Bible Commentaries
Hebrews 12

Verses 1-99

From the ἡμῶν … ἡμῶν of the epilogue the writer now passes into a moving appeal to his readers (12:1f.).

1 Therefore (Τοιγαροῦν, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:8), with all this host of witnesses encircling us, we (καὶ ἡμεῖς, emphatic) must strip off sin with its clinging folds, to run our appointed course steadily (διʼ ὑπομονῆς), 2 our eyes fixed upon Jesus as the pioneer and the perfection of faith—upon: Jesus who, in order to reach his own appointed joy, steadily endured (ὑπέμεινεν) the cross, thinking nothing of its shame, and is now “seated at the right hand” of the throne of God.

The writer now returns to the duty of ὑπομονή as the immediate exercise of πίστις (10:36f.), the supreme inspiration being the example of Jesus (12:1-3) as the great Believer, who shows us what true πίστις means, from beginning to end, in its heroic course (τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν�

Herod. viii. 102 (πολλοὺς πολλάκις�Genesis 18:23, cp. Hebrews 11:6) λέγεται. ἐαν μέντοι πορευόμενος μήτε κάμῃ (cp. Hebrews 12:3) μήτε ῥᾳθυμήσῃ, ὡς παρʼ ἑκάτερα ἐκτραπόμενος (cp. Hebrews 12:13) πλανᾶσθαι τῆς μέσης καὶ εὐθυτενοῦς διαμαρτὼν ὀδοῦ, μιμησάμενος δὲ τοὺς�

Ἔχοντες …�Jude 1:20, Jude 1:21; but here the first, not the second, denotes the motive. Τοσοῦτον1 (thrown forward, for emphasis) ἔχοντες περικείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων. Μαρτύρες here, in the light of 11:2, 4, 5, 39, denotes those who have borne personal testimony to the faith. Heaven is now crowded with these (12:23), and the record of their evidence and its reward enters into our experience. Such πνεύματα δικαίων τετελειωμένων speak to us (11:4) still; we are, or ought to be, conscious of their record, which is an encouragement to us (καὶ ἡμεῖς) ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων (1:2). It is what we see in them, not what they see in us, that is the writer’s main point; περικείμενον suggests that the idea of them as witnesses of our struggle (see the quot. from 4 Mac, above) is not to be excluded, but this is merely suggested, not developed. Μάρτυς is already, as in Revelation 2:13 etc., beginning to shade off into the red sense of “martyr” (cp. Kattenbusch in Zeitsch. für neutest. Wissenschaft, 1903, pp. 111 f.; G. Krüger, ibid., 1916, pp. 264 f.; Reitzenstein in Hermes, 1917, pp. 442 f., and H. Delehaye in Analecta Bollandiana, 1921, pp. 20 f.), though the writer uses the word with a special application here, not as usually of the Christian apostles nor of the prophets, but of the heroes and heroines of the People in pre-Christian ages. He does not even call Jesus Christ μάρτυς (as does the author of the Johannine apocalypse).

The meaning of “witnesses of our ordeal” (i.e. spectators) is supported by passages like Epict. iv. 4. 31, οὐδεὶς�Hebrews 11:32-34]. And, finally, he draws this conclusion from his long retrospect … [Hebrews 12:1]. How much of the philosophy of history is condensed into that single sentence ! It is suggestive to us of the ethical purpose which should dominate all our historical teaching. To what end do we live in a country whose annals are enriched by the story of great talents, high endeavours and noble sacrifices, if we do not become more conscious of the possibilities of our own life, and more anxious to live worthily of the inheritance which has come down to us?”

Νέφος (never in this sense in LXX) has its usual Greek meaning of “host” (Latin nimbus or nubes), as, e.g., in Herod. viii. 109, νέφος τοσοῦτο�

Hence�2 Corinthians 8:9, Philippians 2:6, Philippians 2:7), which the writer might have entertained; but (p. l) he never hints at it elsewhere, and the other interpretation tallies with the idea of 2:8, 9. Inspired by this, Jesus ὑπέμεινε (+ τόν, p13 D*) σταυρόν— as we might say in English “a cross.” Aristotle (Nik. Eth. ix. 1, 2) declares that courage is praiseworthy just because it involves pain, χαλεπώτερον γὰρ τὰ λυπηρὰ ὑπομένειν ἢ τὰ ἡδέων�Hebrews 12:11), but the end is not always visible. In αἰσχύνης καταφρονήσας it is not the horrible torture of the crucifixion, but its stinging indignity (cp. Galatians 3:13 for an even darker view), which is noted as a hard thing; it was a punishment for slaves and criminals, for men of whom the world felt it was well rid (cp. 11:38a). But Jesus did not allow either the dread or the experience of this to daunt him. He rose above “indignity and contumely, that is to say, all that would most touch that life which man has in the favour of man, and which strikes more deeply than physical infliction, because it goes deeper than the body—wounding the spirit” (M ’Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, pp. 229, 230). Musonius (ed. Hense, x.) defined ὕβρις or αἰσχύνη as οἷον λοιδορηθῆναι ἢ πληγῆναι ἥ ἐμπτυσθῆναι, ὧν τὸ χαλεπώτατον πληγαί. But the special αἰσχύνη here is that of crucifixion. This, says the writer, Jesus did not allow to stand between him and loyalty to the will of God. It is one thing to be sensitive to disgrace and disparagement, another thing to let these hinder us from doing our duty. Jesus was sensitive to such emotions; he felt disgrace keenly. But instead of allowing these feelings to cling to his mind, he rose above them. This is the force of καταφρονήσας here, as in the last clause of St. Philip of Neri’s well-known maxim, “Spernere mundum, spernere te ipsum, spernere te sperni.” It is the only place in the NT where καταφρονεῖν is used in a good sense (true and false shame are noted in Sir 4:20, 21 περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς σου μὴ αἰσχυνθῇς· ἔστιν γὰρ αἰσχύνη ἐπάγουσα ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ ἔστιν αἰσχύνη δόξα καὶ χάρις). The climax is put in one of the writer’s favourite quotations from the psalter; only this time he uses κεκάθικεν (perfect here alone for the more usual aorist, 1:3, 8:1, 10:12) = and so has entered on his χαρά.

Jesus thus had to suffer worse than anything you have had to bear; this is the thought of vv. 3, 4, which round off the first movement of the appeal in 12:1f.:—



3 Compare him who steadily endured (ὑπομεμενηκότα) all that hostility from sinful men, so as to keep your own hearts from fainting and failing. 4 You have not had to shed blood yet in the struggle against sin.

The writer assumes, as in 5:7f., a close knowledge of the Passion story. Before proceeding to argue that suffering is a fruitful discipline, with which God honours them (v. 5f.), he reminds them that as yet they have not had to face the worst (v. 4). The metaphor of the race-course dies away into the general military metaphor of v. 4, where ἁμαρτία is half-personified as in 3:13, Ἀναλογίσασθε1 (the γάρ is corroborative: “yes,�Mark 14:41) with what you are called to suffer.” Τοιαύτην echoes σταυρόν and αἰσχύνης, and is explained by μέχρις αἵματος in the next verse, while ὑπομεμενηκότα is another aoristic perfect like κεκάθικεν.

Ἀντιλογίαν is used here of active opposition, as in Ps Sol 17:44 (ῥῦσαί με ἐξ�John 19:12, Romans 10:21), the noun covers more than verbal opposition, as in Numbers 20:13 and Jude 1:11τῇ�

This is one of the places at which textual corruption began early. The curious v. l. ἑαυτούς finds early support in א* D* (αὐτούς, p13 אc 33, 256, 1288, 1319*, 1739, 2127 Lat syrvg boh Orig.); p13 א* and D* go wrong here as in 11:35, D* and Lat as at 11:23 (insertion). It is extremely unlikely that the reading arose from a recollection of passages like Numbers 16:37 (Korah, Dathan, and Abiram) ἡγίασαν τὰ πυρεῖα τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν τούτων ἐν (i.e. at the cost of) ταῖς ψυχαῖς αὐτῶν, or Proverbs 8:35 οἱ δὲ εἰς ἐμὲ ἁμαρτάνοντες�Deuteronomy 15:16. But there is no point in suggesting here, as this reading does, that the ἁμαρτωλοί were acting against their better selves, unconsciously injuring their own souls, as they maltreated Jesus. The writer deals with sin in a more straightforward and direct way, and, in spite of all arguments to the contrary (e.g. by Westcott, von Soden, Seeberg, Peake, Wickham), this seems a far-fetched idea here. It is like the similar interpretation of ἑαυτούς in 10:34, a piece of irrelevant embroidery; it “looks like the conceit which some reader wrote upon his margin” (A. B. Davidson). Theodoret took εἰς ἑαυτούς with�

In ἵνα … ἐκλυόμενοι, ἐκλυόμενοι (ἐκλελυμένοι p13 D*) might go with ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν (cp. Polybius, xx. 4, 7, οὐ μόνον τοῖς σώμασιν ἐξελύθησαν,�Job 10:1 κάμνω δὲ τῇ ψυχῇ μου). Both verbs connect with it, to express the general sense of inward exhaustion and faint-heartedness; indeed, Aristotle uses both to describe runners relaxing and collapsing, once the goal has been passed: ἐπὶ τοῖς καμπτῆρσιν (at the goal of the race, not till then) ἐκπνέουσι καὶ ἐκλύονται· προορῶντες γὰρ τὸ πέρας οὐ κάμνουσι πρότερον (Rhet. iii. 9 2). In v. 4 οὔπω (γάρ is superfluously added by D L 440, 491, 823 arm sah boh) κτλ does not necessarily imply that they would be called upon to shed their blood in loyalty to their faith, as if martyrdom was the inevitable result of tenacity. Nor is the writer blaming them; he does not mean to suggest that if they had been truly decided for God against the world, they would by this time have suffered μέχρις αἵματος. He is shaming them, not blaming them. “Your sufferings have been serious and sharp (10:32f.), but nothing to what others before you, and especially Jesus, have had to bear. Will you give way under a lesser strain than theirs?” The coming of the messiah was to be heralded by birth-pangs of trouble for his adherents on earth, and it might be supposed that the writer implies here: “The Coming One (10:37) is near (12:26), as is evident from your woes; do not fail, but be ready for him.” But this line of thought is not worked out elsewhere by the writer, and is not necessary to his argument at this point. To fight μέχρις αἵματος is to resist to the death; cp. the cry of Judas Maccabaeus to his troops (2 Mac 13:14),�

Note another case of rhetorical alliteration in αἵμ.�

With the interrogative καὶ ἐκλέλησθε κτλ (v. 5) the writer opens his next argument and appeal. All such ὑπομονή means a divine παιδεία or moral training, which we have the honour of receiving from God. Instead of adducing the example of Jesus, however (see on 5:7, 8), he quotes from the book of Proverbs (vv. 5, 6), and then applies the general idea (vv. 7-11). Ἐκλανθάνεσθαι (not a LXX term) in v. 5; is slightly stronger than the more common ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι, though it may be rhetorically chosen for the sake of assonance after ἐκλυόμενοι. The παράκλησις is personified rhetorically; Ἥτις (2:3) ὑμῖν (for the scripture applies to all believers) ὡς υἱοῖς διαλέγεται. It is the παράκλησις of God, who speaks as a father to his son (υἱέ μου), though in the original “son” is merely the pupil of the sage (personifying the divine wisdom). Παράκλησις in Alexandrian Judaism “is the regular term for ‘an appeal’ to an individual to rise to the higher life of philosophy” (Conybeare’s ed. of Philo’s de vit. Contempl., p. 201). The quotation is from Proverbs 3:11, Proverbs 3:12 (A):

υἱέ, μὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας Κυρίου,

μηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόμενος:

ὃν γὰρ�

After υἱέ, μου is added (except by D* 31 Old Latin, Clem.), but otherwise the citation is word for word. Philo (De Congressu. Erud. 31) quotes the same passage to prove that discipline and hardship are profitable for the soul (οὕτως ἄρα ἡ ἐπίπληξις καὶ νουθεσία καλὸν νενόμισται, ὥστε διʼ αὐτῆς ἡ πρὸς θεὸν ὁμολογία συγγένεια γίνεται. τί γὰρ οἰκειότερον υἱῷ πατρὸς ἢ υἱοῦ πατρί;). The LXX contains a double mistranslation. (a) It is at least doubtful if the Hebrew text of the second line means “be not weary of”; the alternative is a parallel to the first line, “scorn not.” (b) It is certain that the second line of v. 6; originally ran, “he afflicts the man in whom he delights,” or “and delights in him as a father in his son.” Our writer, following the free LXX version, notes the twofold attitude of men under hardship. They may determine to get through it and get over it, as if it had no relation to God, seeing nothing of him in it. Stronger natures take this line; they summon up a stoical courage, which dares the world to do its worst to them. This is ὀλιγωρεῖν παιδείας κυρίου. It ignores any divine meaning in the rough experience. Other natures collapse weakly (ἐκλύειν); they see God in the trial, but he seems too hard upon them, and they break down in self-pity, as if they were victims of an unkind providence. Ἐλεγχόμενος … παιδεύει is used, as in Revelation 3:19 (ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω), of pointing out and correcting faults; μαστιγοῖ, as in Judith 8:27 (εἰς νουθέτησιν μαστιγοῖ Κύριος τοὺς ἐγγίζοντας αὐτῷ) and often elsewhere; παραδέχεται, in the sense of Luke 15:2. In fact, the temper inculcated in this passage resembles that of Ps.-Sol 16:11f., where the writer prays:

γογγυσμὸν καὶ ὀλιγοψυχίαν ἐν θλίψει μάκρυνον�

In εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε (v. 7), with which the writer begins his application of the text, the vigour is lost by the change of εἰς into εἰ (in a group of late cursives, including 5, 35, 203, 226c, 241, 242, 257, 337, 378, 383, 487, 506, 547, 623, 794, 917, 1319, 1831, 1891, 1898, 2127, 2143 + Theophyl.), and ὑπομένετε is indicative, not imperative.1 To endure rightly, one must endure intelligently; there is a reason for it in God’s relations with us (ὡς υἱοῖς ὑμῖν προσφέρεται). Προσφέρεται (cp. Syll. 371:13, i. a.d.) is a non-biblical Greek term for “treating” or “handling” (“tractare, agere cum”); cp. Syll. 371:13, i a.d., and Latyschev’s Inscript. Antiq. Orae Septentrionalis, I. 22:28 τοῖς μὲν ἡλικιώταις προσφερόμενος ὡς�Matthew 7:9 (τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος) etc., and ἐστιν after υἱός is rightly omitted by א* A P W 104, 256 vg sah Origen.

A mood of bitter scepticism about the discipline of providence recurs in some contemporary Roman writers; both Lucan (Pharsalia, iv. 807 f., “Felix Roma quidem, civesque habitura beatos, | si libertatis superis tam cura placeret | quam uindicta placet”) and Tacitus (Hist. I.3, “nec enim umquam atrocioribus populi Romani cladibus magisve iustis indiciis adprobatum est non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem”) speak as if the gods showed an unpaternal vindictiveness. But the idea of a fatherly providence was far-spread, both within and without Judaism. When our author argues: “You think that if God were fatherly, he would spare you these hardships? On the contrary, they are the proof of his wise affection”—he is not far from Seneca’s position (in the de Providentia, iv. 7): “hos itaque deus quos probat, quos amat, indurat recognoscit, exercet.” And in 2 Mac 6:12 the author bids his readers remember τὰς τιμωρίας μὴ πρὸς ὄλεθρον,�Deu_32), Rabbi Akiba comforted R. Eliezer on his sick-bed by explaining to him that “chastisements are precious,” whereas the other three rabbis who accompanied him had only praised the sick man for his piety. There is a fine passage in Philo’s quad deter. potiori insid. soleat, 39-40, where he argues that discipline at God’s hands is better than being left to oneself in sin and folly; εὐτυχέστεροι δὲ καὶ κρείττους τῶν�Deuteronomy 14:1 (υἱοί ἐστε κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ ὑμῳν) δηλονότι προνοίας καὶ κηδεμονίας�

Jerome writes in his letter (Epist. xxii. 39) to Eustochium: “haec est sola retributio, cum sanguis sanguine conpensatur et redempti cruore Christi pro redemptore libenter occumbimus. quis sanctorum sine certamine coronatus est? Abel justus occiditur; Abraham uxorem periclitatur amittere, et, ne in inmensum uolumen extendam, quaere et invenies singulos diuersa perpessos. solus in deliciis Salomon fuit et forsitan ideo corruit. quem enim diligit dominus, corripit; castigat autem omnem filium, quem recipit.” He often quotes this verse (6) in his letters of counsel and warning. Thus in 68:1 he prefixes it with the remark, “magna ira est, quando peccantibus non irascitur deus.” The modern parallel would be Browning’s hero in Christmas-Eve and Easter-Day (pt. 2, xxxiii.), who is

“happy that I can

Be crossed and thwarted as a man,

Not left in God’s contempt apart,

With ghastly smooth life.”

