Hebrews 3
ICCNTHebrews 3:1-99
1 Holy brothers (ἅγιοι = οἱἁγιαζόμενοι , 2:11), you who participate in a heavenly calling, look at Jesus then (ὅθεν in the light of what has just been said), at the apostle and highpriest of our confession; 2 he is “ faithful” to Him who appointed him. For while “ Moses” also was “ faithful in every department of Gods house,” 3 Jesus (οὗτος , as in 10:12) has been adjudged greater glory than (παρά , as 1:4) Moses, inasmuch as the founder of a house enjoys greater honour than the house itself. 4 (Every house is founded by some one, but God is the founder of all.) 5 Besides, while “ Moses” was “ faithful in every department of Gods house” as an attendant— by way of witness to the coming revelation— 6 Christ is faithful as a son over God`s house.
In v. 2 ὅλῳ (om. p 13 B sah boh Cyr. Amb.) may be a gloss from v. 5. In v. 3 the emphasis on πλείονος is better maintained by οὗτοςδόξης (א A B C D P vt Chrys.) than by δόξηςοὗτος (p 13 K L M 6. 33. 104. 326. 1175. 1288 vg) or by the omission of οὗτος altogether (467 arm Basil). In v. 4 πάντα has been harmonized artificially with 1:3, 2:10 by the addition of τά (Cc L P Ψ 104. 326. 1175. 1128 Athan.).
For the first time the writer addresses his readers, and as ἀδελφοὶἅγιοι (only here in NT, for ἁγίοις in 1 Thessalonians 5:27 is a later insertion), κλήσεωςἐπουρανίουμέτοχοι (6:4 etc., cp. Psalms 119:63 μέτοχοςἐγώεἰμιπάντωντῶνφοβουμένωνσε , Ep. Arist. 207; de Mundo, 401b). In Philippians 3:14 the ἄνωκλῆσις is the prize conferred at the end upon Christian faith and faithfulness. Here there may be a side allusion to 2:11 . In κατανοήσατε (a verb used in this general sense by Ep. Aristeas, 3, πρὸςτὸπεριέργωςτὰθεῖακατανοεῖν ) κτλ ., the writer summons his readers to consider Jesus as πιστός ; but, instead of explaining why or how Jesus was loyal to God, he uses this quality to bring out two respects (the first in vv. 2a-4, the second in vv. 5-6a) in which Jesus outshone Moses, the divinely-commissioned leader and lawgiver of the People in far-off days, although there is no tone of disparagement in the comparison with Moses, as in the comparison with the angels.
In the description of Jesus as τὸνἀπόστολονκαὶἀρχιερέατῆςὁμολογίαςἡμῶν , ὁμολογία is almost an equivalent for “ our religion,” as in 4:14 (cp. 10:23).1 Through the sense of a vow (LXX) or of a legal agreement (papyri and inscriptions), it had naturally passed into the Christian vocabulary as a term for the common and solemn confession or creed of faith. Ἡμῶν is emphatic. In “ our religion” it is Jesus who is ἀπόστολοςκαὶἀρχιερεύς , not Moses. This suits the context better than to make the antithesis one between the law and the gospel . Possibly the writer had in mind the Jewish veneration for Moses which found expression during the second century in a remark of rabbi Jose ben Chalafta upon this very phrase from Numbers (Sifre, § 110): “ God calls Moses ‘ faithful in all His house,’ and thereby he ranked higher than the ministering angels themselves.” The use of ἀπόστολος as an epithet for Jesus shows “ the fresh creative genius of the writer and the unconventional nature of his style” (Bruce). Over half a century later, Justin (in Revelation 1:12) called Jesus Christ τοῦπατρὸςπάντωνκαὶδεσπότουθεοῦυἱὸςκαὶἀπόστολοςὤν , and in Apol. 1:63 described him as ἄγγελοςκαὶἀπόστολος · αὐτὸςγὰρἀπαγγέλλειὅσαδεῖγνωσθῆναι , καὶἀποστέλλεται , μηνύσωνὅσαἀγγέλλεται (the connexion of thought here possibly explains the alteration of διηγήσομαι into ἀπαγγελῶ in Hebrews 2:12). Naturally Jesus was rarely called ἄγγελος ; but it was all the easier for our author to call Jesus ἀπόστολος , as he avoids the term in its ecclesiastical sense (cp. 2:3).
