WfJwff/ffffllfR

FOR B

HB ep

' ' ' ' '¦'..¦: ¦.¦;. :".'
mmm
W/////////fi mm/f/iwm/m//M//M.
mm

EEK TESTAMENT
- AND COLLEGES'
¦ THE HEBREWS

¦••¦¦¦ :
fMWf/ii/mm ^mBm
mm

v/////////////, m

U§XjgfvEgiT£?
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

Camfrrfoae #reefe Cestament for
»e{)oote atttf Colleges.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE
TO THE
HEBREWS.

Sontion: C. J. CLAY and SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVEESITT PEESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
ffitaflofo: 26S, ARGYLE STREET.

Gambtfoae: DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.
Hcipjis: F. A. BROCKHATJS.
#efo lorft: MACMILLAN AND CO.

Cambridge #reefc Testament for
^ejjools anti Colleges.
General Editor:— J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D.,
Bishop of Worcester.
6'iUs. A.T. \\ 5. ¦-;,£,-:-.. ^£jr. i53i:
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE
TO THE
HEBEEWS,
F/rJS' NOTES AND INTRODUCTION

VEN. F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.,
LATE FELLOW OE TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
ARCHDEACON OE WESTMINSTER.

EDITED FOB THE SYNDICS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

©amtm'&ge :
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
1894
[All Bights reserved.]
Yale Divinity Library
— Nsv/ Haven, Conn.

Catttirfogs :
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. & SONS,
AT THE nNITERSITY PRESS.

PREFACE
BY THE GENERAL EDITOR.
The General Editor of The Cambridge Bible for
Schools thinks it right to say that he does not hold
himself responsible either for the interpretation of
particular passages which the Editors of the several
Books have adopted, or for any opinion on points of
doctrine that they may have expressed. In the New
Testament more especially questions arise of the
deepest theological import, on which the ablest and
most conscientious interpreters have differed and
always will differ. His aim has been in all such
cases to leave each Contributor to the unfettered
exercise of his own judgment, only taking care that
mere controversy should as far as possible be avoided.
-He has contented himself chiefly with a careful
revision of the notes, with pointing out omissions, with
HEBREWS 7.

iv PREFACE.
suggesting occasionally a reconsideration of some
question, or a fuller treatment of difficult passages,
and the like.
Beyond this he has not attempted to interfere,
feeling it better that each Commentary should have
its own individual character, and being convinced
that freshness and variety of treatment are more
than a compensation for any lack of uniformity in
the Series.

CONTENTS.

PAGES
I. Introduction. Chapter I. Character, Analysis, and Object of
the Epistle to the Hebrews  xiii — xxx
Chapter II. Where was the Epistle written ?
and to whom?  xxxi — xxxiv
Chapter III. The Date  xxxiv — xxxvi
Chapter IV. Style and Character of the Epistle xxxvi — xxxix
Chapter V. Theology of the Epistle  xxxix — xlix
Chapter VI. The Author of the Epistle  xlix — lviii
Chapter VII. Canonicity  lviii — lix
H. Text  1—22
III. Notes  23—173
IV. General Index  174—176
V. Greek Index  177—182

ON THE GREEK TEXT.

In undertaking an edition of the Greek text of the
New Testament with English notes for the use of Schools,
the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press have not
thought it desirable to reprint the text in common use*.
To have done this would have been to set aside all the
materials that have since been accumulated towards the
formation of a correct text, and to disregard the results
of textual criticism in its application to MSS., Versions
and Fathers. It was felt that a text more in accordance
with the present state of our knowledge was desirable.
On the other hand the Syndics were unable to adopt one
of the more recent critical texts, and they were not disposed
to make themselves responsible for the preparation of an
* The form of this text most used in England, and adopted in
Dr Scrivener's edition, is that of the third edition of Robert Stephens
(1650). The name "Received Text " is popularly given to the Elzevir
edition of 1633, which is based on this edition of Stephens, and the
name is borrowed from a phrase in the Preface, "Textum ergo habes
nunc ab omnibus receptum."

viii PREFATORY.
entirely new and independent text : at the same time it
would have been obviously impossible to leave it to the
judgment of each individual contributor to frame his own
text, as this would have been fatal to anything like uni
formity or consistency. They believed however that a good
text might be constructed by simply taking the consent of
the two most recent critical editions, those of Tischendorf
and Tregelles, as a basis. The same principle of consent
could be applied to places where the two critical editions
were at variance, by allowing a determining voice to the
text of Stephens where it agreed with either of their read
ings, and to a third critical text, that of Lachmann, where
the text of Stephens differed from both. In this manner
readings peculiar to one or other of the two editions would
be passed over as not being supported by sufficient critical
consent ; while readings having the double authority would
be treated as possessing an adequate title to confidence.
A few words will suffice to explain the manner in
which this design has been carried out.
In the Acts, the Epistles, and the Revelation, wherever
the texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles agree, their joint
readings are followed without any deviation. Where they
differ from each other, but neither of them agrees with the
text of Stephens as printed in Dr Scrivener's edition, the
consensus of Lachmann with either is taken in preference
to the text of Stephens. In all other cases the text of
Stephens as represented in Dr Scrivener's edition has been
followed.

ON THE GREEK TEXT. ix
In the Gospels, a single modification of this plan has
been rendered necessary by the importance of the Sinai
MS. (x), which was discovered too late to be used by
Tregelles except in the last chapter of St John's Gospel
and in the following books. Accordingly, if a reading
which Tregelles has put in his margin agrees with N,
it is considered as of the same authority as a reading
which he has adopted in his text; and if any words
which Tregelles has bracketed are omitted by a, these
words are here dealt with as if rejected from his text.
In order to secure uniformity, the spelling and the
accentuation of Tischendorf have been adopted where he
differs from other Editors. His practice has likewise been
followed as regards the insertion or omission of Iota sub
script in infinitives (as £i}v, lrnri.fmv), and adverbs (as Kpvfyr),
XdOpa), and the mode of printing such composite forms as
Sicwravro's, Sum, tovtsoti, and the like.
The punctuation of Tischendorf in his eighth edition has
usually been adopted : where it is departed from, the devia
tion, together with the reasons that have led to it, will be
found mentioned in the Notes. Quotations are indicated
by a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence. Where
a whole verse is omitted, its omission is noted in the margin
(e.g. Matt. xvii. 21 ; xxiii. 12).
The text is printed in paragraphs corresponding to those
of the English Edition.
Although it was necessary that the text of all the
portions of the New Testament should be uniformly con-

x ON THE GREEK TEXT.
structed in accordance with these general rules, each editor
has been left at perfect liberty to express his preference
for other readings in the Notes.
It is hoped that a text formed on these principles
will fairly represent the results of modern criticism, and
will at least be accepted as preferable to "the Received
Text " for use in Schools.
J. J. STEWART PEROWNE.

Deanery, Peterborough,
20 April, 1881.

INTRODUCTION.

The old line,
"Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando?"
Who ? what ? where ? with what helps ? why ? how ? when ?
has sometimes been quoted as summing up the topics which are
most necessary by way of " introduction " to the sacred books.
The summary is not exhaustive nor exact, but we may be guided
by it to some extent. We must, however, take the topics in
a different order. Let us then begin with quid? and our?
What is the Epistle to the Hebrews? with what object was it
written 1 for what readers was it designed ? Of the ubi ? and
quando ? we shall find that there is little to be said ; but the
answer to quomodo? "how?" will involve a brief notice of the
style and theology of the Epistle, and we may then finally con
sider the question quis ? who was the writer ?
CHAPTER I.
CHARACTER, ANALYSIS, AND OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE TO
THE HEBREWS.
It has been sometimes said that the Epistle to the Hebrews
is rather a treatise than an Epistle. The author is silent as to
his own name ; he begins with no greeting ; he sends no special
messages or salutations to individuals. His aim is to furnish
an elaborate argument in favour of one definite thesis though
varied by many side-lights of illustration ; and he describes what
he has written as "a word of exhortation'' (xiii. 22). Neverthe-
hebrews c

xiv INTRODUCTION.
less it is clear that we must regard his work as an Epistle. It
was evidently intended for a definite circle of readers to whom
the author was personally known. The messages and the appeals,
though not addressed to single persons, are addressed to the
members of a single community, and the tone of many hortatory
passages, as well as the definiteness of the remarks in the last
chapter, shew that we are not dealing with a cyclical document,
but with one of the missives despatched by some honoured
teacher to some special Church. It was the custom of the
scattered Jewish synagogues to keep up a friendly intercourse
with each other by an occasional interchange of letters sent as
opportunity might serve. These letters are still addressed to
Jewish communities, both by individuals, and by bodies of their
coreligionists ; and from the days of St Paul down to those of
Benjamin of Tudela, and from his time down to that of Dr Frankl
and Sir Moses Montefiore, they have always been conveyed by
duly accredited messengers. This custom was naturally con
tinued among the Christian Churches, of which so many had
gathered round a nucleus of Gentile proselytes or Jewish converts.
If the letter was of a weighty character, it was read in the public
assemblies, and preserved among the archives of the Church to
which it had been addressed. It is certain that thousands of
such documents have perished, owing to the frail materials on
which they were written, their small size, and the numberless
perils and violences to which they have been exposed. The fact
that this and the other Christian Epistles which are included in
the Canon have defied the ravages of time and the accidents of
change, is due to their own surpassing importance, and to the
overruling Providence of God.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is one of many letters which must
have been despatched to the various Christian communities in
the first century. Passing over for the present the question of
the particular Church to whose members it was addressed, we
see at once that the superscription " to the Hebrews" — whether
it came from the hand of the writer or not — correctly describes
the class of Christians by whom the whole argument was specially
needed. The word "Hebrews," like the word "Greeks," was used

INTRODUCTION. xv
in different senses. In its wider sense it included all who were
of the seed of Abraham (2 Cor. xi. 22), the whole Jewish race
alike in Palestine and throughout the vast area of the Dispersion
(Phil. iii. 5). But in its narrower sense it meant those Jews only
who still used the vernacular Aramaic, which went by the name
of "Hebrew," though the genuine Hebrew in which the Old
Testament was written had for some time been a dead language.
In a still narrower sense the designation "Hebrews" was confined
to the inhabitants of Judsea. The letter itself sufficiently shews
that the Hebrews, to whom it is addressed, were Jewish converts
to Christianity1. Although the writer had adopted many of the
views of St Paul, and makes, use of some of his phrases, and
accords with him in his general tone of thought, especially as
regards the relation of the Gospel to the Law, yet throughout
this Epistle he ignores the very existence of the Gentiles to an
extent which would have been hardly possible in any work of
"the Apostle of the Gentiles" (Acts xviii. 6 ; Gal. ii. 7, 9; 2 Tim.
i. 11), and least of all when he was handling one of his own great
topics — the contrast between Judaism and Christianity. The
word Gentiles (edvrj) does not once occur, nor are the Gentiles in
any way alluded to. The writer constantly uses the expression
" o \ao," (ii. 17 ; iv. 9 ; v. 3 ; vii. 5, 11, 27 ; viii. 10 ; ix. 7, 19 ;
x. 30; xi. 25; xiii. 12), but in every instance he means "the
chosen people," nor does he give the slightest indication that he
is thinking of any nation but the Jews. We do not for a moment
imagine that he doubted the call of the Gentiles. The whole
tendency of his arguments, the Pauline character of many of his
thoughts and expressions, even the fundamental theme of his
Epistle, that Judaism as such — Judaism in all its distinctive
worship and legislation — was abrogated, are sufficient to shew
that he would have held with St Paul that " all are not Israel
who are of Israel," and that "they who are of the faith are blessed
with the faithful Abraham." But while he undoubtedly held
these truths, — for otherwise he could not have been a Christian
at all, and still less a Pauline Christian, — his mind is not so full
of them as was the mind of St Paul. It is inconceivable that St
1 ircicri rots 4k Trepi,T0fiT}s tnareiaainv "Efipcdois. Euthalius.
c2

xvi INTRODUCTION.
Paul, who regarded it as his own special Gospel to proclaim to
the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ (Eph. iii. 4 — 8),
should have written a long Epistle in which the Gentiles do not
once seem to cross the horizon of his thoughts ; and this would
have been peculiarly impossible in a letter addressed "to the
Hebrews." The Jews regarded St Paul with a fury of hatred
and suspicion which we find faintly reflected in his Epistles and
in the Acts (Acts xxi. 21 ; 1 Thess. ii. 15 ; 2 Cor. xi. 24 ; Phil.
iii. 2). Even the Jewish Christians looked on the most charac
teristic part of his teaching with a jealousy and alarm which
found frequent expression both in words and deeds. It would
have been something like unfaithfulness in St Paul, it would
have been an unworthy suppression of his intensest convictions,
to write to any exclusively " Hebrew" community without so
much as distantly alluding to that phase of the Gospel which it
had been his special mission to set forth (Gal. i. 11 ; ii. 2 ; Rom.
ii. 16, &c). The case with the writer of this Epistle is very
different. He was not only a Jewish Christian, but a Jewish
Christian of the Alexandrian school. We shall again and again
have occasion to see that he had been deeply influenced by the
thoughts of Philo. Now Philo, liberal as were his philosophical
views, was a thoroughly faithful Jew. He never for a moment
forgot his nationality. He was so completely entangled in
Jewish particularism that he shews no capacity for understand
ing the universal prophecies of the Old Testament. His Logos,
or Word, so far as he assumes any personal distinctness, is
essentially and preeminently a Jewish deliverer. Judaism formed
for Philo the nearer horizon beyond which he hardly cared to
look. Similarly in this Epistle the writer is so exclusively
occupied by the relations of the Levitic ritual to Christianity,
that he does not even glance aside to examine any other point of
difference between the New Covenant and the Old. What he
sees in Christianity is simply a perfected Judaism. Mankind is
to him the ~WP, the ideal Hebrew. Even when he speaks of the
Incarnation he speaks of it as "a taking hold" not " of humanity"
but " of the seed of Abraham" (ii. 16).
In this Epistle then he is writing to Jewish Christians, and he

INTRODUCTION. xvii
deals exclusively with the topics which were most needful for the
particular body of Jewish Christians which he had in view. All
that we know of their circumstances is derived from the contents
of the letter. They, like the writer himself, had been converted
by the preaching of Apostles, ratified " by signs, and portents,
and various powers, and distributions of the Holy Spirit" (ii. 3, 4).
But some time had elapsed since their conversion (v. 12). Some
of their original teachers and leaders were already dead (xiii. 7).
They had meanwhile been subjected to persecutions, severe
indeed (x. 32 — 34), but not so severe as to have involved mar
tyrdom (xii. 4). But the afflictions to which they had been sub
jected, together with the delay of the Lord's Coming (x. 36, 37),
had caused a relaxation of their efforts (xii. 12), a sluggishness
in their spiritual intelligence (vi. 12), a dimming of the bright
ness of their early faith (x. 32), a tendency to listen to new doc
trines (xiii. 9, 17), a neglect of common worship (x. 25), and a
tone of spurious independence towards their teachers (xiii. 7, 17,
24), which were evidently creating the peril of apostasy. Like
their ancestors of old, the Hebrew Christians were beginning to
find that the pure spiritual manna palled upon their taste. In
their painful journey through the wilderness of life they were
beginning to yearn for the pomp and boast and ease of Jewish
externalism, just as their fathers had hankered after the melons
and fleshpots of their Egyptian servitude. They were casting
backward glances of regret towards the doomed city which they
had left (xiii. 12). That the danger was imminent is clear from
the awful solemnity of the appeals which again and again the
writer addresses to them (ii. 1 — 4; iii. 7 — 19; vi. 4 — 12; x. 26 —
31 ; xii. 15 — 17), and which, although they are usually placed in
juxtaposition to words of hope and encouragement (iii. 6, 14 ; vi.
11 ; x. 39 ; xii. 18—24; &c), must yet be reckoned among the
sternest passages to be found in the whole New Testament.
A closer examination of the Epistle may lead us to infer that
this danger of apostasy — of gradually dragging their anchor and
drifting away from the rock of Christ (ii. 1) — arose from two
sources j namely — (1) the influence of some one prominent
member of the community whose tendency to abandon the

xviii INTRODUCTION.
Christian covenant (iii. 12) was due to unbelief, and whose unbe
lief had led to flagrant immorality (xii. 15, 16) ; and (2) from the
temptation to listen to the boastful commemoration of the glories
and privileges of Judaism, and to recoil before the taunt that
Christians were traitors and renegades, who without any com
pensatory advantage had forfeited all right to participate in the
benefits of the Levitic system and its atoning sacrifices (xiii.
10, &c).
In the communities of Jewish Christians there must have
been many whose faith and zeal — not kindled by hope, not sup
ported by patience, not leavened with absolute sincerity, not
maintained by a progressive sanctification — tended to wax dim
and cold. They were disappointed at the delay of Christ's
coming, and at the frustration of all their glowing temporal
hopes. They had failed to see the necessity of suffering as
an element necessary for the final glorification (ii. 10; v. 9).
And if such men chanced to meet some unconverted Jew,
burning with all the patriotism of a zealot, and inflated with
all the arrogance of a Pharisee, they would be liable to be
shaken by the appeals and arguments of such a fellow-country
man. He would have asked them how they dared to emanci
pate themselves from a law spoken by Angels? (ii. 2; Gal. iii. 19).
He would have reminded them of the heroic grandeur of Moses ;
of the priestly dignity of Aaron; of the splendour and signi
ficance of the Temple Service; of the disgrace incurred by
ceremonial pollution; of the antiquity and revealed efficacy
of the Sacrifices ; of the right to partake of the sacred offerings ;
above all, of the grandeur and solemnity of the Great Day
of Atonement. He would dwell much on the glorious ritual
when the High Priest passed into the immediate presence of
God in the Holiest Place, or when "he put on the robe of
honour and was clothed with the perfection of glory, when he
went up to the holy altar, and made the garment of holiness
honourable," and "the sons of Aaron shouted, and sounded
the silver trumpets, and made a great noise to be heard for
a remembrance before the Most High" (Ecclus. 1. 5—16). He
would have asked them how they could bear to turn their backs