In v. 8 πάντες (sc. υἱοὶ γνήσιοι) recalls πάντα υἱόν (v. 6). Νόθοι are children born out of wedlock, who are left to themselves; the father is not sufficiently interested in them to inflict on them the discipline that fits his legitimate children for their place in the home. Νόθος (not a LXX term) seems to mean born of mixed marriages, in Wis 4:3 (cp. Aristoph. Birds, 1650-1652, νόθος γὰρ εἶ κοὐ γνήσιος … ὤν γε ξένης γυναικός). So Philo compares polytheists and lovers of material pleasure to τῶν ἐκ πόρνης�

Παιδευτής only occurs once in the LXX, and there as a description of God (Hosea 5:2 ἐγὼ δὲ παιδευτὴς ὑμῶν); in 4 Mac 9:6 (ὁ παιδευτὴς γέρων) it is applied to a man, as in Romans 2:20. Καὶ ἐνετρεπόμεθα (“reverebamur,” vg), we submitted respectfully to them (the object of the verb being πατέρας), as in Matthew 21:37, not, we amended our ways (as in LXX, e.g. 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Philo’s quaest. in Gen. iv. 9 τὸ μὴ ἁμαρτάνειν μηδὲν τὸ παραμέγιστον�Numbers 16:22). The contrast between τοὺς τῆς σαρκὸς πατέρας and τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων denotes God as the author of man’s spiritual being; the expression is quite intelligible as a statement of practical religion, and is only rendered ambiguous when we read into it later ideas about traducianism and creationism, which were not in the writer’s mind. Shall we not submit to Him, the writer asks, καὶ ζήσομεν (cp. 10:38 ζήσεται)? “Monemur hoc verbo nihil esse nobis magis exitiale quam si nos in Dei obsequium tradere recusemus” (Calvin). In v. 10 the assumption that the readers were mature men (εἴχομεν, v. 9) is made explicit by πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας (till we became men). Πρός here, as in Wis 16:6 (εἰς νουθεσίαν δὲ πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐταράχθησαν) etc., means duration; it is not final, as if the parental discipline were with a view to the short, earthly life alone. Κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς (as they chose) refers to the arbitrariness of the patria potestas. “Parents may err, but he is wise,” as the Scottish metrical paraphrase puts it.

The writer has in mind the familiar patria potestas of the Romans, as in Terence’s Heauton Timoroumenos (100: “vi et via pervolgata patrum”; 204-207: “parentum iniuriae unius modi sunt ferme … atque haec sunt tamen ad virtutem omnia”), where one father is confessing to another how he had mishandled his boy (99 f.: “ubi rem rescivi, coepi non humanitus neque ut animum decuit aegrotum adulescentuli tractare”). Compare the remark of the Persian officer in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (ii. 2, 14), who argued that a man who set himself to make people laugh did less for them than a man who made them weep, and instanced fathers—κλαύμασι μέν γε καὶ πατέρες υἱοῖς σωφροσύνην μηχανῶνται. This is wholesome correction. But it was not always so. “Qur postremo filio suscenseam, patres ut faciunt ceteri?” old Demaenetus asks, in the Asinaria (49) of Plautus. Ovid’s “durus pater” (Amores, i. 15, 17) was more than a tradition of literature. Pliny tells us, for example, that he had once to remonstrate with a man who was thrashing his son for wasting money on horses and dogs (Epp. ix. 2): “haec tibi admonitus immodicae seueritatis exemplo pro amore mutuo scripsi, ne quando tu quoque filium tuum acerbius duriusque tractares.” There is also the story told by Aelian (Var. Hist. 9:33) about the youth who, when asked by his father what he had learned from Zeno, was thrashed for failing to show anything definite, and then calmly replied that he had learned stoically to put up with a father’s bad temper (ἔφη μεμαθηκέναι φέρειν ὀργὴν πατέρων καὶ μὴ�Proverbs 4:13 ἐπιλαβοῦ ἐμῆς παιδείας, μὴ�Proverbs 6:23 λύχνος ἐντολή νόμου καὶ φῶς, καὶ ὁδὸς ζωῆς καὶ ἔλεγχος καὶ παιδεία, and Sir 4:17f.

Now for the contrast. Ὁ δὲ (God; sc. παιδεύει ἡμᾶς) ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον (cp. 1 Corinthians 12:7; Ep. Arist. 125, συμβουλευόντων πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον τῶν φίλων), which is explained in εἰς τὸ μεταλαβεῖν (cp. 6:7) τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐτοῦ. Ἁγιότης is a rare term, which begins to appear late in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 15:2 τοῦ πάντα ἐφορῶντος μεθʼ ἁγίοτητος: Test. Leviticus 3:4 ὑπεράνω πάσης ἁγιότητος), and, except as a v.l. in 2 Corinthians 1:12, occurs nowhere else in the NT. Here it denotes the divine life, to share in which is the outcome of ὁ ἁγιασμὸς οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται (i.e. have a direct experience of) τὸν κύριον (v. 14). The writer, in this contrast, is simply arguing that the divine education, which involves some suffering, as all παιδεία does, is more worthy of obedience from mature people than even the parental discipline to which, for all its faults of temper, they submitted during childhood. The sayings of Isokrates, that while the roots of παιδεία were bitter, its fruits were sweet, was a commonplace of ancient morals; the writer is going to develop it in a moment. Meantime he alludes to the equally well-known truth that παιδεία might involve severe physical treatment.

Two examples may be added of this doctrine that education involves a discipline which sometimes requires the infliction of pain. Maximus of Tyre (Diss. iv. 7), in arguing that the desire to give pleasure is by no means an invariable proof of true affection, asks: φιλοῦσιν δὲ που καὶ παῖδας πατέρες καὶ διδάσκαλοι μαθητάς· καὶ τὶ ἃν εἴη�Col_4, he explains, διὰ τοῦτʼ ἔξεστι τοῖς πατράσι καὶ κατηγορεῖν πρὸς τοὺς παῖδας καὶ ἐμβριθέστερον νουθετεῖν καὶ, εἰ μὴ ταῖς διʼ�

In v. 11 the writer sums up what he has been saying since v. 5. Discipline or παιδεία πρὸς τὸ παρόν (a classical Greek phrase = for the moment, e.g. Thuc. ii. 22, ὁρῶν αὐτοὺς πρὸς τὸ παρὸν χαλεπαίνοντας) οὐ (πᾶς … οὐ = absolute negative, not any) δοκεῖ (to human feelings and judgment) χαρᾶς εἶναι�

῞υστερον δέ (cp. Proverbs 5:3, Proverbs 5:4 (of the harlot) ἣ πρὸς καιρὸν λιπαίνει σον φάρυγγα· ὕστερον μέντοι πικρότερον χολῆς εὑρήσεις), but later on discipline yields fruit; it is not a stone flung down arbitrarily on human life, but a seed. By καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν δικαιοσύνης the writer means fruit (καρπός as often = result or outcome), which consists in (genit. of apposition) δικαιοσύνη (as in 11:7 a generic term for the good life as a religious relationship to God). But why εἰρηνικόν? Possibly in contrast to the restiveness and pain (λύπης) of the period of discipline, when people are being trained (γεγυμνασμένοις); when the discipline does its perfect work, there is no friction between the soul and God. But there is also the suggestion of “saving” or “blissful.” Philo quotes Proverbs 3:11, Proverbs 3:12 (see above on v. 5) as a saying of Solomon the peaceful (εἰρηνικός); the significance of this he finds in the thought that subjection and obedience are really a wholesome state for people who are inclined to be self-assertive, uncontrolled, and quarrel-some. He thinks that Noah is rightly called by a name denoting rest, since μετίασιν ἠρεμαῖον δὲ καὶ ἡσυχάζοντα καὶ σταθερὸν ἔτι δὲ καὶ εἰρηνικὸν βίον οἱ καλοκἀγαθίαν τετιμηκότες (Abrah. 5). To take εἰρηνικόν in some such sense (salutaris) would yield a good interpretation; and this is confirmed by the similar use of εἰρήνη in v. 14 and of the adjective in 3 Mac 6:32, where the Jews, in the ecstasy of their relief, χοροὺς συνίσταντο εὐφροσύνης εἰρηνικῆς σημεῖον. Those who stand their training reap a safe, sound life at last. In its social aspect, εἰρηνικόν could only refer to the brotherly love of the community; the writer might be throwing out a hint to his readers, that suffering was apt to render people irritable, impatient with one another’s faults. The later record even of the martyrs, for example, shows that the very prospect of death did not always prevent Christians from quarrelling in prison. This may be the meaning of εἰρηνικόν in James 3:18, but it is out of keeping with the present context.

A close parallel to v. 11 is the saying of Aristotle (see above, for the similar remark of Isokrates), quoted by Diog. Laertius (v. 1, 18): τῆς παιδείας ἔφη τὰς μὲν ῥίζας εἶναι πικρὰς, γλυκεῖς δὲ τοὺς καρπούς. In Epist. Arist. 232, τοὺς γὰρ�Hebrews 12:7], adds: μεθʼ ἢν�

The writer now resumes the imperative tone (vv. 12f.), with a blend of counsel and warning. The discipline of trouble is viewed under an active aspect; men must co-operate with God, exerting themselves to avoid sin (v. 1) by the exercise of personal zeal and church-discipline. Otherwise, the results may be fatal. The exhortation broadens out here, resuming the tone and range of 10:25f.



