Hebrews 10

Hebrews 10:1-99

1 For as the Law has a mere shadow of the bliss that is to be, instead of representing the reality of that bliss, it never can perfect those who draw near with the same annual sacrifices that are perpetually offered. 2 Otherwise, they would have surely ceased to be offered; for the worshippers, once cleansed, would no longer be conscious of sins! 3 As it is, they are an annual reminder of sins 4 (for the blood of bulls and goats cannot possibly remove sins!). 5 Hence, on entering the world he says,

“ Thou hast no desire for sacrifice or offering;

it is a body thou hast prepared for me—

6 in holocausts and sin-offerings (περὶἁμαρτίας as 13:11) thou takest no delight.

7 So I said, ‘ Here I come— in the roll of the book this is written of me—

I come to do thy will, O God.’ ”

8 He begins by saying, “ Thou hast no desire for, thou takest no delight in, sacrifices and offerings and holocausts and sin-offerings” (and those are what are offered in terms of the Law); 9 he then adds, “ Here I come to do thy will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And it is by this “ will” that we are consecrated, because Jesus Christ once for all has “ offered” up his “ body.”

This is the author’ s final verdict on the levitical cultus, “ rapid in utterance, lofty in tone, rising from the didactic style of the theological doctor to the oracular speech of the Hebrew prophet, as in that peremptory sentence: ‘ It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.’ The notable thing in it is, not any new line of argument, though that element is not wanting, but the series of spiritual intuitions it contains, stated or hinted, in brief, pithy phrases” (A. B. Bruce, pp. 373, 374). In σκιὰν … οὐκεἰκόνατῶνπραγμάτων (v. 1) the writer uses a Platonic phrase ; εἰκών ( = ἀλήθεια , Chrysostom) is contrasted with σκιά as the real expression or representation of substance is opposed to the faint shadow. The addition of τῶνπραγμάτων emphasizes this sense; what represents solid realities is itself real, as compared to a mere σκιά . The μέλλονταἀγαθά (9:11) are the boons and blessings still to be realized in their fulness for Christians, being thought of from the standpoint of the new διαθήκη , not of the Law.

The Law is for the writer no more than the regulations which provided for the cultus; the centre of gravity in the Law lies in the priesthood (7:11) and its sacrifices, not in what were the real provisions of the Law historically. The writer rarely speaks of the Law by itself. When he does so, as here, it is in this special ritual aspect, and what really bulks in his view is the contrast between the old and the new διαθήκη , i.e. the inadequate and the adequate forms of relationship to God. Once the former was superseded, the Law collapsed, and under the new διαθήκη there is no new Law. Even while the Law lasted, it was shadowy and ineffective, i.e. as a means of securing due access to God. And this is the point here made against the Law, not as Paul conceived it, but as the system of atoning animal sacrifices.

The text of v. 1 has been tampered with at an early stage, though the variants affect the grammar rather than the general sense. Unless δύναται (D H K L Ψ 2, 5, 35, 88, 181, 206, 226, 241, 242, 255, 326, 383, 429, 431, 547, 623, 794, 915, 917, 927, 1311, 1518, 1739, 1827, 1836, 1845, 1867, 1873, 1898, 2143 lat boh Orig. Chrys. Thdt.. Oec.) is read for δύνανται , ὁνόμος is a hanging nominative, and an awkward anacolouthon results. Hort suggests that the original form of the text was: καθ ʼ ἣνκατ ʼ ἐνιαυτὸντὰςαὐτάςθυσίαςπροσφέρουσιν , αἳεἰςτὸδιηνεκὲςοὐδέποτεδύνανταιτοὺςπροσερχομένουςτελειῶσαι .

As in 9:9, καθ ʼ ἥν (dropped out by a scribe accidentally, owing to the resemblance between καθην and καθεν ) would connect with a previous noun , αι similarly fell out before ει , and ας was changed into αις in the three consecutive words after ἐνιαυτὸν . This still leaves ὁνόμος without a verb, however, and is no improvement upon the sense gained either (a) by treating ὁνόμος as a nominative absolute, and δύνανται as an irregular plural depending on αἵ understood1 from θυσίαις ; or (b) by simply reading δύναται (so Delitzsch, Weiss, Westcott, Peake, Riggenbach, Blass), which clears up everything. A desire to smooth out the grammar or to bring out some private interpretation may be underneath changes like the addition of αὐτῶν after θυσίαις (א P), or the substitution of αὐτῶν for αὐταῖς (69. 1319), or the omission of αὐταῖς altogether (2. 177. 206. 642. 920. 1518. 1872), as well as the omission of ἄς (A 33. 1611. 2005) or αἷς altogether, like the Syriac and Armenian versions, and the change of τελειῶσαι (τελεῶσαι , Blass) into καθαρίσαι (D vt).

Προσφέρουσιν is an idiomatic use of the plural , “ where there is such a suppression of the subject in bringing emphasis upon the action, that we get the effect of a passive, or of French on, German man” (Moulton, 1. 58). The allusion is to the yearly sacrifice on atonement-day, for προσφέρουσιν goes with κατ ʼ ἐνιαυτόν , the latter phrase being thrown forward for the sake of emphasis, and also in order to avoid bringing εἰςτὸδιηνεκές too near it. Εἰςτὸδιηνεκές also goes with προσφέρουσιν , not (as in v. 14) with τελειοῦν . Οὐδέποτε here as in v. 11 before δύναται (never elsewhere in the epistle) is doubly emphatic from its position. The constant repetition of these sacrifices proves that their effect is only temporary; they cannot possibly bring about a lasting, adequate relationship to God. So our author denies the belief of Judaism that atonement-day availed for the pardon of the People, a belief explicitly put forward, e.g., in Jub 5:17, 18 (“ If they turn to Him in righteousness, He will forgive all their transgressions, and pardon all their sins. It is written and ordained that He will show mercy to all who turn from their guilt once a year” ). He reiterates this in v. 2, where ἐπεί (as in 9:26 = alioquin) is followed by οὐκ , which implies a question. “ Would they not, otherwise, have ceased to be offered?” When this was not seen, either οὐκ was omitted (H* vg? syr 206, 1245, 1518 Primasius, etc.), leaving ἄν out of its proper place, or it was suggested— as would never have occurred to the author— that the OT sacrifices ceased to be valid when the Christian sacrifice took place.

In οὐκἂνἐπαύσαντοπροσφερόμεναι the ἄν is retained (see on 9:26). Κεκαθαρισμένους has been altered into κεκαθάρμενους (L), but καθαρίζω , not the Attic καθαίρω , is the general NT form. If our author spelt like his LXX codex, however, κεκαθερισμένους would be original (cp. Thackeray, 74). Συνείδησις is again used (9:9) in connexion with “ the worshipper(s),” but the writer adds ἁμαρτιῶν (i.e. sins still needing to be pardoned). For the genitive, compare Philo’ s fine remark in quod det. pot. 40, ἱκετεύωμενοὖντὸνθεὸνοἱσυνειδήδειτῶνοἰκείωνἀδικημάτωνἐλεγχόμενοι , κολάσαιμᾶλλονἡμᾶςἢπαρεῖναι . In v. 3 ἀνάμνησις means that public notice had to be taken of such sins (“ commemoratio,” vg).

There is possibly an echo here of a passage like Numbers 5:15 , quoted by Philo in de Plant. 25 to illustrate his statement that the sacrifices of the wicked simply serve to recall their misdeeds . In vita Mosis, iii. 10, he repeats this; if the sacrificer was ignorant and wicked, the sacrifices were no sacrifices . What Philo declares is the result of sacrifices offered by the wicked, the author of Hebrews declares was the result of all sacrifices; they only served to bring sin to mind. So in de Victimis, 7, εὔηθεςγὰρτὰςθυσίαςὑπόμνησινἁμαρτημάτωνἀλλὰμὴλήθηναὐτῶνκατασκευάζειν — what Philo declares absurd, our author pronounces inevitable.

The ringing assertion of v. 4 voices a sentiment which would appeal strongly to readers who had been familiar with the classical and contemporary protests (cp. ERE iii. 770a), against ritual and external sacrifice as a means of moral purification (see above on 9:13). Ἀφαιρεῖν , a LXX verb in this connexion , becomes ἀφελεῖν in L (so Blass), the aoristic and commoner form; the verb is never used elsewhere in the NT, though Paul once quotes Isaiah 27:9 ὅτανἀφέλωμαιἁμαρτίας (Romans 11:27). All this inherent defectiveness of animal sacrifices necessitated a new sacrifice altogether , the self-sacrifice of Jesus. So the writer quotes Psalms 40:7-9, which in A runs as follows:

θυσίανκαὶπροσφορὰνοὐκἠθέλησας ,

σῶμαδὲκατηρτίσωμοι ·

ὁλοκαυτώματακαὶπερὶἁμαρτίαςοὐκἐζητήσας .

τότεεἶπον · ἰδοὺἥκω ,

τοῦποιῆσαιτὸθέλημάσου , ὁθεὸςμου , ἠβουλήθην .

Our author reads εὐδόκησας for ἐζητήσας ,1 shifts ὁθεός to a position after ποιῆσαι , in order to emphasize τὸθέλημάσου , and by omitting ἐβουλήθην (replaced by W in v. 7), connects τοῦποιῆσαι closely with ἥκω . A recollection of Psa 51:18 εἱἠθέλησαςθυσίαν … ὁλοκαυτώματαοὐκεὐδοκήσεις may have suggested εὐδόκησας , which takes the accusative as often in LXX. Κεφαλίς is the roll or scroll, literally the knob or tip of the stick round which the papyrus sheet was rolled .

