Hebrews 10

CHAPTER 10

Hebrews 10:1 reads in the Recepta: Σκιὰνγὰρἔχωνὁνόμοςτῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν, οὐκαὐτὴντὴνεἰκόνατῶνπραγμάτων, κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸνταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαις, ἃςπροσφέρουσινεἰςτὸδιηνεκές, οὐδέποτεδύναταιτοὺςπροσερχομένουςτελειῶσαι. Instead thereof, Lachm. takes the words Σκιὰν … πραγμάτων as an independent clause, placing a full stop after πραγμάτων. He then, in the stereotype edition, omits the relative before προσφέρουσιν,—while in the larger edition he has again added the ἅς of the Recepta before this verb,—places a comma after προσφἐρουσιν, and writes δύνανται in place of δύναται. This punctuation and form of the text given by Lachm. is in all essential respects to be unhesitatingly rejected. In connection with the breaking off of the opening words of the verse into an independent statement, ἐστίν must be supplemented to ἔχων. Such supplementing, however, would be altogether opposed to the linguistic character of the Epistle to the Hebrews; moreover, it would remain inexplicable, from the very brevity of the clause, how the participle ἔχων should come to be written for the finite tense ἔχει, which naturally suggests itself.

In addition to this, the joining to that which precedes by means of γάρ would occasion a difficulty, and the clause following would become an asyndeton. Besides, this following clause, in the absence of any connecting relative, would not even comply with the laws of grammar. The relative before προσφέρουσιν is wanting in A, 2, 7* 17, 47, Syr. utr. Arm., and A** 31, Syr. Philonex. then insert αἵ before old οὐδέποτε. Instead of the Recepta ἃςπροσφέρ. there is found, however, in D* L (?), 73, 137, in an ancient fragment with Matthaei, which Tisch., in the edit. 7 (comp.

Pars I. p. cxci.), has designated as N, with Theodoret, as well as in a MS. of Chrysostom and in the Latin version of D E: αἷςπροσφέρ., and the latter is preferred by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. Yet the Recepta ἅς, which is supported by C D*** E (?) K à, the majority of the cursives, and many Fathers, is to be defended. Since the three words immediately preceding end in αις, ἅς might easily also be changed into αἷς. The Recepta δύναται, finally, is attested by D (* and ***) E K L, very many cursives, Vulg. It. Copt, al., Chrys.

Theodoret (text), Oecum. (comm.) al., while the plural δύνανται (preferred also by Tisch. 1, and already placed by Griesbach upon the inner margin) is presented by A C D** à, about thirty cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret (comm.?), Damasc. Theophyl. al. But the plural is devoid of sense, and can on that account be regarded only as a transcriber’s error, which was occasioned by the foregoing plural προσφέρουσιν.

Hebrews 10:2. Ἐπεὶοὐκἂνἐπαύσαντο] Elz.: ἐπεὶἂνἐπαύσαντο. Against the decisive authority of all uncial mss., of most cursives, vss. and Fathers.

The preference to the Recepta κεκαθαρμένους is deserved by κεκαθαρισμένους (approved by Grotius, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Delitzsch, Alford), as better attested. In favour of κεκαθαρισμένους pleads not only the testimony of D E K à, 23** 37, 39, al., but also the form which in A C has arisen as a transcriber’s error from the same κεκαθερισμένους, which latter Lachm. has adopted.

Hebrews 10:6. Recepta here and Hebrews 10:8: εὐδόκησας. Better attested, however, here (by A C D* E, the early fragment in Matth. al.) and Hebrews 10:8 (by A D* [E?], al., Cyr. Theodoret) is the reading, chosen by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, as also approved by Delitzsch: ηὐδόκησας.

Hebrews 10:8. In place of the Recepta θυσίανκαὶπροσφοράν, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford rightly read the plural: θυσίαςκαὶπροσφοράς, in accordance with A C D* à* 17, 23, 57, al., Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arab. Erp. Cyril. Already commended to attention by Griesbach. The singular is a later change, with a view to its conformation to Hebrews 10:5.

In like manner we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., to delete τόν, which the Recepta adds before νόμον, as not being found in A C, à, 37, 46, 71, 73, al., Sahid. Cyril, Chrys. Theodoret. The insertion of the article was more easily possible than its rejection.

Hebrews 10:9. τοῦποιῆσαι] Elz.: τοῦποιῆσαι, ὁθεός. Against A C D E K à* 17, 39, 46, al. mult. It. Copt, al., ὁθεός is a complementary addition from Hebrews 10:7. Rightly deleted by Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche.

Hebrews 10:10. Instead of the mere διά in the Recepta, Matthaei and Tisch. 2 and 7 read, after the precedent of the Edd. Complutens. Erasm. Colin. Stephan.: οἱδιά. Bloomfield places οἱ within brackets. But οἱ (sc. ἡγιασμένοι) is wanting in A C D* E* à, 31, 47, al., Chrys. Theodoret, and owes its origin to an error of the eye, in that the termination σμένοι in ἡγιασμένοι gave rise to the writing of ἐσμὲνοἱ.

In place of τοῦσώματος in the Recepta, D* E, with their Latin translation, have τοῦαἵματος. Mistaken emendation, since τοῦσώματος, Hebrews 10:10, was chosen in manifest correspondence to the citation σῶμαδὲκατηρτίσωμοι, Hebrews 10:5.

ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ] Elz.: τοῦἸησοῦΧριστοῦ. But the article has against it the testimony of all the uncials, many cursives and Fathers, and is rightly rejected by Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford.

Hebrews 10:11. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Reiche read: πᾶςμὲνἱερεύς. Defended also by Böhme, Tholuck, and Delitzsch. The preference, however, is deserved by the reading: πᾶςμὲνἀρχιερεύς, which is furnished by A C, 31, 37, 46, al., Syr. utr. (yet in the Philonex. with an asterisk) Basm. Aeth.

Arm. Theodoret (text), Cyril Euthal. al., was already adopted in the Editt. Complut. Plantin. Genev., and more recently has been restored by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, and Alford.

If the ordinary Levitical priests had been intended, οἱἱερεῖς would, as is rightly observed by Bleek, have been written instead of πᾶςἱερεύς, since each single Levitical priest had by no means daily to offer sacrifice. Less unsuitable, on the other hand, is the statement of the daily presentation of sacrifice in regard to the high priest, since that which was true of the Levitical priests in general could indeed be ascribed to the high priest as the head and representative of the same. In any case we have here, at the close of the argument, and because of the parallel with the person of Christ, to expect not so much the mention of the ordinary Jewish priest, as the mention of the Jewish high priest. The reading: πᾶςμὲνἱερεύς, is therefore to be looked upon as a later correction, made on account of the following καθʼ ἡμέραν, since this stood in apparent contradiction to πᾶςμὲνἀρχιερεύς.

