch. 12:22 ff.),

22. let us approach (προσέρχεσθαι , see ref., = ἐγγίζειντῷθεῷ ch. 7:19, and is a word belonging to worship. So that the participial clauses which follow are best regarded as both belonging to προσερχώμεθα , since they also describe requisite preparations for worship: see this further treated below, on ver. 23) with a true heart in full assurance (πληροφορία , subjective, as in ch. 6:11: see note there) of faith (with no doubt as to the certainty of our access to God by the blood of Jesus), having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (a conscience polluted with the guilt of sin: for “ if a man’ s practice be bad, his conscience, in so far as it is the consciousness of that practice, is πονηρά :” see Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, p. 163) and having our body washed with pure water (both these clauses refer to the legal purifications of the Levitical priests, which took place by means of blood and water. At their first dedication, Aaron and his sons were sprinkled with blood, their bodies and their clothes, Exodus 29:21: Leviticus 8:30. And so are we to be as God’ s priests, having access to Him, sprinkled with blood, not outwardly with that of the ram of consecration, but inwardly with that of the Lamb of God: the first could only produce καθαρότητατῆςσαρκός (ch. 9:13), but the second, pureness of heart and conscience in God’ s sight. The washing with water also (Exodus 29:4) was to be part of the cleansing of Aaron and his sons: nor only so, but as often as they entered the holy place or approached the altar, they were to wash their hands and feet in the brazen laver, Exodus 30:20; Exodus 40:30-32: and the high priest, on the day of atonement, λούσεταιὕδατιπᾶντὸσῶμααὐτοῦ , Leviticus 16:4. There can be no reasonable doubt that this clause refers directly to Christian baptism. The λουτρὸντοῦὕδατος of Ephesians 5:26, and the λουτρὸνπαλιγγενεσίας , Titus 3:5, are analogous expressions: and the express mention of σῶμα here, as distinguished from καρδίας before, stamps this interpretation with certainty.

This distinction makes it impossible, with Calvin, Limborch, Owen, Bengel, Ebrard, and the old Socinians, Schlichting, al., to spiritualize away the meaning into “ Christi spiritus et doctrina, seu spiritualis illa aqua, qua suos perfundit Christus, ipsius etiam sanguine non excluso” (Schlichting); for σῶμα confines the reference to an outward act. And so Thl. , Thdrt., Œ c., al. Bö hme, Kuin., Thol., De W., Bleek, Lü nem., Delitzsch, and the majority of Commentators. Still in maintaining the externality of the words, as referring, and referring solely, to Baptism, we must remember, that Baptism itself is not a mere external rite, but at every mention of it carries the thought further, viz. to that spiritual washing of which it is itself symbolical and sacramental. Notice here that the word is τὸσῶμα , and not τὴνσάρκα , as ch. 9:13: our whole natural life, and not the mere outside surface: that in which our soul dwells and works, the seat of the emotions and desires: this also must be purified in those who would approach God in Christ. So that I would understand with Delitzsch (whose note here by all means see), that the sprinkling the heart from an evil conscience is, so to speak, intra-sacramental, a spiritual application of the purifying Blood, beyond sacramental rites, and the washing the body with pure water is purely sacramental, the effect of baptism taken in its whole blessed meaning and fulfilment as regards our natural existence.

The end of his note is very beautiful: “ As priests we are sprinkled, as priests we are bathed: sprinkled so that our hearts are freed from an evil conscience, and thus from self-condemnation, sprinkled with Christ’ s Blood, to be sprinkled with which and to be certain of and joyful in justification before God is one and the same thing,— washed in Holy Baptism, whose pure water penetrates with its saving power not only into the depths of our self-conscious life, but also into the very foundation of our corporeity, and thus sanctifies us not only in the flesh, but in the body and in the spirit: so bringing us, in our whole personal existence, through the Blood speaking in the Sanctuary, through the Water welling forth out of the Sanctuary, into so real a connexion, so close an union with the Sanctuary itself, that we are at all times privileged to enter into the Sanctuary, and to use, in faith, the new and living way.” On the further details of the passage see Hofmann, Weissagung u. Erfü llung, ii. 234: Schriftbeweis, ii. 2. 161.