INTRODUCTION. xix
on the splendid history and the splendid hopes of their nation.
He would have poured scorn upon them for leaving the inspired
wisdom of Moses and the venerable legislation of Sinai for the
teaching of a poor crucified Nazarene, whom all the Priests
and Rulers and Rabbis had rejected. He would have contrasted
the glorious Deliverer who should break in pieces the nations like
a potter's vessel with the despised, and crucified, and "accursed"
Sufferer — for had not Moses said "Cursed of God is every one
who hangeth on a tree"? (Gal. iii. 13; Deut. xxi. 23) — whom they
had been so infatuated as to accept for the Promised Messiah,
and whose promises such a Jewish scoffer would have put upon
a par with the exploded allurements of a Judas or a Theudas.
We know that St Paul was charged — charged even by Chris
tians who had been converted from Judaism — with "apostasy
from Moses" (Acts xxi. 21). So deep indeed was this feeling
that, according to Eusebius, the Ebionites rejected all his Epi
stles on the ground that he was "an apostate from the Law."
Such taunts could not move St Paul, but they would be deeply
and keenly felt by wavering converts exposed to the fierce flame
of Jewish hatred and persecution at an epoch when there arose
among their countrymen throughout the world a recrudescence
of Messianic excitement and rebellious zeal. The object of this
Epistle was to shew that what the Jews called "apostasy from
Moses" was demanded by faithfulness to Christ, and that
apostasy from Christ to Moses was not only an inexcusable
blindness but an all-but-unpardonable crime.
If such were the dangerous influences to which the Hebrew
community here addressed was exposed, it would be impossible
to imagine any better method of removing their perplexities,
and dissipating the mirage of false argument by which they were
being deceived, than that adopted by the writer of this Epistle.
It was his object to demonstrate once for all the inferiority of
Judaism to Christianity ; but although that theme had already
been handled with consummate power by the Apostle of the
Gentiles, alike (1) the arguments and (2) the method of this
Epistle differ from those adopted in St Paul's Epistles to
the Galatians and the Romans.

xx INTRODUCTION.
(1) The arguments of the Epistle are different. In the Epistles
to the Galatians and the Romans St Paul, with the sledge
hammer force of his direct and impassioned dialectics, Tiad
shattered all possibility of trusting in legal prescriptions, and
demonstrated that the Law was no longer obligatory upon
Gentiles. He had shewn that the distinction between clean
and unclean meats was to the enlightened conscience a matter
of indifference ; that circumcision was now nothing better than
a physical mutilation ; that the Levitic system was composed of
acrdevrj kcu nrioxa <TToi\eia (Gal. iv. 9) ; that ceremonialism was a
yoke with which the free converted Gentile had nothing to do;
that we are saved by faith and not by works ; that the Law was
a dispensation of wrath and menace, introduced rav wapa^aa-eav
xapiv (Gal. iii. 19; Rom. v. 20); that so far from being (as all
the Rabbis asserted) the one thing on account of which the
Universe had been created, the Mosaic Code only possessed
a transitory, subordinate, and intermediate character, coming
in (as it were in a secondary way) between the Promise to
Abraham and the fulfilment of that promise in the Gospel of
Christ. To St Paul therefore the whole treatment of the
question was necessarily and essentially polemical ; and in the
course of these polemics he had again and again used ex
pressions which, however unavoidable and salutary, could not
fail to be otherwise than deeply wounding to the inflamed
susceptibilities of the Jews at that epoch. There was scarcely
an expression which he had applied to the observance of the
Mosaic law which would not sound, to a Jewish ear, depre
cative or even contemptuous. No Jew who had rejected the
Lord of Glory, and wilfully closed his reason against the force
of conviction, would have been able to read those Epistles of St
Paul without something like a transport of fury and indignation.
They would declare that pushed to their logical consequences,
such views could only lead (as in fact, when extravagantly per
verted, they did lead) to Antinomian Gnosticism. It was,
indeed, the reaction against Pauline freedom which tended
to confirm Jewish Christians in those Ebionite tendencies which
found expression a century later in the Pseudo-Clementine

INTRODUCTION. xxi
writings. Those writings still breathe a spirit of bitter hatred
against St Paul, and are "the literary memorial of a manoeuvre
which had for its aim the absorption of the Roman Church into
Judaeo-Christianity1." Now the arguments of the Epistle to the Hebrews turn on
another set of considerations. They were urged from a different
point of view. They do not lead the writer, except in the most in
cidental and the least wounding manner, to use expressions which
would have shocked the prejudices of his unconverted countrymen.
He does not touch on the once-burning question of Circumcision.
It is only towards the close of his Epistle (xiii. 9) that he has
occasion to allude, even incidentally, to the distinction of meats.
His subject does not require him to enter upon the controversy
as to the degree to which Gentile proselytes were obliged to ob
serve the Mosaic Law. He is nowhere compelled to break down
the bristling hedge of Jewish exclusiveness2. If he proves the
boundless superiority of the New Covenant he does not do this
at the expense of the majesty of the Old. To him the richer
privileges of Christianity are the developed germ of the Mosaic
Dispensation, and he only contemplates them in their relation
to the Jews. He was able to soothe the rankling pride of an
offended Levitism by recognising Levitism as an essential link
in an unbroken continuity. The difference between the Law and
the Gospel in the controversial theology of St Paul was the dif
ference of an absolute antithesis. In this Epistle the difference
is not of kind but of degree. The difference of degree was indeed
transcendent, but still it represented a progress and an evolu
tion. His letter is therefore, as Baur says, "a thoroughly original
attempt to establish the main results of St Paul's teaching upon
new presuppositions and in an entirely independent way."
All these advantages, which enabled him to conduct with
so little antagonism his decisive anti-Judaic controversy, arose
1 St Paul is characterised in the Clementines as "the enemy,"
and is surreptitiously compared to Simon Magus. There are also
secret attacks upon him in the Talmudic writings. (See my Life of
St Paul, i. 677.) ,
2 The famous 1111117 J'D which it was the special pride and object
of the Rabbis of every school to render as impenetrable as possible.

xxii INTRODUCTION.
from the point of view at which he was able to place himself.
His Alexandrian training, his Jewish sympathies, the nature
of his immediate argument, led him to see in Judaism not
so much a code of laws as a system of worship. The fact
that the Jews who were trying to pervert his Christian con
verts had evidently contrasted the humility and the sufferings of
Christ with the sacerdotal magnificence of the Jewish hierarchs,
enabled him to seize on Priesthood and Sacrifice rather than
on Levitic ordinances as the central point of his treatment. Hence
his whole reasoning turns on a different pivot from that of St
Paul. The main thing which he has to shew is that Christianity
is the perfect fulfilment of a Type. It is therefore not only need
less for him to disparage the Type, but he can even extol its
grandeur and beauty as a type. The antitheses of St Paul's con
troversy are of necessity far more sharp and hard. To St Paul
the contrast between the Law and the Gospel was a contrast
between an awful menace and a free deliverance ; between
the threat of inevitable death and the gift of Eternal life.
To St Paul the Law was an ended servitude, a superfluous
discipline, a broken fetter, a torn and cancelled bond (Rom.
viii. 2 ; Gal. iii. 24, 25 ; iv. 9, 25 ; CoL ii. 14, &c.) : to this writer
the Mosaic system, of which the Law was only a part, was a
scaffolding — once essential, though now needless ; a symbol once
significant, though now obsolete. To St Paul the essence of
the Old Dispensation was summed up in the words "He that
doeth them shall live by them" which, taken alone, involved
the exceptionless and pitiless conclusion "since none have ever
perfectly obeyed them, all shall perish by them" : to this
writer the essence of Mosaism was the direction which bade
Moses to "make all things after the pattern shewed him in the
Mount" (Heb. viii. 5). Hence the contrast between Judaism
and Christianity was not, in the view of this writer, a contrast
between Sin and Mercy, between Curse and Blessing, between
Slavery and Freedom, but a contrast almost exclusively (so far
as the direct argument was concerned) between Type and Anti
type, between outline and image, between shadow and substance,
between indication and reality. Thus St Paul's argument may

INTRODUCTION. xxiii
be described as mainly ethical, and this writer's as mainly meta
physical. The Alexandrian philosophy with which he was
familiar had led him to hold that the reality and value of every
material thing and of every outward system depended on the
nearness with which it approximated to a Prae-existent ideal.
The seen world, the world of phenomena, is but a faint adumbra
tion of the unseen world, the world of Noumena, the world of
Ideas and of Archetypes (see infra v. § 4).
(2) From this different line of his argument rises the complete
difference of his method. The attitude which St Paul was forced to
adopt was not, and could not be, conciliatory. At the beginning
of the warfare between Judaism and Christianity the battle had to
be internecine till the victory had declared itself on one side or the
other. It was as impossible for St Paul to dwell on the grandeur
and significance of the Judaic system as it would have been for
Luther to write glowing descriptions of the services rendered to
humanity by the Mediaeval Papacy. It was not until Luther
had published his De captivitate Babylonica that Protestant
writers, secure in their own position, might without danger dwell
on the good as well as on the evil deeds which the Popes have
done. Similarly, until St Paul had written his two great contro
versial Epistles, a Jewish Christian could hardly speak freely of
the positive value and greatness of the Levitic Law. A Jew,
reading for the first time the Epistle to the Hebrews, would be
favourably impressed with the evident love and sympathy which
the writer displays towards the Tabernacle, its ministers, and its
ritual. He would without difficulty concede the position that
these were typical. He would thus be led, insensibly and with
out offence, into a consideration of the argument that these
symbols found in Christ their predestined and final fulfilment
(x. i). When he had been taught, by a method of Scriptural
application with which he was familiar, that a transference of the
Priesthood had always been contemplated, he would be prepared
to consider the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ. When he
saw that a transference of the Priesthood involved of necessity a
transference of the Law (vii. 11, 12), he would be less indignant
when he was at last confronted with such an expression as the

xxiv INTRODUCTION.
annulment of the Law (vii. 18) K The expressions ultimately
applied to the Law are as strongly depreciatory as any in St
Paul. The writer speaks of its "weakness and unprofitableness"
(vii. 18); describes it as consisting in "carnal ordinances"; and
declares that its most solemn sacrifices were utterly and neces
sarily inefficacious (ix. 13; x. 4). But the condemnation. is relative
rather than absolute, and the reader is not led to this point until
he has seen that the legal institutions only shrink into insignifi
cance in comparison with the finality and transcendent supre
macy of the dispensation of which they were (after all) the
appointed type.
The method adopted added therefore greatly to the inherent
effectiveness of the line of controversy. It involved an Irony of
the most finished kind, and in the original sense of the word.
There was nothing biting and malicious in the irony, but it re
sembled the method often adopted by Socrates. Socrates was
accustomed to put forward the argument of an opponent, to treat
it with the profoundest deference, to discuss it with the most
respectful seriousness, and all the while to rob it step by step of
all its apparent vahdity, until it was left to collapse under the
weight of inferences which it undeniably involved. In this
Epistle, though with none of the dialectical devices of the great
Athenian, we are led by a somewhat similar method to a very
similar result. We see all the antiquity and glory of Mosaism.
The Tabernacle rises before us in its splendour and beauty. We
see the Ark and the Cherubim, and Aaron's rod that budded,
and the golden pot of manna, and the wreaths of fragrant in
cense. We see the Levites in their white ephods busy with the
sacrificial victims. We watch the High Priest as he passes with
the blood of bulls and goats through the sanctuary into the
Holiest Place. We see him come forth in his "golden apparel"
and stand before the people with the jewelled Urim on his
1 There is a striking difference between the writer and St Paul in
this. The writer goes back to the patriarchal age to shew the priority
and superiority of its Priesthood, but does not allude to St Paul's
argument founded on the priority and superiority of its General
Covenant.

INTRODUCTION. xxv
breast. And while the whole process of the solemn and gorgeous
ritual is indicated with loving sympathy, suddenly, as with one
wave of the wand, the Tabernacle, its Sacrifices, its Ritual, and
its Priesthood seem to have been reduced to a shadow and a
nullity, and we recognise the Lord Jesus Christ far above all
Mediators and all Priests, and the sole means of perfect, confi
dent, and universal access to the Inmost Sanctuary of God's
Presence ! We have, all the while, been led to recognise that,
by faith in Christ, the Christian, not the Jew, stands forth as the
true representative of the old traditions, the child of the glorious
forefathers, the predestined heir of the Eternal Realities.
And thus the Epistle was equally effective both for Jews and
Christians. The Jew, without one violent wrench of his prejudices,
without one rude shock to his lifelong convictions, was drawn
along gently, considerately, skilfully, as by a golden chain of fine
rhetoric and irresistible reasoning, to see that the New Dispensa
tion was but the glorious fulfilment, not the ruinous overthrow,
of the Old. The Jewish Christian, so far from being robbed of
a single privilege of Judaism, is taught that he may enjoy those
privileges in their very richest significance. So far from being
compelled to abandon the viaticum of good examples which had
been the glory of his nation's history, he may feed upon those
examples with a deeper sympathy: and so far from losing his
beneficial participation in Temples and Sacrifices, he is admitted
by the blood of the only perfect Sacrifice into the inmost and
the eternal Sanctuary of which the Temple of his nation was
but a dim and perishable sign. Thus, as Canon Westcott has
illustrated, the central conception of Christ in this Epistle
is that of Christus Consummator, " Christ the Fulfiller V
The Epistle falls into two divisions: — I., chiefly Didactic (i. —
x. 18) ; IL, chiefly Hortative (x. 18— xiii. 25).
The general analysis of the Epistle is as follows :
It was the constant boast of the Jews that their Law was
given by Angel-ministers (Acts vii. 53 ; Ps. lxviii. 17), and on
1 This thought also is found in St Paul. Eph. i. 10 dvaice^aXaui-
ffaadai rb. Travra h ry X/>«rr<£.

xxvi INTRODUCTION.
this ground, as well as on the historic grandeur of Moses, Aaron,
and Joshua, they claimed for it a superiority over every other
dispensation. The writer, therefore, after laying down his mag
nificent thesis that the Gospel is God's full and final Revelation
to man (i. 1 — 4), proceeds to compare the Old and the New
Covenants under the double aspects of (I) their ministering agents
(i.— viii.), and (II) their advantageous results (ix. — x. 18).
I. Christ superior to the mediators of the Old Cove
nant (i. — viii.).
a. The infinite superiority of Jesus to the Angels is first
demonstrated by a method of Scriptural illustration of which
the validity was fully recognised by all Jewish interpreters (i.
5 — 14). After a word of warning exhortation (ii. 1 — 4) he shews
that this superiority is not diminished but rather enhanced by
the temporary humiliation which was the voluntary and pre
destined means whereby alone He could accomplish His redemp
tive work (ii. 5 — 18).
/3. And since the Jews placed their confidence in the mighty
names of Moses and of Joshua, he proceeds to shew that Christ
is above Moses by His very nature and office (iii. 1 — 6). Then
after another earnest appeal (iii. 7 — 19) he proves more inci
dentally that Christ was above Joshua, in that He led His people
into that true, final, and Sabbatic rest of which, as he proves
from Scripture, the rest of Canaan was but a poor and imperfect
type (iv. 1—10).
y. But since he regards the Priesthood rather than the Law
as the central point of the Mosaic dispensation, he now enters
on the subject which is the most prominent in his thoughts, and
to which he has already twice alluded (ii. 17 ; iii. 1), that Christ
is our High Priest, and that His High Priesthood, as an
Eternal Priesthood after the order of Melchisedek, is superior to
that of the Aaronic High Priests. The development of this topic
occupies nearly six chapters (v. 1 — x. 18).
He first lays down the two qualifications for every High
Priest, (1) that he must be able to sympathise with those for
whom he ministers (v. 1—3), and (2) that he must not be self-

INTRODUCTION. xxvii
called, but appointed by God (v. 4) : both of which qualifications
Christ possessed (v. 5—10).
But it is a characteristic of his style, and it furthered his main
purpose, to mingle solemn passages of warning, exhortation,
and encouragement with his line of demonstration. Here, there
fore, he pauses on the threshold of his chief argument, to com
plain of their spiritual dulness and backwardness (v. 11 — 14);
to urge them to more earnest endeavours after Christian progress
(vi. 1 — 3) ; to warn them of the awful danger and hopelessness of
wilful apostasy (4 — 8) ; to encourage them by an expression of
hope founded on their Christian beneficence (9 — 10) ; and to stir
them to increased zeal (11, 12) by the thought of the immutable
certainty of God's oathbound promises (13 — 18), which are still
further assured to us by the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ
our Forerunner within the Veil (19, 20).
Reverting thus to the comparison of Christ's Priesthood with
the Levitic Priesthood (to which he had already alluded in v.
6, 10), he shews that the High Priesthood of Christ, being " after
the order of Melchisedek," was superior to that of Aaron,
1. Because it is eternal not transient (vii. 1 — 3).
2. Because even Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedek (4 — 6).
3. Because Melchisedek blessed Abraham (7).
4. Because the Levitic Priests die, while Melchisedek stands
as the type of an undying Priesthood (8).
5. Because even Levi may be said to have paid tithes to
Melchisedek in the person of his ancestor Abraham (9, 10).
6. Because David's reference to Melchisedek shews the con
templated transference of the Priesthood, and therefore of the
Law (11, 12). This is confirmed by the fact that Christ was of
the tribe of Judah, not of Levi (13, 14). The Melchisedek Priest
hood, being eternal, could not be connected with a Law which,
being weak and profitless, perfected nothing (15 — 19).
7. Because the Melchisedek Priesthood was founded by an
oath (20—22).
8. Because (as before) the Levitic priests die, but Christ, the
antitype of Melchisedek, abideth for ever (23—25).

xxviii INTRODUCTION.
II. The New Covenant better than the Old.
Having thus compared the two orders of Priesthood, he pauses
for a moment to dwell on the eternal fitness of Christ's Priest
hood to fulfil the conditions which the needs of humanity require
(26 — 28). Into this passage, in his usual skilful manner, he
introduces the comparison of the two forms of sacerdotal ministry
which he develops in the next three chapters (viii. 1 — x. 18).
a. For the Tabernacle served by the Levitic Priests is —
even on their great Day of Atonement — only the shadow of an
eternal reality (viii. 1 — 6). The eternal reality is the New Cove
nant, which had been promised by Jeremiah, in which the Law
should be written on men's hearts, and in which all should know
the Lord ; and the very fact that a new covenant had been
promised implies the annulment of the old (viii. 7 — 13).
/3. The Old Tabernacle was glorious and symbolic (ix. 1 — 5),
yet even the High Priest, on the greatest day of its ritual, could
only enter once a year into its inmost shrine, and that only with
the imperfect and symbolic offerings of a burdensome exter-
nalism (6 — 10). But Christ, the Eternal High Priest, entered
into the Ideal Archetype of the Heavenly tabernacle (11) with
His own blood, once for all ; and for ever (12, 13) offered Him
self as a voluntary and sinless offering, eternally efficacious to
purge the conscience from dead works (14) ; and so by His
death became the mediator of a new and final covenant, and
secured for us the eternal inheritance (14, 15). For a "Cove
nant" may also be regarded as a " Testament," and that involves
the fact of a Death (16, 17). So that just as the Old Covenant
was inaugurated by the sprinkling of purifying blood over its
Tabernacle, its ministers, its book, its people, and the furniture
of its service, in order to secure the remission of transgressions
(18—22), the heavenly archetype of these things, into which
Christ entered, needed also to be sprinkled with the blood of
that better sacrifice (23) which has provided for us, once for all,
an all-sufficient expiation (24—28). Then, in one grand finale,
in which he gathers the scattered elements of his demonstration
into a powerful summary, he speaks of the impotence of the
Levitic sacrifices to perfect those who offered them — an impotence