Hebrews 10:12. οὗτοςδέ] Elz. Matthaei, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: αὐτὸςδέ. But οὗτοςδέ (recommended by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, Reiche; approved also by Delitzsch) is demanded by the preponderating authority of A C D* E à, 67** 80, 116, al., Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Damasc. al.

Instead of the Recepta: ἐνδεξιᾷ, Lachm. had written in the stereotype edition: ἐκδεξιῶν, which, however, is only feebly attested by A, 31 (à* has ἐκδεξιᾷ, which by à*** was changed into ἐνδεξιᾷ). Rightly, therefore, has Lachm. returned in his larger edition to the Recepta.

Hebrews 10:15. μετὰγὰρτὸεἰρηκέναι] Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Reiche: μετὰγὰρτὸπροειρηκέναι. Against decisive witnesses (A C D E à, l7, 31, 47, al. m. Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. It. Vulg. Chrys. Theoph. Ambrose, Sedul.). Already held suspected by Griesbach.

Hebrews 10:16. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche: ἐπὶτῶνδιανοιῶν, after D** and *** E K L, most cursives and vss., Chrys. Theodoret, al., Ambrose, al. On the other hand, A C D* à, 17, 31, 47, al., Vulg. (Amiat. Havlej.* Tolet.) have: ἐπὶτὴνδιάνοιαν. Approved by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading.

Hebrews 10:17. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield: μνησθῶ. More correctly, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after A C D* E à* Hebrews 17: μνησθήσομαι, which Griesbach has placed upon the inner margin. μνησθῶ was carried over from Hebrews 8:12.

Hebrews 10:22. Recepta: ἐῤῥαντισμένοι. After A C D* à* Lachm. writes: ῥεραντισμένοι, Tisch. and Alford: ῥεραντισμένοι.

Hebrews 10:29. The words ἐνᾧἡγιάσθη are deleted by Lachm. in the stereotype edition; but are rightly, since they are omitted only by A and Chrysostom, retained by him in the larger edition.

Hebrews 10:30. The addition following ἀνταποδώσω in the Recepta: λέγεικύριος, is rejected by Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, after D* à* 17, 23* 67** Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Arab. Erp. Ambr. Bede, and is regarded by Mill (Prolegg. 496), Bengel, Griesbach, and others as probably a gloss. Bloomfield encloses it within brackets. It is nevertheless protected by A D*** E K L à*** etc., Syr. Philonex. al., and many Fathers. Rightly, therefore, has it been received again by Tisch. into the edit. vii. Delitzsch, Alford, and Reiche also have lately decided in favour of its genuineness.

The Recepta κύριοςκρινεῖ we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A D E K à* 31, 73, al., Vulg. It. Syr. utr. Aeth. Theodoret (semel), to transpose into κρινεῖκύριος. Bleek and Delitzsch read, after D E, 55, 71, Vulg. It. Theodoret (sem.): ὅτικρινεῖκύριος. Quite similarly, LXX. Deuteronomy 32:36; Psalms 135:14.

Hebrews 10:34. τοῖςδεσμίοις] Thus we have to read, with Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, and others, after A D* [as Cod. B breaks off at Hebrews 9:14, so also Hebrews 10:24 to Hebrews 12:15 is wanting in Cod. C] 47, 67** 73, al, Syr. utr. Arab.

Erpen. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Antioch.

Damasc. Theodoret (comm.), Oecum. (comm.) Pelag. Ambrose, al. From τοῖςδεσμίοις arose, by a slip on the part of the copyist, τοῖςδεσμοῖς, which is found with Origen, Exhort. ad martyr. 44, and to which the vinculis eorum of the Latin translation in D E corresponds; while, then, τοῖςδεσμοῖς was completed by means of a gloss into the Recepta, still defended by Matthaei, Bloomfield, M‘Caul, and Hofmann: τοῖςδεσμοῖςμου (D*** E K L à, etc.), in that Paul was regarded as the author of the epistle, and thus was found expressed an acknowledgment of the sympathy manifested by the Palestinian Christians towards himself during his imprisonment.

In that which follows, the reading: ἔχεινἑαυτοῖς, very strongly confirmed by D E K L, almost sixty cursives, Chrys. Theodoret, Isidor. iii. 225, Damasc. Theoph., already adopted into the Editt. Complut. Erasm. 1, Steph. 1 and 2, and later preferred by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, is to be held the original one, inasmuch as from this reading the rise, as well of the Recepta: ἔχεινἐνἑαυτοῖς (which, as it would seem, rests only upon a few cursives), as also of the reading afforded by A à, four cursives, the early fragment in Matthaei, Vulg. It. al., and followed by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and Hebrews 8 : ἔχεινἑαυτούς, is to be explained.

The addition: ἐνοὐρανοῖς after ὕπαρξιν in the Recepta is wanting in A D* à* 17, in the early fragment with Matthaei in the text, in Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It., with Clem. Al. Bed., and stands with Theodoret only after μένουσαν. Elucidatory gloss, suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 1208) and Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford.

Hebrews 10:35. Recepta: μισθαποδοσίανμεγάλην. With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford, we have to transpose into μεγάληνμισθαποδοσίαν, after A D E à, the early fragment in Matthaei, 73, 116, al., Clem. Al. Orig. Eus. It. Vulg. Copt. al.

Hebrews 10:38. The Recepta omits the μον, which is found in most MSS. of the LXX. after πίστεως. D* Syr. utr. Copt., the Latin version in D E, Eus. Theodoret (alic.), Cypr. Jerome have it after πίστεως. On the other hand, it is found after δίκαιος in A à, Arm. Vulg., in the early fragment with Matthaei by the first hand, with Clem. Al. Eus. (alic.) Theodoret (alic.), Proc. Sedul. Bed. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have adopted it at this latter place, and probably the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews so read, inasmuch as it is found with the LXX. at this place in Cod. A.

Hebrews 10:1-4

Hebrews 10:1-4. Presentation in a clearer light of the necessity for Christ’s offering Himself only once for the expiation of sins (Hebrews 9:25-28), by pointing to the ineffectiveness of the expiatory sacrifices continually repeated within the domain of Judaism. This constant repetition attests that sins are still ever present, as indeed a cancelling of sin by the blood of bullocks and of goats is impossible.