For him it carries the usual associations of authority; ἀπόστολος is Ionic for πρεσβευτής , not a mere envoy, but an ambassador or representative sent with powers, authorized to speak in the name of the person who has dispatched him. Here the allusion is to 2:3, where the parallel is with the Sinaitic legislation, just as the allusion to Jesus as ἀρχιερεύς recalls the ὁἁγιάζων of 2:11, 17. On the other hand, it is not so clear that any explicit antithesis to Moses is implied in ἀρχιερέα , for, although Philo had invested Moses with highpriestly honour (praem. et poen. 9, τυγχάνει … ἀρχιερωσύνης , de vita Mosis ii., I, ἐγένετογὰρπρονοίᾳθεοῦ … ἀρχιερεύς ), this is never prominent, and it is never worked out in “ Hebrews.”
The reason why they are to look at Jesus is (v. 2) his faithfulness τῷποιήσαντιαὐτόν , where ποιεῖν means “ to appoint” to an office . This faithfulness puts him above Moses for two reasons. First (vv. 2b-4), because he is the founder of the House or Household of God, whereas Moses is part of the House. The text the writer has in mind is Numbers 12:7 , and the argument of v. 3, where οἶκος , like our “ house,” includes the sense of household or family,1 turns on the assumption that Moses belonged to the οἶκος in which he served so faithfully. How Jesus “ founded” God`s household, we are not told. But there was an οἶκοςθεοῦ before Moses, as is noted later in 11:2, 25, a line of πρεσβύτεροι who lived by faith; and their existence is naturally referred to the eternal Son.
The founding of the Household is part and parcel of the creation of the τὰπάντα (1:2, 3). Κατασκευάζειν includes, of course (see 9:2, 6), the arrangement of the οἶκος (cp. Epict. i. 6. 7-10, where κατασκευάζω is similarly used in the argument from design).
The author then adds an edifying aside, in v. 4, to explain how the οἶκος was Gods , though Jesus had specially founded it. It would ease the connexion of thought if θεός meant (as in 1:8?) “ divine” as applied to Christ (so, e.g., Cramer, M. Stuart), or if οὗτος could be read for θεός , as Blass actually proposes. But this is to rewrite the passage. Nor can we take αὐτοῦ in v. 6a as “ Christs” ; there are not two Households, and πᾶς (v. 4) does not mean “ each” (so, e.g., Reuss). Αὐτοῦ in vv. 2, 5; and 6a must mean “ God`s.” He as creator is ultimately responsible for the House which, under him, Jesus founded and supervises.
This was a commonplace of ancient thought. Justin, e.g., observes: Μενάνδρῳτῷκωμικῷκαὶτοῖςταῦταφήσασιταὐτὰφράζομεν · μείζοναγὰρτὸνδημιουργὸντοῦσκευαζομένουἀπεφήνατο (Revelation 1:20). It had been remarked by Philo (De Plant. 16): ὅσῳγὰρὁκτησάμενοςτὸκτῆματοῦκτήματοςἀμείνωνκαὶτὸπεποιηκὸςτοῦγεγονότος , τοσούτῳβασιλικώτεροιἀκεῖνοι , and in Legum Allegor. iii. 32 he argues that just as no one would ever suppose that a furnished mansion had been completed ἄνευτέχνηςκαὶδημιουργοῦ , so anyone entering and studying the universe ὥσπερεἰςμεγίστηνοἰκίανἢπόλιν would naturally conclude that ἧνκαὶἔστινὁτοῦδετοῦπαντὸςδημιουργὸςὁθεός .
The usual way of combining the thought of v. 4 with the context is indicated by Lactantius in proving the unity of the Father and the Son (diuin. instit. iv. 29): “ When anyone has a son of whom he is specially fond (quem unice diligat), a son who is still in the house and under his father`s authority (in manu patris)— he may grant him the name and power of lord (nomen domini potestatemque), yet by civil law (civili iure) the house is one, and one is called lord. So this world is one house of God, and the Son and the Father, who in harmony (unanimos) dwell in the world, are one God.”