The perfect participles shew that a state is spoken of introduced by one act the effect of which is abiding):

23. (First we must treat of the punctuation and connexion. I have stated above the ground for attaching καὶλελουμένοικ .τ .λ . to the foregoing, with Syr., Primas., Faber Stap., Luther, E. V., Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Cramer, Michaelis (paraphr.), Wolf, Baumgarten, Storr, Kuin., De Wette, Bleek, Delitzsch,— not to κατέχωμεν with Erasm., Beza, Erasm. Schmid, Bengel, Peirce (and Michaelis as Peirce), Griesb., Knapp, Heinrichs, Schulz, Bö hme, Lachmann, Tholuck, Tischdf. (edn. 2), Ebrard, Lü nemann. Besides, 1. the ground there alleged, it may be further urged, 2. that the λελουμένοι has no imaginable connexion with κατέχωμενκ .τ .λ ., whereas it continues to describe the condition in which we are to approach God: and, 3. that by joining this participial clause with what follows, the rhythm of the sentence (agst.

Lü nem.) is entirely broken up. Then, thus much being determined, our next question is, what stop to set after καθαρῷ .

Bleek prefers a period, Delitzsch a comma only. I believe a colon, as after ἐπαγγειλάμενος , would best give the form of the sentence, in which the three verbs, προσερχώμεθα … κατέχωμεν … καὶκατανοῶμεν , are correlative) let us hold fast (= κρατῶμεν , ch. 4:14: let us hold with full and conscious possession: see ch. 3:6, 14) the confession (see on ch. 4:14: subjective, but in a pregnant sense,— that which we confess, held in our confession of it) of our hope (see ch. 3:6: and bear in mind that ἐλπίς is used also for the object of hope subjectivized: our hope (subj.), as including that on which it is fixed) so that it may be without wavering (“ Valcknaer compares ἔχεινἀκλινῆτὸνλογισμόν , 4 Macc. 6:7” Del. The adjective predicates that which the confession becomes by being held fast: = βεβαίαν , ch. 3:14. The word itself is late Greek, found in Æ lian, V. H. xii. 64: Lucian, Encom. Demosth. 33: Philo, al): for He is faithful that promised (viz.

God, see reff.: and ch. 6:13; 11:11; 12:26, as referring to Him the title ὁἐπαγγειλάμενος . Thl. interprets it, ὁχριστὸςὁεἰπών , ὅτιὍπουεἰμὶἐγώ , καὶὁδιάκονοςὁἐμὸςἔσται , and similarly Œ c., al., but not so accurately):

24. and (“ How beautifully does this chain of exhortations of our Writer fall into a triple division, according to St. Paul’ s trias of the Christian life, 1 Corinthians 13:13: 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:8: Colossians 1:4 f. Next to an exhortation to approach God in full assurance of faith, follows one to hold fast the confession of hope, and now comes one to emulate one another in love.” Delitzsch. On the connexion, see above: we are still dependent on ἔχοντεςοὖν above) let us consider one another , Thdrt., Primas., Michaelis, Bleek (who endeavours to unite both views): κατανοεῖν has already been noticed, ch. 3:1) with a view to provocation of (tending to produce: or we may say that it is a παροξυσμὸςἀγάπης , the love itself being thereby excited) love and good works;

25. not deserting the assembling together of ourselves (the word ἐπισυναγωγή , as its verb ἐπισυνάγειν , belongs to late Greek: Bleek gives examples from Polyb., Plut., Phæ drus. The LXX use the verb many times, of gathering in a hostile sense (Micah 4:11: Zechariah 12:3; Zechariah 14:2: Ps. 30:14 : 1 Macc. 3:58; 5:9) and of God gathering His people together ; 105:47; 146:2: 2 Macc. 1:27; 2:18). And so in N. T. (Matthew 23:37; Matthew 24:31: Mark 13:27: Luke 13:34). In the only place (ref.) where the substantive occurs, it is of our gathering together to Christ at His coming, just as the verb in the above-cited places of the Gospels. Here, the question is whether it is to be understood of the congregation of the faithful generally, the Church,— as the word congregation has come from the act of assembling to signify the body thus assembled,— or of the single acts of assembling and gathering together of the various assemblies of Christians at various times.

The former is held by Primasius , Calvin, Justiniani , Jac. Cappell., Bö hme, Bretschneider, al.

But the other is held by most Commentators, and seems far more appropriate here. Thus Chrys. , Œ c. , Thl. (similarly), Beza, Camero, Schlichting, Limborch, Schö ttgen, Wolf, al., and Tholuck, De Wette, Ebrard, Lü nem., Hofm., Delitzsch, al. Del. suggests that our Writer may have used ἐπισυναγωγή , not συναγωγή , to avoid the Judaistic sound of this latter. Otherwise the use would be accountable enough, ἐπισυναγωγή being a συναγ . ἐπὶτὸαὐτό , and thus pointing more at the several places where the assemblies were held), as is the habit with some , but exhorting , Hofmann, al., but ἑαυτούς , out of the ἑαυτῶν just preceding. See ch. 3:13, ἀλλὰπαρακαλεῖτεἑαυτοὺςκαθ ʼ ἑκάστηνἡμέραν . An alternative in Œ c. supplies τοὺςἀσθενεστέρους : but it is an unnecessary limitation: all would need it); and so much the more , as ye see (this βλέπετε , in the second person, is unexpected in the midst of the ‘ oratio communicativa.’ It appeals at once to the watchfulness and discernment of the readers as regards the signs of the times.