1JSTMODUCTI0N. xxix
attested by their constant repetition (x. 1 — 4) — and contrasts
them with that perfect obedience whereby (as illustrated in
Ps. xl. 6, 7) Christ had annulled those sacrifices (5 — 9). Christ
sanctified us for ever by His offered body (10). He did not
offer incessant and invalid offerings like the Levitic Priests
(11), but one perfect and perfecting sacrifice, as a prehminary to
His eternal exaltation (12 — 14), in accordance with the prophecy
of Jeremiah (xxxi. 33, 34), to which the writer had already re
ferred (15—18).
III. The remainder of the Epistle (x. 19 — xiii. 17) is mainly
hortatory. He has made good his opening thesis that God " in the end of
these days has spoken unto us by His Son." This he has done by
shewing Christ's superiority to Angels (i. 5 — ii. 16) and to Moses
and Joshua (iii. 1 — iv. 16) ; His qualifications for High Priesthood
(v. 1 — 10) ; the superiority of His Melchisedek Priesthood over
that of Aaron (vii. 1 — 28) ; and the superiority of the ordinances
of His New Covenant over those of the Old (viii. 1 — x. 15). He
has thus set forth to the wavering Hebrew Christians, with many
an interwoven appeal, incontrovertible reasons why they should
not abandon the better for the worse, the complete for the im
perfect, the valid for the inefficacious, the Archetype for the
copy, the Eternal for the transient. It only remains for him to
apply his arguments by final exhortations. This he does by one
more solemn strain of warning and encouragement (x. 19 — 39),
which leads him into a magnificent historic illustration of the
nature of faith as manifested by works (xi.). This served to
shew the Jewish Christians, that, so far from being compelled to
abandon the mighty memories of their past history, they were
themselves the true heirs and the nearest representatives of
that history, so that their unconverted brethren rather than
themselves were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel and
strangers from the Covenants of promise. The Epistle closes
with fervent exhortations to moral steadfastness and a holy
Christian walk in spite of trial and persecution (xii. 1 — 14).
This is followed by a warning founded on the great contrast
which he has developed between the Old and New Covenants
HEBREWS d

xxx INTRODUCTION.
(15 — 29). He gives them special directions to be loving, hospi
table, sympathetic, pure, contented, and gratefully recognizant of
their departed teachers (xiii. 1 — 9). Then with one more glance
at the difference between the New and the Old Dispensations
(10 — 15), he adds a few more affectionate exhortations (16 — 19),
and ends with brief messages and blessings (23 — 25).
We see then that the whole Epistle forms an argument a
minori ad majus. If Judaism had its own privileges, how great,
a fortiori, must be the privileges of the Gospel ! Hence the
constant recurrence of such expressions as "a better hope" (vii.
19); "a better covenant" (vii. 22) ; "a more excellent ministry"
(viii. 6); "a better and more perfect Tabernacle" (ix. 11); "better
sacrifices" (ix. 23); "better promises" (viii. 6). It may almost
be said that the words "by how much more" (ix. 14; too-ovtco
KpeiTT<ov...o(Tw i. 4, Kaff oo-ov, vii. 20, oo-m, viii. 6, iroo-a, x. 29) with
the words updcro-av, Suupopdrrepos, TeXeidrepos are the keynotes of
the entire treatment. It was a style of argument of which the
Jews had often studied the validity ; for the first of the seven
famous Middoth or " rules of interpretation" elaborated by the
great Rabbi Hillel was called "Light and Heavy" (IDim 7p),
which is nothing but the deduction of the greater from the less ;
a mode of argument which our Lord Himself had used, on more
than one occasion, in His controversies with the Pharisees
(Matt. x. 29).
We know nothing of the effects produced by the Epistle upon
the particular community of Christians to which it was addressed ;
but we feel that if they could retrograde into Judaism after
meditating on these arguments their apostasy must indeed have
been of that moral and willing character for which, humanly
speaking, there was little hope.

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER II.
where was the epistle written ? AND to whom ?
1. Ubi? Where was the letter written ?
The question cannot be answered. The only possible clue to
any answer hes in the words "they of Italy salute you" (xiii. 24).
But this furnishes us with no real clue. Oi dn-o rfjs 'iraKlas means
simply " the Italians." The salutation might be sent from any
city in the world in which there were Jewish Christians, or even
Gentile converts, whose home was or once had been in Italy.
It is however a little strange that many, both in ancient and
modern times, should have assumed from this passage that the
letter was written in Italy1. There would indeed be nothing
against this in the use of the preposition dn-o, but if the letter
were written from Rome or Italy it would be strange to say
"those of Italy salute you." If I wrote from Paris or Vienna
to an English friend in Russia or elsewhere I might naturally
say " our English friends salute you," but hardly if I wrote from
London or any town in England. Nothing in the way of reason
able conjecture can be deduced from a reference so absolutely
vague. Nor again can we found any conclusion on the fact that
Timothy was known to these Hebrew Christians. There was a
constant intercourse by letters and messengers between the small
and suffering communities of early Christians, and Timothy was
probably known by name to every Church in Proconsular Asia,
in Palestine, in Greece, in Italy, and in the islands and along the
shores of the entire Mediterranean.
2. To whom was this Epistle written ?
We have seen that the writer evidently had some one com
munity in view. This is proved by the specific character of his
messages and admonitions. Even if the last four verses were a
1 This conclusion, which seems to me quite untenable, has been
adopted by Mr Rendall.
d2

xxxii INTRODUCTION.
special postscript to some particular Church we should draw the
same conclusion. We must therefore reject the supposition of
Euthalius and others that it was addressed "to all the converted
Hebrews of the Circumcision" — "les JudeVchr^tiens en general
considered au point de vue theorique" (Reuss). Where then did
these Hebrew Christians reside ? To what city was the letter
originally sent? The genuine superscription gives us no help,
for it is simply " To the Hebrews."
a. The general tradition, originated by some of the Greek
fathers (e.g. Chrysostom and Theodoret), assumes that the letter
was addressed to the Palestinian Jews, and specially to the Church
of Jerusalem. This was partly deduced from the erroneous
notion that the members of the Mother Church were exclusively
designated by the title of " the saints." Ebrard supposes that it
was written to encourage Christian neophytes at Jerusalem, who
were rendered anxious by being excluded from the Temple
worship and from participation in the sacrifices. No doubt this
supposition would suit such expressions as those in xiii. 10, 13,
and much of the Epistle would have had a deep interest for
those who were daily witnesses of, and possibly even worshippers
in, the services of the Temple. Yet the opinion is untenable.
The Judaists of Palestine would be little likely to welcome the
letter of a Hellenist, who apparently knew no Hebrew, and who
only quotes the Septuagint even when it differs from the sacred
text (e.g. i. 6 ; x. 5) ; nor would they feel any special interest in a
half-Gentile convert like Timothy. Further, it would hardly be
true of them that "they had not yet resisted unto blood" (xii. 4).
Again, they were little likely to have forgotten their dead leaders
(xiii. 7); they had received the Gospel first-hand, not second
hand ; and many of them may even have heard the Gospel
from the Lord Himself (ii. 3). Nor were they in a position to
minister to the saints (vi. 10), since they were themselves
plunged in the deepest poverty. Least of all is it probable that
an Alexandrian Hellenist, who in all main points agreed with
one so little acceptable to the Palestinian Judaists as was St
Paul, would have ventured not only to address them in a tone of
authority, but even to reproach these Churches of the earliest

ilSTitODOOTION. xxxiii
Saints in words of severe rebuke for their ignorance and childish
ness (v. 11 — 14).
/3. The Church of Corinth is perhaps excluded by ii. 3,
which seems to refer to some community founded by one of the
original Twelve Apostles.
y. That the letter was addressed to the Church of Alexan
dria is by no means improbable. It has been supposed that
there is an allusion to this Epistle in the Muratorian Canon
under the name of "an Epistle to the Alexandrians" ; and in the
Manuscript D is a reading (iv rfj Trarpibi) in Acts xviii. 25, which
implies that Apollos, the probable writer of the Epistle, had been
converted to Christianity in Alexandria. This opinion, with the
modification that it was addressed to Jewish Christian ascetics in
Alexandria (Dr Plumptre), or to a section only of the Alexandrian
Church (Hilgenfeld), has been widely accepted by modern critics.
There are however several objections to this view. (1) The
Church of Alexandria is believed to have been founded by St
Mark, and not by one of the Twelve. (2) Alexandria was a Church
with which neither St Paul nor Timothy had any direct con
nexion. (3) The Epistle is not heard of in the Alexandrian
Church till nearly a century later. (4) The authorship of the
Epistle was not certainly known in the school of Alexandria,
which indeed did more than any other school to originate the
mistaken impression that it was written by St Paul.
8. Some critics have supposed that it was addressed to the
Jewish-Christian community at Rome. The suggestion suits the
references in ii. 3 ; xiii. 7, 9 ; x. 32. It also suits the fact that
the writer seems to have been acquainted with the Epistle to the
Romans (see x. 30 ; xiii. 1 — 6, 9 — 20), and that the Roman Church
was from the first aware that the Epistle was not written by
St Paul. But this view is excluded by the very probable con
jecture that Timothy had been imprisoned at Rome during his
last visit to St Paul (xiii. 23) ; by the silence of St Clement of
Rome as to the author ; by the absence of any trace that Apollos
had ever visited Rome ; by the fact that the persecutions to
which allusion is made had, for some time, expended their
severity (x. 32) ; as well as by the certainty that the Church

xxxiv INTRODUCTION.
of Rome, more than any other, had been deluged with the blood
of martyrdom (xii. 4) ; and by the absence of all allusion to the
Church of the Gentiles.
e. Mr Rendall (Hebrews, p. xvii.) argues that it was addressed
to some Church of Jewish converts in Syria. There is nothing
impossible in the suggestion, but neither is there any argument
which makes it specially probable. It is not certain that the
title npbs 'Eftpalovs was given by the writer, and, even if it were,
the title (as we have seen) was applied in its wider sense to
Jewish converts, whether they spoke Aramaic or not ; and this
letter was certainly written in Greek and to Greek-speaking
Jews. Jewish converts, wherever found, would be hable to the
seductive fascination exercised by the representatives of their
old and deeply- venerated religion; and this would be specially
the case in days of despondency and threatened persecution.
f. Other isolated conjectures — as that it was addressed to
Ravenna (Ewald), or Jamnia (Willib. Grimm), or Antioch (Hof-
mann) — may be passed over; but it may be worth considering
whether it was not addressed to the Jewish Christians at Ephe-
sus. They must have been a numerous and important body,
and both Apollos and Timothy had laboured among them.

CHAPTER III.
THE DATE.
Quando ? The date at which the Epistle was written cannot
be fixed with precision. The writer speaks as if Christianity
had long been preached (v. 12 ; x. 32). Episcopacy has not yet
been established, for the writer only speaks, of the Church rulers
as oi riyovp.evoi. All that we can say is that it was certainly
written before the Fall of Jerusalem, a.d. 70. This conclusion
is not mainly founded on the use of the present tense in
speaking of the Temple services (ix. 6, 7; x. 1, &c), because
this might conceivably be due to the same figure of speech
which accounts for the use of the present tense in speaking of

INTRODUCTION. xxxv
the Jewish ministrations in Josephus, Clemens Romanus, Justin
Martyr, and even in the Talmud. It is founded on the whole
scope of the argument. No one who was capable of writing the
Epistle to the Hebrews at all (there being no question of pseud-
onymity in this instance) could possibly have foregone all men
tion of the tremendous corroboration — nay, the absolutely demon
strative force — which had been added to his arguments by the
work of God in History. The destruction of Jerusalem came as
a Divine comment on all the truths which are here set forth.
While it in no way derogates from the permanent value of the
Epistle as a possession for all time, it would have rendered
superfluous its immediate aim and object. The seductions of
Judaism, the temptation to apostatise to the Mosaic system,
were done away with by that awful Advent which for ever closed
the era of the Old Dispensation. We therefore infer that the
Epistle was written when Timothy was (apparently) liberated
from prison, soon after the martyrdom of St Paul, about the
close of A.D. 67 or the beginning of a.d. 68. If so the state
of things in Palestine was as follows. The Jewish war had
already been begun by the general revolt of the Jews, which
by its earlier successes perhaps restored wild hopes of the
restoration of Judaism in all its independence. Agrippa II.
had been driven out of Jerusalem ; Eleazar son of the High
Priest Ananus had persuaded the Jews to reject all the offerings
of Pagans and to discontinue the sacrifices for the Emperor.
The Castle of Antonia had been attacked and its Roman garrison
put to the sword. The Jews, exasperated by Florus's massacre
of their compatriots at Caesarea, had retaliated on the Gentiles
in many cities. The Roman general Cestius had received at
the hands of the Jews a signal defeat at Bethhoron. Josephus
had collected an army of 100,000 men. Vjspasian had appeared
in Galilee, and the Holy City was in the hands of the Zealots.
But two years more were to elapse before the occurrence of
that Advent, that Return of Christ to judge the world, which is
recognisable in all the vast interventions of Divine Providence in
the History of the World, but was never so clearly to be recognised
as in the retributive collapse and final crashing fall of Judaism

xxxvi INTRODUCTION.
as an even possible rehgion. When the New, Eternal, Spiritual
Temple of Christianity had been reared into a visible and solid
superstructure, the ancient scaffolding by which it was partially
concealed fell suddenly, — and great was the fall of it. To
waverers who were tempted to abandon their high calling of
God, the awful historic abrogation of the Mosaic Dispensation
would come as a Divine confirmation of the arguments of this
Epistle adequate to decide the controversy for ever. To those
who apostatised in spite of the warning and argument which
was here addressed to them, the Fall of Jerusalem would come
as a peal of doom.

CHAPTER IV.
STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE.
1. The notion that the Epistle was a translation from the
Hebrew is found in Clement of Alexandria, and is repeated
by Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret, and by many .others down to
recent times. It seems to have originated in the attempt to
account for the marked differences of style which separate it
from the writings of St Paul. But this conjecture is wholly
devoid of probability. Clement couples it with the sugges
tion that it was translated by St Luke, because the style has
some points of resemblance to that of the Acts of the Apostles.
But St Luke (as we shall see) cannot have been the author,
and the notion that it was written in Aramaic is now gene
rally abandoned. No writing of antiquity shews fewer traces
of being a translation. The Greek is eminently original and
eminently polished. It abounds in paronomasiae (plays on
words, i. 1; ii. 8; v. 14; vii. 3, 19, 22, 23, 24; viii. 7, 8; ix. 28;
x. 29, 34—38, 39 ; xi. 27 ; xiii. 14, &c). It is full of phrases, and
turns of idiom, which could scarcely be rendered in Hebrew
at all, or only by the help of cumbrous periphrases. The nume
rous quotations which it contains are taken not from the He
brew but from the LXX., and the argument is sometimes built

INTRODUCTION. xxxvii
on expressions in which the LXX. differs from the original (i. 6,
7 ; ii. 7 ; x. 5). It touches in one passage (ix. 15) on the Greek
meaning of the word oWifmj, "a testament," which has no equi
valent in the Hebrew Berlth, "a covenant1." The hypothesis
that the Epistle was not originally written in Greek violates
every canon of literary probability.
2. The style of the Epistle attracted notice even in the ear
liest times. It is as different as possible from the style of St
Paul. " Omnibus notis dissidet" said the great scholar Erasmus.
More than a thousand years ago Origen remarked that it is
written in better and more periodic Greek. In its rhythm and
balance it has been described as "elaborately and faultlessly
rhetorical." The style of St Paul, whenever his emotions are
deeply stirred, is indeed eloquent, but with a fervid, spontane
ous, impassioned eloquence, which never pauses to round a
period or to select a sonorous expression. He constantly min
gles two constructions; digresses into personal allusions; does
not hesitate to use the roughest terms; goes off at a word;
and leaves sentences unfinished. He writes like a man who
thought in Aramaic while he expressed himself in Greek. The
style of this writer bears the stamp of a wholly different in
dividuality. He writes impersonally while St Paul is always
intensely personal. He writes like a man of genius who is
thinking in Greek as well as writing in it. He builds up his
paragraphs on a wholly different model. He delights in the
most majestic amphflcations, in the most effective collocation of
words, in the musical euphony of compound terms (see i. 3;
viii. 1; xii. 2, &c.)2. He is never ungrammatical, never irregular,
1 Heb. ix. 16. Calvin says with his usual strong sense, " Atatfijieij
ambiguam apud Graecos significationem habet ; berith autem Hebraeis
non nisi foedus significat ; haec una ratio sani judicii hominibus
sufficiet ad probandum quod dixi, Graeco sermone scriptam fuisse
epistolam." 2 He uses the following compounds and other words which occur in
no other New Testament writer. iro\vp.epQs, iro\vTp6wus, Tpo<roxf>lfav,
ffaj3/3aTur/ios, TeTpajCTX'ff'/i&os, Svaepiify tvros, /xerpioiraffeiv, iKardXvTos,
dyeveaXSyriTos, aifiaTeKXiKrla, bwat.vlt'eiy, avvKaKovxeiaBai., <pavTa£6p.eros,
Tv/iTavlfciv, p.i<r8airoSo<rla, dAwireXijs, eiTepiffTaros, and a few more.

xxxviii INTRODUCTION.
never personal; he never struggles for expression; he never
loses himself in a parenthesis; he is never hurried into an
unfinished clause. He has less of burning passion, and more of
conscious literary self-control. As I have said elsewhere, the
movement of this writer resembles that of an Oriental Sheykh
with his robes of honour wrapped around him ; the movement of
St Paul is that of an athlete girded for the race. The eloquence
of this writer, even when it is at its most majestic volume,
resembles the flow of a river ; the rhetoric of St Paul is like the
rush of a mountain-torrent amid opposing rocks.
3. The writer quotes differently from St Paul. St Paul often
reverts to the original Hebrew, and when he uses the LXX.
his quotations agree, for the most part, with the Vatican
Manuscript. This writer (as I have already observed) follows
the LXX. even when it differs from the Hebrew, and his cita
tions usually agree with the Alexandrian Manuscript. St Paul
introduces his references to the Old Testament by some such
formula as naBas yiypanrai or Xeyei ij -ypaoSij (Rom. i. 17; ix. 17),
whereas this writer adopts the Rabbinic and Alexandrian ex
pressions, eotc, Xe'yet (i. 5, 6; V. 6; vii. 13), dprjKev (iv. 3);
8tepaprvparo ttov Tts \4yav (ii. 6) ; Ka&as Xeyet to irvevpa to ayiov
or paprvpet (iii. 7 ; x. 15 ; vii. 17) — forms which are not used by
St Paul, and of which the form and the conception are due
to Philo (Quis rer. div. haer. § 52 ; De Monarch, i. 9 &c).
4. Again, he constructs his sentences differently, and com
bines them by different connecting particles (see in the original
ii. 16 to iii. 16, &c.) ; and has at least six special pecuharities of
style not found, or found but rarely, in St Paul — such as the
constant use of "all"; the verb cicddicrcv used intransitively
(i. 3; viii. 1); the phrase "even though" (eaturep, three times);
"whence" (oBev, six times), used in the sense of "wherefore";
€is t6 Sir/voces instead of "always"; and his mode of heightening
the comparative by a following preposition (irapa) x.
1 " In the Epistles of St Paul etnt occurs 50 times, etre 63, irore (in
affirmative clauses) 19, etra (in enumeration) 6, ei je ital 4, etirep 5,
eVrds ei pvr) 3, etye 4, pt^wus 12, /«;/ceVi 10, ixevovvye 3, id.v 88 times,
while none of them are found in this Epistle except On, and that only
once or twice except in quotations." Kendall, p. 27.