The second (5-6a) proof of the superiority of Jesus to Moses is now introduced by καί . It rests on the term θεράπων used of Moses in the context (as well as in Numbers 11:11, Numbers 11:12:7, Numbers 11:8 etc.; of Moses and Aaron in Wis 10:16, 18:21); θεράπων is not the same as δοῦλος , but for our author it is less than υἱός , and he contrasts Moses as the θεράπωνἐντῷοἴκῳ with Jesus as the Son ἐπὶτὸνοἶκον , ἐπί used as in 10:21 and Matthew 25:21, Matthew 25:23 . Moses is “ egregius domesticus fidei tuae” (Aug. Conf. xii. 23). The difficult phrase εἰςτὸμαρτύριοντῶνλαληθησομένων means, like 9:9, that the position of Moses was one which pointed beyond itself to a future and higher revelation; the tabernacle was a σκήνητοῦμαρτυρίου (Numbers 12:5) in a deep sense. This is much more likely than the idea that the faithfulness of Moses guaranteed the trustworthiness of anything he said, or even that Moses merely served to bear testimony of what God revealed from time to time (as if the writer was thinking of the words στόμακατὰστόμαλαλήσωαὐτῷ which follow the above-quoted text in Numbers).
The writer now passes into a long appeal for loyalty, which has three movements (3:6b-19, 4:1-10, 4:11-13). The first two are connected with a homily on Psalms 95:7-11 as a divine warning against the peril of apostasy, the story of Israel after the exodus from Egypt being chosen as a solemn instance of how easy and fatal it is to forfeit privilege by practical unbelief. It is a variant upon the theme of 2:2, 3 suggested by the comparison between Moses and Jesus, but there is no comparison between Jesus and Joshua; for although the former opens up the Rest for the People of to-day, the stress of the exhortation falls upon the unbelief and disobedience of the People in the past.
6 Now we are this house of God , if we will only keep confident and proud of our hope. 7 Therefore, as the holy Spirit says:
“ Today, when (ἐάν , as in 1 John 2:28) you hear his voice,
8 harden not (μὴσκληρύνητε , aor. subj. of negative entreaty) your hearts as at the Provocation,
on the day of the Temptation in the desert,
9 where (οὗ = ὅπου as Deuteronomy 8:15) your fathers put me to the proof,
10 and for forty years felt what I could do.”
Therefore “ I grew exasperated with that generation,
I said, ‘ They are always astray in their heart’ ;
they would not learn my ways;
11 so (ὡς consecutive) I swore in my anger
‘ they shall never (εἰ = the emphatic negative א ם in oaths) enter my Rest.’ ”
12 Brothers, take care in case there is a wicked, unbelieving heart in any of you, moving you to apostatize from the living God. 13 Rather admonish one another daily, so long as this word “ Today” is uttered. that none of you may be deceived by sin and “ hardened.” 14 For we only participate in Christ provided that we keep firm to the very end the confidence with which we started, 15 this word ever sounding in our ears:
“ Today when you hear his voice,
harden not your hearts as at the Provocation.”
16 Who heard and yet “ provoked” him? Was it not all who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? 17 And with whom was he exasperated for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose “ corpses1 fell in the desert” ? 18 And to whom “ did he swear that they would never enter his Rest” ? To whom but those who disobeyed (ἀπειθήσασιν , cp. Acts 19:9)? 19 Thus (καί consecutive) we see it was owing to unbelief that they could not enter.
In v. 6 (a) οὗ is altered into ὅς by D* M 6. 424 Lat Lucifer, Ambr. Priscillian, probably owing to the erroneous idea that the definite article (supplied by 440. 2005) would have been necessary between οὗ and οἶκος . (b) ἐάν is assimilated to the text of v. 14 by a change to ἐάνπερ in א c A C Dc K L W syrhkl Lucifer, Chrys, etc. (von Soden). (c) After ἐλπίδος the words μέχριτέλουςβεβαίαν are inserted from v. 14 by a number of MSS; the shorter, correct text is preserved in P13 B 1739 sah eth Lucifer, Ambrose.