Hebrews 10:2

Hebrews 10:2. Proof for the κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸνταῖςαὐτ. θυσ. οὐδέποτεδύναταιτοὺςπροσερχομένουςτελειῶσαι in the form of a question: for otherwise would not their presentation have ceased? because the worshippers, so soon as they have once been really purged from sin, have no more consciousness of sins, and thus no more need of an expiatory sacrifice. In connection with the Recepta ἐπεὶἂνἐπαύσαντο, the sense itself would remain unchanged, only the words would then have to be taken as an assertory statement (“for their presentation would have come to an end, because,” etc.); by which, however, the discourse would suffer in point of vivacity (observe also the ἀλλά, Hebrews 10:3, corresponding to the question of Heb 10:2). But the process is not a natural one, when Beza, edd. 1 and 2, Wetstein, Matthaei, Stein, and others (comp. already Theodoret) will have the proposition of Heb 10:2 regarded as an assertory statement, even with the retention of the οὐκ. They then explain either (and thus ordinarily): for otherwise their presentation would not have ceased, sc. by the coming in of the New Covenant (Beza: alioqui non desiissent offerri; Matthaei: non cessavissent, non sublata essent; comp. Theodoret: Διὰτοῦτοτέλοςἐκεῖναλαμβάνει, ὡςοὐδυνάμενασυνείδησινκαθαρὰνἀποφῆναι), or, in that ἐπεὶ … προσφερόμεναι, is closely attached to the main verb of Heb 10:1, and διὰτὸμηδεμίανκ.τ.λ. is regarded as belonging to the whole proposition, Hebrews 10:1-2: the law was not able by its sacrifices to lead to perfection, since their presentation was an endless one; because those who are once purified have no longer any consciousness of sins. So Wetstein, who, however, will write—what in that case, no doubt, would be necessary and perfectly justified

οὐκἀνεπαύσαντο instead of οὐκἂνἐπαύσαντο (… “quum non cessarent offerri. Ita quidem, ut haec verba, sublata distinctione majori, jungantur iis, quae praecedunt, deinde sequatur totius sententiae confirmatio: quia sacrificantes,” etc.). But against the last-mentioned mode of explanation it is decisive, that the relation of the members of the sentence to each other would become obscure, and the arrangement cumbrous; against the first-mentioned, the presupposition, underlying the ἃςπροσφέρουσινεἰςτὸδιηνεκές, Hebrews 10:1, as well as the epistle in general (Hebrews 9:9, al.), that the Jewish sacrificial ritual was still in continuance at the time of our author’s writing.

ἐπαύσαντοπροσφερόμεναι] sc. αἱθυσίαι. The construction of παύεσθαι, with the participle is the ordinary one, in classic as well as in Hellenistic Greek. Comp. Ephesians 1:16; Colossians 1:9; Acts 5:42, al.; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 771; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 323 f.

τοὺςλατρεύοντας] see at Hebrews 9:9.

Hebrews 10:3

Hebrews 10:3. Contrast to τὸμηδεμίανἔχεινἔτισυνείδησινἁμαρτιῶντοὺςλατρεύοντας. 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.[97] Comp. Philo, de Victim. p. 841 A (with Mangey, II. p. 244): Εὔηθεςγὰρτὰςθυσίαςμὴλήθηνἁμαρτημάτων, ἀλλʼ ὑπόμνησιναὐτῶνκατασκευάζειν.

De plantat. Noë, p. 229 B (I. p. 345): αἱ … θυσίαι … ὑπομιμνήσκουσαιτὰςἑκάστωνἀγνοίαςτεκαὶδιαμαρτίας.

Vit. Mos. 3. p. 669 E (II. p. 151): Καὶγὰρὁπότεγίνεσθαιδοκοῦσιν (sc. the θυσίαι, and ΕὐΧΑΊ of the impious), ΟὐΛΎΣΙΝἉΜΑΡΤΗΜΆΤΩΝἈΛΛʼ ὙΠΌΜΝΗΣΙΝἘΡΓΆΖΟΝΤΑΙ.

ἘΝΑὐΤΑῖς] sc. ταῖςθυσίαις.

ἀνάμνησις] not: commemoratio (Vulgate, Calvin, Clarius, al.) or commemoratio publica (Bengel and others), so that we must think of the confession of sin (tract. Jom. iv. 2, iii. 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 Corinthians 11:24-25; Luke 22:19.

[97] 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 ἀνάμνησιςἁμαρτιῶν, ver. 3, points back to the kindred συνείδησινἁμαρτιῶν, ver. 2.

Hebrews 10:4

Hebrews 10:4. 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.

Hebrews 10:5-10

Hebrews 10:5-10. Scripture proof, from Psalms 40:7-9 [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.

Hebrews 10:6

Hebrews 10:6. In burnt-offerings and sin-offerings hadst Thou no pleasure.

LXX. Cod. Vatic.: ὁλοκαύτωμα … οὐκᾒτησας; Cod. Alex.: ὁλοκαυτώματα … οὐκἐζήτησας.

καὶπερὶἁμαρτίας] Oecumenius: τουτέστιπροσφορὰνπερὶἁμαρτίας. Elsewhere also occasionally (Leviticus 7:37; Numbers 8:8, al.) the LXX. denote the sin-offering by the mere περὶἁμαρτίας, in that the additional notion of sacrifice is naturally yielded by the context. Stein’s expedient for avoiding all supplementing 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. Genesis 33:10; Leviticus 26:34; Leviticus 26:41; Psalms 51:18-19, al. Besides this in the Hellenistic εὐδοκεῖνἐν (Hebrews 10:38), with Greek writers εὐδοκεῖντινι.

Hebrews 10:7

Hebrews 10:7. Τότεεἶπον] then said I. 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 capriciously Heinrichs makes it redundant as a particle of transition.

ἐνκεφαλίδιβιβλίουγέγραπταιπερὶἐμοῦ] is a parenthesis; so that τοῦποιῆσαι depends not on γέγραπται, as Paulus thinks, but upon ἥκω: Lo, I come to do, O God, Thy will. Comp. Hebrews 10:9. Otherwise truly with the LXX. (and in the Hebrew), where τοῦποιῆσαι is governed by the closing verb ἠβουλήθην, which is omitted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (τοῦποιῆσαιτὸθέλημάσου, ὁθεόςμου, ἠβουλήθην: to do Thy will, O God, is my delight).

ἐνκεφαλίδιβιβλίουγέγραπταιπερὶἐμοῦ 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. κεφαλὶςβιβλίου consequently denotes the book-roll, volume. Elsewhere also the LXX. translated the Hebrew מְגִלָּה (volumen), with and without the addition of βιβλίου, by κεφαλίς. Comp. Ezekiel 2:9; Ezekiel 3:1-3; Ezra 6:2.

τὸθέλημα] in the sense of our author: the obedient presentation of the body as a sacrifice for the redemption of mankind.

Hebrews 10:8-10

Hebrews 10:8-10. Contrasting of the two main elements in the citation just adduced, and emphasizing of the fact that the one 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] sc. ὁΧριστός. The participle present, in place of which Schlichting, Grotius, Bleek, de Wette expect that of the aorist, is employed here, even as λέγει, Hebrews 10:5, 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 Hebrews 7:17, Hebrews 11:18.