That Day indeed, in its great final sense, is always near, always ready to break forth upon the Church: but these Hebrews lived actually close upon one of those great types and foretastes of it, the destruction of the Holy City— the bloody and fiery dawn, as Delitzsch finely calls it, of the Great Day) the day (this shortest of all designations of the day of the Lord’ s coming is found only in reff. “ It is the Day of days, the ending-day of all days, the settling-day of all days, the Day of the promotion of Time into Eternity, the Day which for the Church breaks through and breaks off the night of this present world.” Delitzsch) approaching.

26-31. Caution, arising from the mention of that day,— which will be not a day of grace, but a day of judgment,— of the fearful peril of falling away from Christ. The passage finds a close parallel in ch. 6:4 ff., and much of what was there said will apply here.

26. For if we willingly sin with the preceding exhortations, and by the description of one who has so sinned in ver. 29. Neglect of assembling together, and loss of mutual exhortation and stimulus, would naturally result in (as it would be prompted by an inclination that way at first) the ἀποστῆναιἀπὸθεοῦ of ch. 3:12; the παραπεσεῖν of ch. 6:6. It is the sin of apostasy from Christ back to the state which preceded the reception of Christ, viz. Judaism. This is the ground-sin of all other sins. Notice the present, not the aor. part. ‘ If we be found wilfully sinning,’ not ‘ if we have wilfully sinned,’ at that Day.

It is not of an act or of any number of acts of sin, that the Writer is speaking, which might be repented of and blotted out: but of a state of sin, in which a man is found when that day shall come) after the receiving (having received) the knowledge (“ It is usually said that γνῶσις is the weaker word, ἐπίγνωσις the stronger: or, the former the more general, the latter the more special: or, the former the more quiescent, the latter the more active: the truth in all these is, that when ἐπίγνωσις is used, there is the assumption of an actual direction of the spirit to a definite object and of a real grasping of the same: so that we may speak of a false γνῶσις , but not of a false ἐπίγνωσις . And the Writer, by the use of this word, gives us to understand that he means by it not only a shallow historical notion about the Truth, but a living believing knowledge of it, which has laid hold of a man and fused him into union with itself.” Delitzsch. It is most important here to keep this cardinal point distinctly in mind: that the ἑκουσίωςἁμαρτάνοντες are not mere professors of religion, but real converts, or else ver. 29 becomes unintelligible) of the truth (the truth of God, as so often in St. Paul and St. John), there is no longer left remaining (see on ch. 4:6) a sacrifice for sins ;

27. but (there is left remaining: ἀπολείπεται is common to both clauses) a certain (this attaching of τις to an adjective is an elegance belonging to the more polished style of our Writer, and often found in the classics: e. g. ἐπίπονόντιναβίον , Diod. Sic. v. 39: ὅτιμικρόντιμέροςεἴηστρατηγικῆςτὰτακτικά , Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 14: καὶΚύρῳδὲμεγάληντινὰδοκῶἡμᾶςχάρινὀφείλειν , ibid. vi. 4. 7: see also ref. Acts, and cf. Winer, § 25. 2. c. Bernhardy’ s account of the usage, Syntax, p. 442. seems to be the true one, that it has the power of a doubled adjectival sense, and generalizes the quality predicated, indicating some one of that kind, it may be any one.

This is exemplified where numerals, or the like of numerals are joined with τις ,— e. g. πᾶςτις , ἕκαστόςτις , οὐδείςτις , τισὶνοὐπολλοῖς (Thuc. vi. 94), τινὲςδύονῆες (id. viii. 100), ἑκατόντι (Arr. Ind. 7), ταύταςτινὰςτρεῖς (Plato, Rep. x. p. 601 d), as Cicero, “ tres aliqui.” So here, some one φοβερὰἐκδοχή out of all that might befall various men and dispositions.