V. 6b introduces the appeal, by a transition from 6a. When Philo claims that παρρησία is the mark of intelligent religion (quis rer. div. haeres, 4, τοῖςμὲνοὖνἀμαθέσισυμφέρονἡσυχία , τοῖςδὲἐπιστήμηςἐφιεμένοιςκαὶἅμαφιλοδεσπότοιςἀναγκαιότατονἡπαρρησίακτῆμα ), he means by παρρησία the confidence which is not afraid to pray aloud: cp. ib. 5 (παρρησίαδὲφιλίαςσυγγενές , ἐπεὶπρὸςτίναἄντιςἢπρὸςτὸνἑαυτοῦφίλονπαρρησιάσαιτο ;), where the prayers and remonstrances of Moses are explained as a proof that he was Gods friend. But here as elsewhere in the NT παρρησία has the broader meaning of “ confidence” which already appears in the LXX . This confidence is the outcome of the Christian ἐλπίς ; here as in 4:16 and 10:19, 35; it denotes the believing mans attitude to a God whom he knows to be trustworthy. The idea of τὸκαύχηματῆςἐλπίδος is exactly that of Rom 5:2 , and of a saying like Psalms 5:12 .
Διό in v. 7 goes most naturally with μὴσκληρύνητε (v. 8), the thought of which recurs in v. 13 as the central thread. The alternative, to take it with βλέπετε in v. 12, which turns the whole quotation into a parenthesis, seems to blunt the direct force of the admonition; it makes the parenthesis far too long, and empties the second διό of its meaning. βλέπετε is no more abrupt in v. 12 than in 12:25; it introduces a sharp, sudden warning, without any particle like οὖν or δέ , and requires no previous term like διό . The quotation is introduced as in 10:15 by “ the holy Spirit” as the Speaker, a rabbinic idea of inspiration. The quotation itself is from Psalms 95:7-11 which in A runs as follows:
σήμερονἐὰντῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦἀκούσητε ,
μὴσκληρύνητετὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶνὡςἐντῷπαραπικρασμῷ
κατὰτὴνἡμέραντοῦπειρασμοῦἐντῇἐρήμῳ ·
οὗἐπείρασαν 1 οἱπατέρεςὑμῶν ,
ἐδοκίμασανμεκαὶἴδοντὰἔργαμου .
τεσσεράκονταἔτηπροσώχθισατῇγενεᾷἐκείνῃ ,2
καὶεἶπον · 3 ἀεὶ 4 πλανῶνταιτῇκαρδίᾳ ,
αὐτοὶδὲοὐκἔγνωσαντὰςὁδούςμου .
ὡςὤμοσαἐντῇὀργῇμου ,
εἰεἰσελεύσονταιεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσίνμου .
In vv. 9, 10, though he knew (v. 17) the correct connexion of the LXX (cp. v. 17a), he alters it here for his own purpose, taking τεσσαράκονταἔτη with what precedes instead of with what follows, inserting διό (which crept into the text of R in the psalm) before προσώχθισα for emphasis, and altering ἐδοκίμασανμε into ἐνδοκιμασίᾳ .5 The LXX always renders the place-names “ Meriba” and “ Massa” by generalizing moral terms, here by παραπικρασμός and πειρασμός , the former only here in the LXX (Aquila, 1 Samuel 15:33; Theodotion, Proverbs 17:11). The displacement of τεσσεράκονταἔτη was all the more feasible as εἶδοντὰἔργαμου meant for him the experience of Gods punishing indignation. (Τεσσαράκοντα is better attested than τεσσεράκοντα (Moulton, ii. 66) for the first century.) There is no hint that the writer was conscious of the rabbinic tradition, deduced from this psalm, that the period of messiah would last for forty years, still less that he had any idea of comparing this term with the period between the crucifixion and 70 a.d. What he really does is to manipulate the LXX text in order to bring out his idea that the entire forty years in the desert were a “ day of temptation,” 6 during which the People exasperated God. Hence (in v. 9) he transfers the “ forty years” to εἶδοντὰἔργαμου , in order to emphasize the truth that the stay of the People in the desert was one long provocation of God; for εἶδοντὰἔργαμου is not an aggravation of their offence , but a reminder that all along God let them feel how he could punish them for their disobedience. Finally, their long-continued obstinacy led him to exclude them from the land of Rest. This “ finally” does not mean that the divine oath of exclusion was pronounced at the end of the forty years in the desert, but that as the result of Gods experience he gradually killed off (v. 17) all those who had left Egypt. This retribution was forced upon him by the conviction αὐτοὶδὲοὐκἔγνωσαντὰςὁδούςμου (i.e. would not learn my laws for life, cared not to take my road).