INTRODUCTION. xxxix
5. Once more, St Paul usually speaks of the Saviour as
"our Lord Jesus Christ," or "Christ Jesus our Lord" — forms
which occur sixty-eight times in his Epistles; this writer, on the
other hand, usually refers to Him as "Jesus," or "the Lord," or
"Christ," or "our Lord" (vii. 14), or "the Lord" (ii. 3), or,
once only, as "our Lord Jesus" (xiii. 20), whereas the dis
tinctive Pauline combination, "Christ Jesus," does not occur
once (see note on iii. 1). The explanation of this fact is that,
as time went on, the title "Christ" became more and more a.
personal name, and the name "Jesus" (most frequently used in
this Epistle, ii. 9 ; iii. 1 ; vi. 20 ; vii. 22 ; x. 19 ; xii. 2, 24 ; xiii. 12)
became more and more connotative of such supreme reverence
and exaltation as to need no further addition or description.

CHAPTER V.
THEOLOGY of the epistle.
The author of this Epistle, though he is writing exclusively
to Jewish Christians, and though he shews himself eminently
Judaic in his sympathies, is yet distinctly of the same school
as the Apostle of the Gentiles.
Of the four great topics which occupy so large a place in St
Paul's Epistles — the relation of Judaism to Christianity; the
redemptive work of Christ ; justification by faith ; and the call of
the Gentiles — the first forms the main topic of this Epistle ;
the second occupies one large section of it (v. i — x. 18); and
the third is involved in one entire chapter (xi.). The fourth is
indeed conspicuously absent, but its absence is primarily due
to the concentration of the Epistle upon the needs of those
readers to~ whom it was addressed. He says expressly that
Christ died on behalf of every man (ii. 9), and no one has ever
doubted respecting his full belief in the Universality of the
Gospel. As the circumstances which occasioned the composi
tion of the Epistle furnished no opportunity to dwell upon the
subject he leaves it on one side. Il is probable that even in
the most bigoted of the Jewish- Christian communities the rights

xl INTRODUCTION.
of the Gentiles to equal participation in the privileges of the
Gospel without any obligation to obey the Levitic Law had
been fully established, partly by the decree of the Synod of
Jerusalem (Acts xv. 1 — 29), and partly by the unanswerable
demonstrations of St Paul.
It need hardly be said that the writer of this Epistle is at one
with St Paul upon all great fundamental doctrines1. Both of
the sacred writers speak of the heavenly exaltation of Christ
(Eph. iv. 10 ; Heb. ix. 24) ; of His prevailing intercession (Rom.
viii. 34; Heb. vii. 25); of the elementary character of the cere
monial Law (Gal. iv. 3; Heb. vii. 19); of Christ as "the end of
the Law" (Rom. x. 4 ; Heb. x. 4 — 7) ; and of a multitude of
other deep religious truths which were the common heritage of
all Christians.
But while he deals with the same great topics as the Apostle
of the Gentiles, he handles them in a very distinct manner, and
with considerable variation of theological terminology.
u. In his mode of dealing with the Old and New Covenants
we have already seen that he starts from a different point of
view. He does not mention the subject of circumcision, so
prominent throughout the Epistle to the Galatians; and while
his proof that Christ is superior to Moses only occupies a few
verses (iii. 1 — 6), he devotes a large and most important part of
his letter to the proof that Christ's Priesthood is superior to
that of Aaron, and that it is a Priesthood after the order of Mel
chisedek — whom St Paul does not so much as name.' Indeed,
while in this Epistle the titles Priest and High Priest occur no
less than 32 times, in accordance with' their extreme prominence
in the theological conceptions of the writer, it is remarkable
1 There are also points of contact with St Peter, both in general
position (comp. 1 Pet. i. 2, 5 — 10 with Heb. vi. 18, i. 14, ix. 28),
and in the use of "faith" for "trust," and "righteousness" for "in
tegrity," and in special expressions, such as "blood of sprinkling"
(xii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 2), "shepherd" (xiii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 4), and
'Apxyy&s (ii. 10, xii. 2 ; Acts iii. 15) used of Christ, and others. See
Kendall, Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 42 — 45). They
probably indicate no more than that the writer had studied the First
Epistle of St Peter.

INTRODUCTION. xii
that neither word occurs so much as once in all the 13 Epistles
of St Paul.
/3. In speaking of the Redemptive work of Christ he is evi
dently at one with St Paul (ix. 15, 22), but does not enter so
fully upon the mysterious aspect of Christ's death as an expiatory
sacrifice (IXao-pos). As though he could assume all which St
Paul had written on that subject, he leaves (as it were) " a gap
between the means and the end," asserting only again and again,
but without explanation and comment, the simple fact that
Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice, and that man was thereby
sanctified and purified (ii. 11; ix. 13, 14; x. 2, 10, 14, 22). In
his favourite conception of "perfectionment" (reXeiWir) he seems
to include justification, sanctification, and glorification1. His
conception of Christ is less that of a Crucified and Risen
Redeemer, than that of a sympathising and glorified High Priest.
And the result of His work is described not as leading to a
mystic oneness with Him, but as securing us a free access to
Him, and through Him into the Inmost Sanctuary of God.
y. Again, there is a difference between the writer and St
Paul in their use of the terms Justification and Faith. In St
Paul the term "Justification by Faith" succinctly describes the
method by which the righteousness of God can become the
justification of man — the word for "righteousness" and "justifi
cation" being the same (tSiKawo-vtir]). But in this Epistle the
word "righteousness" is used in its simple and original sense of
moral rectitude. The result of Christ's redemptive work, which
1 Mr Kendall, in an elaborate appendix on the word TeXeioOe
{Hebrews, pp. 158 — 162), would give to it in the Epistle the meaning
" to consecrate." He argues that this is the technical meaning of the
word throughout those passages of the Pentateuch which deal with
priestly consecration, and he says (p. 21) " its close connexion in this
Epistle with the Priesthood of Christ proves conclusively to my mind
that it is used in the same sense." The priest on consecration had
his hands filled with portions of the slaughtered ram (Lev. viii. 25 —
28). Hence the phrase TeXeiwcreu ras xeVas C^x- XX1X- 9, 33), and
thus veicpixpopav was connected with the notion of mortifying the
flesh (Philo, Leg. Alleg. in. § 23 : comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10). Important
as are the considerations involved in this view I see no sufficient
reason to abandon the sense given to TeXeiow' and its derivatives by
long prescription.

xiii INTRODUCTION.
St Paul describes by his use of StKcuoo-uK?/ in the sense of "justifi
cation," this writer indicates by other words, such as dyiaoyioj
(xii. 14), Kadapicrpos (i. 3 ; ix. 14 ; x. 2) and reXeiWtr (vii. 11).
He does not allude to the notion of " imputed" righteousness as
a condition freely bestowed by God upon man, but describes
"righteousness" as faith manifested by obedience and so earning
the testimony of God (xi. 4, 5) It is regarded not as the Divine
gift which man receives, but as the human condition which
faith produces. The phrase " to justify," which occurs 28 times
' in St Paul, is not once found in this Epistle. The writer,
like St Paul, quotes the famous verse of Habakkuk, " The just
shall five by faith" (perhaps in the slightly different form, 6 fie
SUaios pov e< jrlo-Teas fto-erai1), but the sense in which he quotes
it is not the distinctive sense which it bears in St Paul — where it
implies that " the man who has been justified by that trust in
Christ which ends in perfect union with Him shall enjoy eternal
life," — but rather in its simpler and more original sense that " the
upright man shall be saved by his faithfulness." For " faith" when
used by St Paul in the sense peculiar to his writings, means the
life in Christ, the absolute personal communion with His death
and resurrection. But the central Pauline conception of iv
Xpia-rm (Christ not only for me, but in me, and I in Him) — a
conception so characteristic that it has been called " the mono
gram of St Paul" — is scarcely alluded to by the author of this
Epistle. He uses the word "faith" in its more common sense of
" trust in the Unseen." He regards it less as the instrument of
justification than as the condition of access (iii. 14; iv. 2, 16; vi.
1; vii. 25; x. 1,22; xi. 1,6).
8. Again, one of the characteristics of this Epistle is the
recurrence of passages which breathe a spirit peculiarly severe
(ii. 1—3; iv. 1; vi. 4—8; x. 26 — 31; xii. 15—17), such as does
indeed resemble a few passages of Philo, but finds no exact
parallel even in the sternest passages of St Paul. Nor does the
writer ever encourage, even incidentally, St Paul's large and
1 The p.ov is found in the LXX. sometimes after "just," sometimes
after "faith" ; and is read after "just" in X,A,H, and after "faith"
in D. See note on Heb. x. 38.

INTRODUCTION. xliii
splendid generalisations of a passionate hope (Rom. ix. 2; xi. 26).
Luther speaks of one of these passages as " a hard knot which
seems in its obvious import to run counter to all the Gospels
and 'the Epistles of St Paul." Both Tertullian and Luther
missed the real significance of these passages, but the very
interpretation which made the Epistle dear to the Montanistic
hardness of Tertulhan made it displeasing to the larger heart of
the great Reformer. It must we fear be admitted that some of
the most ruthless inferences of Calvinism with its "horrible
decrees," and some of the darkest views of the ultimate fate
of sinners, are based on phrases of this Epistle. But the absolute
decisions of theology must not be made to depend on the idio
syncrasy of a writer, or the appalling gloom of the circumstances
under which he wrote. They must be derived from the final
result attained by the coordination of all the passages which deal
with the disputed doctrine. Undoubtedly the keynote of Chris
tianity is gladness, and not gloom.
e. But the most marked feature of the Epistle to the Hebrews
is its Alexandrian character, and the resemblances which it con
tains to the writings of Philo, the chief Jewish philosopher of the
Alexandrian school of thought : —
1. Thus, it is Alexandrian in its quotations, which are (1) from
the Septuagint version, and (2) agree mainly with the Alexan
drian manuscript of that version, and (3) are introduced by for
mulae prevalent in the Alexandrian school (see supra iv. § 3).
2. It is Alexandrian in its unusual expressions. Many of these
(e.g. TToXvpeptas i. 1, dnavyaa'pa i. 2, viroo-rao-LS 1. 3, Sepdncov
hi. 5, tokos peravoias xii. 17, /3e/3<uWts vi. 16, eK/3ao-ir xiii. 7,
&a), are common to this Epistle with the Alexandrian Book
of Wisdom. So great indeed is the affinity between these books
in their sonorous style, their use of compound terms, their rare
phrases, and their accumulation of epithets, that they are men
tioned in juxtaposition by Irenaeus (Euseb. H. E. v. 26), and
nearly so in the Muratorian Canon. The writers of both had
evidently studied Philo, and it has even been supposed by some
that Philo, and by others that the writer of this Epistle, also
wrote the Book of Wisdom. That this view is quite untenable

xliv INTRODUCTION.
I have shewn in the Introduction to the Book of Wisdom in
that volume of the Speaker's Commentary which contains the
Apocrypha. The two writers have a few words in common, but
the structure of their sentences, and the general bearing of their
thoughts, are widely different.
3. It is Alexandrian in its method of dealing xoith Scripture.
In the important section about Melchisedek the whole structure
of the argument is built on two passing and isolated allusions to
Melchisedek, of which the second was written nine hundred years
after the death of the Priest-king. They are the only allusions
to him in the Jewish literature of more than 1500 years. Yet
upon these two brief allusions — partly by the method of allegory,
partly by the method of bringing different passages together
(iii. 11; iv. 8, 9), partly by the significance attached to names
(vii. 2), partly by the extreme emphasis attributed to single words
(viii. 13), partly by pressing the silence of Scripture as though it
were pregnant with latent meanings (i. 5; ii. 16; vii. 3) — the
writer builds up a theological system of unequalled grandeur.
But this whole method of treatment is essentially Rabbinic and
Alexandrian. That it was, however, derived by the writer from
his training in the methods of Alexandrian and not of Rabbinic
exegesis arises from the fact that he is ignorant of Hebrew, and
that the typical resemblance of Melchisedek to the Logos or
Word of God had already excited the attention of Philo, who
speaks of the Logos as "shadowed forth by Melchisedek" and as
"the great High Priest" (Leg. Alleg. in. 25, 26 ; De Somn. I. 38) \
4. It is Alexandrian in its fundamental conception of the
antithesis between the world of fleeting phenomena and the world
of Eternal Realities, between the copies and the Ideas, between
the shadows and the substance, between the visible material
world and the world of Divine Prae-existent Archetypes. The
school of Philo had learnt from the school of Plato that "earth
Is but the shadow of heaven, and things therein
Each to the other like more than on earth is thought."
1 Philo is the undoubted source, if not the inventor, of the alle
gorising method, 'E| oB oTptai Kal 7ras 6 aWrjyopucds ttjs ypaipys iv tj
inKkqolq \byos iax*v apxv" dcpvijvai., Photius, Cod. 105.

INTRODUCTION. xiv
Hence (as I have said) the writer seizes on the passage, "See that
thou make all things Kara rhv rimav roe beixSivra o-oi iv to
opet" (viii. 5, comp. vnoSeiypara ix. 23). To him the contrast
between the Old and New Covenants turns on the fundamental
antithesis between the Shadow and the Reality. Levitism
was the shadow, Christianity is not a shadow but a substantial
image; the absolute and final reahty — to which Christianity
is so much nearer an approximation, of which Christianity is so
much closer a copy — is in the world to come. The Mosaic
system, as concentrated in its Tabernacle, Priesthood, and
Sacrifices, is only tvitos (viii. 5); otckz (x. 1), irapafio\fi (ix. 9);
avrhnma. (ix. 24) ; whereas Christianity is by comparison, and by
virtue of its closer participation in the Idea, " the type," " the
perfect," "the genuine" (viii. 2), av-nj rj elxdv (x. 1). The visible
world (xi. 3) is "this creation" (ix. 11) ; it is " made with hands"
(ix. 11) ; it is capable of being touched and grasped (xii. 18) ; it
is but a quivering, unstable, transient semblance (xii. 27) : but
the invisible world is supersensuous, immaterial, immoveable,
eternal. It is the world of "Heavenly things" (ix. 23), the
archetypal world, the true "House of God" (x. 21), "the genuine
Tabernacle" (viii. 2), "the City which hath the foundations"
(xi. 10), the true "fatherland" (xi. 14), "the heavenly Jerusalem"
(xii. 22), "the kingdom unshaken" and that "cannot be shaken"
(xii. 27, 28). And this invisible world is the world of the heirs
of the Gospel. It is so now, and it will be so yet more fully.
In the True Temple of Christianity the Visible and the In
visible melt into each other. The salvation is now subjec
tively enjoyed, it will hereafter be objectively realised (vi. 4, 5 ;
xii. 28).
5. But the Alexandrianism of the Epistle appears most
clearly in the constant parallels which it furnishes to the writings
of Philo. We have already called attention to some of these,
and they will be frequently referred to in the notes. Even in
the general structure and style of the Epistle there are not only
a multitude of phrases and expressions which are common to
the writer with Philo, but we notice in both the same perpetual
interweaving of argument with exhortation; the same methods
WRRRKWS e

xlvi INTRODUCTION.
of referring to- and dealing with the Old Testament; the same ex
clusive prominence of the Hebrew people ; the same sternness of
tone in isolated passages ; and the same general turns of phrase
ology (see Bleek's notes on i. 6 ; ii. 2 ; v. 11 ; vi. 1, &c). If we find
in Heb. ii. 6, "someone somewhere testified" and in iv. 4, "He
hath spoken somewhere thus," we find the very same phrases in
Philo (De Plant. § 21 ; De Ebriet. § 14, &c). If we find in Heb.
vii. 8, "being testified of that he liveth," we find also in Philo,
Leg. Alleg. iii. 81, Macrfjs paprvpovpevos on earl jtiotoj oXio to
o'U<$ (comp. Heb. hi. 2). If in Heb. xiii. 5 we have the modified
quotation, oi pij o-e avio ovff ov p-q ere iy<aTa\ina>, we find it in the
very same form in Philo (De Confus. Lingu. § 33).
We may here collect a few passages of marked resemblance.
i. Heb. i. 3, "who being the effluence (diravyao-pa) of His
glory..." Philo (De Opif. Mundi, § 51), was av6pairos...Tijs panaplas
<f>vo-etas eKpayelov tj cvnoairacrpa tj diravyao-pa yeyovcos.
ii. Heb. i. 3, "the stamp (xapaKrfjp) of His substance."
Philo (Quod det. pot. § 23) speaks of the spirit of man as "a
type and stamp of the Divine power," and (De Plant. § 5) of the
soul, as "impressed by the seal of God, qs 6 xaPaKTW io-nv
6 alStos Xoyor, the everlasting Word."
in. Heb. i. 6, "the First-begotten."
Philo (De Agricult. § 12) speaks of the Word as "the firstborn
Son," and (De Confus. Lingu. § 14) as "an eldest Son."
iv. Heb. i. 2, "By whom also He made the worlds"
(alavas). Philo (De Migr. Abraham, § 1), opyavov eupijo-eis \6yov 6eov 6Y
ov (o Koo-pos) KaTeo-Kevdo-dr].
v. Heb. xi. 3, "that the worlds (alavas) were made by the
utterance of God."
Philo (De Sacrif. Abel, § 18), d debs Xe'yui/ apa eVoi'ei.
vi. Heb. i. 3, "And bearing (<j>ipa>v) all things by the
utterance of His power."
Philo (Quis rer. div. haer. § 7), d ra pkv ovra cf>epav.