θυσίαςκαὶπροσφοράς] The plural appropriately serves for the generalization of the utterance.

αἵτινεςκατὰνόμονπροσφέρονται] 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 Hebrews 10:10 by the application of the second half to Christianity.

αἵτινες] refers back to the whole of the preceding substantives.

Hebrews 10:9

Hebrews 10:9. Τότεεἴρηκεν] are words of the author, and form the apodosis to ἀνώτερονλέγων, Hebrews 10:8. Quite erroneously does Peirce, who, with Chrysostom, Hom. xviii. and the Vulgate (tunc dixi), instead of τότεεἴρηκεν will read τότεεἶπον, which, however, only arose from Hebrews 10:7, make the apodosis begin first with ἀναιρεῖτὸπρῶτον.

τότε, however, not ὕστερον, which would more exactly accord with the ἀνώτερον, Hebrews 10:8, the author wrote, because the τότεεἶπον of the citation was still fresh in his memory.

ἀναιρεῖτὸπρῶτον, ἵνατὸδεύτερονστήσῃ] he abolishes the first, or deprives it of validity, in order to establish the second as the norm in force (Romans 3:31). Parenthetic insertion, so that Hebrews 10:10 attaches itself closely to τὸθέλημα, and is to be separated therefrom only by a comma. The parenthesis serves by way of exclamation to call attention to the importance of the application to be given in Hebrews 10:10 to the ἰδοὺἥκωκ.τ.λ. Subject in ἀναιρεῖ is naturally here also Christ; not “the Spirit of God,” as Kurtz arbitrarily supposes.

τὸπρῶτον] sc. τὸπροσφέρεινθυσίαςκαὶπροσφορὰςκ.τ.λ.

τὸδεύτερον] sc. τὸποιεῖντὸθέληματοῦθεοῦ. Theodoret: πρῶτονεἶπετὴντῶνἀλόγωνθυσίαν, δεύτερονδὲτὴνλογικηήν, τὴνὑπʼ αὐτοῦπροσενεχθεῖσαν. Wrongly does Peirce take τὸπρῶτον and τὸδεύτερον adjectivally, in supplementing to each τὸθέλημαθεοῦ. With equally little warrant Carpzov: the διαθήκηπρώτη and the διαθήκηκαινή, or the ἱερωσύνηκατὰτὴντάξινἈαρών and the ἱερωσύνηκατὰὁμοιότηταΜελχισεδέκ, are meant; as also Stein: the O. T. and the N. T. economy.

Hebrews 10:10

Hebrews 10:10. Ἐνᾧθελήματι] upon the ground of which will (more exactly: of which fulfilment of His will), and in conditioning connection with that will. What is meant is the will of God, of which the author has before spoken.

ἡγιασμένοιἐσμέν] we (Christians) have been sanctified (delivered from sins). ἁγιάζεσθαι correlative to the notions τελειοῦσθαι, Hebrews 10:1, and καθαρίζεσθαι, Hebrews 10:2.

By the προσφορὰτοῦσώματοςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ cannot be meant “the self-presentation of Christ in the heavenly Holy of Holies” (Kurtz), but only (comp. Hebrews 9:28) Christ’s death upon the cross on earth. For the indication of the former idea the expression τοῦσώματος would be altogether unsuitable. Comp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 475 f.

ἐφάπαξ] belongs to ἡγιασμένοιἐσμέν, not, as Oecumenius, Theophylact, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Stein, Bloomfield, Alford, and others conjoin, to διὰτῆςπροσφορᾶςτοῦσώματοςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ, because otherwise the article τῆς must have been repeated.

Hebrews 10:11-14

Hebrews 10:11-14. 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 sacrifice procured everlasting sanctification. This the main thought of Heb 10:11-14. 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. Deuteronomy 10:8; Deuteronomy 18:7; Judges 20:28, al.), were thus characterized as servants or inferiors (comp. also James 2:3); whereas in Christ’s sitting down at the right hand of God, His participation in the divine majesty and glory is proclaimed.

Hebrews 10:12

Hebrews 10:12. Οὗτος] comp. Hebrews 3:3.

εἰςτὸδιηνεκές] belongs to ἐκάθισεν.

With that which precedes is it conjoined by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Bengel, Böhme, Stein, Ewald, and others; whereby, however, the manifest antithesis, which εἰςτὸδιηνεκὲςἐκάθισεν forms to ἕστηκενκαθʼ ἡμέραν, Hebrews 10:11, is destroyed, and the symmetry of the proposition, Hebrews 10:12, is lost.

Hebrews 10:13

Hebrews 10:13. Τὸλοιπόν] 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 τὸλοιπόν in the relative sense: “as regards the rest, concerning the rest” (Kurtz), is, on account of the close coherence with ἐκδεχόμενοςἕως, unnatural, for which reason also the passages adduced by Kurtz as supposed parallels, Ephesians 6:10, Philippians 3:1; Philippians 4:8, 1 Thessalonians 4:1, 2 Thessalonians 3:1, do not admit of comparison.

The object of the waiting is expressed by our author in the language of Psa 110:1.

The ἐκάθισεν … τὸλοιπὸνἐκδεχόμενοςἕως … 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 Corinthians 15:22-28) anticipates 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 conversion of the Jews before the appearing of Christ,” has little probability, considering the absolute and unqualified character of the expression here chosen: οἱἐχθροὶαὐτοῦ.

Hebrews 10:14

Hebrews 10:14. Proof of the possibility of the εἰςτὸδιηνεκὲςἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτοῦθεοῦ, Hebrews 10:12, 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: μιᾷγὰρπροσφορᾷ, merits the preference to μιὰγὰρπροσφορά, to which Bengel is inclined, and which has been followed by Ewald, since by the former the words acquire an immediate reference to Christ.

τοὺςἁγιαζομένους] them that are sanctified, sc. as regards the decree of God. The participle present is used substantively, as Hebrews 2:11, without respect to time.

Hebrews 10:15-18

Hebrews 10:15-18. That there is no need of any further expiatory sacrifice, the Scripture also testifies. This Scripture proof the author derives from the declaration, Jeremiah 31:31-34, already adduced at Hebrews 8:8 ff., in that he here briefly comprehends the same in its two main features.

Hebrews 10:16

Hebrews 10:16. Instead of τῷοἴκῳἸσραήλ, Hebrews 8:10, the author here places πρὸςαὐτούς. Certainly not unintentionally. By means of the more general πρὸςαὐτούς, the more definite reference 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 ἣνδοαθήσομαι; here it is true, with yet greater grammatical ruggedness than at Hebrews 8:10.

Hebrews 10:17

Hebrews 10:17. The καί at the beginning of the verse is held by Böhme 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.