The rabbinic interpretation of Psa_95 as messianic appears in the legend (T.B. Sanhedrim, 98a) of R. Joshua ben Levi and Elijah. When the rabbi was sent by Elijah to messiah at the gates of Rome, he asked, “ Lord, when comest thou?” He answered, “ To-day.” Joshua returned to Elijah, who inquired of him: “ What said He to thee?” Joshua: “ Peace be with thee, son of Levi.” Elijah: “ Thereby He has assured to thee and My father a prospect of attaining the world to come.” Joshua: “ But He has deceived me, by telling me He would come to-day.” Elijah: “ Not so, what He meant was, To-day, if you will hear His voice.” The severe view of the fate of the wilderness-generation also appears in Sanh. 110b, where it is proved that the generation of the wilderness have no part in the world to come, from Numbers 14:35 and also from Psa_95 (as I swore in my anger that they should not enter into my Rest). This was rabbi Akiba’ s stern reading of the text. But rabbinic opinion, as reflected in the Mishna (cp.
W. Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten2, i. 135 f.), varied on the question of the fate assigned to the generation of Israelited during the forty years of wandering in the desert. While some authorities took Psalms 95:11 strictly, as if the “ rest” meant the rest after death, and these Israelites were by the divine oath excluded from the world to come, others endeavoured to minimize the text; Gods oath only referred to the incredulous spies, they argued, or it was uttered in the haste of anger and recalled. In defence of the latter milder view <a href="/bible/parallel/PSA/50/5" class="green-link">Psalms 50:5</a> was quoted, and <a href="/bible/parallel/ISA/35/10" class="green-link">Isaiah 35:10</a>. Our author takes the sterner view, reproduced later by Dante (Purgatorio, xviii. 133-135), for example, who makes the Israelites an example of sloth; “ the folk for whom the sea opened were dead ere Jordan saw the heirs of promise.” He never speaks of men “ tempting God,” apart from this quotation, and indeed, except in 11:17, Gods πειρασμός or probation of men is confined to the human life of Jesus.
For διό in v. 10 Clem. Alex. (Protrept. 9) reads δι ʼ ο . Προσωχθίζειν is a LXX term for the indignant loathing excited by some defiance of God’ s will, here by a discontented, critical attitude towards him. In v. 11 κατάπαυσις is used of Canaan as the promised land of settled peace, as only in Deuteronomy 12:9 and 1 K 8:56 . The mystical sense is developed in 4:3f.
The application (vv. 12f.) opens with βλέπετεμὴ … ἔσται , the reason for the future being probably “ because the verb εἰμί has no aorist, which is the tense required,” Field, Notes on Translation of N.T., p. 38) ἐντινιὑμῶν — the same concern for individuals as in 4:11, 10:25, 12:15— καρδίαἀπιστίας (genitive of quality— a Semitism here). Ἀπιστία must mean more than “ incredulity” ; the assonance with ἀποστῆναι was all the more apt as ἀπιστία denoted the unbelief which issues in action, ἐντῷἀποστῆναι — the idea as in Ezekiel 20:8 καὶἀπέστησανἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦ , καὶοὐκἠθέλησανεἰσακοῦσαιμου , though the preposition ἀπό was not needed, as may be seen, e.g., in Wis 3:10 . Our author is fond of this construction, the infinitive with a preposition. “ The living God” suggests what they lose by their apostasy, and what they bring upon themselves by way of retribution (10:31), especially the latter (cp. 4:12). There is no real distinction between θεοῦζῶντος and τοῦθεοῦζῶντος , for the article could be dropped, as in the case of θεὸςπατήρ and κύριοςἸησούς , once the expression became stamped and current.
In v. 13 παρακαλεῖτε … καθ ʼ ἑκάστηνἡμέραν emphasizes the keen, constant care of the community for its members, which is one feature of the epistle. In ἄχριςοὗ (elsewhere in NT with aorist or future), which is not a common phrase among Attic historians and orators, ἄχρις is a Hellenistic form of ἄχρι (p13 M) used sometimes when a vowel followed. Σήμερον is “ Gods instant men call years” (Browning), and the paronamasia in καλεῖται 1 … παρακαλεῖτε led the writer to prefer καλεῖται to a term like κηρύσσεται . The period (see 4:7) is that during which Gods call and opportunity still hold out, and the same idea is expressed in ἐντῷλέγεσθαιΣήμερονκτλ . (v. 15). ἐξὑμῶν is sufficiently emphatic as it stands, without being shifted forward before τις (B D K L d e etc. harkl Theodt. Dam.) in order to contrast ὑμεῖς with οἱπατέρεςὑμῶν (v. 9).