INTRODUCTION. xlvii
vii. Heb. iii. 3, "in proportion as he that buildeth the house
hath more honour than the house."
Philo (De Plant. § 16), oo-o> yap d KTt]o-apevos...Tov KTijparas
apeivav Kai to TrtiroirjKos tov yeyovoros.
viii. Heb. iv. 12, 13, "For living is the Word of God and
efficient, and more cutting than any two-edged sword, and pierc
ing to the division both of soul and spirit, both of joints and
marrow." Philo (Quis rer. div. haer. § 28), commenting on Abraham's
"dividing the sacrifices in the midst," says that " God did thus
with His Word, which is the cutter of all things (i-<j> ropel
t&v o-vpndvrav avrov Xdyo>), which, whetted to its keenest edge,
never ceases to divide all perceptible things, but when it pierces
through to the atomistic and so-called indivisible things, again
this cutter begins to divide from these the things that can
be contemplated in speech into unspeakable and incompre
hensible portions" ; and farther on he adds that the soul is
"threefold," and that "each of the parts is cut asunder," and
that the Word divides to SXoyov Kal to \oyiKov. Elsewhere
(De Cherub. § 9) he compares the Word to the fiery sword.
Philo is applying the metaphors philosophically, not religiously,
but it is impossible to suppose that the resemblance between the
passages is merely accidental.
ix. Heb. iv. 12, "and is a discerner of the thoughts and
intents of the heart."
Philo (De Leg. Alleg. in. 59), "And the Divine Word is most
keen-sighted (o^vSepKeo-raTos), so as to be capable of inspecting ah
things." x. Heb. vi. 5, "tasting that the utterance of God is
excellent." Philo (De Profug. § 25), "The souls, tasting (the utterance of
God) as a Divine word (Xdyos), a heavenly nurture." (Comp. De
Leg. Alleg. in. 60.)
xi. Heb. iii. 6, "whose house are we."
Philo (De Somn. I. 23), "Strive, oh soul, to become a house of
God."

xlviii INTRODUCTION.
xii. Heb. vi. 13, "since He could not swear by any greater
He sware by Himself'1
Philo (De Leg. Alleg. m. 72), "Thou sees* that God swear-
eth not by another, for nothing is better than Him, but by Him
self, who is best of all"
xiii. Heb. vii 27, "who hath not need, daily, like those
High Priests..."
Philo (De Spec Legg. § 23), d dpxfp^vs—fvxds re Kal Owrias
Tf\av Kaff iKdo-TTjv •j/iepav.
xiv. Heb. ix. 7, "once in the year only the High Priest
enters." Philo (Leg. ad Cai. § 39), "into which once in the year the
great Priest enters."
xv. We might add many similar references ; e.g. to Abel's
blood (xii. 24) ; Noah's righteousness (xi. 7) ; Abraham's obedi
ence, in going he knew not whither (xi. 8N ; the faithfulness of
Moses (hi. 2, 5) ; milk and solid food (v. 12 — 14) ; the fact that
sacrifices are meant to call sin to remembrance (x. 3) (De.Yit.
Mos. m. 10, ou Xi'o-u> dpapTTjparaiv dXX' uird/xwjow ipyd£ovrai [ot
do-e^eis-1 comp. De Victim. § 7) ; the stress laid on the word
"To-day" (iii. 7—15). But it will be sufficient to add a few
passages in which Philo speaks of the Logos as High Priest.
xvi. Heb. iv. 14, " Having then a great High Priest..."
Philo (De Somn. i. 3S), 6 pev 8rj piyas apxtepcvs k.t.\. &c.
xvii. Heb. iv. 15, "without sin," vii. 26, "holy, harmless,
undented." Philo (De Profug. § 20), "For we say that the High Priest is
not a man but the Divine Word, with no participation in
(apJroxov) any sin, whether voluntary or involuntary." Id. § 21,
" It is His nature to be wholly unconnected (mapaScieros) with all
sin" xviii. Heb. iv. 15, "able to be touched with a feeling of our
infirmities.'' Philo (De Profug. § 18), "not inexorable (dsrapaiVijrw') is the
Divine, but gentle through the mildness of its nature."

INTRODUCTION. xlix
xix. Heb. vii. 25, "living to make intercession for them."
Philo (De Migr. Abraham, § 21), "But these things He is
accustomed to grant, Unjn euvrou Xdyov ovk diroo-rpa(pels."
xx. Heb. v. 10, "After the order of Melchisedek."
Philo (De Leg. Alleg. in. 26), "For the Logos is a Priest," &c.
who, as he proceeds to say, brings righteousness and peace to
the soul, and has His type in Melchisedek "the Righteous King"
and the King of Salem, i.e. of Peace. See also De congr.
quaerend. erudit. grat. § 18.
xxi. Heb. vii. 3, "without father, without mother."
Philo (De Profug. § 20), "For we say that the High Priest is
not a man but the Divine word... wherefore I think that He is
sprung from incorruptible parents... from God as His Father, and
from Wisdom as His mother1."
For these and other passages see Siegfried, Philo von Alex
andria, 321 — 330, and Gfrorer, Philo und die Alex. Theosophie,
I. 163—248. But while these passages positively demonstrate the writer's
familiarity with Philo, his general theology and his method of
treating the Old Testament as a whole are totally unlike those of
the great Alexandrian theosophist.

CHAPTER VI.
THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE.
We now come to the question Quis? — who wrote the Epistle
to the Hebrews ?
In our Authorised Version and even in the Revised Version —
which does not however profess to have reconsidered the super
scriptions of the Epistles — we find the heading "The Epistle of
Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." Now the writer was un
doubtedly a Paulinist, i.e. he belongs to the same school of
1 In one plaoe (De ebr. § 14) Philo calls Sarah dpiirap, i.e. with no
recorded mother.

1 INTRODUCTION.
thought as St Paul. Besides the common phrases which form
part of the current coin of Christian theology he uses some
which are distinctively Pauhne. He had been deeply influenced
by the companionship of the Apostle and had adopted much of
his distinctive teaching. This is universally admitted. The
student who will compare ii. 10, vi. 10, x. 30, xii. 14, xiii. 1 — 6,
18, 20 with Rom. xi. 36; 1 Thess. i. 3; Rom. xii. 19, 18, 1—21 ;
2 Cor. iv. 2 ; Rom. xv. 33 respectively, and who will observe the
numerous other resemblances to which attention is called in the
following notes, will have sufficient proof of this. The writer
uses about fifty words which in the N. T. only occur in the
Epistles of St Paul or in his speeches as recorded by St Luke,
and in the last chapter the resemblances to St Paul are specially
numerous. On the other hand, after what we have already seen
of the differences of style (p. xxxvi), of method (pp. xxiv, xxxix), of
culture (pp. xh seqq.), of individuality (p. xxxvii), of theological
standpoint (pp. xxxix seqq.), and of specific terminology (pp. xii,
&c.) between the writer of this Epistle and St Paul, we shall be
compelled to admit not only that St Paul could not possibly have
been the actual writer of the Epistle — a fact which was patent
so far back as the days of Origen — but that it could not even
indirectly have been due to his authorship. The more we study
the similarities between this and the Pauhne Epistles, and
the more strongly we become convinced that the writers were
connected in faith and feeling, the more absolutely incompatible
(as Dean Afford has observed) does the notion of their personal
identity become. And this is exactly the conclusion to which
we are led by a review of the ancient evidence upon the subject.
The Early Western Church seems to have known that St Paul
did not write the Epistle. In the Eastern Church the obvious
and superficial points of resemblance gave currency to the
common belief in the Pauline authorship, but the deeper-lying
differences were sufficient to convince the greatest scholars (like
Clement and Origen) that (at the best) this could only be
admitted in a modified sense.
The Epistle was known at a very early period and is very
largely used and imitated by St Clement of Rome, in his letter

INtRuDuCtiON. Ii
to the Corinthians (aire. a.d. 96), and yet he nowhere mentions
the name of the author. He would hardly have used it so
extensively without claiming for his quotations the authority of
St Paul if he had not been aware that it was not the work of
the great Apostle.
In the Western Church no single writer of the first, second,
or even third century attributed it to St Paul. St Hippolytus
(t a.d. 235 ?) and St Irenaeus (f a.d. 202) are said to have
denied the Pauline authorship1, though Eusebius tells us that
Irenaeus (in a work which he had not seen, and which is not
extant) quoted from it and from the Wisdom of Solomon. The
Presbyter Gaius (possibly the same person as Hippolytus, as some
conjecture) did not number it among St Paul's Epistles (Euseb.
H. E. vi. 20). The Canon of Muratori (circ. a.d. 170) either
does not notice it, or only with a very damaging allusion under
the name of an "Epistle to the Alexandrians forged in the name
of Paul with reference to the heresy of Marcion." Yet Marcion
himself rejected it, and Novatian never refers to it, frequently as
he quotes Scripture and useful as it would have been to him.
Tertullian (f a.d. 240), representing perhaps the tradition of
the Church of North Africa, ascribes it to Barnabas. This
testimony to the non-Pauline authorship is all the weightier
because Tertulhan would have been only too eager to quote the
authority of St Paul in favour of his Montanism had he been
able to do so. St Cyprian (f A.D. 258) never alludes to it.
Victorinus of Pettau (f 303) ignores it. The first writer of the
Western Church who attributes it to St Paul (and probably for
no other reason than that he found it so ascribed in Greek
writers) is Hilary of Poictiers, who died late in the fourth cen
tury (f a.d. 368). St Ambrose indeed (t 397) and Philastrius
(circ. a.d. 387) follow the Greeks in ascribing it to St Paul,
though the latter evidently felt some hesitation about it. But it
is certain that for nearly four centuries the Western Church
refused in general to recognise the Pauline authorship, and this
was probably due to some tradition on the subject which had
come down to them from St Clement of Rome. If it had been
1 Stephen Gobar ap. Phot. Bibl. God. 232.

Iii INTRODUCTION.
written by the Apostle of the Gentiles, St Clement of Rome,
who was probably a friend and contemporary of St Paul, would
have certainly mentioned so precious a truth, at least orally, to
the Church of which he was a Bishop. If he said anything at
all upon the subject it can only have been that whoever was the
author St Paul was not.
Accordingly, even down to the seventh century we find traces
of hesitation as to the Pauline authorship in the Western
Church, though by that time a loose habit had sprung up of
quoting it as "the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews." This was
due to the example of St Jerome (f 420) and St Augustine
(t 430) \ These great men so far yielded to the stream of ir
responsible opinion — which by their time had begun to set in
from the East — that they ventured popularly to quote it as
St Paul's, although when they touch seriously upon the question
of the authorship they fully admit or imply the uncertainty
respecting it2. Their hesitation as to the Pauline authorship is
incidentally shewn by the frequency- with which they quote it
either without any name, or with the addition of some caution
ary phrase. That the Epistle is attributed to St Paul by later
authors and Councils is a circumstance entirely devoid of any
critical importance.
It was from the Eastern Church that the tendency to accept
the Epistle as St Paul's derived its chief strength. The Alex
andrian School naturally valued an Epistle which expressed
their own views, and was founded upon premisses with which
they were specially familiar. Apart from close criticism they
would be naturally led by phenomena which lay on the surface
to conjecture that it might be by St Paul ; and (as has frequently
happened) the hesitations of theological scholarship were swept
away by the strong current of popular tradition. But this tra-
1 Jer. Ep. 73. 4, "Epistola ad Hebraeos, quain omnes Graeci re-
cipiunt et nonnulli Latinorum. "
2 Jer. Comm. in Tit., " Si quis vult recipere earn Epistolam quae sub
nomine Pauli ad Hebraeos scripta est." Aug. De Civ. Dei, " quam
quidam Apostoli Pauli esse dicunt, qtiidam vero negant." In his
later writings he always uses circumlocutious to avoid attributing it
to St Paul. Westcott On the Canon, p. 455.

INTRODUCTION. Uii
dition cannot be traced farther back than an unsupported guess
of the Presbyter Pantaenus about the middle of the Second
Century. Clemens of Alexandria (in a lost work, quoted by
Eusebius) says that the "blessed Presbyter" had endeavoured to
account for the absence of St Paul's name (which is found in every
one of his genuine Epistles) by two reasons. St Paul, he said,
had suppressed it "out of modesty" (Sid peTpiorqTa) both because
the Lord was the true Apostle to the Hebrews (Heb. iii. 1), and
because he was writing to the Hebrews "out of superabundance"
(e'x nepiovcrias), being himself the Apostle to the Gentiles. Neither
reason will stand a moment's consideration : they are desperate
expedients to explain away an insuperable difficulty. For if St
Paul had written "to the Hebrews" at all, there is no single
writer who would have been less likely to write anonymously.
Calvin rightly says "Ego ut Paulum agnoscam auctorem adduci
nequeo. Nam qui dicunt nomen fuisse de industria suppressum
quod odiosum esset Judaeis nihil afferunt. Cur enim nientionem
fecisset Timothei? &c." It never occurred to any Apostle to
consider that his title was an arrogant one, and the so-called
"Apostolic Compact" no more prevented St Paul from addressing
Jews than it prevented St Peter from addressing Gentiles. The
fact that Eusebius quotes this allusion to Pantaenus as the
earliest reference to the subject which he could find, shews that
in spite of the obvious inference from x. 34 (and especially from
the wrong reading "my bonds") there was no tradition of import
ance on the subject even in the Eastern Church during the first
two centuries. Clemens of Alexandria is himself (f a.d. 220)
equally unsuccessful in his attempts to maintain even a modi
fied view of the Pauline authorship (ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 14).
He conjectures that the Epistle was written in Hebrew, and had
been translated by St Luke; and he tries to account for its
anonymity by a most uncritical and untenable surmise. St
Paul he says did not wish to divert the attention of the Jews
from his arguments, since he knew that they regarded him with
prejudice and suspicion ! This singular notion — that St Paul
wished to entrap the attention of his readers unawares before
reveahng his identity — has been idly repeated by writer after

liv INTRODUCTION.
writer down to the present day. But no one can read the
Epistle with care without seeing that the writer was obviously
known to his readers, and intended himself to be known by them.
No Apostolic Church would have paid any attention to an anony
mous and unauthenticated letter. The letters were necessarily
brought to them by accredited messengers; and if this letter
had been written by St Paul to any Hebrew community the
fact would have been known to them in the first halfhour after
the messenger's arrival.
Origen again (ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 25) in a popular way con
stantly quotes the Epistle as St Paul's ; but when he seriously
entered on the question of the authorship, in a passage quoted
by Eusebius from the beginning of his lost Homilies on the
Epistle, he admits that the style is much more polished than
that of St Paul (d xaPaKTVP "7r Xe|eo>r...ov'K e^ei to iv Xdya> I8ia>-
tikov tov Aitoo-ToKov), and while he says that the Pauline character
of the thoughts furnishes some ground for the tradition that St
Paul wrote it, he adds that the "history" which had come down
about it was that it was "written" by Clement of Rome, or by
Luke; but, he says, "who actually wrote the Epistle God only
knows." Origen's authority has repeatedly been quoted as
though it were decisively given in favour of the Pauline author
ship of the Epistle ! But if any one will examine the passage
above referred to he will see that it represents a conflict between
historical testimony and scholarlike criticism on one side, and
loose local tradition on the other. Origen was glad to regard
the Epistle as being in some sense St Paul's, and did not like to
differ decidedly from Pantaenus, Clemens, and the general popular
view prevalent in his own Church ; but he decidedly intimates
that in its present form St Paul did not write the Epistle, and
that it can only be regarded as belonging to "the school of Paul."
Lastly, Eusebius of Caesarea shews the same wavering hesi
tation. He so far defers to indolent and biassed custom as con
stantly to quote the Epistle as St Paul's, but in one passage he
seems to approve of the opinion that it had been translated from
Hebrew, and in another he says that it would not be just to
ignore that "some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews.

INTRODUCTION. Iv
saying that it is opposed by the Church of Rome as not being by
St Paul."
Thus we see that loose conjecture, founded on a few superficial
phenomena, attributed the Epistle to St Paul ; but ah genuine
and independent criticism saw that he could not have written it.
It is hardly worth while to follow the stream of testimony into
ages in which independent criticism was dead ; but in the six
teenth century with the revival of scholarship the popular tra
dition once more began to be set aside. Cardinal Cajetan,
Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, and even Estius were all
more or less unfavourable to the direct Pauhne authorship. In
modern times, in spite of the intensely conservative character
of Anglican theology, there are very few critics of any name even
in the English Church, and still fewer among German theologians,
who any longer maintain, even in a modified sense, that it was
written by St Paul.
Who then was the writer?
From the Epistle itself we can gather with a probability which
falls but little short of certainty the following facts (some of
which it will be observed tell directly against the identity of the
writer with St Paul).
1. The writer was a Jew, for he writes solely as a Jew, and as
though the Heathen were non-existent.
2. He was a Hellenist, for he quotes from the LXX without
any reference to the original Hebrew, and even when it differs
from the Hebrew (i. 6, x. 5).
3. He was familiar with the writings of Philo, and had been
deeply influenced by Alexandrian thought.
4. He was " an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures."
5. He was a friend of Timotheus.
6. He was known to his readers, and addresses them in a
tone of authority.
7. He was not an Apostle, but classes himself with those who
had been taught by the Apostles (ii. 3) \
1 To talk of avaKolvuais and <ruy<card/3affis here, as is done by the
maintainers of the Paulino authorship, is a mere misuse of theological
technicalities.

lvi INTRODUCTION.
8. He was acquainted with the thoughts of St Paul, and had
read the Epistle to the Romans.
9. Yet his tone while accordant with that of St Paul is
entirely independent of it.
10. He wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem.
11. His references to the Tabernacle rather than to the
Temple seem to make it improbable that he had ever been at
Jerusalem. Further than this it is at least a fair assumption that any
friend and scholar of St Paul who was a man of sufficient learn
ing and originality to have written such an Epistle as this, would
be somewhere alluded to in that large section of the New Testa
ment which is occupied by the writings and the biography of St
Paul. Accordingly there is scarcely one of the companions of St
Paul who has not been suggested by some critic as a possible
or probable author of this Epistle. Yet of these all but one
are directly excluded by one or more of the above indications.
Aquila could not have written it, for he seems to have been of
less prominence even than his wife Priscilla (Acts xviii. 18;
2 Tim. iv. 19). Titus was a Gentile. Silas was a Hebraist of
Jerusalem. Barnabas (to whom Tertullian attributes it in De
Pudic. 20) was a Levite, and no Levite could have gone so near
the verge of apparent inaccuracy in matters relating to the
Temple as this writer does in vii. 27; ix. 3, 4; x. 11. The other
Epistle attributed to Barnabas (though spurious) is incomparably
inferior to the Epistle to the Hebrews. The genuine Epistle of
St Clement of Rome shews that he could not have written the
Epistle to the Hebrews, which indeed he largely quotes on a level
with Scripture. The Gospel of St Mark is wholly unlike this
Epistle in style. The style of St Luke does indeed resemble in
many expressions the style of this writer, as Clement of Alex
andria observes (Aov Kav...avTn,v pcdepprjvevo-avTa...odev tov avrbv
Xpara eiplo-KecrOai Kara ttjv ipprjvciav Tavrns re rr)s eVio-roXi/s Kal
to>v npdt-eav) ; but the differences of style are still more remark
able ; the Epistle contains passages (such as vi. 4 — 8 ; x. 26 — 29,
&c.) which do not seem to resemble the tender and conciliatory

INTRODUCTION. lvii
tone of mind of the Evangelist ; and apart from this St Luke
seems to have been a Gentile Christian (Col. iv. 10 — 14), and not
improbably a Proselyte of Antioch. The resemblances between
the two writers consist only in verbal and idiomatic phrases1,
and are amply accounted for by their probable familiarity with
each other and with St Paul. But the idiosyncrasy is different,
and St Luke has nothing of the stately balance or rhetorical
amplitude of this Epistle. Timothy is excluded by xiii. 23. No
one else is left but that friend and convert to whom by a flash of
most happy insight Luther attributed the authorship of the
Epistle — Apollos.
Apollos meets every one of the necessary requirements. (1)
He was a Jew. (2) He was a Hellenist. (3) He was an Alex
andrian. (4) He was famed for his eloquence and his powerful
method of applying Scripture. (5) He was a friend of Timotheus.
(6) He had acquired considerable authority in various Churches.
(7) He had been taught by an Apostle. (8) He was of the
school of St Paul ; yet (9) he adopted an independent line of his
own (1 Cor. hi. 6). (10) We have no trace that he was ever at
Jerusalem ; and yet, we may add to the above considerations, that
his style of argument — like that of the writer of this Epistle —
was specially effective as addressed to Jewish hearers. The
writer's boldness of tone (Acts xviii. 26) and his modest self-
suppression (1 Cor. xvi. 12) also point to Apollos. The various
allusions to Apollos are found in Acts xviii. 24 — 28; 1 Cor. iii.
4 — 6, xvi. 12; Tit. iii. 13; and in every single particular they
agree with such remarkable cogency in indicating to us a Christian
whose powers, whose training, whose character, and whose entire
circumstances would have marked him out as a man likely to
have written such a treatise as the one before us, that we may
safely arrive at the conclusion either that Apollos wrote the
Epistle or that it is the work of some author who is to us entirely
unknown.