Hebrews 10:18

Hebrews 10:18. Τούτων] is not a neuter (Böhme: “ut, quicquid esset peccati, in universum designaretur”), but feminine, inasmuch as it refers back to ἁμαρτιῶν and ἀνομιῶν, Hebrews 10:17.

οὐκέτι] sc. ἐστίν, there expiatory sacrifice no longer takes place, sc. because in connection with such a state it has become unnecessary.

Hebrews 10:19-25

Hebrews 10:19-25. 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 Hebrews 10:19-25 the similar exhortation Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 4:16.

Hebrews 10:20

Hebrews 10:20. Ἥν] 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 πρόφατονκαὶζῶσαν 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, Hebrews 10:19, and ὁδόν, Hebrews 10:20, stand to each other. The ὁδός, namely, characterized Hebrews 10:19 as to its goal (as εἴσοδοςτῶνἁγίων), is, Hebrews 10:20, further described with regard to its nature and constitution (as ὁδὸςπρόσφατος and ζῶσα).

ἣνἐνεκαίνισενἡμῖνὁδὸνπρόσφατονκαὶζῶσαν] 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 inaccessible, comp. Hebrews 9:8; Theodoret: ὡςτότεπρῶτονφανεῖσαν) and living way. πρόσφατος, originally: fresh slain; then in general: fresh, new, recens. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 374 f.

ζῶσα, 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. ὁἄρτοςὁζῶν, John 6:51), 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.

διὰτοῦκαταπετάσματος, τουτέστιντῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ,] 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. Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45) 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 instrumental,—and is not to be combined with ἐνεκαίνισεν (Böhme, 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 πρόσφατονκαὶζῶσαν, seeing that an οὖσαν or ἄγουσαν naturally suggests itself by way of supplement.

τῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ] depends immediately upon the preceding διά, not first, as Peirce and Carpzov maintain, upon a τοῦκαταπετάσματος to be supplied.

Hebrews 10:21

Hebrews 10:21 is still governed by ἔχοντες, Hebrews 10:19. As τὰἅγια, Hebrews 10:19, was chosen as a general designation instead of the special τὰἅγιαἁγίων, so here (comp. Hebrews 5:6, Hebrews 7:1; Hebrews 7:3, al.) the general ἱερέα stands in the sense of the special ἀρχιερέα, and μέγαν is, as Hebrews 4:14, expression of the exaltedness of this High Priest (against Stuart, Klee, Stein, Ewald, M‘Caul, and others, who take ἱερέαμέγαν together as a designation of the High Priest).

ἐπὶτὸνοἶκοντοῦθεοῦ] over the house of God. Comp. Hebrews 3:6. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Estius, Grotius, Calov, Tholuck, Stengel, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 454), Maier, Kurtz, and others understand by these words, in accordance with Hebrews 3:2; Hebrews 3:6, 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.[101]

[101] That Delitzsch—who is followed therein by Alford—will have us understand, as the οἶκοςτοῦθεοῦ in our passage at the same time “the church” and “the heaven of glory,” can he looked upon only as an instance of manifest error.

Hebrews 10:22

Hebrews 10:22. Προσερχώμεθα] let us then draw nigh, sc. to this ἅγια, Hebrews 10:19, and this ἱερεὺςμέγας, Hebrews 10:21, or, what is, as regards the matter itself, not different, to God; in such wise that προσερξώμεθα is here, like τοὺςπροσερχομένους, Hebrews 10:1, used absolutely, or else receives its supplementation from the τοῦθεοῦ immediately preceding. Comp. Hebrews 7:25, Hebrews 11:6; also Hebrews 4:16.

μετʼ ἀληθινῆςκαρδίας] with true, i.e. sincere heart, so that we are really in earnest about the προσέρχεσθαι.

ἐνπληροφορίᾳπίστεως] in firm conviction of faith, firm inner certainty of faith. Comp. Hebrews 6:11. Epexegesis of μετʼ ἀληθινῆςκαρδίας, for the clearer defining of the contents thereof.

ἐῤῥαντισμένοιτὰςκαρδίαςἀπὸσυνειδήσεωςπονηρᾶς] 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 subjective qualification for the προσέρχεσθαι, while Hebrews 10:19-21 contains the objective qualification for the same. What is meant, is the justification of Christians through Christ’s bloody sacrificial death (Hebrews 9:14), after the analogy of the sprinkling with blood, whereby the first Levitical priests were consecrated and qualified to approach God. Comp. Exodus 29:21; Leviticus 8:30.

Hebrews 10:23

Hebrews 10:23. The words: καὶλελουμένοιτὸσῶμαὕδατικαθαρῷ, are, by the Peshito, by Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Luther, Estius, Wolf, Baumgarten, Storr, Kuinoel, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 741, Obs.), Alford, Maier, Kluge, and others, combined in one, and referred still to προσερχώμεθα, Hebrews 10:22, as a second participial clause. Better, nevertheless, shall we conjoin καί with κατέχωμεν; so that λελουμένοιτὸσῶμαὕδατικαθαρῷ becomes a parenthetic clause, which specifies the subjective qualification to the κατέχειν, exactly as ἐῤῥαντισμένοικ.τ.λ., Hebrews 10:22, brought out the subjective qualification to the προσέρχεσθαι. In connection with the first-named construction,[102] the rhythmical symmetry of the members, Hebrews 10:22-23, would be needlessly sacrificed, and ΚΑΤΈΧΩΜΕΝ stand there too much torn from the context. For the supposition that ΚΑΊ might have been wanting before ΚΑΤΈΧΩΜΕΝ, since a third verb (ΚΑΤΑΝΟῶΜΕΝ) follows at Hebrews 10:24, 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 Hebrews 10:24 in thought with Hebrews 10:22, and Hebrews 10:23, on the contrary, only brings in later that which is observed at Hebrews 10:24 as a new and independent exhortation, while ΠΡΟΣΕΡΧΏΜΕΘΑ … ΚΑῚΚΑΤΈΧΩΜΕΝ 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).

ΛΕΛΟΥΜΈΝΟΙΤῸΣῶΜΑὝΔΑΤΙΚΑΘΑΡῷ] 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. Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5. Analogon in the Levitical domain the washings, Exodus 29:4; Exodus 30:19 ff; Exodus 40:30 ff.; Leviticus 16:4. To find denoted in a merely figurative sense (to the exclusion of baptism), with Calvin [Owen] and others, in accordance with Ezekiel 36:25: 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 (“Il s’agit ici, comme dans toute cette partie de l’épître, 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 illa aqua, qua suos perfundit Christus, ipsius etiam sanguine non excluso,” we are forbidden by the addition of τὸσῶμα, which implies likewise the reminiscence of an outward act.