The indefiniteness makes the declaration more awful) fearful (objective,— ‘ tremendus,’ not ‘ timidus,’ surchtbar, not surchtsam: fearful to think of, frightful. No figure of hypallage must be thought of, as if φοβερὰἐκδοχὴκρίσεως = ἐκδοχὴκρίσεωςφοβερᾶς , as Jac. Cappellus, Heinrichs, al., and Wolf, alt.) reception ἐκδοχήν .

But of the subjective sense, derived from the later meaning of ἐκδέχομαι , I find no hint or example, except the mere assertion in our N. T. lexicons, that it has that meaning in this place. From what follows, it is much better to take it objectively; all which ἀπολείπεται is, the reception of the doom of judgment, and the πυρὸςζῆλος , &c.) of judgment (i. e. by the context, unfavourable judgment), and fervour of fire which shall devour the adversaries .

28, 29. Argument ‘ a minori,’ to shew how grievous will be the punishment of the apostate from Christ. There is a very similar inference in ch. 2:2, 3; 12:25.

28. Any one having set at nought the law of Moses λατρεύσωσινθεοῖςἑτέροιςκ .τ .λ .) dies (the normal present) without benefit of (χωρίς , apart from: not implying that no one felt compassion for him, but that such compassion, be it what it might, could not affect his doom) mercies (the merciful feelings of any who might be interested for him. οἰκτιρμός , see on ref. Rom., says Bleek, is a purely Alexandrine word, and in the LXX and N. T. is generally in the plural, answering to the Hebrew ר ַ ח ֲ מ ִ י ם , bowels. χωρὶςοἰκτιρμῶν , φησί , ὥστεοὐδεμίασυγγνώμηοὐδὲἔλεοςἐκεῖ . Chrys.) before two or three witnesses :

29. of how much worse punishment (though τιμωρία does not elsewhere occur in the N. T., we have the verb, Acts 22:5; Acts 26:11), think ye (δοκεῖτε stands separate from the construction, and forms an appeal to the judgment of the readers themselves), shall he be found worthy (viz. by God. The participle is in the aor., as pointing to the single fact of the doom, not to a continued estimate), who trampled under foot the Son of God (the higher title of the Mediator of the new covenant is used, to heighten the enormity of the crime), and accounted common the blood of the covenant (the αἷματῆςδιαθήκης , being the τίμιοναἷμα of Christ Himself, far above all blood of sprinkling under the old covenant. Even that (Leviticus 16:19) had hallowing power: how much more this.

But the apostate κοινὸνἡγήσατο this blood— accounted it mere ordinary blood of a common man, and if so, consented to its shedding, for then Christ deserved to die as a blasphemer. And this, of that holy Blood, by which we have access to God! So that we have quite enough for the solemn sense, by rendering κοινόν common, without going to the further meaning, unclean. Chrys. gives both meanings: κοινόν , τίἐστι ; τὸἀκάθαρτον , ἢτὸμηδὲνπλέονἔχοντῶνλοιπῶν : Œ c., κοινόν , τὸμηδὲντῶνἄλλωνδιαφέρον , οἷονλέγουσινοἱφάσκοντεςαὐτὸνψιλὸνἄνθρωπον · οὗτοιγὰροὐδὲντοῦἡμετέρουδιαλλάττονεἰςτιμὴνλέγουσιναὐτό : Beza compares 1 Corinthians 11:29, μὴδιακρίνωντὸσῶμα : and Bretschneider quotes Justin Mart. Apol. i. 66, p. 83, οὐγὰρὡςκοινὸνἄρτονοὐδὲκοινὸνπόματαῦταλαμβάνομεν . Cf.

Acts 10:28, ἐμοὶὁθεὸςἔδειξενμηδένακοινὸνἢἀκάθαρτονλέγεινἄνθρωπον , where the two are distinguished. Syr. has “ hath counted the blood of the covenant of him by which (whom?) he hath been sanctified as that of every man.” The reader will recall our Lord’ s own τὸαἷματὸτῆςκ . διαθήκης , cf. ref.

Matt. Mark. See also our ch. 13:20) in which (as sprinkled with which; as his element and condition of sanctification) he was sanctified (see Leviticus 16:19 LXX, and our ch. 13:12 and 9:13. He had advanced so far in the reality of the spiritual life, that this blood had been really applied to his heart by faith, and its hallowing and purifying effects were visible in his life: which makes the contrast the more terrible. And Delitzsch finely remarks, as against the assertors of mere shallow supralapsarianism, that without former experience of grace, without a life of faith far more than superficial, so irrecoverable a fall into the abyss is not possible. It is worthy of remark how Calvin evades the deep truth contained in the words ἐνᾧἡγιάσθη : “ Valde indignum est sanguinem Christi, qui sanctificationis nostræ materia est, profanare: hoc vero faciunt, qui desciscunt a fide:” thus making ἡγιάσθη into ἁγιαζόμεθα .