12 So (διό as in 6:1) “up with your listless hands! Strengthen your weak knees!” 13 And “make straight paths for your feet” to walk in. You must not let the lame get dislocated, but rather make them whole. 14 Aim at peace with all—at that consecration without which no one will ever see the Lord; 15 see to it that no one misses the grace of God, “that no root of bitterness grows up to be a trouble” by contaminating all the rest of you; 16 that no one turns to sexual vice or to a profane life as Esau did—Esau who for a single meal “parted with his birthright.” 17 You know how later on, when he wanted to obtain his inheritance of blessing, he was set aside; he got no chance to repent, though he tried for it with tears.

For the first time, since the hints in 3:12, 4:1 and 6:11, the writer alludes to differences of attainment in the little community. Hitherto he has treated them as a solid whole. But the possibility of individual members giving way has been voiced in 10:29, and now the writer (13b) widens his appeal; his readers are to maintain their faith not only for their own sakes but for the sake of those who at their side are in special danger of collapsing. The courage of their ὑπομονή is more than a personal duty; they are responsible for their fellow-members, and this involves the duty of inspiriting others by their own unswerving, unflagging faith. The admonition, as in 13:1f, is addressed to the whole community, not to their leaders. The general aim of vv. 12, 13 is to produce the character praised by Matthew Arnold in his lines on Rugby Chapel:

“Ye move through the ranks, recall

The stragglers, refresh the out-worn …

Ye fill up the gaps in our files,

Strengthen the wavering line,

Stablish, continue our march,

On, to the bound of the waste,

On, to the City of God.”

He begins in v. 12 by using scriptural language borrowed freely from Isaiah 35:3 (ἰσχύσατε, χεῖρες�Proverbs 4:26 (ὄρθας τροχιὰς ποίει τοῖς ποσίν). This metaphorical language for collapsing in listless despair is common, e.g., in Sir 2:12 where χεῖρες παρειμέναι is bracketed with “cowardly hearts,” in Philo’s description of the Israelites who longed to return to Egypt, οἱ μὲν γὰρ προκαμόντες�Hebrews 11:15), and especially in the description of moral encouragement in Job 4:3, Job 4:4 εἰ γὰρ σὺ ἐνουθέτησας πολλοὺς, καὶ χεῖρας�Deuteronomy 32:36 παραλελυμένους is parallel to παρειμένους, and in Zephaniah 3:16 the appeal is θάρσει … μὴ παρείσθωσαν αἱ χεῖρές σου.1 Ἀνορθώσατε (literally = straighten, renew) goes with γόνατα better than with χεῖρας, but the sense is plain. In v. 13, if ποιήσατε is read in the first clause, καὶ τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιήσατε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν is a hexameter (p. lvii). By τὸ χωλόν the writer means “those who are lame,” these crippled souls in your company.

Probably the ποιεῖτε of א* P 33, 917, 1831 (Orig.) has been conformed, in ποιήσατε (אc A D H K L, etc., Chrys.), to the preceding�Matthew 3:3).

As ἰαθῇ δὲ μᾶλλον shows, ἐκτραπῇ here has its medical sense (e.g. Hippol. de offic. med. 14, ὡς μήτε�Exodus 23:20 οἱ�

“They have assuaged the dry lips,

And the will that had fainted they have raised up: …

And limbs that had fallen

They have straightened and set up.”

But here it is the members as a whole who are addressed, and τροχ. ὀρθας π. τ. ποσὶν ὑμῶν means “keep straight” (ποσίν, dative = “for your feet”)—it is the only way to help your fellow-members who have weakened themselves. Keep up the tone of your community, move in the right direction, to prevent any of your number from wavering and wandering. The straight path is the smooth path, it is implied; if any limping soul is allowed to stray from the straight course, under the influence of a bad example, he will be made worse instead of better. The admonition in Test. Sim. 5:2, 3 is interesting, as it suggests the train of thought here between vv. 12f. and 16f.:

ἀγαθύνατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου

καὶ εὐθύνατε τὰς ὁδοὺς ὑμῶν ἐνώπιον τῶν�

The author of Πρὸς Ἑβραίους knows that the difficulties in the way of faith are more than mere despair. In 12:1-11 he has been dealing with the need of cheerful courage under the strain of life; this leads to the appeal of v. 12. But while there is nothing so infectious as cowardice or despair, he rapidly passes on, in vv. 13f. (καί κτλ.), to warn his readers against some specific temptations in the moral life. He continues, in a third imperative (v. 14), εἰρήνην διώκετε (an OT phrase, 1 p 3:11) μετὰ πάντων. Here μετά goes with διώκετε in the sense of “along with” (as in 11:9, 13:23, for our author avoids σύν), and πάντων means “all the (other) ἅγιοι” (as in 13:24). The call is to make common cause with all the rest of the Christians in the quest for God’s εἰρήνη, i.e. (see above on v. 11) the bliss and security of a life under God’s control. It is εἰρήνη in a sense corresponding to the older sense of felicity and prosperity on the ground of some (messianic) victory of God, practically as in Luke 1:79, Luke 19:38 the Christian salvation; only this comprehensive sense does justice to the term here and in 13:20. Hence the following καί is almost = “even.”

Εἰρήνη in a similar sense occurs repeatedly in the context of the passage already quoted from Proverbs: e.g. 3:1, 2 υἱέ, ἐμῶν νομίμων μὴ ἐπιλανθάνου, τὰ δὲ ῥήματα μου τηρείτω σὴ καρδία· μῆκος γὰρ βίου καὶ ἔτη ζωῆς καὶ εἰρήνην προσθήσουσίν σοι… 3:9�Proverbs 4:26 (as quoted above) there follows the promise, αὐτὸς δὲ τὰς ὀρθὰς ποιήσει τὰς τροχίας σου, τὰς δὲ πορείας σου ἐν εἰρηνῃ προάξει.

The conventional interpretation takes εἰρήνην with μετὰ πάντων (i.e. all your members). This yields a fair sense, for a quarrelsome church is a real hindrance to effective faith; the quarrelsomeness here would be due to the presence of faulty persons, whose lapses were apt to be irritating, and what would break εἰρήνη (i e. mutual harmony) in such cases is the spirit of harshness in dealing with faults, censoriousness, or aloofness, just as what makes for εἰρήνη is a concern for purity and goodness inspired by forbearance and patience. But all this is read into the text. There is no hint of such dangers elsewhere in Πρὸς Ἑβραίους as there is in 1 P 3:8f. and Romans 12:16f. Our author is characteristically putting a new edge on an old phrase like διώκετε εἰρήνην.

What εἰρήνη specially involved is shown in καὶ τὸν ἁγιασμόν κτλ. Here ἁγιασμός is not to be identified with σωφροσύνη in the special sense of 13:4; it is the larger “consecration” to God which all ἅγιοι must maintain. In fact, διώκετε τὸν ἁγιασμόν κτλ. is simply another description of the experience called “sharing in God’s ἁγιότης” (v. 10) Χωρίς generally precedes, here it follows, the word it governs (οὗ), either for the sake of the rhythm or to avoid a hiatus (οὗ οὐδείς). “To see the Lord,” is an expression common in Philo for that vision of the Divine being which is the rare reward of those who can purify themselves from the sensuous (cp. H. A. A. Kennedy’s Philo’s Contribution to Religion, pp. 192 f.). Κύριος is God in vv. 5 and 6; here, in view of 9:28, it might be Jesus (as 2:3), though “to see God” (vg &ld;deum”) as a term for intimate personal fellowship is more adequate to the context. People must be on the alert against tendencies to infringe this ἁγιασμός (v. 15); ἐπισκοποῦντες, one form and function of παρακαλοῦντες (10:25), introduces three clauses, beginning each with μή τις, though it is not clear whether the third (v. 16) is intended as an example of μιανθῶσιν or as a further definition of the second μή τις (ῥίζα κτλ.). The first clause, μή τις ὑστερῶν (sc. ᾖ)�Ecclesiastes 6:2 ὑστερῶν …�Deuteronomy 29:18 (μὴ τίς ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν … τίνος ἡ διάνοια ἐξέκλινεν�

The rhetorical tone comes out in the two iambic trimeters οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὸν κύριον and ἐπισκοποῦντες μή τις ὑστερῶν�

The next clause, μή τις ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ, is a reminiscence of the warning against idolatry and apostasy in Deuteronomy 29:18, which A (as well as F*) preserves in this form, μή τίς ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ (so B*: ἐν χολῇ B) καὶ πικρίᾳ (B*: καὶ πικρία B). The form is ungrammatical, for ἐστιν is superfluous, as is καὶ πικρίᾳ. On the other hand, the text of B yields no good sense, for a root can hardly be said to grow up ἐν χολῇ, and καὶ πικρία is left stranded; the alteration of πικρίᾳ in B* does not help matters, for it is not preceded by ἐν χολῇ. Plainly the writer found something like the words of A in his text of the LXX; he may have omitted ἐστιν and καὶ πικρίᾳ. The confusion between -οχλη and χολη is intelligible, as ὄχλος and χόλος are confused elsewhere (Blass reads ἐν χολῇ here, which requires ᾖ or ἐστιν to be supplied). Ἐνοχλῇ is the present subjunctive of ἐνοχλεῖν, which is used in 1 Esther 2:19 (ἐνοχλοῦσα) and 2:24 (ἐνοχλῆσαι) of rebellion disturbing and troubling the realm. As a general term for “troubling” or “vexing,” it is common both in classical Greek and in the papyri, either absolutely or with an accusative, as, e.g., Polystr. Epicur. (ed. C. Wilke) 8b. 4, οὐδʼ ὑφʼ ἑνὸς τούτων ἐνοχλησαμένους ἡμᾶς, the edict of M. Sempronius Liberalis (Aug. 29, 154 a.d.): ἐν τῇ οἰκείᾳ τῇ γεω[ργ]ίᾳ προσκαρτεροῦσι μὴ ἐνοχλεῖν (BGU ii. 372), and Aristoph. Frogs, 709 f., οὐ πολὺν οὐδʼ ὁ πίθηκος οὗτος ὁ νῦν ἐνοχλῶν. As for ῥίζα (of a person, as, e.g., in 1 Malachi 1:10 καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐξ αὐτῶν ῥίζα ἁμαρτωλὸς Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανής) πικρίας (genitive of quality), the meaning is a poisonous character and influence (cp. Acts 8:23). The warning in Deuteronomy is against any pernicious creature in the community, who by cool insolence and infidelity draws down the divine sentence of extermination upon himself and his fellows. Here the writer thinks of people who consider that immediate gratification of their wishes is worth more than any higher end in life; they value their spiritual position as sons (vv. 5f.) so little, that they let it go in order to relapse on some material relief at the moment. Such a nature is essentially βέβηλος, devoid of any appreciation of God’s privileges, and regarding these as of no more importance than sensuous pleasures of the hour. Under the bad influence of this (διὰ ταύτης, א D K L Ψ 326 etc., as in 13:2: διὰ αὐτῆς, A H P 33, 424* syrhkl boh Clem. etc., as in 11:4, 12:11), all the rest (οἱ πολλοί, after one has been mentioned, as in Romans 5:15 etc.) may be tainted (μιανθῶσι), and so (cp. on 10:22) rendered incapable of ὄψεσθαι τὸν Κύριον.

The third clause (v. 16) is μή τις (sc. ἦ) πόρνος ἣ βέβηλος (for the collocation see Philo, de Sacerdot. 8, πόρνῃ καὶ βεβήλῳ σῶμα καὶ ψυχήν, and for this transferred sense of β. ( = Lat. profanus) see Jebb-Pearson’s Fragments of Soph. ii. 208); βέβηλος is only once applied to a person in the LXX, viz. in Ezekiel 21:25 σὺ βέβηλε ἄνομε ( = חָלָל), then to people like Antiochus (3 Malachi 2:2, Malachi 2:14) or (3 Mac 7:15 τοὺς βεβήλους χειρωσάμενοι) recreant Jews. In adding ὡς Ἠσαῦ κτλ. the writer chooses the story of Esau, in Genesis 25:28-34, Genesis 27:1-39, to illustrate the disastrous results of yielding to the ἁμαρτία of which he had spoken in v. 1. There can be no ὑπομονή, he implies, without a resolute determination to resist the immediate pleasures and passions of the hour. As Cicero puts it in the De Finibus, i. 14, “plerique, quod tenere atque servare id quod ipsi statuerunt non possunt, victi et debilitati objecta specie voluptatis tradunt se libidinibus constringendos nec quid eventurum sit provident, ob eamque causam propter voluptatem et parvam et non necessariam et quae vel aliter pararetur et qua etiam carere possent sine dolore, tum in morbos graves, tum in damna, tum in dedecora incurrunt.” But why choose Esau? Probably owing to rabbinic tradition, in which Esau is the typical instance of the godless who grow up among good people (Isaac and Rebekah) and yet do not follow their deeds, as Obadiah is of the good who grow up among the wicked (Ahab and Jezebel) and do not follow their deeds (Sifre 133 on Numbers 27:1). The rabbinic tradition1 that Esau was sensual, is voiced as early as Philo, in the de Nobilitate, 4 (ὁ δὲ μείζων�Genesis 25:28 ἡ θήρα αὐτοῦ βρῶσις αὐτῷ). T. H. Green (Prolegomena to Ethics, § 96) points out that hunger was not the motive. “If the action were determined directly by the hunger, it would have no moral character, any more than have actions done in sleep, or strictly under compulsion, or from accident, or (so far as we know) the action of animals. Since, however, it is not the hunger as a natural force, but his own conception of himself, as finding for the time his greatest good in the satisfaction of hunger, that determines the act, Esau recognizes himself as the author of the act. … If evil follows from it, whether in the shape of punishment inflicted by a superior, or of calamity ensuing in the course of nature to himself or those in whom he is interested, he is aware that he himself has brought it on himself.” The μιᾶς is emphatic: “id culpam auget, non misericordiam meretur” (Bengel).

In the quotation from Genesis 25:33 �

The warning is now (v. 17) driven home. Ἴστε, indicative here (a literary Atticism, though Blass insists that it is chosen for the sake of the rhythm, to assimilate ἴστε γὰρ ὅτι καὶ με(τέπειτα) to the closing words of the preceding sentence), recalls to the readers the scripture story with which they were so familiar. Ἴστε ὅτι καὶ (another item in his story) μετέπειτα θέλων κληρονομῆσαι (1 P 3:9) τὴν εὐλογίαν ( = πρωτοτόκια as in 1 Chronicles 5:1, 1 Chronicles 5:2)�Jeremiah 6:30�Romans 8:3 ἐὰν�Deuteronomy 4:29), καίπερ μετὰ δακρύων (emphatic by position) ἐκζητήσας αὐτήν (i.e. μετανοίαν. “Μετανοίας τόπος is, in fact, μετάνοια. … When μετ. τόπον is taken up again, the mere secondary τόπος disappears, and it is αὐτήν, not αὐτόν, agreeing with the great thing really sought,” Alford). If the writer used his usual A text of the LXX, he would not have found any allusion to the tears of Esau in Genesis 27:38, but the tears were retained, from the Hebrew, in Jub 26:33, in other texts of the LXX, and in Josephus (Ant. i. 18. 7, πένθος ἦγεν ἐπὶ τῇ διαμαρτίᾳ. Καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῖς δάκρυσιν�

This inexorable view agrees with Philo’s idea (Leg. Alleg. iii. 75, πολλαῖς γὰρ ψυχαῖς μετανοίᾳ χρῆσθαι βουληθείσαις οὐκ ἐπέτρεψεν ὀ θεός) that some, like Cain1 (quod deter. pot. 26, τῷ δὲ μὴ δεχομένῳ μετάνοιαν Καίν διʼ ὑπερβολἡν ἄγους), are too bad to repent, though Philo illustrates it here not from Esau, but from Lot’s wife. In de Spec. Leg. ii. 5 he declares that luxurious spendthrifts are δυσκάθαρτοι καὶ δυσίατοι, ὡς μηδὲ θεῷ τῷ τὴν φύσιν ἵλεῳ συγγνώμης�Esther 9:12 (“while a place of repentance was still open to them, they paid no heed”), which goes back to Wis 12:10 κρίνων δὲ κατὰ βραχὺ ἐδίδους τόπον μετανοίας (of God punishing the Canaanites). It is linguistically a Latinism,2 which recurs in Clem. Romans 7:5 (ἐν γενεᾷ καὶ γενεᾷ μετανοίας τόπον ἔδωκεν ὁ δεσπότης τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐπιστραφῆναι ἐπʼ αὐτόν) and Tatian (Orat. ad Graecos, 15, διὰ τοῦτο γοῦν ἡ τῶν δαιμόνων ὑπόστασις οὐκ ἔχει μετανοίας τόπον). But a special significance attaches to it in 4 Esdras, for example, where the writer (e.g. in 7:102f.) rules out any intercession of the saints for the ungodly after death, in his desire to show that “the eternal destiny of the soul is fixed by the course of the earthly life” (G. H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse, pp. 154, 155). Here, as in the Slavonic Enoch (53:1), which also repudiates such intercession, “we may detect the influence of Alexandrine theology, which tended to lay all stress upon the present life as determining the eternal fate of every man.” The author of Πρὸς Ἑβραίους shared this belief (cp. 9:27); for him the present life of man contains possibilities which are tragic and decisive. He ignores deliberately any intercession of saints or angels for the living or for the dead. But he goes still further, with Philo and others, in holding that, for some, certain actions fix their fate beyond any remedy. He regards their case as hopeless; characters like Esau, by an act of profane contempt for God, are rejected for ever, a second μετάνοια being beyond their reach.

