Hebrews 7

CHAPTER 7

Hebrews 7:1. Instead of τοῦὑψίστου, Elz. has only ὑψίστου. Against A B C D E K L à, 23, 44, 46, 48, al. pl., Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, al. mult.

ὁσυναντήσας] Lachm. and Alford, after A B C (corr.) D E K à, 17, 117, al.: ὃςσυναντήσας. Notwithstanding the strong support of authorities, manifest error, arising from the reading together of the article and the initial letter of the participle.

Hebrews 7:4. Instead of the Recepta ᾧκαὶδεκάτην, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 read, after B D* E* Vulg. (Amiatin. Toletan.) It. Copt. Basm. Syr., merely ᾧδεκάτην. Certainly καί is not indispensable, and might be regarded as a later gloss from Hebrews 7:2. But with quite as much probability it may be supposed that it was added by the author himself, the words of Heb 7:2 being still present to his mind. It is therefore, since it has in its favour the considerable attestation by A C D*** E** K L à, by, as it appears, all the cursives, by the Vulgate (also Demidov. and Harlej.), Syr. Philonex. al., by Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al., Aug. Bede, with Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, to be retained.

Hebrews 7:6. The article τόν before Ἀβραάμ is deleted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford, after B C D* à* 23, 57, 109, al. In favour of the omission pleads the very sparing use made of the article before proper names in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the article as a rule being placed only where, as in Hebrews 11:17, the perspicuity of the discourse imperatively demanded it.

Hebrews 7:9. In place of the received Λευΐ we have here, with Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 2, to write Λευΐς, after A (λευις) B C* à*** (λευεις). In the ed. vii. and viii. Tisch. writes: Λευείς.

Hebrews 7:10. Elz.: ὁΜελχισεδέκ. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Alford, after B C* D* à, 73, 118, al., Chrys.: Μελχισεδέκ. The rejection of the article is to be approved on the same grounds as in Hebrews 7:6.

Hebrews 7:11. The Recepta ἐπʼ αὐτῇνενομοθέτητο (defended by Reiche) has decisive witnesses against it. Instead of ἐπʼ αὐτῇ is ἐπʼ αὐτῆς (approved by Grotius, placed on the inner margin by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required by A B C D* E* à, 17, 31, 46, al., Cyril; instead of νενομοθέτητο is νενομοθέτηται (already approved by Camerarius and Grotius, adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required by A B C D* à, 17, 47, 73, al., Cyril.

Hebrews 7:13. προσέσχηκεν] Tisch. 1, after A C, 17, al.: προσέσχεν. Commended to notice by Griesb. also. Rightly, however, do Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche (Commentar. crit. p. 56, note 9), prefer the Recepta προσέσχηκεν. In favour of this pleads, besides the yet stronger attestation (B D E K L à, Oecum. al.), the paronomasia with μετέσχηκεν, consonant with the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Hebrews 7:14. Elz.: οὐδὲνπερὶἱερωσύνης. But A B C* D* E à, 17, 47, al., It. Vulg. Copt, Sahid. Arm. Cyr. Chrys. (codd.) have: περὶἱερέωνοὐδέν. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. περὶἱερωσύνης is a glossematic elucidation.

Hebrews 7:16. Instead of the Recepta σαρκικῆς, Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford have adopted σαρκίνης, after A B C* D* L à (also H in the title), many min. and Fathers. Rightly. σαρκίνης might easily be changed into σαρκικῆς by transcribers, since σαρκικός is an adjective of very frequent recurrence in the N. T., σάρκινος a rare one.

Hebrews 7:17. μαρτυρεῖται] Elz.: μαρτυρεῖ. Against preponderating testimony (A B D* E* à, 17, 31, al., Copt. Sahid. Basm. Slav. Cyr. Chrys. Theophyl.).

Hebrews 7:21. After αἰῶνα Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bloomfield, Reiche add once more: κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ. Deleted by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, after B C, 17, 80, Vulg. Sahid. Basm. Arm. Ambr. (?) Bede. Rejected also by Delitzsch. But without sufficient ground. For the words are found in A D E K L à*** It. Syr. utr. Copt. al., with Chrys. Theodoret, al., and the omission of them is to be explained by the fact that immediately after the same (Hebrews 7:22) the discourse is continued afresh with κατά; the eye of the transcriber might thus easily wander from the first κατά to the second κατά. Also for à* there was found in the twofold κατά the occasion for overlooking not only κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ, but in addition to this likewise εἰςτὸναἰῶνα.

Hebrews 7:22. τοσοῦτον] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield. But the weighty authority of A B C D* à* Athan. (cod.) al. decides in favour of the form of the word preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, τοσοῦτο.

Hebrews 7:23. Recepta: γεγονότεςἱερεῖς. So also Tisch. 2, 7, and 8. As better attested, however (A C D E, Cyr. [twice] Chrys. [ms.]), the order of words: ἱερεῖςγεγονότες, is to be preferred, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Delitzsch, and Alford.

Hebrews 7:26. Elz.: ἔπρεπεν. More correctly, however, Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz (?), Tisch. and Alford, after A B D E, Syr. utr. Arab. Erp. Euseb.: καὶἔπρεπεν.

Hebrews 7:1-10

Hebrews 7:1-10.[80] While the author now in reality passes over to the work of developing the high-priesthood after the manner of Melchisedec, proper to Christ, and consequently of illustrating upon every side the pre-eminence of the same above the Levitical high-priesthood, he dwells first of all upon the person of Melchisedec himself, in that, following the thread of the Scripture narrative, he brings vividly before his readers the exaltedness of Melchisedec’s position, and draws their attention to a threefold superiority of Melchisedec over the Levitical priests.

[80] C. A. Auberlen, “Melchisedek’s ewiges Leben und Priesterthum Hebrews 7” (Stud. u. Krit. 1857, H. 3, p. 453 ff.).

Hebrews 7:2

Hebrews 7:2. To whom also Abraham portioned out the tenth of all (sc. that he had gained as booty; comp. ἐκτῶνἀκροθινίων, Hebrews 7:4).

πρῶτονμὲνἑρμηνευόμενοςβασιλεὺςδικαιοσύνης] he who first, interpreted (i.e. if one translates his Hebrew name מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק into Greek), is King of Righteousness. Comp. Josephus, Antiq. i. 10. 2 : Μελχισεδέκης, σημαίνειδὲτοῦτοβασιλεὺςδίκαιος.

Bell. Jud. vi. 10 : ὁδὲπρῶτοςκτίσας (Ἱεροσόλυμα) ἦνΧαναναίωνδυνάστης, ὁτῇπατρίῳγλώσσῃκληθεὶςβασιλεὺςδίκαιοςἦνγὰρδὴτοιοῦτος. The author of the epistle, however, following more closely the sense of the Hebrew words, renders the name by βασιλεὺςδικαιοσύνης (instead of rendering it βασιλεὺςδίκαιος, as Josephus does), and thereby brings out more clearly the part sustained by Melchisedec as a type of Christ, inasmuch as the latter is not only Himself righteous (comp. Zechariah 9:9; Jeremiah 23:5), but also the mediatorial author of righteousness for others. Comp. 1 Corinthians 1:30; Jeremiah 23:6; Malachi 4:2; Daniel 9:24.