1 Such as ei/Xa/9e(<r(?iu, eis to iravreXis, rryoifievos, dpxvy^i p-aprvpoi-
pevos, wa.po£vppios, /leroxos. They are of no decisive importance, and
St Luke is more of a Paulinist than the writer.

lviii INTRODUCTION.
No hypothesis which we can adopt is wholly free from difficulty,
and it is extremely unlikely that we shall ever arrive at a nearer
solution of the problem than this. But while the authorship of
Apollos is not open to a single conclusive, or even forcible, ob
jection, it is surely most improbable that a man evidently so well
known to his readers as the writer of this letter, a man moving
in the circle of St Paul's friends, a man imbued with St Paul's
principles yet magnificently original and independent — a man so
eloquent in style and so forcible in reasoning — should have left
neither name, nor trace of himself, in the New Testament writings
except one anonymous Epistle which has exercised a memorable
influence over the thoughts and theology of all Christians from
age to age.

CHAPTER VII.
CANONICITY.
"Das ist ein starke, machtige, und h6he Epistel." Luther.
The Canonicity of the Epistle — that is its right to be placed in
the Canon of Holy Scripture — rests on the fact that it has been
accepted both by the Eastern and Western Churches. It was
known from the earhest ages ; was probably alluded to by Justin
Martyr (f c. 163); was largely used by St Clement of Rome;
is quoted on the same footing as the rest of Scripture by
many of the Fathers; and both in the earlier centuries and at
the Reformation has been accepted as authoritative and inspired
even by those who had been led to the conclusion that the current
opinion of the Church after the third century had erred in assign
ing it to the authorship of St Paul. Its right to be accepted
as part of the Canon, and not merely to possess the deutero-
Canonical and inferior authority which Luther assigned to it, is
all the more clearly established because it triumphed over the
objections which some felt towards it. Those objections arose
partly from the sterner passages (especially vi. 4 — 6), which were

INTRODUCTION. lix
misinterpreted as favouring the merciless refusal of the Montanists
and Novatians to readmit the lapsed into Church privileges;
and partly from inabihty to understand the phrase rm 7roi^o-ai/r<
avrov in iii. 2. But in spite of these needless difficulties which
are mentioned by Philastrius late in the fourth century, the
Epistle has been justly recognised as a part of sacred Scripture
— "marching forth," as Delitzsch says, "in lonely royal and
sacred dignity, like the great Melchisedek, and like him without
lineage — dyej/eaXdy?;ror." Even those who hke Erasmus and
Calvin were unable to admit its Pauline authorship, were still
agreed in " embracing it, without controversy, among the Apo
stolical Epistles." They said with St Jerome, "Nihil interesse
cujus sit, dum ecclesiastici viri sit, et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione
celebretur." It is no small blessing to the Church that in this
Epistle we have preserved to us the thoughts of a deep thinker
who while he belonged to the school of St Paul expresses the
views of that school with an independent force, eloquence, and
insight far surpassing that of every Christian treatise which
is not included in the Sacred Canon.

TTP05 EBPAI0Y2

1 1Iio\vfiepw<; Kal TroXvrpo'rrw'i -jraXai 6 #eo?
XaXr/cra^ toi? irarpacnv iv Tot? 7rpocpijrai<! ae7r' io'varov
twv Tjfiepwv tovtcdv iXdXrjaev r)fuv iv vioj, ov e0t)icev
K\rjpov6/j,ov trdvTcov, oV ov Kal iirolrjcrev toi)? aiwvas,
b? a>v airavyaapa T17? horn's ical ^apaKTrjp t^? v7ro-
o~Ta<rea><> avrov <pepa>v re to rravra Ttu prffiart, t^? Svvd-
/teo>? avrov, Ka.Bapio-p.hv rwv dfiapriojv iroi7)o-dp,evo<; eKa-
durev iv Be^ia rfj<; p,eyaXa>o-vvv<; iv vtyriXols, 4to<toi5t&>
KpeiTToav yev6p,evo<; twv dyyiXwv oo~q> Siaqbopwrepov trap
avrov<i K6K\rjpov6p.r]Kev ovop,a. ^rivi yap etirev irore
twv ayyeXoov, Tio? p.ov et ai, iyoo ar/p,epov yeyewqKa
ere; Kal iraXiv, E7Q) eaofiai avrq> et? irarepa Kal avro<s
earai p,oi et? vlov; 6'6rav ,Se rrdXiv elo-aydyy tov vpw-
totokov et? tvv oIkov/j,6vvv, Xeyei, Kat irpoaKwrjaa-
rwaav avrS irdvTes dyyeXoi, 6eov. '/cat 7roo? p,ev toi)?
dyyiXov; Xeyei, 'O ttocojv tovs dyyeXovs avrov irvevp,aTa
Kal Tail? Xetrovpyov1} avrov 7rupo? qbXoya, 87tdo? Se tov
vlov, 'O Opovos aov 6 0eo? et? tov al&va tov aldovoi,
Kal 97 pdfiSos t^? evOvTVTO? pafiBos T7/? /3a<rt\eta? aov.
"rfyaTrrjcrai} BiKatoavvnv Kal ifiiarjaa? dvop,lav. Bid
tovto e^ptaev ae, 6 ^eo?, 6 0eo? aov eXaiov dyaXXidaeas
mr.Tmrcws A

2 j TTPOI EBPAIOYZ 1.9
— TT~ 
rrapa rov<i p.eTo^ovv aov. Kai, Zv Kar ap^a? Kvpie
rfjv yfjv iBep-eXiwaai, Kal epya rwv -)(eipwv aov elalv
01 ovpavoi' "avTot airoXovvrai, ai) Be Siapivei?- Kal
travret to? ifidriov -iraXaiwdtfaovrai, 12/cat aSa-et irepijSo-
Xaiov eXt£et? avrovs Kal aXXayqaovrai, ai) Be 6 avrb<s
el Kal rd eri\ aov ovk eKXetyovaiv. 1S7T/30? riva Be
r&v dyyeXeov eipvKev rrore, K.d8ov ix Se^iwv p,ov eiw?
dv Bolt Toil's i%Bpov<; aov virorroBiov rwv rroBwv aov ;
14oi)%t rrdvTe<; elalv XeirovpyiKa rrvevp.ara et? Biaxoviav
diroareXX6p.eva Bid toi)? p,eXXovra<; KXnpovop,elv aa>-
rr/piav ;
2 1Aid tovto Bei rrepiaaoripooi; irpoak-^eiv r)fhd\ toi?
aKOvaBeiaiv, fir/irore rrapapvwp.ev, 2et yap 6 Si dy-
yeXcov XaXr)Beh X070? iyevero y3e/8ato?, Kal trdaa irapd-
J3aan Kai rrapaKor) eXafiev evBiKov luaBarroBoaiav,
37rc3? rjp.el'i iK(f>ev^6p,eBa rr]XiKavT7]<; dpeXrjaavrei
awrvpia<s ; r/ris dp^fjv Xafiovaa XaXeia&ai Bid tov
Kvpiov, vrrb rwv aKovadvrwv et? 97/40? ifiefiaiwBr], iavv-
ewip.apTvpovvTo'i rov Beov awpeiois re Kal ripaaiv Kal
•iroiKiXais Bvvdp,eaiv Kal irvevp.aro'i dyiov p,epiap.oi<;
Kara rrjv avrov BeXrjaiv.
6Oi5 yap dyyeXoi<; vwera^ev rr)v oiKovpivvv rr)v
fieXXovaav, rrepl 77? XaXovfiev. ASiep.aprvparo Se nrov
Tt? Xeyoov, Tt iartv avSpwiros on p.i/Mvr)aKV avrov ; fj
vio? avBpwirov 'or 1 iiriaKeirrr) avrov ; 7 ¦rfXarrcoaa's avrov
fipaxp ri Trap dyyeXovs, So^v Kal Tip,fj iareqbdvwaas
avrov, [kuI KarkaTnaa% avrov irrl rd epya twv %eipwv
aov], siravra VTrera^a<; viroKarw r&v ttoBwv avrov.
ev r& yap vrrordljai avrw rd rrdvra ovBev dcjirjxev avrw
awTToraKTOv' vvv Be oirrw opwfxev avrw rd rrdvra vtto-
rerayfieva. 9rov Be fSpayi ti Trap' dyyeXov<; qXar-

III. S TTPOI EBPAIOYI 3
rmp,evov ¦ fSXerropev 'Ijjo-oup Bid ro rrdBrj^a rov Bavarov
So^rj Kal Tip,fj iare<f>av(op.ivov, oVo)? %dpiri Beov inrep
iravro's yevarjrai oavarov. errperrev yap avrw, 01 ov ra
rravra Kal Bi ov rd rravra, rroXXov<; utoi)? et? Sofjav
ayayovra tov dp%r]ydv rfji awrr)pla<; avrwv Bid TraBrj-
fidrwv reXeiwaai. "o re yap dyid^av Kal 01 dyia-
£6p,evoi il; eVo? TraWe?* St' rjv airlav ovk irraia'^vverai
dSeX<f>ov<; avroii<; KaXelv, 12Xe7&)v, 'A7ra77eXc5 to 6vop,d
aov tok dBeX<poi<; p,ov, iv p.eaa iKKXi)aia<; iip,vriaw ae.
l3Kal rrdXiv, '£70) eaop,ai ireiroi8w<; eV avrw. Kal
rrdXiv, 'ISou iyw Kal rd rraiSia a /tot eSoiKev 6 Beos.
14eVet ovv rd rraiSia KeKoivwvr/Kev a'ip,aro<i Kal aapK0<;,
Kal avroi rraparrXrjaiw^ p^erea-^ev twi/ avrwv, "va Sid rod
Bavarov Karapyr/ar) rov rd Kpdro<; e^ovra rov Bavarov,
tovt eariv tov SidfioXov, 16«at drraXXd^rj roirovi
oaoi (poftw Bavarov Sid rravrds rov tyjv evo%oi r^aav
SovXias. lsov yap Srfrrov dyyiXwv imXa^dverai, dXXd
aireppMTO<s 'AfSpadp. irriXap,/3dverai. "'60ev w<f>eiXev
Kara rravra Tot? aSeX^ot? 6p,oiw8rjvai, "va iXerjp,wv
yivrjrai Kal rriarbs ap^tepei)? Ta 7T/30? tov Beov, et? ro
IXdaKea&ai rdi dp,aprla<i rov Xaov. 18eV a> yap rre-
irovBev avTO? rreipaadei<i, Svvarai Tot? rreipa^ofiivoii
f3o7)8rjaai. '3 v'08ev, dSeX(f>oi dyioi, KXrjaew1; errovpaviov
pero-voi, Karavoijaare tov drroaroXov Kal dp%iepea rfj<;
6fioXoyia<s r)p,wv 'Iqaovv, 'rriarov ovra tg3 rroitfaavri
avrov, <u? Kal Moji/0-77? iv '6Xw tcS oXkw avrov. srrXeiovo<i
yap ovto<; 86£r}$ rrapd Nlwvarjv rjjjiwrai Kad* oaov
•jrXetova rip.rjv ej(ei rov oXkov 6 KaraaKevdaa<; avrov.
47ra? ydp ot/co? KaraaKevd^erai vrro tm/o?, o Se rravra
xaraaKevdaa<} 8eo<;. 5«at M.wvar}s p.ev maroi iv oXa
A2

4 TTPOI EBPAIOYI III. 5
tw o'ikw avrov to? Bepdrrwv et? p,aprvpiov rwv XaXr)-
6rjaop.evwv, 6X/3tffTO? Se to? vioi eVt tov oIkov avrov,
ov 61ko<; iafiev vp,ei<!, idv rrjv rrappr/aiav Kal to Kaxr)(r\p.a
tt;? e'X7rt'So? [le^pi riXov? fiefiaiav Karda^wpev.
'Atd, KaBws Xeyei to rrvevpa to dyiov, %r)p.epov idv
rr}<i (pwvfjs avrov aKoiar)Te, 8/t?) aKXripvvrjTe to? KapBlas
vpwv to? iv tw rraparriKpaapw Kara rrpi r)pepav rov
rreipaapnv iv rrj ipijp,w, eov irreipaaav ol rrarepes
vpwv iv SoKip,aala Kal elSov rd epya pov reaaepaKovra
6T77. oto rrpoawxpiaa rfj yevea ravrrj Kai eirrov, Aet
7rXtwaWat rrj KapBia' avrol Be ovk eyvwaav Ta? 0S01!?
pov, "to? wpoaa iv ry 00777 p,ov, Et elaeXevaovrai et?
rr)v Kardrravaiv /tot/.
12BXe7reTe, dSeXtpoi, pvnirore earai ev rivi vpwv
KapSia rrovqpd diriaria^ iv tco drroarrjvai dirb Beov
ftoi/TO?, 18aXXa rrapaKaXeire eavroii? Ka& eKaarrjv
rjpepav, a%pt? ov to ar)pepov KaXeirai, "va p.r) aKXtjpvvBfj
tii if; vp,wv arrdrrj T17? dp,apria<;' uperoj(oi ydp tov
Xpiarov yeyovapev, eavrrep rr)v dp^f/v t^? i/Troo-TaeretB?
pe^pi reXov<s fieftaiav Karda^wpev. 15eV tw XeyeaBai,
"Zr/pepov idv rrj<; (jywvfjt; avrov aKOvaiyre, p,r) aKXr}pvvr)re
ra<: Kapoias vpwv to? ev rm rraparriKpaapw' T«/e? 7ap
aKOvaavre<; rraperriKpavav ; aXX' ov rrdvre<; 01 i%eX66vre<i
if; Aiyvrrrov Bid Mwvaeco? ; "riaiv Se rrpoadyBiaev
reaaepaKovra err] ; ov^l toi? dpaprr/aaaiv ; wv rd
KwXa erreaev ev rrj ipr/pw. isrlaiv Se wpoaev p\rj ela-
eXeiaeaBai et? rrjv Kardrravaiv avrov ei p,r) Tot?
drrei&rjaaaiv ; ™ Kal fiXerropev on ovk rjBvvijBrjaav
elaeXBeiv Si drriariav.
4 i&o/3T}6wp,ev ovv prjirore KaraXeirrop.evT]'; irray-
yeXia<! elaeXBeiv et? rrjv Kardrravaiv avrov Boktj ti?

IV. 14 TTPOI EBPAIOYI 5
ef vpwv vareprjKevai. s«at ydp iapev evrjyyeXiapevoi
KaBarrep Kcucetvoi' dXX' ovk w<j>eX7)aev 6 Xo'70? T77? aKorj<s
eKeivovi prj avvKeKepaapevovt tj} rriarei roil aKovaaaiv.
eiaepyppeBa yap et? rrjv Kardrravaiv ol rriarevaavre's,
KaBwf eiprjKev, 'fl? to/tocra iv rfj 00777 pov, Et eto-eXei/-
aovrai et? ttjv Kardrravaiv /ton, Kairoi Ttof epywv arro
KaraftoXfj? Koap.ov yevqBevTwv. *etpr)Kev ydp rrov rrepl
rfjt; 6/886/1,77? oi/TO)?, Kat Karerravaev 6 Beb<; iv rfj r)pepa
rfi eflS6p,r] drrb rrdvrwv TtoV epywv avrov. 5«at iv
rovrw rraXiv, Et eiaeXevaovrai et? rrjv Kardrravaiv
pov. airrel ovv drroXeirrerai Tti/a? elaeXBeiv et? avrrfv,
Kal 01 rrporepov evayyeXiadevre? ovk elarjXBov Si
drrel&eiav, ,rrdXiv riva opi^ei r)p.epav, 'Zr/p.epov, iv
AavelS Xiywv perd roaovrov ypbvov, KaBw<s rrpoeiprjTai,
Zypepov idv tj;? (frwvrjs avrov aKovarjre, prj aKXrjpvvr/re
rd<s /ca/jSt'a? i//ttoj/. 8et ydp avrov<; 'Itjaovs Karerravaev, <
ovk dv rrepl aXXrjs iXaXet perd ravra tjpepa<i. 9apa'
drroXeirrerai aa/30ariapb<; tw Xaw rov Beov. w6 ydp
eiaeXBwv et? rrjv Kardrravaiv avrov Kal avrb<; Kare
rravaev drrb rwv epywv avrov, Sarrep drrb rwv IBiwv
6 Beov. 11Z*rrovSdawpev ovv elaeXBeiv et? iKeivrjv rrjv Kard
rravaiv, 'iva p,r) veV tw avrw Tt? vrroSelypari rrear} rrjv
drrei8eia<;. ia£<uV ydp b X070? tou Beov Kal ivepyrj?,
Kal Top.wTepos vrrep rrdaav pdyaipav Biaropov Kal
BiiKVOvpevo<; a%pi pepiapov ifrvyrji; Kal rrvevparov,
dppwv re Kal pveXwv, Kal /cptTt/co? ivdvp/qaewv Kal
ivvoiwv KapSiaf 13«at ovk eariv Kriai<; d<pavr)<; ivwrnov
avrov, rravra Be yvpvd Kal TerpayyXiapeva Tot? o(pdaX-
/tot? avrov, 7rpo? ov 77/111/ 6 X070?.
I4"E^oj/Te? ovv dpyiepea peyav BieXrjXvdora toi)?