As for ἡἁμαρτία , it is the sin of apostasy (12:4), which like all sin deceives men (Romans 7:11), in this case by persuading them that they will be better off if they allow themselves to abandon the exacting demands of God. The responsibility of their position is expressed in ἵναμὴσκληρυνθῇ , a passive with a middle meaning; men can harden themselves or let lower considerations harden them against the call of God. As Clement of Alexandria (Protrept. ix.) explains: ὁρᾶτετὴνἀπειλήν · ὁρᾶτετὴνπροτροπήν · ὁρᾶτετὴντιμήν . τίδὴοὖνἔτιτὴνχάρινεἰςὀργὴνμεταλλάσσομεν … ; μεγάληγὰρτῆςἐπαγγελίαςαὐτοῦἡχάρις , “ ἐὰνσήμεροντῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦἀκουσῶμεν ” · τὸδὲσήμεροντῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦαὔξεταιτὴνἡμέραν , ἔστ ʼ ἂνἡσήμερονὀνομάζηται .
In v. 14 μέτοχοιτοῦΧριστοῦ (which is not an equivalent for the Pauline ἐνΧριστῷ , but rather means to have a personal interest in him) answers to μέτοχοικλήσεωςἐπουρανίου in v. 1 and to μετόχουςπνεύματοςἁγίου in 6:4; γεγόναμεν betrays the predilection of the writer for γέγονα rather than its equivalent εἰναι . Ἐάνπερ an intensive particle (for ἐάν , v. 6) τὴνἀρχὴντῆςὑποστάσεως (genitive of apposition)— i.e. “ our initial confidence” (the idea of 10:32)— κατάσχωμεν (echoing v. 6b). The misinterpretation of ὑποστάσεως as (Christ’ s) “ substance” 1 led to the addition of αὐτοῦ (A 588. 623. 1827. 1912 vg). But ὑπόστασις here as in 11:1 denotes a firm, confident conviction or resolute hope (in LXX, e.g., Rth 1:12 ἔστινμοιὑπόστασιςτοῦγενηθῆναιμεἀνδρί , rendering ת ק ו ה , which is translated by ἐλπίς in Proverbs 11:7), with the associations of steadfast patience under trying discouragements. This psychological meaning was already current , alongside of the physical or metaphysical. What a man bases himself on, as he confronts the future, is his ὑπόστασις , which here in sound and even (by contrast) in thought answers to ἀποστῆναι .
It is possible to regard v. 14 as a parenthesis, and connect ἐντῷλέγεσθαι (v. 15) closely with παρακαλεῖτε or ἵναμὴ … ἁμαρτίας (v. 13), but this is less natural; ἐντῷλέγεσθαι connects easily and aptly with κατάσχωμεν , and vv. 14, 15 thus carry on positively the thought of v. 13, viz. that the writer and his readers are still within the sound of God’ s call to his οἶκος to be πιστός .
The pointed questions which now follow (vv. 16-18) are a favourite device of the diatribe style. Παραπικραίνειν 2 in v. 16 seems to have been coined by the LXX to express “ rebellious” with a further sense of provoking or angering God; e.g. Deuteronomy 31:27 παραπικραίνοντεςἦτετὰπρὸςτὸνθεόν , and Deuteronomy 32:16 ἐνβδελύγμασιναὐτῶνπαρεπίκρανάνμε . The sense of “ disobey” recurs occasionally in the LXX psalter (e.g. 104:28, 106:11); indeed the term involves a disobedience which stirs up the divine anger against rebels, the flagrant disobedience (cp. παραβαίνειν for מ ר ה in Deuteronomy 1:43, Numbers 27:14) which rouses exasperation in God. Ἀλλ ʼ , one rhetorical question being answered by another (as Luke 17:8), logically presupposes τινές , but τίνες must be read in the previous question. By writing πάντες the writer does not stop to allow for the faithful minority, as Paul does . In the grave conclusion (v. 19) δι ʼ ἀπιστίαν (from v. 12) is thrown to the end for the sake of emphasis.