ἔπειταδὲκαὶβασιλεὺςΣαλήμ, ὅἐστινβασιλεὺςεἰρήνης] and then also king of Salem, which is (denotes) king of peace. Comp. with regard to Christ as our peace and peace-bringer, Ephesians 2:14-15; Ephesians 2:17; Romans 5:1; also Isaiah 9:6-7.

ὅἐστιν] corresponds to the ἑρμηνευόμενος of the previous clause.

There is no reason for taking Salem, with Böhme and Bleek, after the precedent given by Petrus Cunaeus, de Rep. Hebraeorum, Hebrews 3:3, as not being the name of a place at all, but βασιλεὺςΣαλήμ together as forming the further name of the man, since the author of the epistle might discover a typical reference to Christ not only in the personal name of Melchisedec, but also in the name of the state over which he ruled as king and prophet. The author, for the rest, interprets the name of the place as though not שָׁלֵם (peaceful) but שָׁלו̇í (peace) had been written in the Hebrew,—a mode of rendering in which Philo had already preceded him. Comp. Legg. allegor. iii. 25, p. 75 (with Mangey, I. p. 102 f.): καὶΜελχισεδὲκβασιλέατετῆςεἰρήνης

Σαλὴμτοῦτογὰρἑρμηνεύεται

ἱερέαἑαυτοῦπεποίηκενὁθεός.

Hebrews 7:3

Hebrews 7:3. Ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος] without father, without mother, without pedigree, i.e. of whom neither father, nor mother, nor pedigree stands recorded in Holy Scripture. This is the usual interpretation of the words, which has been the prevalent one in the church from early times to the present. Less natural, and only in repute here and there, is the explanation: who possessed neither father nor mother, etc., according to which the sacred writer must have recognised in Melchisedec a higher, superhuman being, who had only for a time assumed a human form. The latter view was taken by Origen and Didymus, who would maintain that Melchisedec is to be regarded as an angel; in like manner the unknown authority in Jerome, ad Evagr.; Hilary, Quaestt. in V. T. quaest. 109, and the Egyptian Hieracas in Epiph. Haeres. 67, who saw in him an ensarcosis of the Holy Ghost; as also the Melchisedecites, a section of the Theodotians, who described him as μεγάληντινὰδύναμινθείαν, surpassing in exaltedness even Christ Himself, since Christ appeared after the likeness of Melchisedec; finally, single individuals in the orthodox church, in Epiphanius, Haer. 55. 7; as also afterwards, P.

Molinaeus, Vates, Hebrews 4:11 sq.; P. Cunaeus, l.c.; J. C. Hottinger, de Decimis Judaeorum, p. 15; d’Outrein, Starck, and others, who supposed that in Melchisedec the Son of God Himself had appeared in human form. This whole method of interpretation has against it the fact that ἀγενεαλόγητος—for not ἀγένητος is placed—can be understood without violence only of the neglect to cite the genealogical table of Melchisedec in the narrative of the Book of Genesis [comp. Hebrews 7:6]; and ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ must be taken conformably with the elucidatory ἀγενεαλόγητος, thus are likewise to be explained merely of the father and mother being passed over unnamed in the historic account, not of their actual nonexistence.

The characteristics ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, moreover, are to be referred—since ἀφωμοιωμένοςδὲτῷνἱῳτοῦθεοῦ cannot yet be brought into correspondence therewith—only to Melchisedec, without our being obliged to seek for them a special point of comparison with Christ, as is done by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. Cappellus, Bisping, al. (comp. also Kurtz ad loc.), in applying the ἀπάτωρ to Christ’s humanity, the ἀμήτωρ to His divinity, and the ἀγενεαλόγητος either likewise to His divinity or to His New Testament high priesthood. Comp. e.g. Theodoret: Ἀμήτωρμὲνγάρἐστινὡςθεόςἐκμόνουγὰργεγέννηταιτοῦπατρόςἀπάτωρδὲὡςἄνθρωποςἐκμόνηςγὰρἐτέχθημητρός, τῆςπαρθένουφημίἀγενεαλόγητοςὡςθεόςοὐγὰρχρήζειγενεαλογίαςὁἐξἀγεννήτουγεγεννημένοςπατρός.

By means of ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, Melchisedec appears as presenting a contrast to the Levitical priests, since in the case of these scrupulous attention was paid to the descent.

The expression ἀγενεαλόγητος only here in all Greek literature.

μήτεἀρχὴνἡμερῶνμήτεζωῆςτέλοςἔχων] without beginning of days and without end of life, namely, in that nothing is related in Holy Scripture either of his birth or his death. The statement is quite a general one. To limit it to the beginning and end of the priesthood (Cameron, Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Whitby, Kuinoel, Hofmann, al.) is arbitrary. Nor is the meaning of the words, that Melchisedec was not born in the ordinary human way, and, something like Enoch and Elijah, was taken up to heaven without experiencing death (Hunnius, Braun, Akersloot; comp. also Bleek, p. 322 ff.; Nagel: “On the significance of Melchisedec in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 2, p. 332 ff.; Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Feb. p. 102 f.; Alford), a sense which conflicts with the right apprehension of the opening words of the verse.

ἀφωμοιωμένοςδὲτῷυἱᾷτοῦθεοῦ] on the contrary (therein) made entirely like unto the Son of God, namely, as type of the same. The words do not belong to μένειἱερεὺςεἰςτὸδιηνεκές (Peshito, Grotius, al.). For with justice does Theodoret already observe: ἐνμέντοιτῇἱερωσύνῃοὐΜελχισεδὲκμεμίμηταιτὸνδεσπότηνΧριστόν, ἀλλʼ ὁδεσπότηςΧριστὸςἱερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶμακατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ. They form, by means of the closely combining δέ, a more precise positive defining to the negative μήτεἀρχὴνἡμερῶνμήτεζωῆςτέλοςἔχων. Chrysostom: Ἀφωμοιωμένοςδέ, φησί, τῷυἱῷτοῦθεοῦκαὶποῦἡὁμοιότης; Ὅτικαὶτούτουκἀκείνουτὸτέλοςἀγνοοῦμευκαὶτὴνἀρχήνἀλλὰτούτουμὲνπαρὰτὸμὴγεγράφθαι, ἐκείνουδὲπαρὰτὸμὴεἶναι.

μένειἱερεὺςεἶςτὸδιηνεκές] remains priest for ever, in that, as of his end of life so also of the cessation of his priesthood, nothing is recorded. He remains so in the reality of his office, but only as a figure and type of Christ. Against the view of Auberlen (l.c. p. 497), that Melchisedec is termed an everlasting priest in no other sense than as, according to the Apocalypse, all the blessed in heaven are so, see the observations of Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 202 f., Remark. The subject, moreover, in μένει is naturally the Melchisedec of Genesis, not, as Wieseler contends (Schrr. d. Univ. zu Kiel aus d. J. 1860, VI. 1, p. 40): “the Melchisedec of the passage in the Psalms just mentioned (Hebrews 6:20), or the true antitypal Melchisedec or Messiah.” For it is not grammatically allowable, with Wieseler, to take the words βασιλεὺςΣαλὴμ … ἀφωμοιώμενοςδὲτῷυἱῷτοῦθεοῦ as an apposition merely to ὁΜελχισεδέκ, and not to the whole expression οὗτοςὁΜελχισεδέκ, and in connection with οὗτοςὁΜελχισεδέκ to rest the emphasis exclusively upon οὗτος.