6 TTPOI EBPAIOYI IV. 14
ovpavov?, Irjaovv rov vlov rov Beov, Kparwp,ev rrj<s
opaXoylas. I5ov yap elypp,ev dpyiepea pr) Swdp,evov
awrradfjaat Tat? dadevelai<; 77/tcoi/, rrerreipaapievov Se
Kara rravra Ka8" opoiorrjra ^ta/»t? a/ta/)Tia?. lerrpoaep-
ywp.e8a ovv p,erd rrapprjaiaf tc3 Bpbvw T77? yaptTO?,
iva Xafiwpev eXeo? /cat ydpiv evpwpev et? evKaipov
^orjdeiav. 0 1IIa? 7a/) ap^tepei)? e^ dvBpwrrwv Xapfiavopevos
vrrep avBpwrrwv KaBiararai rd 7rpo? toi/ #eoi>, ti/a
rrpoa(f>eprj Bwpd re Kal 8vaia<i vrrep dp,apriwv, 2perpio-
l rraBeiv Svvdp,evo<; Tot? dyvoovaiv Kal rrXavwpevois, irrel
J Kal avrb<; rreplKeirai dadeveiav, sKal Si avrrjv oobeiXei,
Ka8(b<; rrepl rov Xaov, o'vrwi Kal rrepl eavrov rrpoaitepeiv
¦ rrepl dpapriwv. *Kal ov% eavrw ris Xap,/3dvei rrjv
Tip.T)v, dXXd KaXoip,evo<; vrrd rov Beov, Kadwarrep Kal
r'Aapwv. Soi/Tto? Kal 6 Xpiarbs ov^ eavrov iSo^aaev
yevrjBrjvai dp-^iepea, aXX' 6 XaX-naas rrpb<s avrov, Tto?
p.ov el av, iyw aijpepov yeyivvr/Ka ae' 6/ea#aS? Kal iv
erepw Xeyei, Ii) tepei)? et? rov aiwva Kara rrjv rdfjiv
MeX%iae8eK. 7o? iv Tat? r]p,epai<s T77? aapKog avrov
Serjaei? tc Kal iKerr]pia(} rrpo<; rov Svvdp.evov awgeiv
avrov iK Bavarov p,erd Kpavyf}<; la%vpa<; Kal BaKpvwv
rrpoaeveyKa<; Kal eiaaKova8el<s arro T77? ei/XaySet'a?,
8Kairrep wv t/16?, ep,adev dip' wv erradev rr)v vrraKor]v,
Kal reXeiwBeU iyevero rrdaiv tois vrraKovovaiv avrw
atVto? awTTjpiav aiwviov, Mrrpoaayopev6el<; iirrb rov Beov
dp%iepev<; Kara rr)v rdfjiv MeX^iaeBeK.
nHepl ov ttoXi)? 77/tti/ 6 X070? Kal 8vaepp,r}vevT0$
Xeyeiv, irrel vwBpol yeyovare Tat? a«oat?. 12/cat ydp
0(peiXovre<; eivai SiSdaKaXoi Bid rov %povov, rraXiv
Xpeiav e^eTe rov SiSdaKeiv i)/ta? riva rd aroi-^ela

VI. 12 nPOI EBPAIOYI 7
ttJ? ap'yfjif rwv Xoyiwv rov Beov, Kal yeyovare ypelav
e^oi/Te? yd\aKTO<s, [«at] ov arepea<; rpo<pr}<;. nrrd<; yap >
6 p,ereywv ydXaKTos arreipo<; Xoyov SiKaioavvi)<;, vt]rrio<;
ydp iariv UTeXeieov Se iariv .77 areped rpo(f>q, tcoi/ Sta'
rrjv ei;iv rd aiaBijrrjpia yeyvpvaapeva i'ypvrwv wpo?
SiaKpiaiv KaXov re Kal KaKov.
6 ' Aid dtpevTe<; rov tj;? dpyrj*; rov Xpiarov Xoyov •
irrl rrjv reXeiortfTa (pepwpeBa, pvr) rrdXiv Bep,eXiov Kara-
flaXXopevoi peravolai drrb veKpwv epywv, Kal rriarew;
irrl Beov, 2 fiarrriapwv SiSayrj<s, irri8eaew<; re "yeipwv, ¦
dvaardaew^ re veKpwv, Kal Kpiparos aiwviov. 3Kal
tovto rrovfjaopev, idvrrep irrirperrig b 6eo<;. idSvvarov
ydp tov? arral; <pwria8evra<; yevaapivov; re tj;? Swped?
tj;? irrovpaviov koI p,eroyov<; yevr)6evTa<! rrvevp,aro<i
dyiov sKal KaXbv yevaap,evov<! Beov prjpa Svi/a/tet? Te .
pe\Xovro<s attoVo?, 6/eat rraparrea6vra<;, rrdXiv avaKaivi-
fetp et? pxrdvoiav, avaaravpovvra<i eai/Tot? rov vldv rov
Beov Kal rrapaSeiyp,ari^ovra<;. 7yfj ydp j; movaa rov '
irr avrfj<s ipyppevov 7roXXa/a? verbv Kal rmrovaa j3o-
Tavr\v evBerov e/cetVot? Si ov<s Kal yewpyeirai, peraXap-
ftdvei evXoyia<; drrb rov Beov' siK(j>epovaa Se aKavBas
Kal Tpt/3dXov? aS6/ct/to? Kal Kardpa<; e'771/?, j;? to reXo<;
et? Kavaiv. "Herrelapeda Be rrepl vpwv, dyarrrjroi, rd Kpeiaaova
Kal i'yppeva awTrjpla<;, et Kal ovtws XaXovpev. ov
ydp aSt/co? 6 Beb<; irriXaBeaBai rov epyov vpwv Kal
tt;? dydrrr)1; r)<s iveSelfjaaBe et? to ovopa avrov, Siaxo-
1/770-ai/Te? roi<; dyioK Kal BiaKovovvre<;. " imBvp.ovpev
Si eKaarov vp.wv rrjv avrr)v ivBeUvvaBai arrovSrjv Trpd?
rrjv rrXr)po$>opiav tt;? eXTTt'So? a%/M TeXot/?, iva p,r/'
vwBpol yevqaBe, pipvqral Be rwv Sid rriarew; Kal paKpo-

8 TTPOI EBPAIOYI VI. 12
6 v pias KXrjpovopovvTav Ta? irrar/yeXia<s. 13tc3 ydp
'Afipadp, irrayyeiXapevot 6 6eo<;, irrel Kar ovSevbf elj(ev
p,ei£ovo<; 6p,6aai, d&poaev KaB eavrov, "Xeytoi/, Et p/rjv
evXoywv evXoyr/aw ae Kal rrXijBvvwv rrX'qBvvw ae' 1SKal
o#Tto? pbaKpoBvp.rjaa<; irrerv^ev T77? irrayyeXia<;. ledvBpa>-
rroi yap Kara rov pet^ovos 6p,vvovaiv, Kal rrdar)v avroW
dvTiXoyiaf rrepa<; et? fiefialwaiv 6 o/jko?" "iv w rrepia-
abrepov ;3oi/Xd/tez/o? o Beb<; imSeifjai toi? KXi)povopj)i$
tj;? irrayyeXia<; to dpterdBerov rfj<; ftovXfjs avrov e/te-
airevaev opKW, 18"va Sid Svo rrpaypdrwv dp,eraBerav,
iv oT? aSivarov iJrevaaaBai Beov, ia%vpdv rrapaKXijaiv
eywp^ev oi KaraobvyovTes Kparijaai rr}<; rrpoKeipivrji
iXiriBoi, 19fjv co? dyKvpav eyppev tt)<s ¦tyvyfji; da(paXr)
re Kal fiefiaiav Kal elaep'ypp.evrjv et? to iawrepov tov
Kararrerdap,aTO<{, *""6ttov rrp6Spopo<; vrrep rjp,wv eiarjXBev
'L^erov?, Kara rrjv rdfjiv MeX%iaeSeK dp^iepeii'} yevbp,evo<;
et? rov aiwva.
7 1Ovro<;ydpb MeXj^tcreSe/e, /3ao-tXej)? SaXj;/*, iepev<;
rov Beov rov in^iarov, 0 avvavTr^aai 'Affpadp, vrroarpe-
(povri drrb tj}? kottt;? rwv fiaaiXeav Kal evXoyr)aa<; avrov,
2w Kal SeKarrjv drrb rrdvrwv ipepiaev 'Afipadp, rrpwrov
p,ev eppyqvevop.evo<; /SaertXei)? BiKaioaivrj<:, erreira Be Kal
/SacriXet)? %aXr)p, '6 iariv /SaertXei)? eipr/vij^, 3drrdra)p,
dp.r/Twp, dyeveaXbyr)To<;, p.-r)re dpyrfv rfpepwv pr\re £0)77?
reXov exwv, d(pwpoiwp.4va<; Se tw vim rov Beov, p,evei
lepev<; et? to StT^e/ee?. 4®ewpeire Se rrr/XlKO<; ovros,
<S Kal SeKarijv 'A/3/saa/t eSooKev e/e tc3i' aKpoBivicov
0 rrarpidpyi]<s. 5Kal oi piev e« Ttof vlwv Aeuet ttju
iepareiav Xap,ftdvovre<; ivroXr)v eypvaiv drroSeKarotv
rov Xabv Kara rbv vbpov, rovr eariv tov? aSeXcpot)?
avrwv, Kairrep igeXrjXvBoTa? ix T77? ba<pvo<; 'Afipadp,-

VII. 23 TTPOI EBPAIOYI 9
6o Se pur) yeveaXoyovpevos if; avrwv SeSeKarwKev 'A/3pad/t, fe
Kai rov e'ypvra t«? irrayyeXla<; evXbyrjKev. 7%topt? Be 7
rraaris avriXoyia? to eXarrov vrro rov Kpelrrovoi evXo-
yelrai.y 8/cat wSejiev SeKarai drroBvr)aKOvre'i dvBpwrroi
Xap,ftdvovaiv, e/cet Be p,aprvpovp,evo$ '6ri %y. "koX w<;
eVo? eirreiv, Sid 'A/3paa/t Kal Aei/ei? d Se/taTa? Xap,fidvwv
SeSeKarwrai' 10en ydp iv rrj 6a(pvi rov 7raTpd? r)v ore
avvr/vrrjaev avrw b M.eXy^iaeSeK. "Et p,ev ovv reXeiwai<;
Sid Tr}<; AeveiTiKr}<; iepwavvi}<; r)v, 6 Xad? 7tip irr at/Tj;?
vevopoBerr/rai, Tt? eTt %peia Kara rr)v rdf;iv MeX^tcreSe*
erepov aviaraaBai lepea Kal ov Kara rrjv rdf;iv Aapwv
XeyeaBai; 12 perariBep,evT)<; yap rrji iepwavvi)<; if; dvdyK7)<s
Kal vbpov p,erdBeai<! yiverai. 18ec/>' ov ydp Xiyerai
ravra, (pvXrj<; erepa<; p.erea-yjrjKev, dc/)' ^? ot/Set? rrpoaea-
XVKev T(P Bvaiaarrjpiw' urrpbSi)Xov yap on if; 'Ioi/Sa
avareraXKev 0 Aci/pto? 77/ttoz/, et? rjv (pvXrjv rrepl iepeav
ovSev Meoi/cr^? eXaXqaev. 16«at rrepiaabrepov eri Kard-
StjXov iariv, ei Kara rrjv bpotbrrjra M.eX%iaeSeK aviara-
rai tepei)? erepov, 16o? ov Kara vop,ov cVtoXj;? aapKivr)<s
yeyovev aXXti Kara Bvvapiv £a>^? d/caTaXi/Toi/. " paprv-
peirai ydp on Ii) tepez)? et? rbv aiwva Kara rrjv rdf;iv
MeX^tcreSe/e. ia,ABerrjai<; p,ev ydp yiverai rrpoayoiat)<;
ivroXr)<; Sid rb avrrj<; daBeves Kal aVtoc/>eXe?, 19ovSev ydp
ireXeiwaev b vopov, irreiaaywyr) Be Kpeirrovov iXrrlSos,
c. , 7 > .. «/l«20\ rP rr » \_
01 t;? eyyi%op.ev rw tiew. Kai Kaa oaov ov ^topt?
bpKwpioaias, — 21ot p,ev ydp j^topt? opKwpoaiav eiaiv
tepei? yeyovbres, b Be perd bpKwpoaia? Sid rov Xeyoi/To?
Trpd? avrov, "Upoaev Kvpio<;, Kal ov perap,eXTjBr}aerai'
ai) tepei)? et? rbv aiwva' — ™Kard roaovro Kpeirrovoi
Sia6i]Kr}<; yeyovev eyyvo<; 'Irjaovi. 2Vat oi pev rrXeiove<;
eiaiv yeyovbre? tepet? Std rb Bavdrw KwXveaBai

10 TTPOI EBPAIOYI VII. 23
rrapap,eveiv "d Be Sid rb p.evew avrov et? rbv aiwva
arrapaparov e^ei rrjv lepwavvqv, oaev Kai aw^eiv
et? ro rravreXe<s Svvarai toi)? rrpoaepyppevow; Si
avrov Top Bew, rravrore t,wv et? to ivrvyyaveiv vrrep
avrwv. ^Totoi/TO? 7tip r)p!iv Kal errperrev dpyiepevs, ocrto?,
qKaKOi, d/ttafTo?, Keywpiap,ivo<; drrb Ttoz/ dpiaprwXwv,
/cat vy^XoTepo? Ttov ovpavwv yevop.evo<s, o? ov# e^et
/ca6'' r/pepav dvdyKijv, warrep oi dp^tepet?, rrporepov
vrrep rwv ISiwv dp,apnwv 8vala<; dvaipepeiv, erreira rwv
rov Xaov' rovro yap irroir]aev i(pdrraf; eavrov dvevey-
«a?. S8d vop,o<i yap dvBpwrrov; KaBiarrjaiv dp^tepet?
eypvra<s daBeveiav, b X070? Se tt}? dp/cto/toeria? tt}?
/leTti toi/ vbpov vibv et? toi/ aiwva TereXeiwp,evov.
8 1K.e<}>dXaiov Se 67rl toi? XeyopAvois, toiovtov
eyopev dpyiepea o? ixdBiaev iv 8ef;ia tov Bpbvov tt;?
peyaXwavvT]? iv Tot? oi/pavot?, VtoV dyiav Xeirovpyo?
Kal tt}? aK7)vrj<i tt}? dXr)8lvr}<;, fjv errijfjev b /ci/pto?, owe
dvBpwrrov. 87ra? 7ap dpyiepev<; et? to rrpoa(f>epeiv Swpd
re Kal Bvalas Ka&lararai, '68ev dvayKaiov eyeiv n
Kal rovrov o rrpoaeveyKy. 4et /tev ovv t;v eVt 7^?, oi)S'
ctv t;v tepei/?, bvrwv rwv rrpoaqbepbvrwv Kara vop,ov rd
Soj pa, 6otTiz/e? vrroSeiypan Kai aKia Xarpevovaiv rwv
irrovpdviwv, KaBw? Key^pijpdnarai Mgwctt}? p,eXXmv
irrireXeiv rrjv aKijvqv, "Opa ydp (prjaiv rroiijaei'; rravra
Kara tov rvrrov rbv SeiyBevra aoi iv tw opef 6vvvl Se
Stac/>optoTepa? rervyev Xeirovpyias, oaw Kal Kpeirrovbi
iariv Sia6rjK7)<i p,eairvj<{, 7/Tt? irrl Kpeirroaiv irrayyeXiais
vevopoBerr/rai. 'Et 7ap r) rrpwri) eKeivq rjv ap,eprrro<;, ovk dv Sevre-
pa<i i&reiTo T07ro?. 8 pep(j>6pevo<s ydp avrov? Xeyei,

IX. 7 TTPOI EBPAIOYI n
ISoi) r)pepai epyovrai, Xeyei Kvpios, «at crt/VTeXecreo eVt
tov oikov laparjX Kal irrl rbv oikov 'Ioi/Sa BiaBijKrjv
Kaivyv, ov Kara rrjv StaBrJKT)v rjv irroirjaa Tot? rra-
rpaaiv avrwv iv r)p,epa, irnXafiopevov pov rrji yeipos
avrwv egayayeiv avrovs e/c 77}? Alyvrrrov, on avrol ovk
evepeivav iv tt} BiaBr/Ki} p,ov, Kayw rfpeXqaa avrwv,
Xeyei Kvpios. 10oti avrt] r) Bia8r)Ki] rjv SiaBr/aopai too
o'ikw Japar/X p,erd ras 77/tepa? e'/cet'va?, Xe^yet Kvpios,
StSovs vopovs p-ov et? tj;v Sidvoiav avrwv, Kal irrl
KapBias avrwv irriypd-^rw avrovs, Kal eaopai airois
et? Bebv Kal avrol eaovrai /tot et? Xaov. " /cat 01/ prj
SiSdfjwaiv e/cao"TO? tov ttoXittjv avrov Kal eKaaros rbv
dSeX(pbv avrov, Xe7tov, TvwBi rbv Kvpiov, bn rravres
eiSrjaovalv pe drrb /tt/cpoi) et»? p,eydXov avrwv. 12oti
tXeto? ecro/tat Tat? dSt/aat? avrwv, Kal Ttov dpapriwv
avTwv ov p.r) p,vi)aBw en. 13e'v too Xeyeiv K.aivrjv
rrerraXaiwKev rrjv rrpwrrjV to Be rraXaiovpevov Kai
yrjpdaKov e'771)? d(paviapov.
9 'E'^6 pev ovv Kal 77 rrpwrt] SiKaiwpara Xarpeias
ro re dyiov KoapiKov. 2aKijvrj yap KareaKevdaBr) r)
rrpwTi), iv rj rj re Xvyvia Kal r\ rpdrre^a Kal rj rrpoBeais
rwv dprwv, 77TI? Xe^yeTat &yta. 3 perd Be rb Bevrepov
Kararreraapia aKrjvrj 77 Xeyopevij ayia dyiwv, ^ypvaovv
eypvaa Bvpiarrjpiov Kal rr)v Kifiwrbv rrjs SiaBr/Krjs rre-
piKeKaXvp.pevr]v rrdvroBev ypvaiw, iv rj ardpvos XPvtT*i
eypvaa rb pdvva Kal 77 pdp'Sos 'AapaSv r) p~Xaarr)aaaa
Kal al 7rXd/ce? rr)s BiaBrjKtjs, 5vrrepdvw Se avrrjs Xepov-
ftelv Bb^ijs KaraaKidtflvra rb iXaarrjpiov' rrepl tJv ovk
ear iv vvv Xeyeiv Kara pepos. "Tovrwv Be ovtws Ka-
reaKevaapevwv et? pev rrjv rrpwrrjv aKrjvrjv Siarravrbs
eiaiaaiv oi tepet? Ta? Xarpeias irrireXovvTes, 'et? Se