This is taken as an avowal of Christ on entering the world, and the LXX mistranslation in σῶμα is the pivot of the argument. The more correct translation would be ὠτίαδέ , for the psalmist declared that God had given him ears for the purpose of attending to the divine monition to do the will of God, instead of relying upon sacrifices. Whether ὠτία was corrupted into σῶμα , or whether the latter was an independent translation, is of no moment; the evidence of the LXX text is indecisive. Our author found σῶμα in his LXX text and seized upon it; Jesus came with his body to do God’ s will, i.e. to die for the sins of men. The parenthetical phrase ἐνκεφαλίδιβιβλίουγέγραπταιπερὶἐμοῦ , which originally referred to the Deuteronomic code prescribing obedience to God’ s will, now becomes a general reference to the OT as a prediction of Christ’ s higher sacrifice; that is, if the writer really meant anything by it (he does not transcribe it, when he comes to the interpretation, vv. 8f.). Though the LXX mistranslated the psalm, however, it did not alter its general sense.

The Greek text meant practically what the original had meant, and it made this interpretation or application possible, namely, that there was a sacrifice which answered to the will of God as no animal sacrifice could. Only, our author takes the will of God as requiring some sacrifice.

The point of his argument is not a contrast between animal sacrifices and moral obedience to the will of God; it is a contrast between the death of an animal which cannot enter into the meaning of what is being done, and the death of Jesus which means the free acceptance by him of all that God requires for the expiation of human sin. To do the will of God is, for our author, a sacrificial action, which involved for Jesus an atoning death, and this is the thought underlying his exposition and application of the psalm (vv. 8-10). In v. 8 ἀνώτερον is “ above” or “ higher up” in the quotation (v. 6). The interpretation of the oracle which follows is plain; there are no textual variants worth notice,1 and the language is clear. Thus εἴρηκεν in v. 9 is the perfect of a completed action, = the saying stands on record, and ἀναιρεῖ has its common juristic sense of “ abrogate,” the opposite of ἵστημι . The general idea is: Jesus entered the world fully conscious that the various sacrifices of the Law were unavailing as means of atonement, and ready to sacrifice himself in order to carry out the redeeming will of God.

God’ s will was to bring his People into close fellowship with himself (2:10); this necessitated a sacrifice such as that which the σῶμα of Christ could alone provide. The triumphant conclusion is that this divine will, which had no interest in ordinary sacrifices, has been fulfilled in the προσφορά of Christ; what the Law could not do (v. 1) has been achieved by the single self-sacrifice of Christ; it is by what he suffered in his body, not by any animal sacrifices, that we are ἡγιασμένοι (v. 10).

Jesus chose to obey God’ s will; but, while the Psalmist simply ranked moral obedience higher than any animal sacrifice, our writer ranks the moral obedience of Jesus as redeemer above all such sacrifices. “ Christ did not come into the world to be a good man: it was not for this that a body was prepared for him. He came to be a great High Priest, and the body was prepared for him, that by the offering of it he might put sinful men for ever into the perfect religious relation to God” (Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 234).

In conclusion (11-18) the writer interprets (11-14) a phrase which he has not yet noticed expressly, namely, that Christ sat down at the right hand of God (1:3, 13); this proves afresh that his sacrifice was final. Then, having quoted from the pentateuch and the psalter, he reverts to the prophets (15-18), citing again the oracle about the new διαθήκη with its prediction, now fulfilled, of a final pardon.

11Again, while every priest stands daily at his service, offering the same sacrifices repeatedly, sacrifices which never can take sins away— 12He offered a single sacrifice for sins and then “ seated himself” for all time “ at the right hand of God,” 13to wait “ until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.” 14For by a single offering he has made the sanctified perfect for all time. 15Besides, we have the testimony of the holy Spirit; for after saying,

16“ This is the covenant I will make with them when that day comes, saith the Lord,

I will set my laws upon their hearts,

inscribing them upon their minds,”

he adds,

17“ And their sins and breaches of the law I will remember no more.” 18Now where these are remitted (ἄφεσις , as 9:22), an offering for sin exists no longer.

One or two textual difficulties emerge in this passage. In v. 11 ἱερεύς was altered (after 5:1, 8:3) into ἀρχιερεύς (A C P 5, 69, 88, 206, 241, 256, 263, 436, 462, 467. 489, 623, 642, 794, 917, 920, 927, 999, 1836, 1837, 1898 syrhki* sah arm eth Cyr. Cosm). In v. 12 αὐτός (K L 104. 326 boh Theod. Oec. Theophyl.) is no improvement upon οὖτος . A curious variant (boh Ephr.) in the following words is ἐαυτὸνμίανὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶνπροσενέγκαςθυσίαν . In v. 14 boh appears to have read μιὰγὰρπροσφορά (so Bgl) τελειωσεικτλ . In v. 16 τῶνδιανοιῶν is read by K L Ψ d r syr sah boh arm.

The decisive consideration in favour of ἱερεύς (v. 11) is not that the ἀρχιερεύς did not sacrifice daily (for the writer believed this, see on 7:27), but the adjective πᾶς . Περιελεῖν is a literary synonym for ἀφαιρεῖν (v. 4); there is no special emphasis in the verb here any more than, e.g., in 2 Corinthians 3:16, for the metaphorical idea of stripping no longer attached to the term, and the περί had ceased to mean “ entirely” or “ altogether.” The contrast between this repeated and ineffective ritual of the priests and the solitary, valid sacrifice of Jesus is now drawn in v. 12, where εἰςτὸδιηνεκές goes more effectively with ἐκάθισεν than with προσενέγκαςθυσίαν , since the idea in the latter collocation is at once expressed in v. 14 At the opening of the writer’ s favourite psalm (110:1) lay a promise of God to his Son, which further proved that this sacrifice of Christ was final:

εἶπενὁκύριοςτῷκυρίῳμουΚάθουἐκδεξιῶνμου

ἕωςἂνθῶτοὺςἐχθρούςσουὑποπόδιοντῶνποδῶνσου .

Κάθου — a unique privilege; so Christ’ s priestly sacrifice must be done and over, all that remains for him being to await the submission and homage of his foes. As for the obedient (5:9), they are perfected “ finally,” i.e. brought into the closest relation to God, by what he has done for them; no need for him to stand at any priestly service on their behalf, like the levitical drudges! The contrast is between ἐκάθισεν and ἕστηκεν (the attitude of a priest who has to be always ready for some sacrifice). Who the foes of Christ are, the writer never says.1 This militant metaphor was not quite congruous with the sacerdotal metaphor, although he found the two side by side in the 110th psalm. If he interpreted the prediction as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 15:25f., we might think of the devil (2:14) and such supernatural powers of evil; but this is not an idea which is worked out in ΠρὸςἙβραίους . The conception belonged to the primitive messianic faith of the church, and the writer takes it up for a special purpose of his own, but he cannot interpret it, as Paul does, of an active reign of Christ during the brief interval before the end.

Christ must reign actively, Paul argues. Christ must sit, says our writer.

The usual variation between the LXX ἐκδεξιῶν and ἐνδεξιᾷ is reproduced in ΠρὸςἙβραίους : the author prefers the latter, when he is not definitely quoting from the LXX as in 1:13. As this is a reminiscence rather than a citation, ἐνδεξιᾷ is the true reading, though ἐκδεξιῶν is introduced by A 104 Athanasius. The theological significance of the idea is discussed in Dr. A. J. Tait’ s monograph on The Heavenly Session of our Lord (1912), in which he points out the misleading influence of the Vulgate’ s mistranslation of 10:12 upon the notion that Christ pleads his passion in heaven.

After reiterating the single sacrifice in v. 14 (where τοὺςἁγιαζομένους is “ the sanctified,” precisely as in 2:11), he adds (v. 15) an additional proof from scripture. Μαρτυρεῖδὲἡμῖνκαὶτὸπνεῦματὸἅγιον , a biblical proof as usual clinching the argument. Ἡμῖν is “ you and me,” “ us Christians,” not the literary plural, as if he meant “ what I say is attested or confirmed by the inspired book.” Μαρτυρεῖν is a common Philonic term in this connexion, e.g. Leg. Alleg. iii .2 , μαρτυρεῖδὲκαὶἐνἑτέροιςλέγωνκτλ . (introducing Deuteronomy 4:39 and Exodus 17:6); similarly in Xen. Mem. i. 2. 20, μαρτυρεῖδὲκαὶτῶνποιητῶνὁλέγων . The quotation, which is obviously from memory, is part of the oracle already quoted upon the new διαθήκη (8:8-12); the salient sentence is the closing promise of pardon in v. 17, but he leads up to it by citing some of the introductory lines. The opening, μετὰγὰρτὸεἰρηκέναι , implies that some verb follows or was meant to follow, but the only one in the extant text is λέγεικύριος (v. 16).

Hence, before v. 17 we must understand something like μαρτυρεῖ or λέγει or προσέθηκενκαίφησιν (Oecumenius) or τότεεἴρηκεν , although the evidence for any such phrase, e.g. for ὕστερονλέγει (31. 37, 55, 67, 71, 73, 80, 161) is highly precarious. In v. 17 μνησθήσομαι has been corrected into μνησθῶ by א c Dc K L P, etc., since μνησθῶ was the LXX reading and also better grammar, the future after οὐμή being rare (cp. Diat. 2255, and above on 8:11). The oracle, even in the LXX version, contemplates no sacrifice whatever as a condition of pardon; but our author (see above, p.131) assumes that such an absolute forgiveness was conditioned by some sacrifice.

The writer now (10:19-12:29) proceeds to apply his arguments practically to the situation of his readers, urging their privileges and their responsibilities under the new order of religion which he has just outlined. In 10:19-31, which is the first paragraph, encouragement (vv. 19-25) passes into warning (26-31).