εἰςτὸδιηνεκές] of the same import as εἰςτὸναἰῶνα, Hebrews 6:20. Comp. Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 10:14.

Hebrews 7:4

Hebrews 7:4. Θεωρεῖτε] is imperative, whereby a strain is to be put on the attention for that which follows: but behold, namely, inwardly, i.e. consider.

πηλίκος] how great, i.e. how high and exalted.

οὗτοςᾧκαὶδεκάτηνἈβραὰμἔδωκενκ.τ.λ.] Resuming of the historic notice already adduced at the beginning of Heb 7:2, in order then further to argue from the same. By the choice and position of the words, however, the author brings out the πηλίκος in its truth and inner justice. (Choice of the words ἁκροθίνια and πατριάρχης,—the latter in place of the elsewhere more usual ὁπατήρ in regard to Abraham,—and effective placing of the characterizing title ὁπατριάρχης at the close of the proposition at a far remove from the name Ἀβραάμ.)

καὶδεκάτην] καί is not the merely copulative “also,” as Hebrews 7:2 (Hofmann), but is used as giving intensity. It gives intensity, however, not to the subject (so Luther, Grotius, Owen, Carpzov: “Abraham himself also”),—for then ᾧκαὶἈβραὰμδεκάτηνἔδωκεν must have been written,—but the predicate: to whom Abraham gave even the tenth.

ἀκροθίνια] composed of ἄκρος and θίν, in the N. T. a ἅπαξλεγόμενον, denotes the uppermost of the heap, the choice or best thereof. The expression is most current with regard to the first-fruits of the harvest presented to the Godhead; not seldom, however, is it used of the best, which was selected out of the spoils of war as an offering consecrated to the Godhead. In our passage, too, ἀκροθίνια denotes not simply the spoils acquired by Abraham (so Chrysostom: τὰλάφυρα; Oecumenius: ἐκτῶνσκύλωνκαὶλαφύρων, Erasmus, Luther, Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, Böhme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Bloomfield, and the majority), but the choicest, most valuable articles thereof. Theophylact: ἐκτῶνλαφύρωντῶνκρειττόνωνκαὶτιμιωτέρων. Not that the meaning of the author is, that Abraham gave to Melchisedec the tenth part of the most choice objects among the booty acquired, but that the tithes which he presented to Melchisedec consisted of the choicest, most excellent portions of the booty.

ὁπατριάρχης] he, the patriarch. The sonorous name of honour πατριάρχης, composed of πατριά and ἀρχή, designates Abraham as the father of the chosen race, and ancestor of the people of Israel. Comp. Acts 2:29, where David is distinguished by the same title of honour, and Acts 7:8-9, where the twelve sons of Jacob are so distinguished.

Hebrews 7:5-10

Hebrews 7:5-10. Unfolding of the πηλίκοςοὗτοςκ.τ.λ., Hebrews 7:4, in that Melchisedec is compared with the Levitical priests, and a threefold superiority of the former over the latter is pointed out.

Hebrews 7:6

Hebrews 7:6. Notwithstanding this privileged position of the Levitical priests (Hebrews 7:5), Melchisedec yet occupies a far higher position.

ὁδέ] is not to be taken alone, as by Böhme, Kuinoel, and Klee, and then to be supplemented by τὴνἱερατείανλαβών from Hebrews 7:5; but ὁδὲμὴγενεαλογούμενοςἐξαὐτῶν belongs together: Melchisedec, on the contrary, without (μή) his family or descent being derived from them, received tithes of Abraham.

ἐξαὐτῶν] refers neither to the Israelites (Epiph. Haer. 67. 7; Cornelius a Lapide, Braun, Ernesti, Schulz) nor to Levi and Abraham (Grotius), but to the υἱοὶΛευΐ, Hebrews 7:5.

The parallel clause, καὶτὸνἔχοντατὰςἐπαγγελίαςεὐλόγηκεν] and blessed him who had the promises, serves yet further to make manifest the dignity and exaltedness of Melchisedec. For, by the fact that Abraham had received the divine promises, that his seed should be multiplied, and in him all nations of the earth should be blessed (Genesis 12:2 f., Hebrews 13:14 f.), he had been already most highly favoured of God. How high thus must that man stand, who imparts his blessing to one already so highly favoured, since truly—as is immediately expressly added, Hebrews 7:7—the dispenser of the blessing is ever more exalted than the recipient of the blessing! Oecumenius: ἐξῆρετὸνἈβραάμ, ἵναπλεῖονἐξάρῃτὸνΜελχισεδέκ.

Hebrews 7:7

Hebrews 7:7 joined on by means of δέ, since the verse contains the major of a syllogism. The minor is already furnished in the second half of Heb 7:6, and the conclusion: “therefore Melchisedec is more exalted than Abraham,” is left to the readers themselves to supply.

The neuters τὸἔλαττον and τὸκρεῖττον serve for the generalization of the statement, inasmuch as the author has only persons in view. Comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 167.

The truth of the statement, however, is apparent, in that the author is thinking of the blessing imparted in the name of God and by virtue of the divine authority. For Melchisedec as the priest of God was the representative of God, or one divinely commissioned, in the communicating of the blessings.

Hebrews 7:8

Hebrews 7:8. Second point of superiority. The Levitical priests are mortal men; but of Melchisedec it is testified that he lives.

By καὶὧδεμέν, “and here,” reference is made to the Levitical priests, by ἐκεῖδέ, “but there,” to Melchisedec, because the Levitical priesthood still continues to exist to the time of our author, thus having something about it near and present; the historic appearing of Melchisedec, on the other hand, falls in the period of hoary antiquity.

δεκάτας] The plural, on account of the plurality of tithes levied by the Levitical priests.

ἀποθνήσκοντες] as the principal notion placed before ἄνθρωποι.

ἀποθνήσκοντεςἄνθρωποι] men who die (irrevocably or successively), comp. Hebrews 7:23.

ἐκεῖδὲμαρτυρούμενοςὅτιζῇ] but there, one who has testimony that he lives, sc. δεκάτηνἔλαβεν. That by reason of the coherence with that which precedes only Melchisedec can be understood, and not (with Justinian, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius, and Pyle) Christ, scarcely stands in need of mention. ζῇ, as opposition to ἀποθνήσκοντες, can be interpreted only absolutely, of the life which is not interrupted by death. That the author, in connection with μαρτυρούμενος, had before his mind a testimony contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant, admits of no doubt. Whether, however, he derived the testimony of Melchisedec’s continued life from the silence of Scripture as to Melchisedec’s death, or found in the declaration, Psalms 110:4, a direct proof therefor, or, finally, combined the two facts together, and deduced his conclusion from both in common, is a question hardly to be decided. The first supposition is entertained by Calvin, Estius, Drusius, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Stein, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others; the second, by Theodoret, Zeger, Whitby, Heinrichs, Bleek, Bloomfield, Alford, Conybeare, Kurtz, M‘Caul, Woerner, and others; the third, by Böhme, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. pp. 201, 454, and others.

Hebrews 7:9-10

Hebrews 7:9-10. Third point of superiority. In Abraham, Levi the receiver of the tithes has also already been tithed by Melchisedec.