Lightfoot’ s idea, that Christ is the subject of ἡγιάσθη , is hardly worth refutation (Hor. Hebr. in 1 Corinthians 11:29): as neither is that of Claudius, in Wolf, that διαθήκη is the subject), and insulted (ἐνυβρίζω , in prose, belongs to later Greek: but is found in the poets, e. g.

Eur. Electr. 68, ἐντοῖςἐμοῖςοὐκἐνυβρίσαςκακοῖς : Aristoph. Thesm. 719, τάχ ʼ οὐχαίρωνἴσωςἐνυβρίσεις : Soph. Philoct. 342, with an accus. as here, πρᾶγμ ʼ ὅτῳσ ʼ ἐνύβρισαν . In prose it is found in Æ lian, Polybius, Herodian, Josephus, principally with a dative of the object) the Spirit of grace (for τὸπν . τῆςχάριτος , see ref. No two things can be more opposed, as Del. remarks, than ὕβρις and χάρις .

And this remark guides us to the answer to the question whether χάριτος here is a gen. objective or subjective: whether it is the πνεῦμα which belongs to χάρις , so that it is the gift of the divine χάρις (so Grot., Schlicht., De W., Bleek, Lü nem., and most of the moderns), or χάρις which belongs to πνεῦμα , so that it is the gift of and the character of the πνεῦμα . The latter is adopted by Calv., Estius, a-Lapide, Justiniani , Beza, Owen, al., Bö hme, Von Gerlach, Delitzsch, al., and is much the more probable, both on account of the prophecy which is referred to, ἐκχεῶ … πνεῦμαχάριτοςκ . οἰκτιρμοῦ ,— and on account of ἐνυβρίσας , which is most naturally referred to a Person as its object. Chrys. strikingly says, ὁτὴνεὐεργεσίανμὴπαραδεχόμενος , ὕβρισετὸνεὐεργετήσαντα . ἐποίησέσευἱόν · σὺδὲθέλειςγενέσθαιδοῦλος ; ἦλθεκατασκηνῶσαιπρόςσε · σὺδὲἐπεισάγειςσαυτῷπονηροὺςλογισμούς . He does not hold with any definiteness that apostasy is here meant, but applies the whole text homiletically to wilful sin of any kind. Thl., in reproducing Chrys.’ s sentence, puts τὸνδιάβολον for πονηροὺςλογισμούς )?

30, 31. And this ἐκδοχὴκρίσεως and πυρὸςζῆλος are certainties, testified to by God Himself.

30. For we know Him who said, To me belongeth vengeance, I will repay, saith the Lord (the citation is from Deuteronomy 32:35, and is given not in agreement with the Hebrew text (ל ִ י נ ָ ק ָ ם ו ְ ש ׁ ַ ל ּ ֵ ם , “ To me (belongeth) vengeance and recompense” ) nor with the LXX (ἐνἡμέρᾳἐκδικήσεως (i. e. ל י ו ם נ , as is read in the Samaritan Pent.) ἀνταποδώσω , so also Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. § 34, vol. i. p. 108), but, remarkably enough, in verbal accordance with St. Paul’ s citation of the same text, Romans 12:19, even to the adding of the words λέγεικύριος , which are neither in the Heb. nor the LXX. Two solutions of this are possible: 1. that the expression had become a common saying in the Church; 2. that our Writer takes it from St. Paul’ s citation.

A third alternative is of course open; that it is St. Paul himself, who quotes here as there. For a solution, see Prolegg. on the authorship of this Epistle): and again, The Lord will judge His people (no doubt quoted primarily from the passage where it primarily occurs, in ref. Deut. The κρινεῖ there expresses another function of the judge from that which is adduced here. There, He will judge for rescue and for defence: here, for punishment and for condemnation.

But the office of Judge, generally asserted by κρινεῖ , involves all that belongs to a judge: and if there it induces the comforting of those whom He εἶδενπαραλελυμένους , κ . ἐκλελοιπόταςἐνἐπαγωγῇ , κ . παρειμένους , here the same general office of judgment also induces the punishment of the wilful sinner and apostate).