19Brothers (ἀδελφοί , not since 3:1, 12), since we have confidence to enter the holy Presence in virtue of the blood of Jesus, 20by the fresh, living way which he has inaugurated for us through the veil (that is, through his flesh), 21and since we have “ a great Priest over the house of God,” 22let us draw near with a true heart, in absolute assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean from a bad conscience, and our bodies washed in pure water; 23let us hold the hope we avow without wavering (for we can rely on him who gave us the Promise); 24and let us consider how to stir one another up to love and good deeds— 25not ceasing to meet together, as is the habit of some, but admonishing one another(sc. ἑαυτούς , as 3:13), all the more so, as you see the Day coming near.

The writer presses the weighty arguments of 6:20-10:18, but he returns with them to reinforce the appeal of 3:1-4:16; after 10:19-21 the conception of Jesus as the ἱερεύς falls more into the background. The passage is one long sentence, ἔχοντες … προσερχώμεθα … κατέχωμεν … καὶκατανοῶμεν … Ἔχοντεςοὖν (as in 4:14) since the way is now open (9:8) through the sacrifice of Jesus, whose atoning blood is for us the means of entering God’ s presence; παρρησίαν , “ a fre sure intraunce” (Coverdale), echoing 4:16. But the writer fills out the appeal of 4:14-16 with the idea of the sanctuary and the sacrifice which he had broken off, in 5:1f., to develop. Though the appeal still is προσερχώμεθα (23 = 4:16), the special motives are twofold: (a) παρρησία for access in virtue of the sacrifice of Jesus (vv. 19, 20), and (b) the possession of Jesus as the supreme ἱερεύς (v. 21). (a) The religious sense of παρρησία emerges in the early gloss inserted after Sir 18:29:

κρείσσωνπαρρησίαἐνδεσπότημόνῳ

ἢνεκρὰκαρδίανεκρῶνἀντέχεσθαι .

Here παρρησία means confident trust, the unhesitating adherence of a human soul to God as its only Master, but our author specially defines it as παρρησίαεἰςεἴσοδον , i.e. for access to the holy Presence, ἐντῷαἵματιἸησοῦ .1 This resumes the thought of 9:24-26, 10:10-12 (ἐναἵματι as in 9:25). Compare for the phrase and general idea the words on the self-sacrifice of Decius Mus in Florus, i. 15. 3: “ quasi monitu deorum, capite uelato, primam ante aciem dis manibus se devoverit, ut in confertissima se hostium tela iaculatus nouum ad uictoriam iter sanguinis sui semita aperiret.” This εἴσοδοςτῶνἁγίωνἐντῷαἵματιἸησοῦ is further described in v. 20; we enter by (ἥν , with ὅδον … ζῶσαν in apposition) a way which Jesus has inaugurated by his sacrifice (9:18, 24, 25). This way is called recent or fresh and also living. In πρόσφατος , as in the case of other compounds , the literal sense of the second element had been long forgotten (cp. Holden’ s note on Plutarch’ s Themistocles, 24); πρόσφατος simply means “ fresh,” without any sacrificial allusion . Galen (de Hipp. et Plat. plac. iv. 7) quotes the well-known saying that λύπηἐστὶδόξαπρόσφατοςκακοῦπαρουσίας , and the word (i.e. τὸἀρτίωςγενόμενον , νέον , νεαρόν , Hesychius), as is plain from other passages like Arist.

Magna Moralia, 1203b (ὁἐκτῆςπροσφάτουφαντασίαςἀκρατήςκτλ .), and Ecclesiastes 1:9 , had no longer any of the specific sacrificial sense suggested etymologically by its second part. It is the thought of ἐχθές in 13:8, though the writer means particularly (as in 1:1-2, 9:8-11) to suggest that a long period had elapsed before the perfect fellowship was inaugurated finally; it is πρόσφατος , not ἀρχαῖος . Ζῶσαν means, in the light of 7:25 (cp.

John 14:6), that access to God is mediated by the living Christ in virtue of his sacrificial intercession; the contrast is not so much with what is transient, as though ζῶσαν were equivalent to μένουσαν (Chrysostom, Cosm 415a), as with the dead victims of the OT cultus or “ the lifeless pavement trodden by the highpriest” (Delitzsch). He entered God’ s presence thus διὰτοῦκαταπετάσματος (6:19, 9:3), τοῦτ ʼ ἔστιντοῦσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ — a ritual expression for the idea of 6:19. Διά is local, and, whether a verb like εἰσελθών is supplied or not, διὰτ . κ . goes with ἐνεκαίνισεν , the idea being that Jesus had to die, in order to bring us into a living fellowship with God; the shedding of his blood meant that he had a body (10:5-10) to offer in sacrifice (cp. 9:14). The writer, however, elaborates his argument with a fresh detail of symbolism, suggested by the ritual of the tabernacle which he has already described in 9:2f. There, the very existence of a veil hanging between the outer and the inner sanctuary was interpreted as a proof that access to God’ s presence was as yet imperfectly realized. The highpriest carried once a year inside the veil the blood of victims slain outside it; that was all. Jesus, on the other hand, sheds his own blood as a perfect sacrifice, and thus wins entrance for us into the presence of God.

Only, instead of saying that his sacrificial death meant the rending of the veil (like the author of Mar 15:38), i.e. the supersession of the OT barriers between God and man, he allegorizes the veil here as the flesh of Christ; this had to be rent before the blood could be shed, which enabled him to enter and open God’ s presence for the people. It is a daring, poetical touch, and the parallelism is not to be prosaically pressed into any suggestion that the human nature in Jesus hid God from men ἐνταῖςἡμέραιςτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ , or that he ceased to be truly human when he sacrificed himself.

The idea already suggested in ζῶσαν is now (b) developed (in v. 21) by καὶἱερέαμέγανἐπὶτὸνοἶκοντοῦθεοῦ , another echo of the earlier passage (cp. 3:1-6, 4:14), ἱερεὺςμέγας being a sonorous LXX equivalent for ἀρχιερεύς . Then comes the triple appeal, προσερχώμεθα … κατέχωμεν … καὶκατανοῶμεν … The metaphor of προσερχώμεθακτλ . (v. 22), breaks down upon the fact that the Israelites never entered the innermost shrine, except as represented by their highpriest who entered once a year ἐναἵματιἀλλοτρίῳ (9:7, 25), which he took with him in order to atone for the sins that interrupted the communion of God and the people. In ΠρὸςἙβραίους the point is that, in virtue of the blood of Christ, Christians enjoy continuous fellowship with God; the sacrifice of Christ enables them to approach God’ s presence, since their sins have been once and for all removed. The entrance of the OT highpriest therefore corresponds both to the sacrifice of Christ and to that access of Christians which the blood of Christ secures. On the one hand, Christ is our highpriest (v. 21); through his self-sacrifice in death the presence of God has been thrown open to us (vv. 19, 20). This is the primary thought.

But in order to express our use of this privilege, the writer has also to fall back upon language which suggests the entrance of the OT highpriest (cp. v. 19 ἐντῷαἵματιἰησοῦ with 9:25). He does not mean that Christians are priests, with the right of entry in virtue of a sacrifice which they present, but, as to approach God was a priestly prerogative under the older order, he describes the Christian access to God in sacerdotal metaphors. Προσερχώμεθα is one of these.

It is amplified first by a μετά clause, and then by two participial clauses. The approach to God must be whole-hearted, μετὰἀληθινῆςκαρδίας ,1 without any hesitation or doubt, ἐνπληροφορίᾳ (6:11) πίστεως .2 This thought of πίστις as man’ s genuine answer to the realities of divine revelation, is presently to be developed at length (10:38f.). Meantime the writer throws in the double participial clause, ῥεραντισμένοι … καθαρῷ . The metaphors are sacerdotal; as priests were sprinkled with blood and bathed in water, to qualify them for their sacred service, so Christians may approach God with all confidence, on the basis of Christ’ s sacrifice, since they have been ῥεραντισμένοι (i.e. sprinkled and so purified from— a frequent use of the verb) ἀπὸσυνειδήσεωςπονηρᾶς (= συνειδήσεωςἁμαρτιῶν , 10:2) in their hearts (τὰςκαρδίας — no external cleansing). Then the writer adds, καὶλελουσμένοιτὸσῶμαὕδατικαθαρῷ , suggesting that baptism corresponded to the bathing of priests (e.g. in Leviticus 16:4). Once and for all, at baptism (cp. 1 P 3:21), Christians have been thus purified from guilty stains by the efficacy of Christ’ s sacrifice.3 What room then can there be in their minds for anything but faith, a confident faith that draws near to God, sure that there is no longer anything between Him and them?

The distinctive feature which marked off the Christian βαπτισμός from all similar ablutions (6:2, 9:10) was that it meant something more than a cleansing of the body; it was part and parcel of an inward cleansing of the καρδία , effected by τὸαἶματῆςδιαθήκης (v. 29).1 Hence this as the vital element is put first, though the body had also its place and part in the cleansing experience. The καρδία and the σῶμα are a full, plastic expression for the entire personality, as an ancient conceived it. Ancient religious literature2 is full of orders for the penitent to approach the gods only after moral contrition and bodily cleansing, with a clean heart and a clean body, in clean clothes even. But, apart from other things, such ablutions had to be repeated, while the Christian βαπτισμός was a single ceremony, lying at the source and start of the religious experience. And what our author is thinking of particularly is not this or that pagan rite, but the OT ritual for priests as described in Exodus 29:20f., Leviticus 8:23f. Leviticus 8:14:5f. etc. (cp. Joma 3).