The formula ὡςἔποςεἰπεῖν, of very common occurrence with classic writers, as likewise frequently met with in Philo, is found in the N. T. only here. It denotes either: to say it in one word (in short), or: so to say, i.e. in some sense. Theophylact: Τὸδὲὡςἔποςεἰπεῖνἢτοῦτοσημαίνειὅτικαὶἐνσυντόμῳεἰπεῖν, ἢἀντὶτοῦἵνʼ οὕτωςεἴπω. In the former sense our passage is apprehended by Camerarius, Jac. Cappellus, Er.

Schmid, Owen (preferably), Elsner, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann; in the latter,—and this is here the more correct one,—the Vulgate, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Carpzov, Kypke, Heinsius, Böhme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, Woerner, and the majority. The author himself feels that the thought he is on the point of expressing has something singular and unusual about it. Thus he mitigates and limits the harshness thereof by ὠςἔποςεἰπεῖν, whereby he indicates that the ensuing statement is, notwithstanding its inner truth, not to be understood literally.

διʼ Ἀβραάμ] by Abraham, i.e. by the fact that Abraham gave the tenth. Ἀβραάμ is a genitive. Mistaken; Augustine (de Genes. ad lit. x. 19): propter Abraham; Photius (in Oecumenius): διὰτὸνδεκατωθένταἈβραάμφησιτρόποντινὰκαὶὁἐντῇὀσφύϊαὐτοῦἔτιὢνΛευῒδεδεκάτωται.

Λευΐς] As is shown by the participle present in the addition ὁδεκάταςλαμβάνων, we have not to think of the mere individual personality of Levi, but of him in connection with his posterity, thus of Levi as ancestor and representative of the Jewish priests.

Hebrews 7:10

Hebrews 7:10. Proof for the assertion Hebrews 7:9. When Abraham gave the tenth to Melchisedec, he was as yet childless, and therefore at that time still bore his descendants as in germ in himself. When, accordingly, by the presentation of the tenth he acknowledged a superior rank of Melchisedec over himself, he rendered homage to the latter not only in his own person, but at the same time as the representative of his posterity, as yet incapable of independent action, because as yet unborn.

ἔτιἐντῇὀσφύϊτοῦπατρὸςεἶναι] to be as yet in the loins of the father, or to be yet unborn. The expression is explained by the analogous ἐξέρχεσθαιἐκτῆςὀσφύοςτινός, Hebrews 7:5: by generation to proceed, from one’s loins.

τοῦπατρός] is not to be taken, with Bleek, as a “universally recognised designation” of Abraham (i.e. as father of the Jews and Christians). It stands in special relation to Levi; thus: his father, wherein, of course, seeing Abraham was the great-grandfather of Levi, πατήρ is to be understood in the wider sense, or as progenitor.

Hebrews 7:11-17

Hebrews 7:11-17. The Levitical priesthood in general has, together with the Mosaic law, lost its validity.

Hebrews 7:12

Hebrews 7:12. In the parenthesis, Hebrews 7:11, the author has brought forward in general the close connectedness of the Levitical priesthood with the Mosaic law, and thereby already indicated that if the former is an imperfect and unsatisfying one, the same also is true of the latter; the perishing of the one involves also the perishing of the other. This truth the author now further specially urges, by means of a corroboration of the parenthetical remark, Hebrews 7:11. So in recent times also Alford and Woerner. Otherwise is the connection apprehended by Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 484), Maier, and Moll. They refer γάρ to the main thought in Hebrews 7:11, and find in Hebrews 7:12 an indication of the reason “why a change of the sacerdotal order would not have ensued without an urgent cause, namely, because such change would have involved also a change of the law in general.” But subject-matter and form of expression in Hebrews 7:12 point back to the parenthesis, Hebrews 7:11. For in both the author is speaking of the inseparable conjunction of the Levitical priesthood with the Mosaic law; and ἐπʼ αὐτῆς, Hebrews 7:11, is resumed by τῆςἱερωσύνης, Hebrews 7:12; νενομοθέτηται, Hebrews 7:11, by νόμου, Hebrews 7:12.

μετατιθεμένης] denotes, like the μετάθεσις immediately following, certainly as to its verbal signification, only a transformation or change, (not specially, as Chrysostom, Piscator, Grotius, Bengel, Heinrichs, Stuart, and others suppose, a transference of the priesthood to another tribe of the Jewish people, or to a non-Aaronides). As regards the thing intended, however,—as is manifest from the parallel ἀθέτησις, Hebrews 7:18,—an actual rendering obsolete or abrogation is spoken of. The author thus still expresses himself with delicacy of feeling.

That, further, νόμος is to be limited, neither, with Beza, Pareus, Piscator, Grotius, Wittich, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Zachariae, Whitby, Schulz, to the law of the priesthood, nor, with Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. Cappellus, Carpzov, Kuinoel, Klee, and others, to the ceremonial law, but is to be interpreted of the Mosaic law in general, is self-evident.

Hebrews 7:13-14

Hebrews 7:13-14. First proof of Heb 7:12. Levitical priesthood and Mosaic law have lost their validity. For Christ, to whom the utterance of God, Psalms 110:4, refers, belongs in point of fact to another tribe, which, according to Mosaic ordinance, has nothing to do with the administration of the priesthood.

Hebrews 7:14

Hebrews 7:14. Further evidencing of Heb 7:13.

πρόδηλονγάρὅτι] for it is clearly apparent that. The προ in πρόδηλον is not to be taken, with Peirce (following Owen), temporally, according to which the sense would be, that Christ’s descent from the tribe of Judah was made known beforehand, i.e. before He had yet arisen upon earth,—with which, in the first place, the perfect ἀνατέταλκεν does not harmonize,—but contains the notion of lying manifestly before the eyes. Theodoret: τὸπρόδηλονὡςἀναντίῤῥητοντέθεικε. προ serves, therefore, only for the strengthening of the simple δῆλον. Comp. 1 Timothy 5:24-25.

ἐξἸούδα] out of Judah, i.e. from the tribe of Judah (comp. Revelation 5:5; Genesis 49:9-10). With emphasis preposed.

ἀνατέταλκεν] has arisen or sprung forth. The figure which underlies the verb is either that of a rising star (comp. Numbers 24:17; Malachi 4:2; Isaiah 40:1), or of a tender shoot coming up from the ground (Genesis 19:25; Isaiah 44:4; Ezekiel 17:6; comp. also ἀνατολή, צְמַח, with reference to the Messiah, Jeremiah 23:5; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12).

ὁκύριοςἡμῶν] Jesus Christ.

εἰςἣνφυλήν in reference to which tribe.

περὶἱερέων] sc. who should be taken out of the same.

Hebrews 7:15-17

Hebrews 7:15-17. Second proof of Heb 7:12. The abrogation of the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic law follows further from the fact that the new priest who is promised is to bear resemblance to Melchisedec, whereby it is made manifest that his characteristic peculiarity is one quite different from that of the Levitical priests.

Hebrews 7:16

Hebrews 7:16. Nearer indication as to what is implied by the characteristic κατὰτὴνὁμοιότηταΜελχισεδέκ, Hebrews 7:15, what peculiarity of priesthood is expressed by the same.

ὅς] sc. ἱερεὺςἕτερος, not: Μελχισεδέκ.

ὃς … γέγονεν] who … has become so (sc. priest).