ΚΑΘΑΡῷ] that which is pure, and in consequence thereof also makes pure.

κατέχωμεντὴνὁμολογίαντῆςἐλπίδοςἀκλινῆ] 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.

ΤῊΝὉΜΟΛΟΓΊΑΝ] 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, Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 3:14.

ΠΙΣΤῸςΓᾺΡὉἘΠΑΓΓΕΙΛΆΜΕΝΟς] for faithful (so that He keeps that which He promises; comp. 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 10:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:24) is He who has given the promises (namely, God). Ground of encouragement for the κατέχειν.

[102] A third mode of combining, followed by Hofmann (Schrifthbew. II. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 178 f.), according to which ἐῤῥαντισμένοι is separated by a full stop from that which precedes, and is conjoined with κατέχωμεν, 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.

Hebrews 10:24-25

Hebrews 10:24-25. 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.

καὶκατανοῶμενἀλλήλους] and let us direct our view to each other (comp. Hebrews 3:1), 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 εἰςπαροξυσμὸνκ.τ.λ. is yet followed by the negative μὴἐγκαταλείποντεςκ.τ.λ.

εἰςπαροξυσμὸνἀγάπηςκαὶκαλῶνἔργων] that incitement to love and good works may arise therefrom.

παροξυσμός] Acts 15:39; Deuteronomy 29:27; Jeremiah 32:37, and elsewhere in the bad sense: irritation, i.e. embittering. Here, however, as occasionally with the classic writers, the verb is used (comp. Xen. Memor. 3:3. 13 : ἈλλὰμὴνοὔτεεὐφωνίᾳτοσοῦτονδιαφέρουσινἈθηναῖοιτῶνἄλλων, οὔτεσωμάτωνμεγέθεικαὶῥώμῃ, ὅσονφιλοτιμίᾳ, ἥπερμάλισταπαροξύνειπρὸςτὰκαλὰκαὶἔντιμα; Thucyd. vi. 88, al.) in the good sense.

ἀγάπη] brotherly love, and καλὰἔργα, the single manifestations thereof.

Hebrews 10:25

Hebrews 10:25. Μὴἐγκαταλείποντεςτὴνἐπισυναγωγὴνἑαυτῶν, καθὼςἔθοςτισίν] while not forsaking (ceasing to frequent), as is the custom with some, our own assembly, and thereby, in connection with the already prevalent tendency to apostasy from Christianity, setting a pernicious example.

τὴνἐπισυναγωγὴνἑαυτῶν] is taken by Calvin, Böhme, 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 Christian church, sunk in poverty, peril, and distress, by the refusal of acts of assistance (Böhme), 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 addition καθὼςἔθοςτισίν, according to which the ἐγκαταλείπειν was an oft-recurring act on the part of the same persons. τὴνἐπισυναγωγὴνἑαυτῶν, therefore, is best explained as: the assembling of ourselves, in order to be united together (comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:1), i.e. 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, i.e. Jewish religious assemblies, and contains the indication that the τινές gave the preference to the frequenting of the latter.

ἀλλὰπαρακαλοῦντες] sc. ἑαυτούς (comp. Hebrews 3:13) or ἀλλήλους, which is easily supplemented from the foregoing ἑαυτῶν: but animating one another, namely, to the uninterrupted frequenting of our own Christian assemblies. Quite unsuitably, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 379) would supply in thought to παρακαλοῦντες, as its object: τὴνἐπισυναγωγήν.

καὶτοσούτῳμᾶλλονὅσῳβλέπετεἐγγίζουσαντὴνἡμέραν] and that so much the more, as ye see the day itself drawing nigh. Reinforcing ground of obligation to the παρακαλεῖν.

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 ἡμέρα is the day κατʼ ἐξοχήν, the day of the coming in of the Parousia of Christ, which the author thinks of as quite near at hand (comp. Hebrews 10:37), 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.

Hebrews 10:26-31

Hebrews 10:26-31. In the ἐγκαταλείπειντὴνἐπισυναγωγὴνἑαυτῶν, Hebrews 10:25, 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 slights recognised Christian truth, and sins against it, will infallibly be overtaken by the punitive judgment of God. To be compared Hebrews 6:4-8.

Hebrews 10:27

Hebrews 10:27. Φοβερὰδέτιςἐκδοχὴκρίσεως] sc. ἀπολείπεται: but there remains indeed, etc. The ἀπολειπόμενον is of two kinds, something subjective (φοβερὰ … κρίσεως) and something objective (πυρὸς … ὑπεναντίους).

φοβερὰἐκδοχὴκρίσεως] denotes not “a terrible banquet of judgment,” as Ewald strangely translates it, nor is it any hypallage in the sense of ἐκδοχὴκρίσεωςφοβερᾶς, 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 judgment is something terrible.

φοβεράτις] an exceedingly terrible one. On the τις, added with rhetorical emphasis to adjectives of quality or quantity, comp. Kühner, II. p. 331; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 160.

κρίσις] is used here, too, as Hebrews 9:27, 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 πυρὸςζῆλος in a single notion (“fiery zeal,” sc. of the divine wrath). The πῦρ is personified, and in such way a ζῆλος, a fury, ascribed to the same. There was probably present to the mind of the author in connection with the last member, LXX. Isaiah 26:11: ζῆλοςλήψεταιλαὸνἀπαίδευτονκαὶνῦνπῦρτοὺςὑπεναντίουςἔδεται.

τοὺςὑπεναντίους] 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. ii.14, 4 Aufl. p. 331.

Hebrews 10:28-29

Hebrews 10:28-29. That in reality the consequences of an ἑκουσίωςἁμαρτάνεινμετὰτὸλαβεῖντὴνἐπίγνωσιντῆςἀληθείας are so terrible as was asserted at Hebrews 10:27, the author renders evident by a conclusion a minora ad majus. Apostasy from the 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 Hebrews 10:28-29 we may compare, as regards the thoughts, Hebrews 2:2-3, Hebrews 12:25; 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. ἀθετήσαςτιςνόμονΜωϋσέωςκ.τ.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 compassionating him, upon the deposition of two or three witnesses. Although death was imposed as the punishment for many single transgressions of the Mosaic law (Exodus 21:15 ff; Exodus 31:14; Leviticus 17:14; Deuteronomy 22:22 ff., al.), yet the author certainly has reference, as is evident from the addition: ἐπὶδυσὶνἢτρισὶνμάρτυσιν, and as is required also by the parallel relation to Hebrews 10:29, quite specially to the ordinance, Deuteronomy 17:2-7 [cf. also Numbers 15:30-31], in conformity with which the punishment of death was inflicted upon the man who, by idolatry, apostatized from Jehovah. Comp. l.c. Hebrews 10:6, LXX.: ἐπὶδυσὶμάρτυσινἢἐπὶτρισὶμάρτυσινἀποθανεῖται.