The connexion (γάρ) between the finale (vv. 18-29) and what precedes lies in the thought that the higher the privilege, the higher the responsibility. In Leg. Alleg. iii 1, Philo quotes Genesis 25:27 to prove that virtue’s divine city is not meant for human passions; οὐ γὰρ πέφυκεν ἡ τῶν παθῶν θηρευτικὴ κακία τὴν�

18 You have not come (προσεληλύθατε) to what you can touch, to “flames of fire,” to “mist” and “gloom” and “stormy blasts, 19 to the blare of a trumpet and to a Voice” whose words made those who heard it refuse to hear another syllable 20 (for they could not bear the command, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it must be stoned”)—21 indeed, so awful was the sight that Moses said, “I am terrified and aghast.” 22 You have come (προσεληλύθατε) to mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to myriads of angels in festal gathering, 23 to the assembly of the first-born registered in heaven, to the God of all as judge, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus who mediates (8:6, 9:15) the new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood whose message is nobler than Abel’s.

The passage moves through two phases (vv. 18-21 and 22-24), contrasting the revelation at mount Sinai (2:2, 10:28) with the new διαθήκη, the one sensuous, the other spiritual; the one striking terror with its outward circumstances of physical horror, the other charged with grace and welcome as well as with awe. The meditation and appeal are woven on material drawn from the LXX descriptions of the plague of darkness on Egypt (Exodus 10:21f. ψηλαφητὸν σκότος … ἐγένετο σκότος γνόφος θύελλα) and the theophany at Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:11 προσήλθετε καὶ ἔστητε ὑπὸ τὸ ὄρος· καὶ τὸ ὄρος ἐκαίετο πυρὶ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, σκότος, γνόφος, θύελλα, φωνὴ μεγάλη, and Exodus 19:12f. προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς τοῦ�Psalms 144:5 etc.).

Two conjectures have been proposed, ὑψει νενεφωμένῳ by G N Bennett (Classical Review, vi. 263), who argues that this “would fit in exactly with the OT accounts, which represent the summit of the mountain as burnt with fire, while lower down it was enveloped in a dense cloud”; and πεφεψαλωμένω (ὄρει) by E. C. Selwyn (Journal of Theological Studies, ix. 133, 134)= “calcined” (a calcined volcano). Others (e.g. P. Junius) less aptly insert οὐ or μή before ψηλαφωμένῳ, to harmonize the phrase with v. 20.

In the rest of the description, ζόφῳ is a poetical word (cp. de Mundo, 400a, heaven πᾶντος ζόφου καὶ�Obadiah 1:5. 317), and in de Mundo, 395a, as πνεῦμα βίαιον καὶ ἄφνω προσαλλόμενον. In v. 19 ἤχῳ (ἤχη Ἀττικοί· ἦχος Ἕλληνες, Moeris) is a synonym for the LXX φωνῇ, which the writer intends to use immediately. Philo had already used ἦχος in de Decalogo, 11: πάντα δʼ ὡς εἰκὸς τὰ περὶ τὸν τόπον ἐθαυματουργεῖτο, κτύποις βροντῶν μειζόνων ἢ ὥστε χωρεῖν�Deuteronomy 4:12), ἧς (i.e. the φωνή) οἱ�Galatians 5:7; hence omitted by א* P 467) προστεθῆναι (the active προσθεῖναι, in A, is less apt) αὐτοῖς (i.e. the hearers) λόγον (accus. and infinitive construction after μή, cp. Blass, § 429). The reference in v. 20 is to the scene described in Deuteronomy 5:28f., where it is the leaders of the nation who appeal in terror to Moses to take God’s messages and orders for them: καὶ νῦν μὴ�Exodus 20:19 it is the people, as here, who appeal to Moses, μὴ λαλείτω πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁ θεός, μὴ�Exodus 19:13, see above) is passive. Διαστέλλομαι is said by Anz (Subsidia, 326 f.) not to occur earlier than Plato; here, as in Jth 11:12 (ὅσα διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς ὁ θεός), of a divine injunction. In v. 21 φανταζόμενον is not a LXX term (for the sense, cp. Zechariah 10:1 κύριος ἐποίησεν φαντασίας, of natural phenomena like rain); it is used here for the sake of alliteration (φοβ. φαντ.). To prove that even Moses was affected by the terrors of Sinai, the writer quotes from Deuteronomy 9:19 ἔκφοβός εἰμι, adding rhetorically καὶ ἔντρομος. He forgets that Moses uttered this cry of horror, not over the fearful spectacle of Sinai but at a later stage, over the worship of the golden calf. For ἔντρομος, cp. 1 Mac 13:2 ἔντρομος καὶ ἔκφοβος (v.l. ἔμφοβος). The phrase ἔντρομος γενόμενος is applied by Luke to the terror of Moses at the φωνὴ Κυρίου out of the burning bush (Acts 7:32).

Assonance led to ἔκτρομος (א D*) or ἔμφοβος (M 241, 255, 489, 547, 1739 Thdt.). Ἔντρομος was read by Clem. Alex. (Protrept. ix. 2).

The true position of Christians is now sketched (vv. 22-24). Ἀλλὰ προσεληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει καὶ πόλει (11:10, 16) θεοῦ ζῶντος, the author adding Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ (11:16) in apposition to πόλει, and using thus the archaic metaphors of Isaiah 18:7, Amos 1:2, Micah 4:1f. etc., in his picture of the true fellowship. Paul had contrasted mount Sinai ( = the present Jerusalem) with ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ. Our author’s contrast is between mount Sion ( = Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουράνιος) and mount Sinai, though he does not name the latter. From the πόλις he now passes to the πολῖται.

In Chagiga, 12b, i. 33, Resh Lakish deduces from 1 K 8:13 and Isaiah 63:15 that zebul, the fourth of the seven heavens, contains “the heavenly Jerusalem and the temple,” i.e. as the residence of deity; while Ma’on, the fifth heaven, holds the “companies of ministering angels.”

The second object of προσεληλύθατε is καὶ μυριάσιν (so. En 40:1: “I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand before the Lord of spirits”)�Psalms 68:17 (τὸ ἅρμα τοῦ θεοῦ μυριοπλάσιον, χιλιάδες εὐθηνούντων· ὁ κύριος ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐν Σινά) and Daniel 7:10 (μύριαι μυριάδες). Πανήγυρις was a term charged with Greek religious associations (cp. R. van der Loeff, De Ludis Eleusiniis, pp. 85 f.), but it had already been adopted by Greek Jews like the translators of the LXX and Josephus for religious festivals. Πανηγύρει describes the angelic hosts thronging with glad worship round the living God. Their relation to God is noted here, as in 1:14 their relation to human beings. Ἔνθα πανήγυρις ἐκεῖ χαρά, as Theophylact observes (ἱλαρᾶς εὐθυμίας, ἣν πανήγυρις ἐπιζητεῖ, Philo, in Flacc. 14); but the joy of Luke 15:10 is not specially mentioned. Chrysostom’s suggestion is that the writer ἐνταῦθα τὴν χαρὰν δείκνυσι καὶ τὴν εὐφροσύνην�

The human πολῖται are next (v. 23) described as ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων�Exodus 4:22 etc.), with a title to God’s blessing (v. 16 πρωτοτόκια). The choice of the plural instead of the collective singular was due to the previous plural in μυριάσιν�Luke 10:20 so here, the phrase refers to men on earth, to the church militant, not to the church triumphant; otherwise ἐν οὐρανοῖς would be meaningless.

This interpretation, which groups πανηγύρει with what precedes, is current in nearly all the early versions and Greek fathers, who generally assume it without question. The real alternative is to take μυριάσιν as further defined by�

A fresh sweep of thought now begins (23b-24). The writer is composing a lyrical sketch, not a law-paper; he reiterates the idea of the fellowship by speaking of God, men, and him by whom this tie between God and men has been welded, the allusion to Jesus being thrown to the end, as it is to form the starting-point for his next appeal (vv. 25f.). In καὶ κριτῇ θεῷ πάντων it is not possible, in view of 9:27 (μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο κρίσις) and of the punitive sense of κρίνω in 10:30, to understand κριτής as defender or vindicator (so, e.g., Hofmann, Delitzsch, Riggenbach). The words mean “to the God of all (angels and men, the living and the dead, Acts 10:42), and to him as κριτής, to whom you must account for your life.” It is implied that he is no easy-going God. The contrast is not between the mere terrors of Sinai and the gracious relationship of Sion, but between the outward, sensuous terror of the former and the inward intimacy of the latter—an intimacy which still involves awe. In the next phrase, πνεύματα δικαίων means the departed who have in this life been δίκαιοι in the sense of 10:38f.; τετελειωμένων is added, not in the mere sense of “departed” (τελευτᾶν = τελειοῦσθαι, τελειοῦν), but to suggest the work of Christ which includes the δίκαιοι, who had to await the sacrifice of Christ before they were “perfected” (11:40). If this involves the idea of a descent of Christ to the under-world, as Loofs (e.g. in ERE iv. 662) argues, it implies the group of ideas mentioned in 2:14, which may have lain in the background of the writer’s thought. At any rate the “perfecting” of these δίκαιοι, their τελείωσις, was due to Jesus; hence (v. 24) the writer adds, καὶ διαθήκης νέας μεσίτῃ Ἰησοῦ (again at the end, for emphasis), where νέας is simply a synonym for καινῆς (8:8 etc.). The classical distinction between the two terms was being dropped in the κοινή. Τῆς νέας Ἱερουσαλήμ occurs in Test. Daniel 5:12, and the two words are synonymous, e.g., in Test. Leviticus 8:14 (ἐπικληθήσεται αὐτῷ ὄνομα καίνον, ὅτι βασιλεὺς … ποιήσει ἱερατείαν νέαν). Indeed Blass thinks that the unexampled διαθήκης νεάς was due to a sense of rhythm; the author felt a desire to reproduce the ̱ ̮ ̮ ̱ ̱ ̮ ̮ ̱ of the preceding ων τετελειωμένων.