Three specimens of the anxious care for bodily purity in ancient religious ritual may be given. First (i) the ritual directions for worship in Syll. 567 (ii a.d.): πρῶτονμὲνκαὶτὸμέγιστον , χεῖραςκαὶγνώμηνκαθαροὺςκαὶὑγιεῖςὑπάρχονταςκαὶμηδὲναὑτοῖςδεινὸνσυνειδότας . Second (ii) the stress laid on it by a writer like Philo, who (quod deus sit immutabilis, 2), after pleading that we should honour God by purifying ourselves from evil deeds and washing off the stains of life, adds: καὶγὰρεὔηθεςεἰςμὲντὰἱερὰμὴἐξεῖναιβαδίζειν , ὄςἂνμὴπρότερονλουσάμενοςφαιδρύνηταιτὸσῶμα , εὔχεσθαιδὲκαὶθύεινἐπιχειρεῖνἔτικηλιδωμένῃκαὶπεφυρμένῃδιανοίᾳ . His argument is that if the body requires ablutions before touching an external shrine, how can anyone who is morally impure draw near the most pure God, unless he means to repent? Ὁμὲνγὰρπρὸςτῷμηδὲνἐπεξεργάσασθαικακὸνκαὶτὰπαλαιὰἐκνιψασθαιδικαιώσαςγεγηθὼςπροσίτω [cp. Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 10:22], ὁδ ʼ ἄνευτούτωνδυσκάθαρτοςὦνἀφιστάσθω · λήσεταιγὰροὐδέποτετὸντὰἐνμυχοῖςτῆςδιανοίαςὁρῶντα [cp. Hebrews 4:13] καὶτοῖςἀδύτοιςαὐτῆςἐμπεριπατοῦντα .

Or again in de Plant. 39: σώματακαὶψυχὰςκαθηράμενοι , τὰμὲνλουτροῖς , τὰδὲνόμωνκαὶπαιδείαςὀρθῆςῥεύμασι . In de Cherub. 28 he denounces the ostentatious religion of the worldly, who in addition to their other faults, τὰμὲνσώματαλουτροῖςκαὶκαθαρσίοιςἀπορρύπτονται , τὰδὲψυχῆςἐκνίψασθαιπάθη , οἶςκαταρρυπαίνεταιὁβίος , οὔτεβούλονταιοὔτεἐπιτηδεύουσι , are very particular about their outward religious practices3 but careless about a clean soul. Finally, (iii) there is the saying of Epictetus (iv. 10. 3): ἐπεὶγὰρἐκεῖνοι (i.e. the gods) φύσεικαθαροὶκαὶἀκήρατοι , ἐφ ʼ ὁσονἠγγίκασιναὐτοῖςοἱἄνθρωποικατὰτὸνλόγον , ἐπὶτοσοῦτονκαὶτοῦκαθαροῦκαὶτοῦκαθαρίουεἰσὶνἀνθεκτικοί .

For the exceptional ῥεραντισμένοι (א * A C D*), א c Dc etc. have substituted ἐρραντισμένοι (so Theodoret). The λελουσμένοι of א B D P is the more common κοινή form of the Attic λελουμένοι (A B Dc etc.).

The next appeal (v. 23), κατέχωμεντὴνὁμολογίαντῆςἐλπίδος , echoes 4:14 and 3:6 . This hope for the future was first confessed at baptism, and rests upon God’ s promise1 (as already explained in 6:17, 18). It is to be held ἀκλινής , a term applied by Philo to the word of a good man (ὁγὰρτοῦσπουδαίου , φησί , λόγοςὅρκοςἔστω , βέβαιος , ἀκλινής , ἀψευδέστατος , ἐρηρεισμένοςἀληθείᾳ , de Spec. Leg. ii. 1); in Irenaeus it recurs in a similar connexion (i. 88, ed. Harvey: ὁτὸνκανόνατῆςἀληθείαςἀκλινῆἐνἑαυτῷκατέχων , ὃνδιὰτοῦβαπτίσματοςεἴληφε ). The old Wycliffite version translates finely. “ hold we the confessioun of oure hope bowynge to no side.” The close connexion between ῥεραντισμένοικτλ . and λελουσμένοικτλ . makes it inadvisable to begin the second appeal with καὶλελουσμένοιτὸσῶμαὕδατικαθαρῷ (Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Lachmann, Lü nemann, von Soden, B.

Weiss, etc.). A more plausible suggestion, first offered by Theodoret and adopted recently by Hofmann and Seeberg, is to begin the second appeal after πίστεως , making κατεχῶμεν carry ῥεραντισμένοι … καθαρῷ . This yields a good sense, for it brings together the allusions to the baptismal confession. But the ordinary view is more probable; the asyndeton in κατεχῶμεν is impressive, and if it is objected that the κατεχῶμεν clause is left with less content than the other two, the answer is that its eschatological outlook is reiterated in the third clause, and that by itself its brevity has a telling force. Besides, ἔχοντεςκτλ . (19-21) introduce κατεχῶμεν as well as προσερχώμεθα .

The third appeal (24, 25) turns on love (cp. 6:10), as the first on faith, and the second on hope. The members of the circle or community are to stir up one another to the practice of Christian love. Since this is only possible when common worship and fellowship are maintained, the writer warns them against following the bad example of abandoning such gatherings; καὶκατανοῶμενἀλλήλους , for, if we are to κατανοεῖν Christ (3:1), we are also bound to keep an eye on one another εἰςπαροξυσμὸνἀγαπῆςκαὶκαλῶνἔργων (i.e. an active, attractive moral life, inspired by Christian love). This good sense of παροξυσμός as stimulus seems to be an original touch; in Greek elsewhere it bears the bad sense of provocation or exasperation (cp. Acts 15:39), although the verb παροξύνειν had already acquired a good sense (e.g. in Josephus, Ant. xvi. 125, παροξῦναιτὴνεὔνοιαν : in Proverbs 6:3 ἴσθιμὴἐκλυόμενος , παρόξυνεδὲκαὶτὸνφίλονσουὃνἐνεγυήσω : and in Xen. Cyrop. vi. 2. 5, καὶτούτουςἐπαινῶντεπαρώξυνε ).

Pliny’ s words at the close of his letter to Caninius Rufus (iii. 7) illustrate what is meant by παροξυσμός in this sense: “ Scio te stimulis non egere; me tamen tui caritas evocat ut currentem quoque instigem, sicut tu soles me. Ἀγαθὴδ ʼ ἔρις , cum invicem se mutuis exhortationibus amici ad amorem immortalitatis exacuunt.” How the παροξυσμός is to be carried out, the writer does not say. By setting a good example?

By definite exhortations (παρακαλοῦντες , v. 25, like 13:1)? Μὴἐγκαταλείποντες — do not do to one another what God never does to you (13:5), do not leave your fellow-members in the lurch — τὴνἐπισυναγωγὴνἑαυτῶν . Ἐπισυναγωγή in the κοινή (cp. Deissmann’ s Light from the East, 102 f.) means a collection (of money), but had already in Jewish Greek begun to acquire the present sense of a popular “ gathering.” Καθὼςἔθοςτισίν . But who are these? What does this abandonment of common fellowship mean? (a) Perhaps that some were growing ashamed of their faith; it was so insignificant and unpopular, even dangerous to anyone who identified himself with it openly. They may have begun to grow tired of the sacrifices and hardships involved in membership of the local church. This is certainly the thought of 10:32f., and it is better than to suppose (b) the leaders were a small group of teachers or more intelligent Christians, who felt able, in a false superiority, to do without common worship; they did not require to mix with the ordinary members!

The author in any case is warning people against the dangers of individualism, a warning on the lines of the best Greek and Jewish ethics, e.g. Isokrates, ad Demon. 13, τιμὰτὸδαιμόνιονἀεὶμὲν , μάλισταδὲμετὰτῆςπόλεως , and the rabbinic counsel in Taanith, 11, 1 (“ whenever the Israelites suffer distress, and one of them withdraws from the rest, two angels come to him and, laying their hands upon his head, say, this man who separates himself from the assembly shall not see the consolation which is to visit the congregation” ), or in Hillel’ s saying (Pirke Aboth 2, 5): “ Separate not thyself from the congregation, and trust not in thyself until the day of thy death.” The loyal Jews are described in Ps.-Sol 17:18 as οἱἀγαπῶντεςσυναγωγὰςὁσίων , and a similar thought occurs also (if “ his” and not “ my” is the correct reading) in Od.

Son 3:2: “ His members are with Him, and on them do I hang.” Any early Christian who attempted to live like a pious particle without the support of the community ran serious risks in an age when there was no public opinion to support him. His isolation, whatever its motive— fear, fastidiousness, self-conceit, or anything else— exposed him to the danger of losing his faith altogether. These are possible explanations of the writer’ s grave tone in the passage before us. Some critics, like Zahn (§ 46), even think that (c) such unsatisfactory Christians left their own little congregation for another, in a spirit of lawless pique, or to gratify their own tastes selfishly; but ἑαυτῶν is not emphatic, and in any congregation of Christians the duties of love would be pressed. Separatist tendencies were not absent from the early church; thus some members considered themselves too good to require common worship, as several warnings prove, e.g. in Barn 4:10 μὴκαθ ʼ ἑαυτοὺςἐνδύνοντεςμονάζετεὡςἤδηδεδικαιωμένοι , ἀλλ ʼ ἐπὶτὸαὐτὸσυνερχόμενοισυνζητεῖτεπερὶτοῦκοινῇσυμφέροντος ) and Ign. Ephesians 5:3 .