31. Axiomatic conclusion of these solemn warnings. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (yet in reff. Kings, 1 Chron., David says, ἐμπεσοῦμαιδὴεἰςχεῖραςκυρίου , ὅτιπολλοὶοἱοἰκτιρμοὶαὐτοῦσφόδρα , εἰςδὲχεῖραςἀνθρώπουοὐμὴἐμπέσω : and in ref. Sir. we have ἐμπεσούμεθαεἰςχεῖραςκυρίου , καὶοὐκεἰςχεῖραςἀνθρώπων · ὡςγὰρἡμεγαλωσύνηαὐτοῦ , οὕτωκαὶτὸἔλεοςαὐτοῦ . But the two sentiments are easily set at one.

For the faithful, in their chastisement, it is a blessed thing to fall into God’ s hands: for the unfaithful, in their doom, a dreadful one. On ζῶν , as a characteristic of θεός , see on ch. 3:12. Here, the idea of life and energy, attached to the name of God, brings vividly out the ζῆλος with which He will consume His adversaries).

32-34. As in ch. 6:9-12, so here, the Writer turns from solemn exhortation and warning to encouragement arising from the conduct of his readers in the past. This their firmness did not look likely to end in apostasy: and accordingly by the memory of it he now cheers and invigorates them. φησὶνοὖνὅτιμὴἄλλουςτινὰςμιμήσασθε , ἀλλ ʼ αὐτοὶἑαυτούς . ὅραδὲπνευματικὴνσοφίαν · πρότερονκατασείσαςαὐτῶντὰςψυχὰςδιὰτοῦτῆςγεέννηςἀναμνῆσαι , νῦνμαλάττειδι ʼ ἐγκωμίων , οὐκολακεύων , ἀλλὰδι ʼ αὐτῶντούτωνπροτρεπόμενος · ἀξιοπιστότεροςγὰρὁσυμβουλεύωντινὶἑαυτὸνμιμήσασθαικαὶἃπροειργάσατοἔργα . Thl.: and Thdrt., κεράννυσιτῶνεἰρημένωντὸαὐστηρὸντῇμνήμῃτῶνἤδηκατωρθωμένων . οὐδὲνγὰροὕτωςεἰςπροθυμίανδιεγείρειὡςτῶνοἰκείωνκατορθωμάτωνμνήμη .

32. But (in contrast to these fearful things which have been spoken of) call ever to mind (ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε , stronger than the simple verb— call over in your minds, one by one: this meaning seems legitimate when a plural follows: and present, as implying a constant habit. The verb may be indicative, but is from the whole cast of the sentence, much more likely imperative) the former days (the accus. after ἀναμιμνήσκομαι is as good Greek as the gen.), in which when (first) enlightened (see on φωτίζω , note, ch. 6:4), ye underwent (scil. with fortitude: which though not implied in the word, signifying mere endurance, yet often is in the context: cf. Xen. Hiero 7. 4 (Bl.), ὥστεἐμοὶμὲνεἰκότωςδοκεῖτεταῦταὑπομένειν , ἃφέρετεἐντυραννίδι , ἐπείπερτιμᾶσθεδιαφερόντωςτῶνἄλλωνἀνθρώπων ) much (‘ multum magnumque:’ πολύς when used with words whose sense admits intensifying, strengthens, as well as repeats, the idea) contest (ἄθλησις tells its own meaning, from ἆθλος , ἀθλέω , as ‘ certamen,’ a struggle or contest: and in this sense it occurs in reff.) of sufferings (the gen. may be either subjective, implying that your contest consisted of sufferings; or objective, that it was waged with sufferings, as the foe to be contended against: the former perhaps is the more probable from what follows: cf. συνεπαθήσατε , ver. 34),

33. (the nature of these sufferings is now specified) partly (see reff.) being made a spectacle (the theatre being the place where conspicuous punishments were inflicted, on account of the multitudes there assembling. See Acts 19:29. The word θεατρίζω may therefore be literally taken, if (see Prolegg. § ii. and § iii. 3) the Epistle was written to Rome, after the Neronian persecution. See reff., and cf. 1 Corinthians 4:9, θέατρονἐγενήθημεντῷκόσμῳ . Thl. says, θεατριζόμενοι , τουτέστινὥσπερἐπὶθέατρονπαραδειγματιζόμενοι , καὶταῦτατυχὸνπαρὰεὐτελῶνκαὶεὐδαιμόνων . And Chrys., οὐχἁπλῶςεἶπεν , ὀνειδισμοῖς , ἀλλὰ … μετ ʼ ἐπιτάσεωςπολλῆςθεατριζόμενοίφησιν · ὅτανμὲνγάρτιςὀνειδίζηταικαθ ʼ ἑαυτόν , λυπηρὸνμέν , πολλῷδὲπλέον , ὅτανἐπὶπάντων ) in reproaches (ὀνειδισμός is a word of later Greek.