οὐκατὰνόμονἐντολῆςσαρκίνηςκ.τ.λ.] not according to the law of a fleshly command, but according to the power of indestructible [or indissoluble] life. In connection with νόμος, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Böhme, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Delitzsch, and others think of the Mosaic law; but against this argues the singular ἐντολῆςσαρκίνης, to take which, with the expositors mentioned, in the sense of the plural (according to the Mosaic law, whose essence consists in fleshly ordinances), or as a collective designation of the constituent parts of the law as ὁνόμοςτῶνἐντολῶν, Ephesians 2:15, is arbitrary. νόμος is therefore to be taken, as Romans 7:21; Romans 7:23, in the more general sense: norm (rule, standard), and the ἐντολή is the special precept or ordinance which the Mosaic law contains regarding the Levitical priesthood.

It is called fleshly, however, according to Carpzov, Böhme, Stuart, and others, because it is mutable and transitory; more correctly, nevertheless: because it lays stress only upon external, earthly things, which fall a prey to transitoriness, and (comp. the contrast ἀλλὰκατὰδύναμινκ.τ.λ.) appoints as priests only mortal men, of whom one after another is snatched away by death. Schlichting: carnale (praeceptum) vocatur, quia totum ad carnem spectabat, carnisque rationem habebat. Partim enim ad certam stirpem, nempe Aaronicam, sacerdotii dignitatem adstrinxerat, partim mortalitati pontificum, quae carnis propria est, consulens, successionis jura descripserat. Inde enim factum est, ut unum alteri succedere juberet, quo, morientibus sacerdotibus, sacerdotium tamen ipsum perpetuaretur.

κατὰδύναμινζωῆςἀκαταλύτου] i.e. inasmuch as the power of living for ever is inherent in Him. Comp. Hebrews 7:17; Hebrews 7:24. Improperly do Cameron, Dorscheus, Calov, al., refer it as well, or solely, to Christ’s power of communicating intransitory life to others. But wrongly, too, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 551 f.), Delitzsch, and Alford: the ζωὴἀκατάλυτος is to be limited to that life of Christ which began with His resurrection. On the contrary, the ζωὴἀκατάλυτος is thought of as a property inherent in the ἱερεὺςἕτερος, without respect to relation of time. Comp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 458, Obs.

Hebrews 7:17

Hebrews 7:17. Scripture proof for κατὰδύναμινζωῆςἀκαταλύτου, Hebrews 7:16. This Scripture proof the author finds in the εἰςτὸναἰῶνα, Psalms 110:4, upon which words, therefore, the emphasis rests in Hebrews 7:17.

μαρτυρεῖταιγάρ] for he (namely, the ἱερεὺςἕτερος, Hebrews 7:15, i.e. Christ) has the testimony. μαρτυρεῖται is not to be taken impersonally: “it is witnessed” (Bleek, Bisping, Conybeare, al.).

ὅτι] recitative, as Hebrews 10:8, Hebrews 11:18.

Hebrews 7:18-19

Hebrews 7:18-19. Elucidation of that which is signified by this proclamation in the psalm, of the arising of a new everlasting priest after the manner of Melchisedec (Hebrews 7:17). By virtue of that proclamation of God, the Mosaic institution of the priests, and with it the Mosaic law in general, is declared—and that with good reason—to be devoid of force; and, on the other hand, a better hope is brought in. Theodoret: Παύεται, φησίν, ὁνόμος, ἐπεισάγεταιδὲἡτῶνκρειττόνωνἐλπίς.

Hebrews 7:18-19 contain a single proposition, dividing itself into two halves by means of μὲν … δέ, for which γίνεται forms the common verb, and in which οὐδὲνγὰρἐτελείωσενὁνόμος constitutes a parenthesis. So, rightly, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Luther, Zeger, Camerarius, Estius, Peirce, Bengel, M‘Lean, Schulz, Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Conybeare, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 592), Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, Woerner, and the majority. Others construe differently, in taking each of the two verses as an independent statement in itself. They then vary as regards the interpretation of ἐπεισαγωγή, Hebrews 7:19, as this is looked upon either as predicate or as subject. As predicate it is taken by Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus (Version), Vatablus, Calvin, Hunnius, Jac. Cappellus, Pyle, Ebrard, and others, in supplying ἐστίν or ἦν, and regarding as subject thereto ὁνόμος.

According to this, the sense would be: for nothing has the law brought to perfection; but it is (or its meaning consists in this, that it is) a bringing in of a better hope. But against this argues the fact that, if ἐπεισαγωγὴδέ was intended to form the opposition to the first half of Heb 7:19, the author could not possibly—after having placed a verb (ἐτελείωσεν) in the first half, consisting as it does only of a few words—have continued in the second half otherwise than with a verb; he must have written ἐπεισάγειδὲκρείττοναἐλπίδα instead of ἐπεισαγωγὴδὲκ.τ.λ. Moreover, ἑπί in ἑπεισαγωγή would have remained without any reference upon the supposition of this construction. As subject ἐπεισαγωγή is looked upon by Beza, Castellio, Pareus, Piscator, Schlichting, Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Carpzov, Whitby, Michaelis, Semler, Ernesti, Valckenaer, Heinrichs, Stuart, and others. The sense would then be: the law indeed brought nothing to perfection; but the bringing in of a better hope did lead to perfection.

Against this view, however, the consideration is decisive, that in such case, inasmuch as the preceding νόμος has the article, ἐπεισαγωγή also must have obtained the article.

The statement of Heb 7:18 is to be understood in special relation to the subject in question (not, as is done by Schlichting, Heinrichs, and others, as a truth of universal import). The article before προαγούσηςἐντολῆς is wanting, because the design was to express the ἐντολή regarding the Levitical priesthood as one which had only the character of an ἐντολὴπροάγουσα.

ἀθέτησις] a declaring void of force, abrogation. Comp. ἀθετεῖν, Galatians 3:15. The substantive only here and Hebrews 9:26.

γίνεται] results, namely, in the declaration of God, Psalms 110:4.

The ἐντολή, the command, denotes not the whole Mosaic law (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Calvin, Grotius, Hammond, Owen, M‘Lean, Böhme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Klee, Bloomfield), but the ordinance regarding the Levitical priesthood therein contained. Only with Hebrews 7:19 does the author transfer to the whole that which he here states concerning a part.

The ἐντολή, however, is termed προάγονσα (comp. 1 Timothy 1:18; 1 Timothy 5:24), because, as a constituent part of the O. T., it preceded in point of time the institution of the New Covenant. Yet, at the same time, there lies in the emphatically preposed participle, on account of its reciprocal relation to ἐπεισαγωγή, Hebrews 7:19, at least the additional indication delicately conveyed, that this ἐντολή, since just as a mere precursor of something future it points beyond itself, naturally bears the character of the merely temporary and consequently unsatisfactory.

διὰτὸαὐτῆςἀσθενὲςκαὶἀνωφελές] on account of its weakness and unprofitableness. The ἐντολή was weak, since it did not possess the strength to attain its object, namely, the reconciliation of men to God; but, because in such manner it did not fulfil the end of its existence, it became for that very reason something unprofitable and unserviceable. On ἀσθενές, comp. Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:9.

οὐδέν] is not to be limited by means of οὐδένα (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Schlichting, Grotius, Carpzov, Kuinoel, Bisping), but, on the contrary, is to be left in the full universality of the neuter. Completion in general, in whatever respect, the law was not in a position to bring about.

ἐπεισαγωγή] a doubly composite term. Literally: introduction upon or in addition to, i.e. the bringing in of something new in addition to, or over and above, an object already present (here: in addition to the προάγουσαἐντολή, Hebrews 7:18). ἐπί in ἐπεισαγωγή corresponds therefore to the πρό in προαγούσης.