In Cambodia (cp. ERE iii. 164) those who are present at a death-bed all “repeat in a loud voice, the patient joining in as long as he has the strength, ‘Arahan! Arahan!’ ‘the saint! the just one!’ (Pāli arahaṃ=‘the saint,’ ‘one who has attained final sanctification’).” Bleek is so perplexed by καὶ πνευμ. δικ. τελ. coming between θεῷ and Ἰησοῦ that he wonders whether the author did not originally write the phrase on the margin, intending it to go with πανηγύρει or ἐκκλησίᾳ. The curious misreading of D d, τεθεμελιωμένων, underlies Hilary’s quotation (tract. in Psa_124: “ecclesia angelorum multitudinis frequentium—ecclesia primitivorum, ecclesia spirituum in domino fundatorum”). Another odd error, πνεύματι for πνεύμασι, appears in D (boh?) d and some Latin fathers (e.g. Primasius)—a trinitarian emendation (=10:29).

In διαθήκης νέας, as in 13:20, the writer recalls the conception with which he had been working in the middle part of his argument (chs. 7-10); now he proceeds to expand and explain the allusion in καὶ αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ (9:19f.) κρεῖττον (adverbial as in 1 Corinthians 7:38) λαλοῦντι παρὰ (as in 1:4 etc.) τὸν Ἄβελ ( = τὸ1 τοῦ Ἄβελ, cp. John 5:36). Reconciliation, not exclusion, is the note of the νέα διαθήκη. The blood of the murdered Abel (11:4) called out to God in En 22:6. (where the seer has a vision of Abel’s spirit appealing to God) for the extinction of Cain and his descendants. The κρεῖττον in Jesus here is that, instead of being vindictive and seeking to exclude the guilty, he draws men into fellowship with God (see p. xlii). The contrast is therefore not between the Voice of the blood of Jesus (λαλοῦντι) and the Voice of the decalogue (v. 19), but between Jesus and Abel; the former opens up the way to the presence of God, the latter sought to shut it against evil men. The blood of martyrs was assigned an atoning efficacy in 4 Mac 6:28f, 17:21f.; but Abel’s blood is never viewed in this light, and the attempt to explain this passage as though the blood of Jesus were superior in redeeming value to that of Abel as the first martyr (so, e.g., Seeberg), breaks down upon the fact that the writer never takes Abel’s blood as in any sense typical of Christ’s.

The application of vv. 18-24 now follows. Though we have a far better relationship to God, the faults of the older generation may still be committed by us, and committed to our undoing (vv. 25-29).

25See (βλέπετε as 3:12) that you do not refuse to listen to his voice. For if they failed to escape, who refused to listen to their instructor upon earth, much less shall we, if we discard him who speaks from heaven. 26Then his voice shook the earth, but now the assurance is, “once again I will make heaven as well as earth to quake.” 27That phrase (τὸ δέ as Ephesians 4:9), “once again,” denotes (δηλοῖ, as in 9:8) the removal of what is shaken (as no more than created), to leave only what stands unshaken. 28Therefore let us render thanks that we get an unshaken realm; and in this way let us worship God acceptably—29but with godly fear and awe, for our God is indeed “a consuming fire.”

The divine revelation in the sacrifice of Jesus (λαλοῦντι) suggests the start of the next appeal and warning. From the celestial order, just sketched, the divine revelation (τὸν λαλοῦντα … τὸν�Deuteronomy 5:28). The writer, of course, may have ignored this, and read an ominous significance into the instinctive terror of the people, as if their refusal meant a radical rejection of God. But this is unlikely. By παραιτησάμενοι τὸν χρηματίζοντα he means any obstinate rejection of what Moses laid down for them as the will of God. Εἰ … οὐκ (as was the fact) ἐξέφυγον (referring to the doom mentioned in 2:2, 3:7f. 10:29). As in 2:3 (πῶσἡμεῖς ἐκφευξόμεθα), ἐκφεὐγω is used absolutely; the weaker ἔφυγον is read only by אc D K L M Ψ 104, etc. In the following words there are three possible readings. The original text ran: (a) ἐπὶ γῆς παραιτησάμενοι τὸν χρηματίζοντα (א* A C D M d boh Cyr.), ἐπὶ γῆς being as often thrown to the front for the sake of emphasis. But the hyperbaton seemed awkward. Hence (b) τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς παραιτησάμενοι χ. (אc K L P Chrys. Thdt. etc.) and (c) παραιτησάμενοι τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς χ. (69, 256, 263, 436, 462, 467, 1837, 2005 vg) are attempts to make it clear that ἐπὶ γῆς goes with τὸν χρηματἰζοντα, not with παραιτησάμενοι. The latter interpretation misses the point of the contrast, which is not between a rejection on earth and a rejection in heaven (!), but between a human oracle of God and the divine Voice�Acts 7:38); he was the divine instructor of the λαός on earth. It is repeatedly said (Exodus 20:22, Deuteronomy 4:36) that God spoke to the people at Sinai ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, so that to take τὸν χρηματίζοντα here as God, would be out of keeping with ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. The writer uses the verb in a wider sense than in that of 8:5 and 11:7; it means “the man who had divine authority to issue orders,” just as in Jeremiah 26:2 (τοὺς λόγους οὕς συνέταξά σοι αὐτοῖς χρηματίσαι), etc. He deliberately writes τὸν χρηματίζοντα of Moses, keeping τὸν λαλοῦντα as usual for God. Then, he concludes, πολὺ (altered, as in v. 9, to πολλῷ by Dc K L M P Ψ 226, or to πόσῳ, as in 9:14, by 255) μᾶλλον (sc. οὐκ ἐκφευξόμεθα) ἡμεῖς οἱ τὸν (sc. χρηματίζοντα)�2 Timothy 1:15�

It is surprising that οὐρανοῦ (א M 216.424**. 489, 547, 623, 642, 920, 1518, 1872 Chrys.) has not wider support, though, as 9:23, 24 shows, there is no difference in sense.

In v. 26 οὗ ἡ φωνὴ τὴν γὴν ἐσάλευσε τότε is another (cp. vv. 13, 14) unintentional rhythm, this time a pentameter. Τότε, i.e. at Sinai. But in the LXX of Exodus 19:18, which the writer used, the shaking of the hill is altered into the quaking of the people, and Judges 5:4f. does not refer to the Sinai episode. Probably the writer inferred an earthquake from the poetical allusions in Psalms 114:7 (ἐσαλεύθη ἡ γῆ), Psalms 68:8f, Psalms 77:18, when these were associated with the special theophany at Sinai. Νῦν δὲ ἐπήγγελται (passive in middle sense, as Romans 4:21) λέγων, introducing a loose reminiscence and adaptation of Haggai 2:6 (ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν κτλ.), where the prediction of a speedy convulsion of nature and the nations has been altered1 in the LXX, by the introduction of ἔτι, into a mere prediction of some ultimate crisis, with reference to some preceding σεῖσις, i.e. for our writer the Sinai-revelation. The second and final σεῖσις is to be at the return of Jesus (9:28).

The anticipation of such a cosmic collapse entered apocalyptic. Thus the author of Apoc. Baruch tells his readers, “if you prepare your hearts, so as to sow in them the fruits of the law, it shall protect you when the Mighty One is to shake the whole creation” (32:1).

In v. 27 the Haggai prediction is made to mean the removal (μετάθεσιν, stronger sense than even in 7:12) τῶν σαλευομένων (by the σεῖσις). There is a divine purpose in the cosmic catastrophe, however; it is ἵνα μείνῃ τὰ μὴ σαλευόμενα, i.e. the βασιλεία�Haggai 2:21 (ἐγὼ σείω τὸν οὐρ. καὶ τὴν γῆν). The hint is more reticent, and therefore more impressive than the elaborate prediction of the Jewish apocalyptist in Apoc. Bar 59:3f.: “but also the heavens were shaken at that time from their place, and those who were under the throne of the Mighty One were perturbed, when He was taking Moses unto Himself. For He showed him … the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of which was to be made the sanctuary of the present time” (cp. Hebrews 8:5). There is a premonition of the last judgment in En 60:1, as a convulsion which shook not only heaven, but the nerves of the myriads of angels.