The dat. is one of manner in which) and tribulations; partly also (see above), having become (there is something of purpose in γενηθέντες , almost a middle sense, ‘ having made yourselves.’ It is a fine encomium on their Christian sympathy and love) partakers with them who were thus living (viz. ἐνὀνειδισμοῖςτεκ . θλίψεσιν : so Œ c. and Thl. Some would give ἀναστρεφομένων an ethical sense: “ who walk,” have their Christian walk and conduct, “ in this way,” viz. as he exhorts them to endure, manfully and firmly. So Kypke, Kuinoel, al. But I prefer the other as more in accord with N. T. usage: cf. reff.).

34. Illustration, in reverse order, of the two particulars mentioned in ver. 33. For ye both (better than ‘ also,’ seeing that this sentence is not additional to, but illustrative of the last in both its members) sympathized with (see on συμπαθέω , ch. 4:15) them who were in bonds (first as to the reading. The mere diplomatic evidence is given in the var. read. Estius appears to be right when he says, “ Porro facillimum fuit, Græ ca mutari unius literulæ ablatione, ut scriberetur δεσμοῖς pro δεσμίοις , cui lectioni deinde addiderunt pronomen μοῦ , eo quod Paulus alibi sæ pe vinculorum suorum mentionem faciat.” It is not easy on the other hand to explain how δεσμίοις should ever have been substituted for δεσμοῖςμου . The idea that συμπαθῆσαι requires a person and not a thing as its object, which is supposed by some to have caused the alteration to δεσμίοις , is not likely to have influenced a Greek copyist, seeing that it is wholly unfounded in Greek.

We have συμπαθεῖνταῖςἀσθενείαις , ch. 4:15; συμπ . καὶταῖςμικραῖςἀτυχίαις , Isocr. p. 64 b, and δεσμοί are, after all, the state of the captive person. δεσμίοις is held to be the original by Grot., Beng., Wetst., Griesb., Scholz, Knapp, Lachm., Tischendorf, and is rejected, out of critical editors, only by Matthæ i and Rink, who read δεσμοῖςμου , and Mill and Nö sselt, who omit μου . Of commentators, the rec. is defended by Wolf, Carpzov, Michaelis, al.

A full account is given of all the testimonies each way by Bleek: see also Delitzsch’ s note), and ye took with joy the plundering of your goods (so reff.: in Luke 8:3, we have τὰὑπάρχοντάτινι . Bleek quotes ἁρπαγὰςὑπαρχόντων from Polyb. iv. 17. 4), knowing that ye have for yourselves (ἑαυτοῖς dat. commodi) a better possession (reff.: a word of St. Luke’ s) and abiding (τίἐστιμένουσαν ; βεβαίαν , οὐχοὕτωςἀπολλυμένηνὥσπερταύτην [cf. Matthew 6:20]).

35-39. Hortatory conclusion, enforced by (ver. 36) the need of endurance, which itself is recommended by the assurance of the speedy coming of the Lord, and the knowledge that we are not of the number of the backsliders, but of those who live by that faith by which our hope is substantiated.

35. Cast not away therefore (it is better to keep the active, intentional sense of ἀποβάλλω , to cast away, than to take the accidental and involuntary sense, ‘ lose not,’ with the vulg., “ nolite amittere.” This latter sense is common enough, e. g. Herod. viii. 65, τὸνναυτικὸνστρατὸνκινδυνεύσειβασιλεὺςἀποβαλέειν : see many more examples in Bleek: and Dio Chrys. (in Wetst.) xxxiv. p. 425, ἐὰνγὰρἀλόγωςἐνίοτεἐγκαλεῖνδόξητεκαίτιςὑμῶνπεριγένηται , … δέδοικαμὴτελέωςἀποβάλητετὴνπαῤῥησίαν . But seeing that we have such expressions as κατέχειντὴνπαῤῥησίαν , ch. 3:6, it is more probable that the other meaning is intended. So in ref. Mark: so Æ lian, Var. Hist. x. 13, τὴνἀσπίδαἀπέβαλλεν , &c.) your confidence (on the subjective sense of παῤῥησία , see ch. 3:6, note), the which hath (present, although the reward is future: hath, set down over against it: possesses in reversion) great recompense of reward (see on μισθαποδοσία , ch. 2:2, note; also reff.).

36. For (justification of the foregoing μὴἀποβάλητεκ .τ .λ .) of endurance ζήσεται ) ye have need, that ye may do the will of God and receive the promise .

37-38. Encouragement to this endurance, by the fact of the time being short, and at the same time further proof of the necessity of it by God’ s renunciation of him that draws back: all from the same prophecy of Habakkuk.

