Bible Commentaries
Hebrews 10

Verses 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 (περὶ ἁμαρτίας as 13:11) thou takest no delight.

7 So (τότε) 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 (τότε) 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 … οὐκ εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων (v. 1) the writer uses a Platonic phrase (Cratylus, 306 E, εἰκόνας τῶν πραγμάτων); εἰκών ( =�

Προσφέρουσιν is an idiomatic use of the plural (Matthew 2:20 τεθνήκασιν, Luke 12:20 αἰτοῦσιν), “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 κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν, the latter phrase being thrown forward for the sake of emphasis, and also in order to avoid bringing εἰς τὸ διηνεκές too near it. Εἰς τὸ διηνεκές also goes with προσφέρουσιν, not (as in v. 14) with τελειοῦν. Οὐδέποτε here as in v. 11 before δύνα(ν)ται (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 οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι (for construction see Genesis 11:8 ἐπαύσαντο οἰκοδομοῦντες) 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, ἱκετεύωμεν οὖν τὸν θεὸν οἱ συνειδήδει τῶν οἰκείων�

There is possibly an echo here of a passage like Numbers 5:15 (θυσία μνημοσύνου�

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 (e.g. Numbers 14:18�Isaiah 27:9 ὅταν�Romans 11:27). All this inherent defectiveness of animal sacrifices necessitated a new sacrifice altogether (v. 5; διό), the self-sacrifice of Jesus. So the writer quotes Psalms 40:7-9, which in A runs as follows:

θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας,

σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι·

ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ἐζητήσας.

τότε εἶπον· ἰδοὺ ἥκω,

(ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ)

τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημά σου, ὁ θεὸς μου, ἠβουλήθην.

Our author reads εὐδόκησας for ἐζητήσας,1 shifts ὁ θεός (omitting μου) to a position after ποιῆσαι, in order to emphasize τὸ θέλημά σου, and by omitting ἐβουλήθην (replaced by W in v. 7), connects τοῦ ποιῆσαι closely with ἥκω. A recollection of Psalms 51:18 εἱ ἠθέλησας θυσίαν … ὁλοκαυτώματα οὐκ εὐδοκήσεις 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 (cp. Ezekiel 2:9 κεφαλὶς βιβλίου).

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 ὠτία δέ, 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 ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ, 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�

The decisive consideration in favour of ἱερεύς (v. 11) is not that the�2 Corinthians 3:16, for the (Zephaniah 3:15 περιεῖλε κύριος τὰ�

εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου

ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου.

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 Πρὸς Ἑβραίους. 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 ἐκ δεξιῶν and ἐν δεξιᾷ is reproduced in Πρὸς Ἑβραίους: 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, ἐν δεξιᾷ is the true reading, though ἐκ δεξιῶν 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 (“hic autem unam pro peccatis offerens hostiam in sempiternum sedit”) upon the notion that Christ pleads his passion in heaven.

After reiterating the single sacrifice in v. 14 (where τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους is “the sanctified,” precisely as in 2:11), he adds (v. 15) an additional proof from scripture. Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, 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 , μαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις λέγων κτλ. (introducing Deuteronomy 4:39 and Exodus 17:6); similarly in Xen. Mem. i. 2. 20, μαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ τῶν ποιητῶν ὁ λέγων. 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, μετὰ γὰρ τὸ εἰρηκέναι, implies that some verb follows or was meant to follow, but the only one in the extant text is λέγει κύριος (v. 16). Hence, before v. 17 we must understand something like μαρτυρεῖ or λέγει or προσέθηκεν καί φησιν (Oecumenius) or τότε εἴρηκεν, although the evidence for any such phrase, e.g. for ὕστερον λέγει (31. 37, 55, 67, 71, 73, 80, 161) is highly precarious. In v. 17 μνησθήσομαι has been corrected into μνησθῶ by אc Dc K L P, etc., since μνησθῶ was the LXX reading and also better grammar, the future after οὐ μή 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 �

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 παρρησία εἰς (cp. 2 P 1:11 ἡ εἴσοδος εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν) εἴσοδον (with gen. as ὁδόν in 9:8, but not a synonym for ὁδόν), i.e. for access to (τῶν ἁγίων) the holy Presence, ἐν τῷ αἵματι Ἰησοῦ (qualifying εἴσοδον).1 This resumes the thought of 9:24-26, 10:10-12 (ἐν αἵματι 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 εἴσοδος τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ αἵματι Ἰησοῦ 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 (e.g. κελαινεφής), 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 (“freshly-killed”). Galen (de Hipp. et Plat. plac. iv. 7) quotes the well-known saying that λύπη ἐστὶ δόξα πρόσφατος κακοῦ παρουσίας, and the word (i.e. τὸ�Ecclesiastes 1:9 (οὐκ ἔστιν πᾶν πρόσφατον ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον), 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�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 διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος (6:19, 9:3), τοῦτʼ ἔστιν τοῦ σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ—a ritual expression for the idea of 6:19. Διά is local, and, whether a verb like εἰσελθών is supplied or not, διὰ τ. 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 Mark 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 ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, 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 (ἔχοντες) καὶ ἱερέα μέγαν ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ, another echo of the earlier passage (cp. 3:1-6, 4:14), ἱερεὺς μέγας being a sonorous LXX equivalent for�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 τὸ αἶμα τῆς διαθήκης (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.): πρῶτον μὲν καὶ τὸ μέγιστον, χεῖρας καὶ γνώμην καθαροὺς καὶ ὑγιεῖς ὑπάρχοντας καὶ μηδὲν αὑτοῖς δεινὸν συνειδότας. 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: καὶ γὰρ εὔηθες εἰς μὲν τὰ ἱερὰ μὴ ἐξεῖναι βαδίζειν, ὄς ἂν μὴ πρότερον λουσάμενος φαιδρύνηται τὸ σῶμα, εὔχεσθαι δὲ καὶ θύειν ἐπιχειρεῖν ἔτι κηλιδωμένῃ καὶ πεφυρμένῃ διανοίᾳ. His argument is that if the body requires ablutions (περιρραντηρίοις καὶ καθαρσίοις ἁγνευτικοῖς) before touching an external shrine, how can anyone who is morally impure draw near (προσελθεῖν τῷ θεῷ) the most pure God, unless he means to repent? Ὁ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τῷ μηδὲν ἐπεξεργάσασθαι κακὸν καὶ τὰ παλαιὰ ἐκνιψασθαι δικαιώσας γεγηθὼς προσίτω [cp. Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 10:22], ὁ δʼ ἄνευ τούτων δυσκάθαρτος ὦν�Hebrews 4:13] καὶ τοῖς�

For the exceptional ῥεραντισμένοι (א* A C D*), אc 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), κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος (to which א* vg pesh eth add the gloss of ἡμῶν), echoes 4:14 (κρατῶμεν τῆς ὁμολογίας) and 3:6 (ἐὰν τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος … κατάσχωμεν). 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�

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; καὶ κατανοῶμεν�Acts 15:39), although the verb παροξύνειν had already acquired a good sense (e.g. in Josephus, Ant. xvi. 125, παροξῦναι τὴν εὔνοιαν: in Proverbs 6:3 ἴσθι μὴ ἐκλυόμενος, παρόξυνε δὲ καὶ τὸν φίλον σου ὃν ἐνεγυήσω: and in Xen. Cyrop. vi. 2. 5, καὶ τούτους ἐπαινῶν τε παρώξυνε). 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. Ἀγαθὴ δʼ 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)? Μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες—do not do to one another what God never does to you (13:5), do not leave your fellow-members in the lurch (the force of ἐγκαταλείπειν, especially in the κοινή)—τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν (reflexive pronoun in the genitive = ἡμῶν). Ἐπισυναγωγή in the κοινή (cp. Deissmann’s Light from the East, 102 f.) means a collection (of money), but had already in Jewish Greek (e.g. 2 Malachi 2:7 ἕως ἂν συνάγῃ ὁ θεὸς ἐπισυναγωγὴν τοῦ λαοῦ) begun to acquire the present sense of a popular “gathering.” Καθὼς ἔθος (sc. ἔστιν) τισίν. 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, τιμὰ τὸ δαιμόνιον�Song of Solomon 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 μὴ καθʼ ἑαυτοὺς ἐνδύνοντες μονάζετε ὡς ἤδη δεδικαιωμένοι,�Ephesians 5:3 (ὁ οὖν μὴ ἐρχόμενος ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὗτος ἤδη ὑπερηφανεῖ καὶ ἑαυτὸν διέκρινεν). 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) τὴν ἡμέραν (here, as in 1 Corinthians 3:13, without ἐκείνη or τοῦ κυρίου). 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 (ἑκουσίως) 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 ἑκουσίως ἁμαρτόντων ἡμῶν (26), ἑκουσίως is put first for the sake of emphasis, and ἁμαρτόντων means the sin of�

Christianity is described (in v. 26) as τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς�Isaiah 26:11 (ζῆλος λήμψεται λαὸν�

“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 �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, χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν (to which, at an early period, καὶ δακρύων was added by D, most old Latin texts, and syrhkl). It is described in a reminiscence of Deuteronomy 17:6 ἐπὶ δυσὶν μάρτυσιν ἢ ἐπὶ τρισίν μάρτυσιν�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 πόσῳ δοκεῖτε κτλ. (v. 29), δοκεῖτε is intercalated as in Aristoph. Acharn. 12 (πῶς τοῦτʼ ἔσεισέ μου δοκεῖς τὴν καρδίαν; ), and Herm. Sim. ix. 28, 8 (εἰ τὰ ἔθνη τοὺς δούλους αὐτῶν κολάζουσιν, ἐάν τις�Exodus 21:15, he adds that Moses here practically denies that there is any pardon for those who blaspheme God (εἰ γὰρ οἱ τοὺς θνητοὺς κακηγορήσαντες γονεῖς�

τιμωρία originally meant vengeance. Διαφέρει δὲ τιμωρία καὶ κόλασις· ἡ μὲν γὰρ κόλασις τοῦ πάσχοντος ἕνεκα ἐστιν, ἡ δὲ τιμωρία τοῦ ποιοῦντος, ἵνα�

The threefold description of what is involved in the sin of apostasy begins: ὁ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καταπατήσας, another expression for the thought of 6:6, which recalls Zechariah 12:3 (λίθον καταπατούμενον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν· πᾶς ὁ καταπατῶν αὐτὴν ἐμπαίζων ἐμπαίξεται). Καταπατεῖν ὅρκια 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 κοινὸν1 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, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος (not τὸν νόμον Μωυσέως) ἐνύβρισας, suggests that the writer had in mind the language of Zechariah 12:10 (ἐκχεῶ … πνεῦμα χάριτος καὶ οἰκτιρμοῦ), but πνεῦμα χάριτος (contrasted here, as in John 1:17, with the νόμος Μωυσέως) is a periphrasis for πνεῦμα ἅγιον (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. (Ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη 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. Ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ�Deuteronomy 32:35 as is quoted in Romans 12:19; it reproduces the Hebrew original more closely than the LXX (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως�Romans 12:19, λέγει κύριος (אc A Dc K L arm Theodoret, Damasus, etc.). Κρινεῖ Κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ 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. Τὸ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς χεῖρας θεοῦ 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, οὐ μὴ διαφύγῃς τὰς χεῖρας τοῦ θεοῦ. 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: Ταύτης τῆς δίκης οὔτε σὺ μὴ πότε οὔτε εἰ ἄλλος�Hebrews 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. Ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε δὲ τὰς πρότερον ἡμέρας (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 (τοῦτο μέν … τοῦτο δέ, a good classical idiom); they bore obloquy and hardship manfully themselves, and they also made common cause with their fellow-sufferers. By saying ἄθλησιν παθημάτων, 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 (e.g. iii. 91, 10, διόπερ ἔμελλον … ἐκθεατριεῖν δὲ τοὺς πολεμίους φυγομαχοῦντας). 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. Ὅταν μὲν γάρ τις ὀνειδίζηται καθʼ ἑαυτὸν, λυπηρὸν μὲν, πολλῷ δὲ πλέον, ὅταν ἐπὶ πάντων (Chrysostom). They had been exposed to ὀνειδισμοῖς τε καὶ θλίψεσι, 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, τῶν οὕτως (i.e. in the παθήματα)�Proverbs 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). Καὶ γὰρ τοῖς δεσμίοις συνεπαθήσατε, 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 καὶ λοιπὸν συμπαθεῖ τῷ φθονουμένῳ : Test. Benj. 4:4 τῷ�Romans 6:4 συμπαθείτω μοι: and the saying which is quoted in Meineke’s Frag. Comic. Graec. iv. 52, ἐκ τοῦ παθεῖν γίγνωσκε καὶ τὸ συμπαθεῖν· καὶ σοὶ γὰρ ἄλλος συμπαθήσεται παθών. They had also borne their own losses with more than equanimity,1 with actual gladness (μετὰ χαρᾶς, the same thought as in Romans 5:3, though differently worked out), γινώσκοντες (with accus. and infinitive) ἔχειν ἑαυτούς (= 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) καὶ μένουσαν (13:14, the thought of Matthew 6:20). Τὴν ἁρπαγὴν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ὑμῶν (cp. Polybius, iv. 17. 4, ἁρπαγὰς ὑπαρχόντων) 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 (εἴτε τῷ θάνατος εἴτε νόσος εἴτε�

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 (μὴ φοβοῦ, παιδίον, ὅτι ἐπτωχεύσαμεν· ὑπάρχει σοὶ πολλὰ, εἂν φοβηθῇς τὸν θέον κτλ.), except that our author notes the glow (μετὰ χαρᾶς) 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 Πρὸς Ἑβραίους means. As Epictetus put it, there are more losses than the loss of property (ii. 10. 14,�Deuteronomy 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: τῶν δʼ ὡς�

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 (μου) in א Dc Ψ 256. 1288* etc. vt eth Clem. Orig.), a misspelling (i.e. δεσμοῖς) 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 ἐν ἑαυτοῖς (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 ἐν (τοῖς) οὐρανοῖς (from Philippians 3:20?) in אc 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. Μὴ�

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). Ὑπομονῆς γὰρ ἔχετε χρείαν (5:12) ἵνα τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ποιήσαντες (suggested by 10:7-9) κομίσησθε τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν (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 (τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν) rather than to get it as our due (which is the idea of μισθαποδοσίαν), 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). Ἔτι γὰρ (om. p13) μικρὸν (sc. ἔστιν) ὅσον ὅσον. In de mutat. nomin. 44, Philo comments upon the aptness and significance of the word ναί in the promise of Genesis 17:19 (τὶ γὰρ εὐπρεπέστερον ἢ τἀγαθὰ ἐπινεύειν θεῷ καὶ ταχέως ὁμολογεῖν;). Our author has a similar idea in mind, though he is eschatological, as Philo is not. Ὅσον ὅσον is a variant in D (on Luke 5:3) for ὀλίγον. The phrase occurs in Aristoph. Wasps, 213 (τί οὐκ�Isaiah 26:20 (μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον). Hence, although μικρὸν ὅσον 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 ἐὰν ὑστερήσῃ, ὑπόμεινον αὐτόν, ὅτι ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ· ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται, 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 οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ into οὐ χρονεῖ:1 (c) reverses the order of the last two clauses, and (d) shifts μου in front of ἐκ πίστεως, 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 Πρὸς Ἑβραίους 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�Galatians 2:12) withdraw from their duty or abandon their convictions—οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ. 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. Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς (predicate genitive, as in 12:11, unless ἄνδρες or ἐκ is supplied) εἰς�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 résumé (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 Πρὸς Ἐβραίους 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 Hebräerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910).

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

אԠ[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 (ἐκζητήσεις) 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 θυσίαν κ. προσφοράν is kept at v. 8 by אc 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 ὁ θεός is sometimes repeated after ποιῆσαι by אc 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 οἱ φαῦλοι καὶ�

1 Hence the idea is not put in quite the same way as in Ephesians 3:12 (ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὴν προσαγωγήν). In Sir 25:25 μηδὲ (δῷς) γυναικὶ πονηρᾷ ἐξουσίαν, א A read παρρησίαν for B’s ἐξουσίαν, which proves how deeply the idea of liberty was rooted in παρρησία.

1 The phrase ἐν�Daniel 5:3 (v. l. καθαρᾷ) and in Isaiah 38:8 (ἐν. κ.�

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 αἶμα ῥαντισμοῦ of 12:24.

1 Τὸ αἶμα τῆς διαθήκης ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη, as 1 Corinthians 6:11�

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 τὸν ξενῶνα (for hospitality, cp. below, 13:2) καὶ τὰ χρηστήρια τῶν ὑδάτων (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 (θεοῦ) any more than in the LXX, and�

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 πνεῦμα χάριτος 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 (κρινεῖ= “punibit,” not “judicabit”) 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: εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος ἐξελοῦμαι τὴν ἐξ