But, the author continues (4:1f.), the promised rest is still available; it is open to faith, though only to faith (1-3). No matter how certainly all has been done upon God’ s part (3-5), and no matter how sure some human beings are to share his Rest (v. 6), it does not follow that we shall, unless we take warning by this failure of our fathers in the past and have faith in God. Such is the urgent general idea of this paragraph. But the argument is compressed; the writer complicates it by defining the divine Rest as the sabbath-rest of eternity, and also by introducing an allusion to Joshua. That is, he (a) explains God’ s κατάπαυσις in Psa_95 by the σαββατισμός of Genesis 2:2, and then (b) draws an inference from the fact that the psalm-promise is long subsequent to the announcement of the σαββατισμός . He assumes that there is only one Rest mentioned, the κατάπαυσις into which God entered when he finished the work of creation, to which οἱπατέρεςὑμῶν were called under Moses, and to which Christians are now called. They must never lose faith in it, whatever be appearances to the contrary.
B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.
sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131.
boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.
Amb Ambrose.
א Ԡ [01: δ 2).
A [02: δ 4].
C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.
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.
P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.
K [018:1:1].
L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.
M [0121: α 1031] cont. 1:1-4:3 12:20-13:25.
6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25
33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17
104 [α 103]
326 [α 257]
1175 [α 74] cont. 1:1-3:5 6:8-13:20
1288 [α 162]
Ψ̠ [044: δ 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25.
Athan Athanasius
1 Had it not been for these other references it might have been possible to take τ . ὀ . ἡ . here as = “ whom we confess.” The contents of the ὁμολογία are suggested in the beliefs of 6:1f., which form the fixed principles and standards of the community, the Truth (10:26) to which assent was given at baptisra.
LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).
Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).
1 Our author avoids (see on 2:12) ἐκκλησία , unlike the author of 1 Timothy 3:15 who writes ἐνοἴκῳθεοῦ , ἤτιςἐστὶνἐκκλησίατοῦθεοῦ .
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).
1 κῶλα in this sense is from Numbers 14:29, Numbers 14:32, a passage which the writer has in mind.
424 [O 12] Hort’ s 67
440 [δ 260]
2005 [α 1436] cont. 1:1-7:2
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.”
c (Codex Colbertinus: saec. xii.)
1739 [α 78]
1 א ca adds με (so T), which has crept (needlessly, for πειράζειν may be used absolutely as in 1 Corinthians 10:9) into the text of Hebrews through א c Dc M vg pesh harkl boh arm Apollin.
2 In some texts of Hebrews (p 13 א A B D* M 33. 424** vg Clem. Apollin.) this becomes (under the influence of the literal view of forty years?) ταύτῃ (ἐκείνῃ in C Dc K L P syr sah boh arm eth Eus. Cyril, Chrys.).
3 The Ionic form εἶπα (B) has slipped into some texts of Hebrews (A D 33. 206. 489. 1288. 1518. 1836).
4 The LXX is stronger than the Hebrew; it appears to translate not the ע ם of the MT, but ע ל ם (cp. Flashar in Zeits fü r alt. Wiss., 1912, 84-85).
5 ἐδοκίμασαν is read in the text of Hebrews, by assimilation, in א c Dc K L vg syr arm eth Apollin. Lucifer, Ambr, Chrys. etc. i.e. Ε̄ΔΟΚΙΜΑ CΙΑ was altered into ΕΔΟΚΙΜΑ CᾹ .
Moulton J. H. Moulton’ s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).
6 The κατά in κατὰτὴνἡμέραν (v. 8) is temporal as in 1:10, 7:27, not “ after the manner of” (“ secundum,” vg).
1 The common confusion between αι and ει led to the variant καλεῖτε (AC).
1 Another early error was to regard it as “ our substance,” so that ἡἀρχὴτῆςὑποστάσεως meant faith as “ the beginning of our true nature” (a view already current in Chrysostom).
623 [α 173]
1827 [α 367]
1912 [α 1066]
vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.
2 In Deuteronomy 32:16 it is parallel to παροξύνειν ; cp. Flashar’ s discussion in Zeitlschrift fü r alt. Wiss., 1912, 185 f. It does not always require an object (God).