But in our epistle (d) the warning is directed specially against people who combined Christianity with a number of mystery-cults, patronizing them in turn, or who withdrew from Christian fellowship, feeling that they had exhausted the Christian faith and that it required to be supplemented by some other cult. “ At first and indeed always there were naturally some people who imagined that one could secure the sacred contents and blessings of Christianity as one did those of Isis or the Magna Mater, and then withdraw” (Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, bk. iii. c. 4; cp. Reitzenstein’ s Hellen.

Mysterienreligionen, 94). This was serious, for, as the writer realized, it implied that they did not regard Christianity as the final and full revelation; their action proved that the Christian faith ranked no higher with them than one of the numerous Oriental cults which one by one might interest the mind, but which were not necessarily in any case the last word on life. The argument of the epistle has been directed against this misconception of Christianity, and the writer here notes a practical illustration of it in the conduct of adherents who were holding aloof, or who were in danger of holding aloof, from the common worship. Hence the austere warning which follows. Such a practice, or indeed any failure to “ draw near” by the way of Jesus, is an insult to God, which spells hopeless ruin for the offender. And evidently this retribution is near.

Christians are to be specially on their guard against conduct that means apostasy, for βλἑπετε (how, he does not say) ἐγγίζουσαν (as in Romans 13:12) τὴνἡμέραν . This eschatological setting distinguishes the next warning (vv. 26-31) from the earlier in 6:4-6.

26For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the Truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27nothing but an awful outlook of doom, that “ burning Wrath” which will “ consume the foes” (see v. 13) of God. 28Anyone who has rejected the law of Moses “ dies” without mercy, “ on the evidence of two or of three witnesses.” 29How much heavier, do you suppose, will be the punishment assigned (i.e. by God) to him who has spurned the Son of God, who has profaned “ the covenant-blood” (9:20) with which he was sanctified (10:10), who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30We know who said, “ Vengeance is mine, I will exact a requital” : and again (πάλιν , as in 2:13), “ The Lord will pass sentence on his people.” 31 It is an awful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Apostasy like withdrawal from the church on the ground already mentioned, is treated as one of the deliberate sins which (cp. on 5:2), under the OT order of religion, were beyond any atonement. Wilful offences, like rebellion and blasphemy against God, were reckoned unpardonable. “ In the case of one who, by his sin, intentionally disowns the covenant itself, there can be no question of sacrifice. He has himself cut away the ground on which it would have been possible for him to obtain reconciliation” (Schultz, OT Theology, ii. 88). There is an equivalent to this, under the new διαθήκη , our author declares. To abandon Christianity is to avow that it is inadequate, and this denial of God’ s perfect revelation in Jesus Christ is fatal to the apostate. In ἑκουσίωςἁμαρτόντωνἡμῶν (26), ἑκουσίως is put first for the sake of emphasis, and ἁμαρτόντων means the sin of ἀποστῆναιἀπὸθεοῦζῶντος (3:12) or of παραπίπτειν (6:6), the present tense implying that such people persist in this attitude. Ἑκουσίως is the keynote to the warning.

Its force may be felt in a passage like Thuc. iv. 98, where the Athenians remind the Boeotians that God pardons what is done under the stress of war and peril, καὶγὰρτῶνἀκουσίωνἁμαρτημάτωνκαταφυγὴνεἶναιτοὺςβωμούς , and that it is wanton and presumptuous crimes alone which are heinous. Philo (vit. Mos. i. 49) describes Balaam praying for forgiveness from God on the ground that he had sinned ὑπ ʼ ἀγνοίαςἀλλ ʼ οὐκαθ ʼ ἑκούσιονγνώμην . The adverb occurs in 2 Mac 14:3 . The general idea of the entire warning is that the moral order punishes all who wantonly and wilfully flout it; as Menander once put it (Kock’ s Com. Attic.

Fragm. 700):

νόμοςφυλαχθεὶςοὐδένἐστινἢνόμος ·

ὁμὴφυλαχθεὶςκαὶνόμοςκαὶδήμιος .

Our author expresses this law of retribution in personal terms drawn from the OT, which prove how deeply moral and reverent his religious faith was, and how he dreaded anything like presuming upon God’ s kindness and mercy. The easy-going man thinks God easy going; he is not very serious about his religious duties, and he cannot imagine how God can take them very seriously either. “ We know” better, says the author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους !

Christianity is described (in v. 26) as τὸλαβεῖντὴνἐπίγνωσιντῆςἀληθείας , a semi-technical phrase of the day, which recurs in the Pastoral Epistles . It is not one of our author’ s favourite expressions,1 but the phrase is partly used by Epictetus in its most general sense (λαβώντιςπαρὰτῆςφύσεωςμέτρακαὶκανόναςεἰςἐπίγνωσιντῆςἀληθείαςκτλ ., ii. 20, 21), when upbraiding the wretched academic philosophers for discrediting the senses as organs of knowledge, instead of using and improving them. All that renegades can expect (v. 27) is φοβεράτις (= quidam, deepening the idea with its touch of vagueness) ἐκδοχή (a sense coined by the writer for this term, after his use of ἐκδέχεσθαι in 10:13) κρίσεως , for they have thrown over the only sacrifice that saves men from κρίσις (9:27). This is expanded in a loose1 reminiscence of Isa 26:11 , though the phrase πυρὸςζῆλος recalls Zephaniah 1:19 (3:8) ἐνπυρὶζήλουαὐτοῦκαταναλωθήσεταιπᾶσαἡγῆ . The contemporary Jewish Apocalypse of Baruch (48:39, 40) contains a similar threat to wilful sinners:

“ Therefore shall a fire consume their thoughts,

and in flame shall the meditations of their reins be tried;

for the Judge shall come and will not tarry—

because each of earth’ s inhabitant knew when he was transgressing.”

The penalty for the wilful rejection of the Mosaic law2 was severe (Deuteronomy 17:2-17), but not more severe than the penalty to be inflicted on renegades from Christianity (vv. 28-31). The former penalty was merciless, χωρὶςοἰκτιρμῶν (to which, at an early period, καὶδακρύων was added by D, most old Latin texts, and syrhkl). It is described in a reminiscence of Deu 17:6 ἐπὶδυσὶνμάρτυσινἢἐπὶτρισίνμάρτυσινἀποθανεῖταιὁἀποθνήσκων (i.e. the apostate who has yielded to idolatry). The witnesses executed the punishment for the sin of which they had given evidence (Deuteronomy 17:7, Acts 7:57 f., John 8:7, Sanhedrim 6:4), but this is not before the writer’ s mind; ἐπί with the dative simply means “ on the ground of (the evidence given by).” In πόσῳδοκεῖτεκτλ . (v. 29), δοκεῖτε is intercalated as in Aristoph. Acharn. 12 , and Herm. Sim. ix. 28, 8 (εἰτὰἔθνητοὺςδούλουςαὐτῶνκολάζουσιν , ἐάντιςἀρνήσηταιτὸνκύριονἑαυτοῦ , τίδοκεῖτεποιήσειὁκύριοςὑμῖν ;). Πόσῳ (cp. 9:14) introduces an argument from the less to the greater, which was the first of Hillel’ s seven rules for exegesis, and which is similarly used by Philo in de Fuga, 16, where, after quoting Exodus 21:15, he adds that Moses here practically denies that there is any pardon for those who blaspheme God (εἰγὰροἱτοὺςθνητοὺςκακηγορήσαντεςγονεῖςἀπάγονταιτὴνἐπὶθανάτῳ , τίνοςἀξίουςχρὴνομίζειντιμωρίαςτοὺςτῶνὅλωνπατέρακαὶποιητὴνβλασφημεῖνὑπομένοντασ ;).

There is also a passage in de Spec. Legibus (ii. 254, 255) where Philo asks, “ If a man μὴπροσηκόντωςὁμνύς is guilty, πόσηςἄξιοςτιμωρίαςὁτὸνὄντωςὄνταθεὸνἀρνοῦμενος ;”

τιμωρία originally meant vengeance. Διαφέρειδὲτιμωρίακαὶκόλασις · ἡμὲνγὰρκόλασιςτοῦπάσχοντοςἕνεκαἐστιν , ἡδὲτιμωρίατοῦποιοῦντος , ἵναἀποπληρωθῇ (Arist. Rhetoric, i. 10, 11; see Cope’ s Introduction, p. 232). But it became broadened into the general sense of punishment, and this obtained in Hellenistic Greek.

The threefold description of what is involved in the sin of apostasy begins: ὁτὸνυἱὸντοῦθεοῦκαταπατήσας , another expression for the thought of 6:6, which recalls Zechariah 12:3 . Καταπατεῖνὅρκια was the phrase for breaking oaths (Iliad, 4:157); with a personal object, the verb denotes contempt of the most flagrant kind. Another aspect of the sin is that a man has thereby κοινὸν 1 ἡγησάμενος the sacrifice of Jesus; his action means that it is no more to him than an ordinary death (“ communem,” d), instead of a divine sacrifice which makes him a partaker of the divine fellowship (see p. 145). Where Christ is rejected, he is first despised; outward abandonment of him springs from some inward depreciation or disparagement. The third aspect, καὶτὸπνεῦματῆςχάριτοςἐνύβρισας , suggests that the writer had in mind the language of Zec 12:10 , but πνεῦμαχάριτος is a periphrasis for πνεῦμαἅγιον (6:4), χάρις being chosen (4:16, 12:15) to bring out the personal, gracious nature of the power so wantonly insulted.2 Ἐνυβρίζειν is not a LXX term, and it generally takes the dative. (Ἐνᾧἡγιάσθη after ἡγησάμενος is omitted by A and some MSS of Chrysostom.)