κρείττονοςἐλπίδος] of a better hope, sc. than the προάγουσαἐντολή was in a position to afford.[83] Better, more excellent, is the hope founded upon the newly instituted priesthood, in that this hope is certain and infallible, thus in reality leads to the desired goal.

δἰἧςἐγγίζομεντῷθεῷ] by means of which we draw nigh unto God (James 4:8). Comp. Hebrews 6:19: εἰσερχομένηνεἰςτὸἐσώτεροντοῦκαταπετάσματος, and Hebrews 10:19 ff. In contrast with the character of the Old Covenant, since the people were not permitted to enter the Most Holy Place, where the throne of Jehovah was. Cf. Hebrews 9:6 ff.

[83] We have not to explain, with Schulz: “So is then … something better introduced, the hope, by virtue of which,” etc. To the same result as Schulz does Delitzsch also come, when he observes: “It is not meant that the law also afforded a hope, and that the one introduced by the word of the psalm is only by comparison better; but the κρείττωνἐλπίς, which possesses that which is truly perfected in the future, in the world beyond the grave, into which its anchor has been sunk (Hebrews 6:19), stands opposed to the ἐντολή in the present state of its unsatisfying praxis.” In the same manner, lastly, Alford: “The contrast is between the προάγουσαἐντολή, weak and unprofitable, and a better thing, viz. the ἐλπίς, which brings us near to God. This κρείττονόςτινος, τουτέστινἐλπίδοςκ.τ.λ., is expressed by κρείττονοςἐλπίδος.”

Hebrews 7:20-22

Hebrews 7:20-22. As one element in the superiority of the everlasting priesthood after the manner of Melchisedec, assigned to Christ, over the Levitical priesthood has been already implicitly brought forward, Hebrews 7:18-19, namely, that the goal, for the attainment of which the strength was lacking to the Levitical priesthood, is really attained by the everlasting priesthood. A second point of superiority in the new order of things over the old follows in Hebrews 7:20-22. Of less moment than the everlasting priesthood of Jesus must the Levitical priesthood be; for the former was constituted by God by virtue of a declaration upon oath, the latter without a declaration upon oath. Hebrews 7:20-22 form again a single period, the protasis being contained in καὶκαθ̓ὅσονοὐχωρὶςὁρκωμοσίας, to which then καὶτοσοῦτοκ.τ.λ., Hebrews 7:22, corresponds as the apodosis, while all that intervenes (οἱμὲνγάρ, to the end of Heb 7:21) is a parenthesis. Wrongly do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Calvin (in the translation), Er.

Schmid, and others join καὶκαθ̓ὅσονοὐχωρὶςὁρκωμοσίας, too, to the closing words of Heb 7:19: and, indeed, a hope which is better, inasmuch as it is not brought in without an oath. So also Luther: “and moreover, which is a great thing, not without oath;” while, with not less violence, Lud. Cappellus, who, in enclosing Hebrews 7:18-19 within a parenthesis, and taking καὶκαθ̓ὅσονοὐχωρὶςὁρκωμοσίας with Hebrews 7:17, gives as the sense: “Deus constituit Christum sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedec, et quidem non sine jurejurando.”

καί] coupling on a farther link in the chain of enumeration, as Hebrews 7:8-9; Hebrews 7:23.

καὶκαθ̓ὅσονοὐχωρὶςὁρκωμοσίας] sc. ἱερεύςἐστινγεγονώς; and inasmuch (Hebrews 9:27) as He has become priest not without a declaration upon oath, i.e. He has not become so without God having sanctioned His appointment to be a priest by a declaration upon oath (namely, by virtue of the oath, with which the declaration, Psalms 110:4, is introduced). Only this mode of supplementing is warranted by the connection, as is shown partly by the οἱμὲνγὰρχωρὶςὁρκωμοσίαςεἰσὶνἱερεῖςγεγονότες immediately following, partly by the circumstance that the author is still engaged in the exposition of the Scripture statement, Hebrews 7:17, this statement thus containing for him the gist of the matter; as, accordingly, this declaration of Scripture is repeated anew, Hebrews 7:21, and then likewise the εἰσὶνἱερεῖςγεγονότες recurs in the further member of the thought, Hebrews 7:23 f. The explanation therefore of Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Heinrichs, Böhme, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Alford, Kurtz, and others is to be rejected, when to καθ̓ὅσονοὐχωρὶςὁρκωμοσίας they supplement from the apodosis διαθήκηςἔγγυοςγέγονεν; as also that of Storr, Schulz, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, Delitzsch, Moll, and Hofmann, when they supply τοῦτο (sc. ἐπεισαγωγὴκρείττονοςἐλπίδος) γίνεται (γέγονεν).

οἱμὲνγάρ] namely, the Levitical priests.

χωρὶςὁρκωμοσίας] since nothing is related in Scripture of an oath of God, when He destined Aaron and his posterity to be priests.

εἰσὶνγεγονότες] forms one idea: have become. Wrongly, Paulus and Klee: are priests who have become so without an oath. Böhme (and so also Hofmann): “sunt sacerdotes, sed sine juramento (illi quidem singuli deinceps) facti”—which must have been expressed by εἰσὶνἱερεῖςχωρὶςὁρκωμοσίαςγεγονότες. Still more widely mistaken the view of Michaelis ad Peirc.: “fuerunt, i.e. esse desierunt,”—which is grammatically as well as logically impossible. The tempus periphrasticum εἰσὶνγεγονότες marks the fact already belonging to the past as still extending onwards into the present.

ὁδέ] namely, Christ.

μεθ̓ὁρκωμοσίας] sc. ἱερεύςἐστινγεγονώς.

διὰτοῦλέγοντοςπρὸςαὐτόν] i.e. in the sense of the author: by God, not: by the psalmist (Rambach, Heinrichs), although certainly the statement, Psalms 110:4, that God hath sworn and will not repent of this oath, forms not a constituent part of the words of God Himself, but a remark of the psalmist, with which he introduces the words of God. Yet, when in the psalm it is said that God has sworn, and of this oath He will not repent, and then there is adduced as the subject-matter of this oath the declaration: σὺἱερεὺςκ.τ.λ., this is tantamount to saying that God has declared by virtue of an irreversible oath: σὺἱερεὺςκ.τ.λ. As, accordingly, the psalmist is relating the words of God, so does he also relate the oath which preceded them.

Hebrews 7:22

Hebrews 7:22. The apodosis: Jesus has become the surety of a so much more excellent covenant, i.e. so much more excellent is the covenant of which Jesus has become surety.

ἔγγυος] in the N. T. only here. Comp. however, 2Ma 10:28; Sir 29:15-16.

Surety of a better covenant has Jesus become, i.e. in the person of Jesus pledge and guarantee is given that a better covenant has been established by God. For Christ, the Son of God, had become man in order to proclaim this covenant upon earth, had sealed it by His sufferings and death, and had been mightily accredited by His resurrection from the dead as a Founder of the Covenant who had been sent by God.

Incorrectly do Piscator, Owen, Calov, Wittich, Braun, and others find the thought expressed that Christ became surety to God for men, in that He vicariously took upon Himself the guilt which they must have borne; while, just as erroneously, Limborch, Baumgarten, Chr. Fr. Schmid, and others contend that a reciprocal suretyship, for God with men and for men with God, is meant. Each of these views has the context against it; since there respect is had only to that which has been guaranteed to men by the new order of things. Comp. Hebrews 7:19: κρείττονοςἐλπίδος, δἰἧςἐγγίζομεντῷθεῷ; Hebrews 7:25-26.