37. For yet a little little while (this expression is not in Habakkuk, but is found in ref. Isa., ἀποκρύβηθιμικρὸνὅσονὅσον , ἕωςἂνπαρέλθῃἡὀργὴκυρίου , to which the Writer probably alludes. μικρόν is the accus. neut.: some (Lü n., Del.) say, an independent nominative, referring to John 14:19; John 16:16; but neither of those places determines the case. ὅσον is often joined to adjectives and nouns, &c., which denote size, to give a certain definiteness to the idea: so μικρὸνὅσον , Lucian Hermot. 60; ὀλίγονὅσον , ib. p. 62: and among other places in Wetst. and Loesner, we have the ὅσον repeated in ref.: in Arrian, Indic. 29, ὀλίγοιδὲαὐτῶνσπείρουσινὅσονὅσοντῆςγῆς : cf. Hermann on Viger, p. 726: Winer, § 36. 3, note. It gives the sense of very small, “ aliquantillum” as Hermann expresses it: τὸδὲὅσονὅσοντὸπάνυμικρὸνδηλοῖ , Thl.), He that is coming shall come, and shall not tarry.

38. Continuation of the paraphrase: the two clauses of Hab 2:4 being transposed. In the original it runs as in E. V.: “ Behold his soul (which) is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith:” or, an ambiguity extending to all three places where the saying is quoted, here, and reff. Rom., Gal., “ The just by his faith, shall live.” But the other is more probable: see, on all points regarding the Hebrew text, Delitzsch’ s note. The transposition is apparently made on purpose, to prevent ὑποστείληται being understood to refer to ἐρχόμενος as its subject.

But my just man (there is much controversy about μου , whether to insert it, and where to insert it. On the whole I agree with Bleek, that the position after δίκαιος , which is found in the LXX-A, was most probably that adopted by our Writer.

This, being different from many copies of the LXX, would naturally be altered: and St. Paul’ s citations not having μου , it would naturally be omitted from our copies here. Delitzsch’ s reason for omitting it, that because our Writer quotes as St. Paul in ver. 30, he probably does here also, is in fact a depriving of that fact of all its real interest. Placed as in our text, μου will point out that man who is just before God, who belongs to God’ s people) shall live by faith: and (this καί has no place in the LXX, the first clause, here put last, being there asyndetous) if he (i. e. the δίκαιος , as Delitzsch very properly insists: not τις understood, nor ἄνθρωπος taken out of δίκαιος , but, in the true spirit of this whole cautionary passage, the very man himself who was justified, and partakes of the Christian life, by faith. The possibility of such a fall is, as he observes, among the principal things taught us by this Epistle) draw back (cf. ref.

Gal., note. The middle and passive of ὑποστέλλω have usually an accus. of the object of fear: so Dinarchus contra Demosth. p. 11, τῆςἐξἀρείουπάγουβουλῆςοὔτετὴνΔημοσθένουςοὔτεΔημάδουδύναμινὑποστειλαμένης : Demosth. p. 630, μηδὲνὑποστελλόμενονμηδ ʼ αἰσχυνόμενον .

But sometimes it is absolute, as here: so Eur. Orest. 606, ἐπεὶθρασύνῃκοὐχὑποστέλλῃλόγῳ . See several more instances in Kypke), my soul (τίνοςἡψυχή ; τοῦθεοῦ , κατὰτὸἰδίωματῆςγραφῆς , ὡςτό , τὰςἑορτὰςὑμῶνμισεῖἡψυχήμου (Isaiah 1:14), ἢτοῦχριστοῦ . The former reference is doubtless right, not the latter, nor that given by Calvin, “ Perinde accipiendum est, ac si ex suo sensu Apostolus proferret hanc sententiam” ) hath not pleasure in him (for construction see reff.).

39. Here again he returns from that which is threatening in appearance to that which is encouraging and reassuring. But we (emphatic; bringing with it, in its mention, all that we are as Christians and that God has made us: you and I, κλήσεωςἐπουρανίουμέτοχοι , ch. 3:1) are not of backsliding unto destruction (in St. Paul’ s sense: see reff.: the verb ἀπόλλυμαι is equally foreign to this Epistle, only occurring in the citation, ch. 1:11), but of faith unto (the) preservation of (the) soul is the subject of life and salvation. Faith saves the soul, by linking it to God, the living One. The unbelieving man loses his soul: for not being God’ s, neither is he his own: all that his personality has in itself and round itself, is fallen under wrath and the powers of wrath” ).