ἐπί] as Hebrews 9:17: upon condition that two or three witnesses depose against him.

Hebrews 10:29

Hebrews 10:29. Of how much more severe punishment, think ye, will he be counted worthy, who, etc.

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.

τιμωρία in the N. T. only here.

ὁκαταπατήσας] 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.

τὸαἶματῆςδιαθήκης] 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. Hebrews 9:15 ff.

κοινόν] either: as common, ordinary blood, not distinguished in any respect 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 impure (Vulgate, Luther, Grotius, Carpzov, Michaelis, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Böhme, Tholuck, Ebrard, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 769; Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others), i.e. as the blood of a transgressor, which Christ must be, if He was not the Son of God and the Redeemer.

ἐνᾧἡγιάσθη] contrasting addition to κοινὸνἡγησάμενος, 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.

καὶτὸπνεῦματῆςχάριτοςἐνυβρίσας] and has done despite to the Spirit 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 ἐνυβρίζειντινί or τί, found, apart from the poets (Soph. Phil. 342), only with the later Greeks. In the N. T. a ἅπαξλεγόμενον.

τὸπνεῦματῆςχάριτος] the Holy Spirit, who is a gift of the divine grace.

Hebrews 10:30

Hebrews 10:30. The χείρονοςἀξιωθήσεταιτιμωρίας, Hebrews 10:29, is a matter for the most serious consideration. This the declarations of God Himself in the Scriptures prove.

οἴδαμενγὰρτὸνεἰπόντα] for we know Him who hath spoken, i.e. we know what it means when God makes predictions like those which follow.

The first utterance is without doubt from Deuteronomy 32:35. It deviates from the Hebrew original (לִי נָקָם וְשִׁלֵּם), but still more from the LXX. (ἐνἡμέρᾳἐκδικήσεωςἀνταποδώσω); on the other hand, it agrees to so great an extent with Paul’s mode of citing the same in Romans 12:19, that even the λέγεικύριος, 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 Böhme), 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: ἐγὼἀνταποδώσω, are to be traced back to the paraphrase of Onkelos (וַאֲנִא אֲשַׁלֵּם) as the common source employed by Paul and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet with much greater probability is the coincidence to be explained by the supposition 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: κρινεῖκύριοςτὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ, attached by means of καὶπάλιν (Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 2:13), is found in like form, Deuteronomy 32:36 and Psalms 135:14. This κρίνειντὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ 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—manifestly led thereto in the interest of a mistaken harmonistic method—he foists upon the author of the epistle the statement: “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 Hebrews 10:26, 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 Hebrews 10:31 the whole train of thought, Hebrews 10:26-30, is briefly summed up, and with this the warning brought to a close. Fearful is it to fall into the hands of the living God, i.e. to fall a victim to the divine punitive judgment. Comp. Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4-5.

ἐμπίπτεινεἰςχεῖραςκυρίου occurs also with the LXX. 2 Samuel 24:14, 1 Chronicles 21:13, Sir 2:18, 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 terribile.

θεοῦζῶντος] see at Hebrews 3:12.

Hebrews 10:32-39

Hebrews 10:32-39. 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 before the return of Christ and the coming in of the promised fulness of blessing. Comp. Hebrews 6:9 ff.

Theodoret: Ἐπειδὴδὲταῦταἱκανὰἦναὐτοὺςἀνιᾶσαι, ὀλιγωρίαναἰνιττόμενακαὶτῶνθείωνἀμέλειαν, κεράννυσιτῶνεἰρημένωντὸαὐστηρὸντῇμνήνῃτῶνἤδηκατορθωμένων. Οὐδὲνγὰροὕτωςεἰςπροθυμίανδιεγείρει, ὡςτῶνοἰκείωνκατορθωμάτωνμνήμη.

Of the facts themselves, of which mention is made Hebrews 10:32-34, 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 Hebrews 12:4, had as yet been spared persecutions having a bloody termination.

Hebrews 10:33

Hebrews 10:33. Τοῦτομὲν … τοῦτοδέ] on the one hand … on the other; partly … partly. A genuinely Greek formula (comp. Wetstein ad loc.). In the N. T. only here.

τοῦτομὲνὀνειδισμοῖςτεκαὶθλίψεσινθεατριζόμενοι] in that, on the one hand, by conditions of infamy (Hebrews 11:26, Hebrews 13:13) and by tribulations, ye were made a spectacle (were exposed publicly to reviling). ὀνειδισμοί (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.

θεατριζόμενοι] comp. 1 Corinthians 4:9: θέατρονἐγενήθημεντῷκόσμῳκαὶἀγγὲλοιςκαὶἀνθρώποις. The verb only here and with the Church Fathers.

τοῦτοδὲκοινωνοὶ … 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. κοινωνοὶγενηθέντες is elucidated by συνεπαθήσατε, Hebrews 10:34, 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.”

τῶνοὕτωςἀναστρεφομένων] of those who were in such condition (sc. ἐνθλίψεσινκαὶὀνειδισμοῖς). Kypke, Storr, Böhme, Kuinoel, and others supplement the οὕτως from the πολλὴνἄθλησινὑπεμείνατεπαθημάτων, Hebrews 10:32: of those who thus walked, i.e. 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, πολλὴνἄθλησινὑπεμείνατεπαθημάτων, Hebrews 10:32, is the general statement, which afterwards, Hebrews 10:33, separates into two special subdivisions by means of τοῦτομὲν … τοῦτοδέ, so οὕτως in the second member can only refer back to the immediately foregoing characterization in the first member.

Hebrews 10:34

Hebrews 10:34. Confirmatory elucidation of Heb 10:33, and that in such form that καὶ … συνεπαθήσατε corresponds to the latter half of Heb 10:33, and καὶ … προσεδέξασθε to the former half thereof.

καὶγὰρτοῖςδεσμίοιςσυνεπαθήσατε] for ye had both compassion (Hebrews 4:15) on the prisoners, in that ye bestowed upon them active sympathy.

καὶτὴνἁρπαγὴντῶνὑπαρχόντωνὑμῶνκ.τ.λ.] and also accepted (comp. Hebrews 11:35) 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 it.”

γινώσκοντεςἔχεινἑαυτοῖςκρείττοναὕπαρξινκαὶμένουσαν] indication of motive for καὶτὴνἁρπαγὴνκ.τ.λ.: knowing that ye have for yourselves (as your true possession) a better property (Acts 2:45), and that an abiding one, namely, the spiritual, everlasting blessings of Christianity, of which no power of the earth can deprive you. Comp. Matthew 6:20; Luke 12:33.