Ἰησοῦς] with emphasis placed at the end.

Hebrews 7:23-25

Hebrews 7:23-25. Third point of superiority of the priesthood of Christ over the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priests die one after the other; Christ’s priesthood, on the other hand, is, since He ever lives, an unchangeable and intransitory one. The author consequently lays special stress upon that point of superiority to which already, Hebrews 7:16 f. (comp. Hebrews 7:8), he had pointed.

Hebrews 7:24

Hebrews 7:24. The other, on the other hand, because (not “by the fact that,” de Wette, Bisping) He abides unto eternity, has His priesthood as an unchangeable one.

μένεινεἰςτὸναἰῶνα] must not be explained, with Estius, Seb. Schmidt, and others, of abiding for ever as priest. For in this way the declaration of Heb 7:24 becomes tautological. The expression denotes the everlasting duration of life (comp. John 12:34; John 21:22-23; 1 Corinthians 15:6; Philippians 1:25), is thus equivalent to the πάντοτεζῆν, Hebrews 7:25.

ἀπαράβατος] a word belonging to later Greek (comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 313), save here, foreign to the N. T., as also to the LXX. Erasmus, Schlichting, Bengel, Schulz, Böhme, Stengel, Stuart, Ebrard, Hofmann, Conybeare, and the majority, take it in the active signification: not passing over to another, thus remaining with the same person, or unchanging. So, as it would seem, already Theodoret (οὗτοςδὲἀθάνατοςὢνεἰςἕτερονοὐπαραπέμπειτῆςἱερωσύνηςτὸγέρας), Oecumenius (ἀδιάδοχον, ἀτελεύτητον), Theophylact (ἀδιάκοπον, ἀδιάδοχον). More correctly, however, because more consistently with the demonstrable usage of the language (see instances in Wetstein and Bleek), does Bleek, after the precedent of Elsner, insist upon the passive signification: “that which may not be overstepped, transgressed; therefore: inviolable, unalterable, immutable,” which then, it is true, includes likewise the notion of “unchanging.”

Hebrews 7:25

Hebrews 7:25. Ὅθεν] Wherefore, sc. because His priesthood is an everlasting one.

καί] also, represents the statement, Hebrews 7:25, as being the natural effect of the ἀπαράβατονἔχειντὴνἱερωσύνην, Hebrews 7:24, as its cause.

εἰςτὸπαντελές] means: perfectly, completely, entirely (comp. Luke 13:11), and combines with σώζειν in one idea. Theodoret: αὐτὸνγὰρσώζεινἡμᾶςεἴρηκενκαὶτελείανσωτηρίανπαρέχειν. The meaning: in perpetuum, attached to the word by the Peshito, the Vulgate, Chrysostom (οὐπρὸςτὸπαρὸνμόνον, φησίν, ἀλλὰκαὶἐκεῖἐντῇμελλούσῃζωῇ), Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Schlichting, Grotius, Heinrichs, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, and others, in joining it either with σώζειν or with δύναται, is in accordance neither with the etymology nor the usage (instances in Bleek), but arises only from the connection, and is consequently to be rejected.

σώζειν] save, embraces the deliverance from the misery of sin and its consequences, and, on the other hand, the communication of everlasting blessedness. Too restricted, Hofmann: the answering of prayer, and deliverance out of every assault.

τοὺςπροσερχομένουςδιʼ αὐτοῦτῷθεῷ] those who through Him, i.e. through faith in Him, draw near to God.

πάντοτεζῶνεἰςτὸἐντυγχάνεινὑπὲραὐτῶν] seeing that He evermore lives, to make intercession for them (Romans 8:26-27; Romans 8:34), or to represent them (sc. in the presence of God). More precise unfolding of the notion already lying in ὅθεν.

Similarly for the rest does Philo, too, ascribe to his Logos an intercession with God. Comp. Vit. Mos. iii. p. 673 C (with Mangey, II. p. 155): Ἀναγκαῖονγὰρἦντὸνἱερωμένοντῷτοῦκόσμουπατρί, παρακλήτῳχρῆσθαιτελειοτάτῳτὴνἀρετὴνυἱῷ, πρόςτεἀμνηστίανἁμαρτημάτωνκαὶχορηγίανἀφθονωτάτωνἀγαθῶν.

Quis rer. div. haer. 42, p. 509 B (with Mangey, I. p. 501): Ὁδʼ αὐτὸςἱκέτηςμένἐστιτοῦθνητοῦ, κηραίνοντοςἀεί, πρὸςτὸἄφθαρτον.

Hebrews 7:26-28

Hebrews 7:26-28. Fourth point of superiority of the priesthood of Christ over the Levitical priesthood, in the form of an establishing of Heb 7:25. The Levitical priests are sinful men, who need daily to offer for their own sins and the sins of the people; Christ is the sinless Son of God, who once for all has offered up Himself as a sacrifice.

Hebrews 7:27

Hebrews 7:27. In the πρότερονὑπὲρτῶνἰδίωνἁμαρτιῶν, ἔπειτατῶντοῦλαοῦ there is an apparent allusion to the sacrifice of the high priest on the great day of atonement (Leviticus 16.), comp. Hebrews 9:7. We are prevented, however, from referring the words to this alone (perhaps to the including of the sin-offering prescribed, Leviticus 4:3 ff.) by καθʼ ἡμέραν, instead of which, as at Hebrews 9:25, Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 10:3, κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν must have been placed. For καθʼ ἡμέραν can signify nothing else than “daily” or “day by day.” To foist upon it the signification: “yearly on a definite day” (“καθʼ ἡμέρανὡρισμένην or τεταγμένην”), with Schlichting (secundum diem, nempe statam ac definitam, in anniversario illo videlicet sacrificio), Piscator, Starck, Peirce, Chr. Fr.

Schmid, M‘Lean, Storr, and others; or to take it in the attenuated sense, as equivalent to “saepissime, quoties res fert” (Grotius, Owen), or “πολλάκις” (Böhme, Stein), or “διὰπαντός” (de Wette), or in the sense of “one day after another” (Ebrard, who supposes the author is overlooking a succession of centuries, and so a succession of days present themselves to his eye, in which the high priest again and again offers a sacrifice!), is linguistically unwarranted. In like manner it is a mere subterfuge and arbitrary misinterpreting of the words, when Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 438), and Alford, concurring in the suggestion of Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 404 f., 2 Aufl.), seek to put into them the sense: that Christ needeth not to do daily that which the high priests do once every year, but which He—if He is to be a constant mediator of an all-embracing expiation of sin—must needs do day by day. For all that is expressed is the fact that Christ needs not to do daily that which the Levitical high priests need to do daily.[84] Nor does it avail anything that Kurtz will take καθʼ ἩΜΈΡΑΝ in conjunction only with ΟὐΚἜΧΕΙἈΝΆΓΚΗΝ, since these words do not occupy an independent position alone, and only acquire their more precise definition by that which follows. For that ΚΑΘʼ ἩΜΈΡΑΝ has “nothing whatever to do with the ΘΥΣΊΑςἈΝΑΦΈΡΕΙΝ,” is a mere assertion on the part of Kurtz; and his contention, that only the “daily renewal and daily pressing necessity,” of the O. T. high priest on account of his daily sinning, the necessity, “ere (on the great day of propitiation) he could offer for the sin of the whole people, of first presenting a sacrifice for his own sins,” was to be brought into relief, is a violent perversion of the words,—admitting as they do of no misapprehension,—from which even the ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ, ἜΠΕΙΤΑ, expressive of a relation of parity, ought to have kept him; in place of which, in order to bring out the subsidiary character of the one half of the statement, πρὸτοῦ with the infinitive, or ΠΡΊΝ (ΠΡῚΝἬ), must have been written.