The sombre close (vv. 30, 31) of the warning is a reminder that the living God punishes renegades. φοβερόν (v. 31) re-echoes the φοβερά of v. 27, and the awful nature of the doom is brought out by two quotations adapted from the OT. Ἐμοὶἐκδίκησις , ἐγὼἀνταποδώσω , is the same form of Deu 32:35 as is quoted in Romans 12:19; it reproduces the Hebrew original more closely than the LXX , perhaps from some current Greek version, unless the author of Hebrews borrowed it from Paul.1 Some of the same authorities as in 8:12 indeed add, from Romans 12:19, λέγεικύριος (א c A Dc K L arm Theodoret, Damasus, etc.). ΚρινεῖΚύριοςτὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ is from Deuteronomy 32:36. The thought of the original, in both passages, is God avenging his people on their foes and championing them, not punishing them; but here this fate is assigned to all who put themselves outside the range of God’ s mercy in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; they fall under God’ s retribution. Τὸἐμπεσεῖνεἰςχεῖραςθεοῦ is a phrase used in a very different sense in 2 S 24:14, Sir 2:18; here it means, to fall into the grasp of the God who punishes the disloyal2 or rebels against his authority. Thus the tyrant Antiochus is threatened, in 2 Mac 7:31, οὐμὴδιαφύγῃςτὰςχεῖραςτοῦθεοῦ . As in 3:12, ζῶντος is added to θεοῦ to suggest that he is quick and alive to inflict retribution. The writer is impressively reticent on the nature of God’ s τιμωρία , even more reticent than Plato, in one of the gravest warnings in Greek literature, the famous passage in the Leges (904, 905) about the divine δίκη : Ταύτηςτῆςδίκηςοὔτεσὺμὴπότεοὔτεεἰἄλλοςἀτυχὴςγενόμενοςἐπεύξηταιπεριγενέσθαιθεῶν · ἣνπασῶνδικῶνδιαφερόντωςἔταξάντεοἱτάξαντεςχρεώντεἐξευλαβεῖσθαιτὸπαράπαν . οὐγὰρἀμεληθήσῃποτὲὑπ ʼ αὐτῆς · οὐχοὕτωσμικρὸςὢνδύσῃκατὰτὸτῆςγῆςβάθος , οὐδ ʼ ὑψηλὸςγενόμενοςεἰςτὸνοὐρανὸνἀναπτήσῃ , τείσειςδὲαὐτῶντὴνπροσήκουσαντιμωρίανεἴτ ʼ ἐνθάδεμένωνεἴτεκαὶἐνΑἵδουδιαπορευθείς . Plato altered the Homeric term δίκηθεῶν to suit his purpose; what meant “ way” or “ habit,” he turned into a weighty word for “ justice.” The alteration is justified from his “ preaching” point of view, and the solemn note of the Greek sage’ s warning is that of Heb 10:26 f.; you cannot play fast and loose with God.

Yet, as at 6:9, so here, the writer swiftly turns from warning to encouragement, appealing to his readers to do better than he feared, and appealing to all that was best in them. “ Why throw away the gains of your fine record in the past? You have not long to wait for your reward. Hold on for a little longer.” This is the theme of vv. 32-39:

32 Recall the former days when, after you were enlightened (φωτισθέντες , as 6:4), you endured a hard struggle of suffering, 33 partly by being held up yourselves to obloquy and anguish, partly by making common cause with those who fared in this way; 34 for you did sympathize with the prisoners, and you took the confiscation of your own belongings cheerfully, conscious that elsewhere you had higher, you had lasting possessions. 35 Now do not drop that confidence of yours; it (ἤτις , as in 2:3) carries with it a rich hope of reward. 36 Steady patience is what you need, so that after doing the will of God you may (like Abraham, 6:15) get what you have been promised. 37 For “ in a little, a very little” now,

“ The Coming One (9:29) will arrive without delay.

38 Meantime my just man shall live on by his faith;

if he shrinks back, my soul takes no delight in him.”

39 We are not the men to shrink back and be lost, but to have faith and so to win our souls.

The excellent record of these Christians in the past consisted in their common brotherliness (6:10), which is now viewed in the light of the hardships they had had to endure, soon after they became Christians. The storm burst on them early; they weathered it nobly; why give up the voyage, when it is nearly done? It is implied that any trouble at present is nothing to what they once passed through. Ἀναμιμνήσκεσθεδὲτὰςπρότερονἡμέρας (v. 32): memory plays a large part in the religious experience, and is often as here a stimulus. In these earlier days they had (vv. 32, 33) two equally creditable experiences (τοῦτομέν … τοῦτοδέ , a good classical idiom); they bore obloquy and hardship manfully themselves, and they also made common cause with their fellow-sufferers. By saying ἄθλησινπαθημάτων , the writer means, that the παθήματα made the ἄθλησις which tested their powers (2:10). Ἄθλησις — the metaphor is athletic, as in 12:1— came to denote a martyr’ s death in the early church; but no such red significance attaches to it here. Apparently the persecution was not pushed to the last extreme (12:4); all survived it.

Hence there can be no allusion to the “ ludibria” of Nero’ s outburst against the Roman Christians, in (v. 33) θεατριζόμενοι , which is used in a purely figurative sense (so θέατρον in 1 Corinthians 4:9), like ἐκθεατρίζειν in Polybius . The meaning is that they had been held up to public derision, scoffed and sneered at, accused of crime and vice, unjustly suspected and denounced.

All this had been, the writer knew, a real ordeal, particularly because the stinging contempt and insults had had to be borne in the open. Ὅτανμὲνγάρτιςὀνειδίζηταικαθ ʼ ἑαυτὸν , λυπηρὸνμὲν , πολλῷδὲπλέον , ὅτανἐπὶπάντων (Chrysostom). They had been exposed to ὀνειδισμοῖςτεκαὶθλίψεσι , taunts and scorn that tempted one to feel shame (an experience which our author evidently felt keenly), as well as to wider hardships, both insults and injuries. All this they had stood manfully. Better still, their personal troubles had not rendered them indisposed to care for their fellow-sufferers, τῶνοὕτωςἀναστρεφομένων (13:18). They exhibited the virtue of practical sympathy, urged in 13:3, at any risk or cost to themselves (κοινωνοὶ … γενηθέντες with the genitive, as in LXX of Pro 28:14, Isaiah 1:23).

The ideas of v. 33; are now (v. 34) taken up in the reverse order (as in 5:1-7). Καὶγὰρτοῖςδεσμίοιςσυνεπαθήσατε , imprisonment being for some a form of their παθήματα . Christians in prison had to be visited and fed by their fellow-members. For συμπαθεῖν (cp. 4:15) as between man and man, see Test. Sym. 3:6 καὶλοιπὸνσυμπαθεῖτῷφθονουμένῳ : Test. Benj. 4:4 τῷἀσθενοῦντισυμπάσχει : Ign. Romans 6:4 συμπαθείτωμοι : and the saying which is quoted in Meineke’ s Frag.

Comic. Graec. iv. 52, ἐκτοῦπαθεῖνγίγνωσκεκαὶτὸσυμπαθεῖν · καὶσοὶγὰρἄλλοςσυμπαθήσεταιπαθών . They had also borne their own losses with more than equanimity,1 with actual gladness (μετὰχαρᾶς , the same thought as in Romans 5:3, though differently worked out), γινώσκοντες (with accus. and infinitive) ἔχεινἑαυτούς (= ὑμᾶς , which is actually read here by Cosmas Indicopleustes, 348a; ἑαυτούς is not emphatic any more than ἑαυτῶν in v. 25) κρείσσονα (a favourite term of the author) ὕπαρξιν (Acts 2:35) καὶμένουσαν (13:14, the thought of Mat 6:20). Τὴνἁρπαγὴντῶνὑπαρχόντωνὑμῶν implies that their own property had been either confiscated by the authorities or plundered in some mob-riot. Note the paronomasia of ὑπαρχόντων and ὕπαρξιν , and the place of this loss in the list of human evils as described in the Laches, 195 E .

There is no question of retaliation; the primitive Christians whom the author has in view had no means of returning injuries for injuries, or even of claiming redress. Thus the problem raised and solved by contemporary moralists does not present itself to the writer; he does not argue, as, e.g., Maximus of Tyre did in the next century (Dissert. ii.), that the good man should treat the loss of property as a trifle, and despise the futile attempts of his enemies to injure him thus, the soul or real self being beyond the reach of such evil doers. The tone is rather that of Tob 4:21 (μὴφοβοῦ , παιδίον , ὅτιἐπτωχεύσαμεν · ὑπάρχεισοὶπολλὰ , εἂνφοβηθῇςτὸνθέονκτλ .), except that our author notes the glow of an enthusiastic unworldliness, which was more than any Stoic resignation or even any quiet acquiescence in providence; he suggests in ἑαυτούς that, while others might seize and hold their property, they themselves had a possession of which no one could rob them. Seneca (Ep. ix. 9:18-19) quotes the famous reply of the philosophic Stilpo to Demetrius Poliorketes, who asked him, after the siege and sack of Megara, if he had lost anything in the widespread ruin, Stilpo answered that he had suffered no loss; “ omnia bona mecum sunt.” That is, Seneca explains, he did not consider anything as “ good” which could be taken from him. This helps to illustrate what the author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους means. As Epictetus put it, there are more losses than the loss of property (ii. 10. 14, ἀλλὰδεῖσεκέρμαἀπολέσαι , ἵναζημιωθῆς , ἄλλου ‹ δ ʼ › οὐδενὸςἀπώλειαζημιοῖτὸνἄνθρωπον ;).