Hebrews 10:35

Hebrews 10:35. Exhortation deduced from Hebrews 10:32-34. 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, Lösner, and others), but the voluntary casting from one, or letting fall away (comp. Mark 10:50), as though it were a question only of a worthless, useless thing; μὴἀποβάλλειν thus the same as κατέχειν, Hebrews 10:23; Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 3:14, and κρατεῖν, Hebrews 4:14, Hebrews 6:18.

τὴνπαῤῥησίανὑμῶν] your joyful confidence, sc. towards Christ as your Saviour. The free, courageous confession of Christianity before the world, of which Beza, Grotius, and others understand the expression, is only the consequence of the παῤῥησία, which here, too, as Hebrews 10:19; Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 4:16, denotes a frame of the mind.

ἥτις] which of a truth. Introduction of a well-known, indisputable verity.

μεγάληνμισθαποδοσίαν] great rewarding retribution (see at Hebrews 2:2), namely, the promised everlasting blessedness (Hebrews 10:36).

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.

Hebrews 10:36

Hebrews 10:36. Justification of the foregoing exhortation μὴἀποβάλητε. 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 perseverance, since they are beginning to grow lukewarm in Christianity. ὑπομονῆς is therefore, as the principal notion, emphatically prefixed.

τὸθέληματοῦθεοῦ] that which God wills, or requires, i.e. in accordance with the context: not merely the having become believers in Christ, but also the stedfast continuance in faith unto the end. Theophylact: θέλημαθεοῦτὸἄχριτέλουςὑπομεῖναι. Against the connection Bleek: τὸθέληματοῦθεοῦ is “the sanctification of men by the sacrifice of the Son of God” (Hebrews 10:7; Hebrews 10:9-10), and consequently the ποιεῖν thereof the willing submission to be sanctified by the Redeemer. Too general the acceptation of 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.

ποιήσαντες] refers not to that which, according to Hebrews 10:32 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 κομίζεσθαι, as yet belonging to the future, can be realized.

τὴνἐπαγγελίαν] the promise, i.e. that which is promised, the promised everlasting blessedness.

Hebrews 10:37-38

Hebrews 10:37-38. Ground of encouragement to the ὑπομονή, of which the readers stood in need, expressed with a free application of the words of Hab 2:3-4, 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 ἔτιγὰρμικρὸνὅσονὅσον are not a constituent part of the citation, but proceed from the author himself.

μικρὸνὅσονὅσον] is found Isaiah 26:20, and signifies literally: a little, how much, how much! i.e. a very, very little, or a very short time. μικρόν (John 14:19; John 16:16 ff.) is nominative,—not accusative to the question when, as is supposed by Bleek (but only in his larger Comm.; otherwise in his later Vorlesungen, p. 417), Bisping, Alford, and Hofmann, as also Meyer on John 13:33,—and nothing more than ἐστίν is to be supplemented 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: τίοὐκἀπεκοιμήθημενὅσονὅσονστίλην; Arrian, Indic. xxix. 15: ὀλίγοιδὲαὐτῶνσπείρουσινὅσονὅσοντῆςχώρης. See Hermann, ad Viger. 726.

ὁἐρχόμενοςἥξεικαὶοὐχρονιεῖ] and then He that cometh will come, and will not delay.

LXX. l.c. Hebrews 10:3: διότιἔτιὅρασιςεἰςκαιρὸνκαὶἀνατελεῖεἰςπέραςκαὶοὐκεἰςκενόνἐὰνὑστερήσῃ, ὑπόμεινοναὐτόν, ὅτιἐρχόμενοςἥξεικαὶοὐμὴχρονίσῃ. In the sense of the prophet, the discourse is of the certain fulfilment of the prophecy regarding the overthrow of the 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 ὁἐρχόμενος appears, Matthew 11:3, Luke 7:19, as a current appellation of the Messiah (based upon Daniel 7:13; Zechariah 9:9; Malachi 3:1; Psalms 40:8 [7], Psalms 118:26).

Only in the instances mentioned the first appearing of the Messiah upon earth is intended, whereas in our passage (as also very frequently by ἔρχεσθαι elsewhere in the N. T., e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:26; Acts 1:11; Matthew 16:27-28; John 21:22-23) 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.

Hebrews 10:38

Hebrews 10:38. Continuation of the citation, yet so that the author adduces the two clauses of Hab 2:4 in inverted order. For in the O. T. passage the words read: ἐὰνὑποστείληται, οὐκεὐδοκεῖἡψυχήμουἐναὐτῷὁδὲδίκαιοςἐκπίστεώςμου [ὁδὲδίκαιόςμουἐκπίστεως] ζήσεται. The transposition is intentional, in order to avoid the supplying of the subject ὁἐρχόμενος to ὑποστείληται.

ὁδὲδίκαιόςμουἐκπίστεωςζήσεται] my (of God, not of Christ: Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 621, Obs.) righteous one (the devout man belonging to me), however, shall live by faith. ἐκπίστεως, namely, is, in the sense of the author of the epistle, to be referred to ζήσεται. To conjoin it here, too, as Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11, with δίκαιος (so Baumgarten, Schulz, Böhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stengel, al.), 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 ἐπαγγελία, or, what is the same thing, the ζωὴαἰώνιος. The notion of the πίστις here closely attaches itself to the Hebrew אמוּנָה. 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, καὶἐὰνὑποστείληταικ.τ.λ., has been misunderstood by the LXX. In the Hebrew: הִנֵּה עֻפְּלַה לֹא־יָשְׁרָה נַפְשׁוֹ בֹּו, behold, lifted up, not upright is his (sc. the Chaldean’s) soul in him.

ἐὰνὑποστείληται] if so be that he with faint heart draws back. Comp. Galatians 2:12. 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 ὁδίκαιος the general idea ἄνθρωπος as subject. The subject is still the foregoing ὁδίκαιόςμου. 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.

ἡψυχήμου] μου has reference to God, not to Christ (Oecumenius, as likewise, but with hesitation, Theophylact, as more recently Riehm, l.c.), still less to the author of the epistle (Calvin: perinde accipiendum est, ac si ex suo sensu apostolus proferret hanc sententiam. Neque enim illi propositum fuit exacte recitare prophetae verba, sed duntaxat locum notare, ut ad propriorem intuitum invitaret lectores).

Hebrews 10:39

Hebrews 10:39. 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 Greek manner of expressing a relation of pertaining to a thing. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 165; Kühner, II. p. 167.

εἰςἀπώλειαν … εἰςπεριποίησινζωῆς] Corroborative allusion to the result of the two opposite lines of action.

ἀπώλεια is everlasting perdition, and περιποίησιςψυχῆς (comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:9: εἰςπεριποίησινσωτηρίας) gaining of the soul, i.e. 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 Böhme and Hofmann will have it, to ἀπώλειαν, since only περιποί., not also ἀπώλ., stood in need of an addition.