We have therefore to conclude, with Gerhard, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Wolf, Carpzov, Bleek, and Tholuck, that the author had present to his mind, besides the principal sacrifice on the great day of atonement, at the same time the ordinary daily sacrifice of the Levitical priests (Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers 28:3-8), and by reason of an inexact mode of expression blended the two together; to which he might the more easily be led, in that, according to Josephus, the high priest—not indeed always, but yet on the Sabbaths, new moons, and other festivals (according to the Mishna tr. Tamith, vii. 3 : in general as often as he was so minded)—went up with the other priests into the temple, and took part in the sacrificial service. Comp. Josephus, de Bello Judaico, v. 5. 7 : Ὁδὲἀρχιερεὺςἀνῄειμὲνσὺναὐτοῖςἀλλʼ οὐκἀεί, ταῖςδʼ ἑβδομάσικαὶνουμηνίαις, καὶεἴτιςἑορτὴπάτριοςἢπανήγυριςπάνδημοςἀγομένηδιʼ ἔτους. To be compared also are the words of Philo, who, Quis rer. divin. haer. p. 505 A (with Mangey, I. p. 497), remarks that in the daily sacrifice the priests offered the oblation for themselves, but the lambs for the people (Ἀλλὰκαὶτὰςἐνδελεχεῖςθυσίαςὁρᾷςεἰςἴσαδιῃρημένας, ἥντεὑπὲραὑτῶνἀνάγουσινοἱἱερεῖςδιὰτῆςσεμιδάλεωςκαὶτὴνὑπὲρτοῦἔθνουςτῶνδυοῖνἀμνῶν, οὓςἀναφέρεινΔΙΕΊΡΗΤΑΙ), and de Speciall.

Legg. p. 797 E (with Mangey, II. p. 321), equally as our passage, ascribes to the high priest the offering of a daily sacrifice (οὕτωτοῦσύμπαντοςἔθνουςσυγγενὴςκαὶἀγχιστεὺςκοινὸςὁἀρχιερεύςἐστι, πρυτανεύωνμὲντὰδίκαιατοῖςἀμφισβητοῦσικατὰτοὺςνόμους, εὐχὰςδὲκαὶθυσίαςτελῶνκαθʼ ἐκάστηνἡμέραν). Recently also Delitzsch (Talmudische Studien, XIII., in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschr. für die luther. Theol, u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 593 f.) has further drawn attention to the fact that likewise, Jer. Chagiga, ii. 4, and Bab. Pesachim, 57a, it is said of the high priest that he offers daily.

τοῦτο] namely, ΤῸὙΠῈΡΤῶΝΤΟῦΛΑΟῦἉΜΑΡΤΙῶΝΘΥΣΊΑΝἈΝΑΦΈΡΕΙΝ. So rightly—as is even demanded by Hebrews 7:28 (comp. Hebrews 4:15)

Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, Estius, Piscator, Clericus, Seb. Schmidt, Owen, Peirce, Carpzov, Whitby, Storr, Heinrichs, Böhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 463), Alford, Kurtz, and others. Less suitably do Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Bengel, and Ebrard supplement τὸθυσίαςἀναφέρειν; while, altogether wrongly, Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, and Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. pp. 405, 401 f.) refer back τοῦτο to the whole proposition ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ … ΛΑΟῦ. For in the application to Christ, to explain the ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΙ as the “dolores, qui solent peccatorum poenae esse, et quas Christus occasione etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit, et a quibus liberatus est per mortem” (Grotius), or as “Christi infirmitates et perpessiones” (Schlichting, Hofmann, according to which latter in connection with ἙΑΥΤῸΝἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑς, besides Christ’s suffering of death, His prayer in Gethsemane (!) is at the same time to be thought of), becomes possible only on the arbitrary supposition of a double sense to the preceding words, and is equally much opposed to the context (Hebrews 7:28) as to the linguistic use of ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΙ.

ἘΦΆΠΑΞ] once for all; comp. Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 10:10; Romans 6:10. Belongs to ἐποίησεν, not to ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑς.

ἙΑΥΤῸΝἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑς] in that He offered Himself. Christ is thus not only the High Priest of the New Covenant, but also the victim offered. Comp. Hebrews 8:3, Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:25 f., Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 10:14; Ephesians 5:2.

[84] The unsatisfactory character of the above exposition was afterwards acknowledged by Delitzsch himself, and the explanation retracted by him (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. diegesammte luther. Theol. u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 595).

Hebrews 7:28

Hebrews 7:28. Establishment of τοῦτοἐποίησενἐφάπαξ, Hebrews 7:27, by the definite formulating of the statement of the fourth point of superiority of the New Testament High Priest over the high priests of the Old Covenant,—a statement for which the way has been prepared by Hebrews 7:26-27. The law constitutes high priests men who are subject to weakness, and thus also to sin (comp. Hebrews 5:2-3), on which account they have to offer, as for the people, so also for themselves, and have ofttimes to repeat this sacrifice; the word of the oath, on the other hand (comp. Hebrews 7:21), which ensued after the law,—namely, only in the time of David,—and consequently annulled the law, ordains as high priest the Son (see on Hebrews 1:1), who is for ever perfected, i.e. without sin (Hebrews 4:15), and by His exaltation withdrawn from all human ἀσθένεια, however greatly He had part therein during His life on earth; wherefore He needed not for Himself to present an expiatory sacrifice, but only for the people, and, inasmuch as this fully accomplished its end, He needed not to repeat the same.

Entirely misapprehending the reasoning of the author, Ebrard supposes that even the first half of the proposition, Hebrews 7:28, is likewise to be referred to Jesus. The author, he tells us, presupposes as well known, that Christ has been as well ἄνθρωποςἀσθένειανἔχων (according to chap. 5) as υἱὸςτετελειωμένοςεἰςτὸναἰῶνα (according to chap. 7), and is here recapitulating (!) the two. Thus, then, ὁνόμοςγὰρ … ἀσθένειαν contains a concession (!) having reference to chap. 5, and the thought is: “the law (in so far as it has not (!) been annulled) demands of all high priests (consequently (!) also of Jesus) that they be ἄνθρωποιἔχοντεςἀσθένειαν; the sworn word of promise, however (given after the law), proceeding far beyond and above the same, constitutes as high priest the Son for ever perfected” (!). A misinterpreting of the meaning, against which even the opposition of ὁνόμος … ὁλόγοςδέ, as a manifest parallel to οἱμὲν … ὁδέ, Hebrews 7:20 f., Hebrews 7:23 f., ought to have kept him.

τῆςμετὰτὸννόμον] The author did not write ὁμετὰτὸννόμον, according to which the Vulgate and Luther translate, because he wished to accentuate ὁρκωμοσία as the principal notion.