A similar view pervades the fine homiletic misinterpretation of Deu 6:5 in Berachoth 9:5 “ Man is bound to bless [God] for evil as for good, for it is said, Thou shall love Jahweh thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength. With all thy heart means, with both yetzers, the good and the bad alike: with all thy soul means, even if he deprive thee of thy soul: with all thy strength means, with all thy possessions.” A similar view is cited in Sifre 32. Apollonius, in the last quarter of the second century, declares: “ We do not resent having our goods taken from us, because we know that, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’ s” (Conybeare, Monuments of Early Christianity, p. 44).

No persecution known to us in the primitive church answers to the data of this passage. But some sidelights are thrown upon it by Philo’ s vivid account of the earlier anti-Semite riots in Alexandria. He notes that even those who sympathized with the persecuted were punished: τῶνδ ʼ ὡςἀλθῶςπεπονθότωνφίλοικαὶσυγγενεῖς , ὅτιμόνονταῖςτῶνπροσηκόντωνσυμφόραιςσυνήλγησαν , ἀπήγοντο , ἐμαστιγοῦντο , ἐτροχίζοντο , καὶμετὰπάσαςτὰςαἰκίας , ὅσαςἐδύνατοχωρῆσαιτὰσώματααὐτοῖς , ἡτελευταίακαὶἔφεδροςτιμωρίασταυρὸςἦν (in Flaccum, 7: n. b. neither here nor in 11:35f. does the author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους mention the cross as a punishment for sufferers). Philo (ibid. 9) continues: πενίαχαλεπὸνμὲν , καὶμάλισθ ʼ ὄτανκατασκευάζηταιπρὸςἐχθρῶν , ἔλαττονδὲτῆςεἰςτὰσώματαὕβρεως , κἂνᾖβραχυτάτη . He repeats this (10), telling how Flaccus maltreated Jews who had been already stripped of their property, ἵναοἱμὲνὑπομενῶσιδιττὰςσυμφορὰς , πενίανὁμοῦκαὶτὴνἐντοῖςσώμασινὕβριν , καὶοἱμὲνδρῶντες , ὥσπερἐντοῖςθεατρίκοιςμίμοιςκαθυπερκρίνοντοτοὺςπάσχοντας .

Three items of textual corruption occur in v. 34. (a) δεσμίοις (p13 A D* H 33. 104. 241. 424 *. 635. 1245. 1288. 1739. 1908. 1912. 2005 r vg syrhkl boh arm Chrys.) was eventually corrupted into δεσμοῖς in א Dc Ψ 256. 1288 etc. vt eth Clem. Orig.), a misspelling which, with μου added to make sense, contributed to the impression that Paul had written the epistle (Philippians 1:7, Philippians 1:15f., Colossians 4:18). Compare the text implied in the (Pelagian?) prologue to Paul’ s epp. in vg: “ nam et vinctis compassi estis, et rapinam bonorum vestrorum cum gaudio suscepistis.”

(b) ἑαυτούς (p13 א A H lat boh Clem. Orig. etc.) suffered in the course of transmission; it was either omitted (by C) or altered into ἑαυτοῖς (D K L Ψ , etc., Chrys.) or ἐνἑαυτοῖς (1. 467. 489. 642. 920. 937. 1867. 1873), the dative being an attempt to bring out the idea that they had in their own religious personalities a possession beyond the reach of harm and loss, an idea pushed by some editors even into ἑαυτούς , but too subtle for the context.

(c) ὕπαρξιν was eventually defined by the addition of ἐνοὐρανοῖς (from Philippians 3:20?) in א c Dc H** Ψ 6. 203. 326. 506. 1288. 1739 syr arm Chrys. etc.

The reminder of vv. 32-34 is now (35-39) pressed home. Μὴἀποβάλητεοὖντὴνπαρρησίανὑμῶν , as evinced in μετὰχαρᾶς … γινώσκοντεςκτλ . The phrase occurs in Dio Chrys. Orat. 34:39 and elsewhere in the sense of losing courage, but παρρησία retains its special force (3:6) here, and ἀποβάλλειν is the opposite of κατέχειν (“ nolite itaque amittere,” vg). The παρρησία is to be maintained, ἥτιςἔχειμεγάληνμισθαποδοσίαν (as 11:26), it is so sure of bringing its reward in the bliss promised by God to cheerful loyalty. Compare the saying of the contemporary rabbi Tarphon: “ faithful is the Master of thy work, who will pay thee the reward of thy work, and know thou that the recompense of the reward of the righteous is for the time to come” (Pirke Aboth 2:19).

Epictetus makes a similar appeal, in iv. 3, 3 f., not to throw away all that one has gained in character by failing to maintain one’ s philosophical principles when one has suffered some loss of property. When you lose any outward possession, recollect what you gain instead of it ; otherwise, you imperil the results of all your past conscientiousness . And it takes so little to do this; a mere swerve from reasonable principle , a slight drowsiness, and all is lost . No outward possession is worth having, Epictetus continues, if it means that one ceases to be free, to be God’ s friend, to serve God willingly. I must not set my heart on anything else; God does not allow that, for if He had chosen, He would have made such outward goods good for me . Maximus of Tyre again argued that while, for example, men might be willing to endure pain and discomfort for the sake and hope of regaining health, “ if you take away the hope of good to come, you also take away the power of enduring present ills” (εἰἀφέλοιςτινὰἐλπίδατῶνμέλλοντωνἀγαθῶν , ἀφαιρήσειςκαὶτινὰαἵρεσιντῶνπαρόντωνκακῶν , Diss. xxxiii).

To retain the Christian παρρησία means still ὑπομένειν , no longer perhaps in the earlier sense (ὑπεμείνατε , v. 32), and yet sometimes what has to be borne is harder, for sensitive people, than any actual loss. Such obedience to the will of God assumes many phases, from endurance of suffering to sheer waiting, and the latter is now urged (v. 36). Ὑπομονῆςγὰρἔχετεχρείαν (5:12) ἵνατὸθέληματοῦθεοῦποιήσαντες (suggested by 10:7-9) κομίσησθετὴνἐπαγγελίαν (6:12, 10:23). “ Though the purpose of ὑπομονή is contained in the clause ἵνα … ἐπαγγελίαν , yet the function of this clause in the sentence is not telic. Its office is not to express the purpose of the principal clause, but to set forth a result (conceived, not actual) of which the possesion of ὑπομονη is the necessary condition” (Burton, NT Moods and Tenses, p. 93). Ὑπομονή and ὑπομένειν echo through this passage and 12:1-7, the idea of tenacity being expressed in 10:38-11:40 by πίστις . Ὑπομονή here as in the LXX (cp. Diat 3548a-c) implies the conviction of “ hope that the evil endured will be either remedied or proved to be no evil.” Κομίσησθε does not mean to get back or recover, nor to gather in, but simply as in the κοινή to receive, to get what has been promised rather than to get it as our due , though what is promised is in one sense our due, since the promise can only be fulfilled for those who carry out its conditions (6:10). And it will soon be fulfilled. “ Have patience; it is not long now.” Again he clinches his appeal with an OT word, this time from the prophets (vv. 37, 38). Ἔτιγὰρ (om. p13) μικρὸνὅσονὅσον . In de mutat. nomin. 44, Philo comments upon the aptness and significance of the word ναί in the promise of Gen 17:19 (τὶγὰρεὐπρεπέστερονἢτἀγαθὰἐπινεύεινθεῷκαὶταχέωςὁμολογεῖν ;).

Our author has a similar idea in mind, though he is eschatological, as Philo is not. Ὅσονὅσον is a variant in D (on Luke 5:3) for ὀλίγον . The phrase occurs in Aristoph.

Wasps, 213 , and elsewhere, but here it is a reminiscence of the LXX; of Isaiah 26:20 . Hence, although μικρὸνὅσον is also used, as by Philo, the omission of the second ὅσον in the text of Hebrews by some cursives (e.g. 6. 181, 326, 1836) and Eusebius is unjustified. The words serve to introduce the real citation, apparently suggested by the term ὑπομονῆς (v. 36), from Habakkuk 2:3, Habakkuk 2:4 ἐὰνὑστερήσῃ , ὑπόμεινοναὐτόν , ὅτιἐρχόμενοςἥξεικαὶοὐμὴχρονίσῃ · ἐὰνὑποστείληται , οὐκεὐδοκεῖἡψυχήμουἐναὐτῷ · ὁδὲδίκαιοςἐκπίστεώςμουζήσεται , especially as the LXX makes the object of patient hope not the fulfilment of the vision, i.e. the speedy downfall of the foreign power, but either messiah or God. (a) The author of Hebrews further adds ὁ to ἐρχόμενος , applying the words to Christ; (b) changes οὐμὴχρονίσῃ into οὐχρονεῖ :1 (c) reverses the order of the last two clauses, and (d) shifts μου in front of ἐκπίστεως , as in the A text of the LXX. In the MSS of Hebrews, μου is entirely omitted by p13 D H K L P W cop eth Chrys. etc., to conform the text to the Pauline quotation (Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11), while the original LXX text, with μου after πίστεως , is preserved in D* d syrpesh hkl etc. This text, or at any rate its Hebrew original, meant that the just man (i.e. the Israelite) lived by God being faithful to his covenant with the nation. In ΠρὸςἙβραίους the idea is that the just man of God is to live by his own πίστις or loyalty, as he holds on and holds out till the end, timidity meaning ἀπώλεια (v. 39), while the ζωή promised by God as the reward of human loyalty is the outcome of πίστῖς .

But our author is interested in πίστις rather than in ζωή . The latter is not one of his categories, in the sense of eternal life; this idea he prefers to express otherwise.