“There have been two notable transitions of life,” says Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. v. 25), in the history of the world, i.e. the two covenants, “which are also called earthquakes on account of their arresting character” (διὰ τὸ τοῦ πράγματος περιβόητον); the first from idols to the Law, the second from the Law to the gospel. We bring the good news of yet a third earthquake, the transition from the present order to the future (τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἐπὶ τὰ ἐκεῖσε μετἀστασιν, τὰ μηκέτι κινούμενα, μηδὲ σαλευόμενα).2Changes and crises may only serve to render a state or an individual more stable. Thus Plutarch says of Rome, in the disturbed days of Numa, καθάπερ τὰ καταπηγνύμενα τῷ σείεσθαι μᾶλλον ἑδράζεται, ῥώννυσθαι δοκοῦσα διὰ τῶν κινδύνων (Vit. Num_8). But the writer`s point in v. 27 is that there is an�Matthew 5:19 where he regarded ἐλαχίστων as similarly equivalent to ἐλαχίστην. The word would then be a genitive absolute, connecting with what follows: “all this being done so that,” etc. Even when πεποιημένων is taken in its ordinary sense, it is sometimes connected with ἵνα κτλ. (so, e.g., Bengel and Delitzsch); the aim of creation was to replace the provisional by the permanent, the temporal by the eternal. A far-fetched interpretation. Even the conjecture (Valckenaer) πεπονήμενων (labouring with decay) is needless, though ingenious. In vv. 28, 29 the final word upon this prospect and its responsibilities is said. Διό (as in v. 12), in view of this outlook (in v. 27), βασιλείαν�Haggai 2:22, by the further assertion, καὶ καταστρέψω θρόνους βασιλέων, καὶ ἐξολεθρεύσω δύναμιν βασιλέων τῶν ἐθνῶν. Possibly our author regarded the prediction in Daniel 7:18 (καὶ παραλήψονται τὴν βασιλείαν ἅγιοι ὑψίστου καὶ καθέξουσιν αὐτὴν ἕως αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων) as fulfilled already in the Christian church, though he does not mean by βασιλείαν παραλαμβάνοντες that Christians enter on their reign.

Why thankfulness (for this common phrase, see Epict. i. 2. 23, ἔχω χάριν, ὅτι μου φείδῃ, and OP 1381:78 (2nd century) διὰ θυσιῶν τῷ σώσαντι�Romans 5:1) phonetic blunder, though λατρεύομεν (א M P syrhkl arm) would yield as fair a sense as λατρεύωμεν (A C D L 33. 104 Lat sah etc.). In μετὰ … δέους he puts in a characteristic warning against presumption. There are three readings. (a) εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους, א* A C D 256, 263, 436, 1912 sah boh syrvg arm. (b) εὐλαβείας καὶ αἰδοῦς, אc M P Ψ 6. 104. 326. 1739 lat Orig. (c) αἰδοῦς καὶ εὐλαβείας, K L 462 syrhkl Chrys. Thdt. The accidental doubling of αι (from καί) led to (b), especially as αἰδοῦς and εὐλαβεία were often bracketed together, and as δεός was a rare word (first popularized in Hellenistic Judaism by 2 Maccabees). Εὐλαβεία here as in 5:7 (cp. 11:7) of reverent awe. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν πῦρ καταναλίσκον (v. 29). Not “for our God too is a πῦρ�Deuteronomy 4:24 (Moses at Sinai to the Israelites) ὅτι Κύριος ὁ θεός σου πῦρ καταναλίσκονἐστίν, θεὸς ζηλωτής (cp. 9:3), referring to his intense resentment of anything like idolatry, which meant a neglect of the διαθήκη. There is no allusion to fire as purifying; the author of Wisdom (16:16) describes the Egyptians as πυρὶ καταναλισκόμενοι, and it is this punitive aspect of God which is emphasized here, the divine ζῆλος (see p. xxxvi).

This is one of Tertullian`s points (adv. Marc. i. 26-27) against the Marcionite conception of a God who is good-natured and nothing more: “tacite permissum est, quod sine ultione prohibetur … nihil Deo tam indignum quam non exsequi quod noluit et prohibuit admitti … malo parcere Deum indignius sit quam animadvertere. … Plane nec pater tuus est, in quem competat et amor propter pietatem, et timor propter potestatem? nec legitimus dominus, ut diligas propter humanitatem et timeas propter disciplinam.” In Πρὸς Ἑβραίους there is no softening of the conception, as in Philo’s argument (de Sacrificantibus, 8) that God’s requirement is simply�Exodus 24:17 ὤσπερ δὲ ἡ φλὸξ πᾶσαν τὴν παραβληθεῖσαν ὅλην�

With this impressive sentence Πρὸς Ἑβραίους really closes. But the writer appends (see Introd., pp. xxviii f.) a more or less informal postscript, with some personal messages to the community. A handful of moral counsels (vv. 1-7) is followed by a longer paragraph (vv. 8-16), and the closing personal messages are interrupted by a farewell benediction (v. 20).









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

1 Τηλικούτον, א* W

442 [O 18]

1 The broader conception of the moral life as an athletic contest recurs in Epict. iii. 25, 1-3, σκέψαι, ὧν προέθου�

1 Ἀναλογίζομαι, though not a LXX term, begins to be used in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g. Ps. Song of Solomon 8:7�

אԠ[01: δ 2).

TebtP Tebtunis Papyri (ed. Grenfell and Hunt), 1902.

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

33 [δ 48] Hort’s 17

256 [α 216]

1288 [α 162]

1319 [δ 180]

1739 [α 78]

2127 [δ 202]

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

Magn Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (ed. Kern, 1900).

L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.

440 [δ 260]

491 [δ 152]

823 [δ 368]

31 [α 103]

5 [δ 453]

35 [δ 309]

203 [α 203]

226 [δ 156]

241 [δ 507]

242 [δ 206]

257 [α 466]

337 [α 205]

378 [α 258]

383 [α 353] cont. 1:1-13:7

487 [α 171]

506 [δ 101]

547 [δ 157]

623 [α 173]

794 [δ 454]

917 [α 264]

1831 [α 472]

1891 [α 62]

1898 [α 70]

2143 [α 184]

1 D takes εἰς παιδείαν with the foregoing παραδείχεται, as Hofmann does with μαστιγοῖ. This leaves ὑπομένετε (ὑπομείνατε D) in quite an effective opening position for the next sentence; but it is not the writer’s habit to end a quotation with some outside phrase.

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

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.”

104 [α 103]

d (Latin version of D)

K [018:1:1].

93 [α 51]

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.

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

6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25

326 [α 257]

1836 [α 65]

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

460 [α 397]

1 Clem. Hom. xii. 18, αἱ χεῖρες ὑπὸ δηγμάτων παρείθησαν.

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

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).

M [0121: α 1031] cont. 1:1-4:3 12:20-13:25.

2 χωρίς

BGU Aegyptische Urkunden (Griechisch Urkunden), ed. Wilcken (1895).

424 [O 12] Hort’s 67

1 Jub 25 1,8 (Esau tempting Jacob to take one of his own two sensual wives).

2 Πορνεία has this sense, and so has the verb (e.g. Psalms 73:27 ἐξωλέθρευσας πάντα τὸν πορνεύοντα�

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

Helbing Grammatik der Septuaginta, Laut- und Wortlehre, von R. Helbing (1907).

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).

WH Westcott and Hort’s New Testament in Greek (1890, 1896).

1 There is a striking parallel in De Mercede Conductis, 42, where Lucian describes an old man being met by ἡ μετάνοια δακρύουσα ἐς οὐδὲν ὄφελος.

1 Philo read μείζων ἡ αἰτία μου τοῦ�Genesis 4:13.

2 Livy, xliv. 10, “poenitentiae relinquens locum” (cp. xxiv. 26, “locus poenitendis”); cp. Pliny’s Epp. x. 97, “ex quo facile est opinari, quae turba hominum emendari possit, si sit poenitentiae locus,” where the phrase is used in quite a different sense, of a chance to give up Christianity.

255 [α 174]

Athan Athanasius

N [0122: α 1030] cont. 5:8-6:10.

429 [α 398]

489 [δ 459] Hort’s 102

Thdt. Theodoret

1 Clem. Hom. ix. 22, τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν οὐρανῷ ὡς�

2 Probably a reference to Hebrews 12:26.

1 Cp. Wis 5:15, 16 δίκαιοι δὲ εἰς τὸν αἱῶνα ζῶσιν … λήμψονται τὸ βασιλειον τῆς εὺπρεπείας … ἐκ χειρὸς Κυρίου, ὅτι τῇ δεξιᾷ σκεπάσει αὐτούς.

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

OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).

1912 [α 1066]