What he quotes the verse for is its combination of God’ s speedy recompense and of the stress on human πίστις , which he proceeds to develop at length. The note struck in ὁδὲδικαιόςμου also echoes on and on through the following passage (11:4 Ἄβελ … ἐμαρτυρήθηεἶναιδίκαιος , 11:7 Νῶε … τῆςκατὰπίστινδικαιοσύνης , 11:33 ἠργάσαντοδικαιοσύνην , 12:11 καρπὸνἀποδίδωσινδικαιοσύνης , 12:23 πνεύμασιδικαίωντετελειωμένων ). The aim of (c) was to make it clear, as it is not clear in the LXX, that the subject of ὑποστείληται was ὁδίκαιος , and also to make the warning against apostasy the climax. Καὶἐὰνὑποστείληται — not simply in fear , but in the fear which makes men (cp. Galatians 2:12) withdraw from their duty or abandon their convictions— οὐκεὐδοκεῖἡψυχήμουἐναὐτῷ . It is a fresh proof of the freedom which the writer uses, that he refers these last seven words to God as the speaker; in Habakkuk the words are uttered by the prophet himself.

Then, with a ringing, rallying note, he expresses himself confident about the issue. Ἡμεῖςδὲοὐκἐσμὲνὑποστολῆς (predicate genitive, as in 12:11, unless ἄνδρες or ἐκ is supplied) εἰςἀπώλειαν , ἀλλὰπίστεωςεἰςπεριποίησινψυχῆς (=ζήσεται , v.38). Περιποίησις occurs three times in the LXX (2 Chronicles 14:13, Haggai 2:9, Malachi 3:17) and several times in the NT, but never with ψυχῆς , though the exact phrase was known to classical Greek as an equivalent for saving one’ s own life. Ὑποστόλη , its antithesis, which in Jos. B.J. ii. 277 means dissimulation, has this new sense stamped on it, after ὑποστείληται .

The exhortation is renewed in 12:1f., but only after a long paean on πίστις , with historical illustrations, to prove that πίστις has always meant hope and patience for loyal members of the People (11:1-40). The historical ré sumé (11:3-40), by which the writer seeks to kindle the imagination and conscience of his readers, is prefaced by a brief introduction (11:1-3):

D [06: α 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly * reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of ΠρὸςἘβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.

H [015: α 1022] cont. 1:3-8 2:11-16 3:13-18 4:12-15 10:1-7, 32-38 12:10-15 13:24-25: mutilated fragments, at Moscow and Paris, of codex Coislinianus.

K [018:1:1].

L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.

Ψ̠ [044: δ 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25.

2 [α 253]

5 [δ 453]

35 [δ 309]

88 [α 200]

181 [α 101]

206 [α 365]

226 [δ 156]

241 [δ 507]

242 [δ 206]

255 [α 174]

326 [α 257]

383 [α 353] cont. 1:1-13:7

429 [α 398]

431 [δ 268]

547 [δ 157]

623 [α 173]

794 [δ 454]

915 [α 382]

917 [α 264]

927 [δ 251]

1311 [α 170]

1518 [α 116]

1739 [α 78]

1827 [α 367]

1836 [α 65]

1845 [α 64]

1867 [α 154]

1873 [α 252]

1898 [α 70]

2143 [α 184]

boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.

Thdt. Theodoret

1 It is inserted by A** 31, 366, 472, 1319 syrhkl arm. If the relative pronoun were assimilated, i.e. if αῖς (D* H L 5, 88, 257, 547, etc.) were read for ἃς , the accidental omission of αἱ would be more intelligible.

Weiss B. Weiss, “ Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe” (in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), also Der Hebrä erbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910).

Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö llig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä er, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903).

א Ԡ [01: δ 2).

P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.

177 [α 106]

642 [α 552] cont. 1:1-7:18 9:13-13:25

920 [α 55]

1872 [α 209]

A [02: δ 4].

33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17

1611 [α 208]

2005 [α 1436] cont. 1:1-7:2

vt vt Old Latin, saec. ii. (?)-iv.

Moulton J. H. Moulton’ s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).

vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.

1245 [α 158]

LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).

Thackeray H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909).

Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).

ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings).

1 Which is replaced in the text of Hebrews by Ψ 623*, 1836. The augment spelling ηὐδόκησας reappears here as occasionally at v. 8 in a small group (A C D* W, etc.), and the singular θυσίανκ . προσφοράν is kept at v. 8 by א c Dc K L W, etc.

W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is “ quite free from Western readings.”

1 The vocative ὁθεός is sometimes repeated after ποιῆσαι by א c L 104, 1288, 1739 vg syrhkl and pesh etc., or after σου (e.g. 1, 1311 harl, arm).

C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.

69 [δ 505]

256 [α 216]

263 [δ 372]

436 [α 172]

462 [α 502]

489 [δ 459] Hort’ s 102

999 [δ 353]

1837 [α 192]

sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131.

Cosm Cosmas Indicopleustes (ed. E. O. Winstedt, CAmbridge, 1909)

104 [α 103]

Theod. Theodore of Mospsuestia

Bgl J. A. Bengelii Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742).

d (Latin version of D)

r (codex Frisingensis: saec. vi., cont. 6:6-7:5 7:8-8:1 9:27-11:7)

1 In Clem. Rom. 365, 6; they are οἱφαῦλοικαὶἀντιτασσόμενοιτῷθελήματιαὐτοῦ .

31 [α 103]

1 Hence the idea is not put in quite the same way as in Ephesians 3:12 . In Sir 25:25 μηδὲγυναικὶπονηρᾷἐξουσίαν , א A read παρρησίαν for B’ s ἐξουσίαν , which proves how deeply the idea of liberty was rooted in παρρησία .

1 The phrase ἐνἀληθινῇκαρδίᾳ occurs in Test. Daniel 5:3 and in Isaiah 38:8 (ἐν . κ . ἀ .).

2 There is a verbal parallel in the account of Isis-worship given by Apuleius (Metamorph. xi, 28: “ ergo igitur cunctis adfatim praeparatis … principalis dei nocturnis orgiis inlustratus, plena iam fiducia germanae religionis obsequium diuinum frequentabam” ).

3 More specifically, by the αἶμαῥαντισμοῦ of 12:24.

1 Τὸαἶματῆςδιαθήκηςἐνᾧἡγιάσθη , as 1 Corinthians 6:11 ἀλλὰἀπελούσασθε , ἀλλὰἡγιάσθητε .

2 Cp. Eugen Fehrle’ s Die Kultische Keuschheit in Altertum (1910), pp. 26 f., 131 f.; Sir J. G. Frazer’ s Adonis, Attis, Osiris (1907), pp. 407 f.

Syll. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2 (ed. W. Dittenberger).

3 According to a recently discovered (first century) inscription on a Palestinian synagogue (cp. Revue Biblique, 1921, pp. 247 f.), the synagogue was furnished with τὸνξενῶνα (for hospitality, cp. below, 13:2) καὶτὰχρηστήριατῶνὑδάτων (baths for ritual ablutions).

B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.

1 An instance of this is quoted in 11:11.

Erasmus Adnotationes (1516), In epist. Pauli apostoli ad Hebraeos paraphrasis (1521).

Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber.

Zahn Theodor Zahn’ s Einleitung in das NT, § § 45-47.

1 Here it is an equivalent for the phrases used in 6:4, 5; there is no distinction between ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις any more than in the LXX, and ἀλήθεια had been already stamped by Philo as a term for the true religion, which moulds the life of those who become members of the People. Compare the study of the phrase by M. Dibelius in NT Studien fü r G. Heinrici (1914), pp. 176-189.

1 Probably it was the awkwardness of ζῆλος , coming after πυρός , which led to its omission in W. Sah reads simply “ the flame of the fire.”

2 According to the later rabbinic theory of inspiration, even to assert that Moses uttered one word of the Torah on his own authority was to despise the Torah (Sifre 112, on Numbers 15:31).

1 Once in the LXX (Proverbs 15:23) in this sense.

2 In Test. Jude 1:18:2 the πνεῦμαχάριτος poured out upon men is the Spirit as a gracious gift of God. But in Hebrews 10:29, as in Ephesians 4:30, it is the divine Spirit wounded or outraged, the active retribution, however, being ascribed not to the Spirit itself but to God.

1 Paul cites the saying to prove that private Christians need not and must not take revenge into their own hands, since God is sure to avenge his people on their adversaries. Which is close to the idea of the original. Our author uses the text to clinch a warning that God will punish his people for defying and deserting him.

2 So the martyr Eleazar protests in 2 Mac 6:26, as he refuses to save his life by unworthy compromise: εἰγὰρκαὶἐπὶτοῦπαρόντοςἐξελοῦμαιτὴνἐξἀνθρώπωντιμωρίαν , ἀλλὰτὰςτοῦπαντοκράτοροςχεῖραςοὕτεζῶνοὔτεἀποθανὼνἐκφεύξομαι .

1 This is not conveyed in προσεδέξασθε , which here, as in 11:35, simply means “ accepted,” not “ welcomed.”

p [α 1034] cont. 2:14-5:6 10:8-11:13 11:28-12:17: Oxyrhynchus Papyri, iv. (1904) 36-48. The tendency, in 2:14-5:5, to agree with B “ in the omission of unessential words and phrases … gives the papyrus peculiar value in the later chapters, where B is deficient” ; thus p 13 partially makes up for the loss of B after 9:14. Otherwise the text of the papyrus is closest to that of D.

• Words marked * are peculiar in the NT to Hebrews.

424 [O 12] Hort’ s 67

1288 [α 162]

1908 [O π 103]

1912 [α 1066]

c (Codex Colbertinus: saec. xii.)

6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25

203 [α 203]

506 [δ 101]

1 This second future, or χρονίσει , p13 א * D*, is read by some editors (e.g. Tregelles, W.H, B. Weiss).