12 TTPOI EBPAIOYI IX. 7
rrjv Bevripav arraf; tov iviavrov pbvos b dpyiepevs, ov
%topt? aiparos o rrpoa<pkpei vrrep eavrov Kal rwv rov
Tuiov dyvorjpdrwv, 8rovro ByXovvros rov rrvevp,aros tov
dyiov, p,r)rrw rre<pavepwaBai rrjv rwv dyiwv bSbv en rrj<s
rrpwrr/s aKijvfjs e'^01/0-77? ardaiv, *rjn<; rrapa/3oXr) et?
rbv xaipbv rbv ivearrfKora, KaB' rjv Swpd re Kal Bvaiai
rrpoatpepovrai prj Svvdpevai Kara avvelSijaiv reXeiwaai
rbv Xarpei/ovra, "/tdvov eVi (3pwp,aaiv Kal rrbpaaiv
Kal Siaabbpois p~arrriap,oi<;, [Kal] BiKaiwpMra aapKOS p-erxpi
Kaipov BiopBwaews eVt/cet/teva. "Xpierrd? Be rrapayevb-
pevos dp^tepei)? Ttov p,eXXbvrwv dyaBwv, Bid tj}? p,ei-
%ovo<s Kal reXeiorkpas o-«77vt}? ov yeiporroirjrov, tovt
eanv ov rairris rfjs Kriaews, 12oi/Se St' ai/taTO? rpdrywv
Kal p,baywv, Bid Be tov ISiov a"p,aro<s eiarjXBev i(pdrraf;
eh rd ayia, alwviav Xvrpwaiv ei/pd/tevo?. I3et yap rb
alpa rpaywv Kal ravpwv Kal arroSbs BapdXews pavri-
tpvaa robs KeKoivwpevovs dytd^ei rrpbs rrjv tt}? aapKOS
KaBapbrrrra, urrbaw pdXXov to alpa tov "Kpiarov, o?
Sta rrvevparo<; alwviov eavrov rrpoar)veyKev dpwpov tw
Bew, KaBapiei rrjv awelSijaiv vpwv drrb veKpwv epywv
et? to Xarpeveiv Bew ftovTt.
15 Kai Std rovro SiaBi]Ki}<; Kaivrjs /lecrm?? iariv, oVoo?
Bavarov yevop,kvov et? drroXvrpwaiv Ttov eVi rfj rrpwrt)
BiaBrjKrj rrapafidaewv rrjv irrayyeXiav Xdfiwaiv oi Ke-
KXijpevoi tj}? alwviov KXr/povopias. w'brrov ydp SiaBr/Kij,
Bavarov dvdyKi] fykpeaBai tov Sia8ep,kvov' "SiaBr/Kij
ydp irrl ve/cpot? J3ej3aia, irrel p,rjrrore iayvei ore fy} d
SiaBep,evos. is'68ev ovB' r) rrpwri) %t»pt? at/taTO? eV/ce/cat-
viarai. 19XaXr)Belai)<; ydp rrdarjs ivroXfjs Kara vopov
vrro M.wi)aews rravrl tw Xaw, Xa/3oov to alpa rwv
poaywv Kal Ttov rpaywv p,erd OSaTO? /cat ept'ov kokkivov

X. 5 liHUl EBPAiOYl 13
Kal vaawrrov, avrb re rb /3t/3Xtov /cat rravra rbv Xaov
epdvriaev, '"Xeywv, Tovro rb alpa tj}? Sia8rJKr)s rjs
ivereiXaro rrpbs t//ta? d c9ed?. nKal rrjv aKrjvrjv Be Kal
rravra rd aKevrj rfjs Xeirovpyias too a" pari bpoiws
epdvriaev. 22 Kal a-yeSbv iv a'ipari rravra Ka&apl^erai
Kara rbv vbpov, Kal %copi? aipareKyvaias ov yiverai
a(peai<$. advdyKi) ovv ra pev vrroSelypara rwv iv toi?
ovpavois rovrois KaBapi^eaBai, avrd Be rd irrovpdvia
1 a t \ 1 24 » \ *
Kpeirroaiv Bvaiais rrapa ravras. ov yap ei? xeiP°~
rrolr)Ta eiarjXBev ayia Xpiarbs, dvrirvrra rwv aXr\Bivwv,
dXX' els avrbv rbv ovpavov, vvv ipobaviaBrjvai too
rrpoawrrw rov Beov vrrep r)pwv, 26oi)S' tva rroXXaKis
rrpoa<pepr) eavrov, warrep b dp^iepei)? eiakpyerai et? rd
ayia Kar iviavrbv iv a'lpan dXXorplw' mirrel ffiet avrbv
rroXXaKis rraBeiv drrb KarafSoXrjs Koapov, vvvl Se ttrraf;
irrl avvreXeia rwv aiwvwv et? dBerrjaiv dpaprias Sid
tt}? Bvaias avrov rrefyavepwrai. " Kal KaB* baov drrb-
Keirai rois dvBpwrrois 'drra^ drroBaveiv, perd Se rovro
Kpiais, ""ovtws Kal b Xpiarbs, drra% rrpoaevexBels et? Td
7roXXo3v dveveyKeiv dpaprias, e/c Sevrkpov %«opt? dpaprias
6<pBrjaerai rots avrbv drreKBeyopevois els awrrjpiav.
10 1Xnidvydp e%wv b vd/to? rwv p,eXXovrwv dyaBwv,
ovk avrr)v rrjv eiKova rwv rrpaypdrwv, Kar iviavrbv
rais avrais Bvaiais &s rrpoaipkpovaiv et? rb SirjveKes
ovBkrrore Svvarai toi)? rrpoaepxopkvovs reXeiwaai' "eVefc
ovk av irravaavro rrpoaobepbpevai, Sid rb p,r)Sep,iav
eveiv 'in avveiSrjaiv dpapnwv rovs Xarpevovras 'drral;
KeKaBapiapkvovs ; 3dXX' e'v avrais dvdpvqats dpapnwv
Kar iviavrbv' idSvvarov ydp alpa ravpwv Kal rpdr/wv
d(paipeiv dpaprias. 6Std eitrep^d/tevo? ei? rbv Koapov
Xkyei, ®vaiav Kal rrpoaqbopdv ovk ¦qBeXijaas, awpa Be

14 TTPOI EBPAIOYI X. 5
Kanjpriaw pot, 6 bXoKavrwpara Kai rrepi apapnas ovk
TjvSoKtjaas' 'totc et7rov, 'IS01) r)KW, iv KecpaXiSi (3ip~Xiov
yeyparrrai rrepl epov, tow rroirjaai o Beos ro aeXr/pa
aov. 8 dvwrepov Xeyav on ®vaias Kal rrpoatpopas Kai
oXoKavrwpM,ra /cat Trept d/tapTta? ovk qBeXijaas ovSe
TjiSoKijaas, a'inves Kara vopMV rrpoatpepovrai, totc
eipijKev, 'IS01/ 77/eto tou rroirjaai rb BeXrjpa aov. dvaipei
rb rrpwrov "va rb Bevrepov a-njar), 10ev 00 BeXtjpan
r)yiaapAvoi iap,ev Bid tt}? rrpoa<popds tov awpxnos
'Iijaov XptcrToi) iqbdrraf;. "/cat 7rd? /lev lepei)? eartjKev
KaB' tjpepav Xeirovpywv Kai ras avras rroXXaKis rrpoa-
(pepwv Bvaias, a'inves ovBkrrore Svvavrai rrepteXelv
dpaprias' 12ovros Se piav vrrep dpapnwv rrpoaeveyKas
Bvaiav et? Td SirjveKes eKaBiaev iv Segia rov Beov, "to
Xoirrbv iKSexbp.evos eco? reBwaiv oi iydpol avrov vrro-
rrbSiov rwv rroBwv avrov. lip-ia ydp rrpoa(popa rere-
XeiwKev els rb SirjveKes rovs dr/ia£op,evovs. 15/xapTvpet
Se 77/ttv Kal to rrvevp.a to dyiov' p,erd ydp to eipijKevai,
1sAvtti 77 StaBrjKt) ryv SiaBrjaopuu rrpbs avrovs /terd
ras r)p,kpas e/cet'va?, Xe<yei Kvpios' SiSoiis vd/101/? p,ov
irrl KapSias avrwv, Kal irrl rr)v Bidvoiav avrwv irnypd^jrw
avrovs, "/cat tcov dpapnwv avrwv Kal twv dvopiwv
avrwv ov p,r) pwrjaBrjaopai en. la'brrov Be dtpeais tovtwv,
ovxen rrpoa(popd rrepl dpaprias.
E%ovtc? ovv, dSeX(j>oi, rtappvjaiav els rrjv eiaoSov
Ttov dyiwv ev too a'i pan 'Irjaov, "'¦fjv ivexaiviaev rjp.lv
oBov rrpoa(paTOV Kai Ijwaav Bid tov KaTarrerdap,aTos,
tovt ear iv rrjs aapKos avrov, 21/cat tepea peyav irrl
rov oikov rov Beov, ^rrpoaepxwpeBa p.erd dXvBivrjs
KapSias iv rrXrjpoipopia rriarews, pepavnapkvoi ras
KapSias drrb avveiSijaews rrovqpds /cat XeXov/tevot

X. 38 nroi EBPAIOYI IS
to awp,a vSan KaBapw, 2S/caTe^co/tev rrjv bpoXoylav
rrjs eXrriSos aKXivrj, rriarbs yap b irrayyeiXdp,evos,
Kai Karavowp.ev dXXrj'Xovs et? rrapo^vapbv drydrrrjs
Kal KaXwv epywv, 26/it; iyKaraXeirrovres rrjv iiriavva-
ywyr)v eavrwv, KaBws eBos riaiv, dXXd rrapaKaXovvres,
Kai roaovrw paXXov '6aa> fiXerreTe iyyi^ovaav rrjv
r)p.epav. 56 E/cot/crtco? 7ap dpapravbvrwv rjpwv perd to Xafteiv
tt;v irrvyvwaiv rrjs aXrjBeias, ovKen rrepl dpapnwv
drroXeirrerai Bvaia, s'c/>0/Sepd Se ti? iKSoxv Kpiaews
Kal rrvpos f>}Xo? iaBieiv pkXXovros rovs vrrevavriovs.
iBd8eTrjaas ns vbpov Mwvakws %oopi? oiKrippwv irrl
Svalv rj rpialv pdprvaiv arroBvrjaKei' ^rrbaw SoKeire
X^ipovos dfjiwBrjaerai np,wpias b rbv vlov rov Beov
Kararrarrjaas Kal to alpa tt}? SiaBijKrjs koivov rjyrjad-
pevos, iv co rjyidaBrj, Kal rb rrvevpa rrjs x^ptTos ivvfipiaas.
soo'iSapev ydp rbv elrrbvra, 'E/tot mSiKyjais, iyw dvrarro-
Bwaw' /cat 7rdXtv, Kpivet Kvpios rbv Xaov avrov.
(popepov to ep,rreaeiv et? ;j£etpa? aeov cjoovto?. avapi-
pmjaneaBe Be ras rrporepov rjpkpas, iv als (pwnaBevres
rroXXrjv d&Xrjaiv vrrepelvare rraBrjpdrwv, 33tovto pev
bveiBiapois re Kal BXtyeaiv 6earpi£bp,evoi, rovro Be
koivwvoI Ttov o'vrws dvaarpeobopevwv yevrjBkvres. S4/cat
7ap rois Beapiois avverraBrjaare, Kal rrjv dprrayrjv rwv
vrrapxbvrwv vp,wv perd xaP0^'i rrpoaeSkgaar&e, yivma-
Kovres evetv eavrovs Kpetaaova brrapf-iv Kai p-evovaav.
ssprj drro/3dX7jTe ovv rrjv rrapprjaiav vp,wv, tfris eyei
peydXrjv p,iaBarroSoalav. savrrop.ovijs ydp e^eTe j^petav
Zva rb BkXrjpa rov Beov rroiijaavres KopiarjaBe rrjv
erraryyeXiav. en yap piKpov oaov oaov, o epxopevos
rj^ei Kal ov XP0Via~el' S8° ^e BiKaios pov e/c rriarews

16 TTPOI EBPAIOYI X. 38
fyjaerai, Kal idv vrroareiXrjrai, ovk evSoKel rj "tyvxy
pov ev avrw. rjpeis be ovk eap,ev vrroaroXijs et?
«7rcoXetav, a'XXd rriarews et? rrepirroirjaiv yjrv^xrjs.
11 '"Ecttiv Se rrians eXrri^opAvwv vrrbaraais, rrpay-
p,drwv eXeyxos ov p\errop.kvwv. 2e'v ravrrj ydp ip,aprv-
prjBijaav oi rrpeafivrepoi. sHiarei voovp-ev KarrjpriaBai
rovs at'tova? prjpan Beov, et? rb p.rj e'/c (j>aivop,evwv to
j3Xerrop,evov yeyovkvat. iHiaTei rrXeiova Bvaiav "A/3eX
rrapd Kdi'v rrpoarjveyKev too Bew, Si 77? ipaprvprjBrj
etvat Bixaios, p.aprvpovvros irrl rois Swpois avrov rov
Beov, Kal Si avrrjs drroBavwv en XaXei. 5LT.tcrTei 'Evco^
pererkBrj rov p,r) ISeiv Bavarov, Kal ovx rjvpiaKero Sion
p.erkBrjKev avrbv b Beds. rrpb yap rrjs p-eraBkaews
pepaprvprjrai evrjpearr/Kevai tw Bew' 8^topt? Se rriarews
dSvvarov evapearrjaai' marevaai yap Set rbv rrpoaep-
XOpevov \rw\ Bew, on eanv Kal rois iK^rjrovaiv avrbv
piaBarroSbrrjs yiverai. 'TJitrTet ^p77/taTicrt9et? NeoeTrepi
Ttov prjBkrrwp\erropkvwv,evXa^ri8els KareaKevaaev ki/3w-
rbv els awrrjpiav rov o'Ikov avrov, Si 77? KareKpivev rbv
Koapov, Kal rrjs Kara rrianv BiKaioavvijs iyevero KXrjpo-
vd/to?. 8 IltcrTei KaXovpevos 'Aftpadp, vrrrjKovaev ifjeXBeiv
els rbrrov ov rjp,eXXev Xa/i/Sdvetv et? KXrjpovopiav, Kal
if;rjXdev p,rj irnardpevos rrov epx^rai. 9rriarei rrapw-
Ktjaev et? yfjv rrjs irrayyeXias to? dXXorpiav, iv aKtjvais
KaroiKrjaas, p,erd 'Icrad/c /cat 'Ia/cto/3 Ttov avvKXijpovbp,wv
tt;? errayyeKias rrjs avrrjs efeoe^CTO 7ap tj;v rovs
BepeXiovs exovaav rrbXiv, 77? tc^vi'tt;? Kal Brjpiovpybs
b debs. "THarei Kal avrrj %dppa Sivap.iv els KaTafioXrjv
arrepparos e'XaySev /cat rrapd xaipbv rjXiKlas, irrel rriarbv
rjyrjaaro rbv irrayyeiXdpevov. 12Std /cat dc/>' evbs iyevvrj-
Brjaav, Kal ravra veveKpwpkvov, KaBws rd darpa rov

XI. 27 IIHOI EBPAIOYI i7
ovpavov too 7rXT;c'ei /cat to? r) dppos r) rrapd rb x^iXos
rrjs BaXdaarjs j; dvaplBprjros. 13KaTa rriariv drrkBavov
ovtoi rrdvres, prj Kop.iadp.evoi ras irrayyeXias, dXXd
rroppwBev avrds iSovres Kal darraadpevoi, Kal d/toXo-
yrjaavres on J~evoi /cat rraperriSrjpoi eiaiv irrl tt}? 77;?.
ot 7ap roiavra Xkyovres ip(pavl£ovaiv on rrarpiSa
irri^rjrovaiv. I5/cat et pev iKeivrjs pvrjpovevovaiv d</j'
77? if;k/3ijaav, elxov av Kaipbv dvaKapifraf lavvv Be
Kpeirrovos opkyovrai, rovr eanv irrovpaviov. Bib ovk
irraiaxvverai avrovs o Bebs Beos irriKaXeiaBai avrwv'
rjroipaaev ydp avrois rrbXiv. "IIitrTei rrpoaevrjvox^v
Afipaap, tov 'Icrad/c rreipatppevos, Kal rbv povoyevrj
rrpoakqbepev b ras irrayyeXias dvaSef;dpevos, 187rpd? ov
iXaXrjBrj 'on Ev 'Icrad/c KXrjBrjaeral aoi arrkppa, x^Xoyi-
crd/tevo? bTi Kal e/c veKpwv iyeipeiv Bvvarbs b Beds' oBev
avrov Kai ev rrapapoXrj eKopiaaro. marei rrepi
peXXovrwv evXbyrjaev Icrad/c tov Ia/cco/3 /cat tov 'HcraO.
217Tt<rrei 'Ia/cco/3 drroBvrjaKwv eKaarov rwv viwv 'Iwarjcp
evXbyrjaev Kal rrpoaeKvvrjaev irrl rb aKpov rrjs pd/38ov
avrov. ^rriarei 'Iwarjab reXevrwv rrepl rrjs ifjbBov rwv
viwv 'laparjX ipvrjpbvevaev Kal rrepl rwv barkwv avrov
ivereiXaro. '3ILlaTei Mwvarjs yevvrjBels eKpv/37] rpiprjvov vrrb
rwv rrarepwv avrov, Bibri elSov dareiov to rraiBiov, /cat
ovk iipofirjBrjaav rb Bidrayp,a rov /SaaiXews. ^rriarei
Mcovctt}? peyas yevbpevos rjpvrjaaro XkyeaBai vibs Bvya-
rpbs Qapaw, 25/taXXov eXbpevos avvKaKovxeiaBai too
Xaco rov Beov rj rrpbaKaipov e^etv dp,aprias drrbXavaiv,
26/tet£bva rrXovrov rjyrjadpevos rwv AiyvrrroV Brjaavpwv
rbv oveiSiapov rov XpttTToi)' arre/SXerrev ydp et? tj;v
p,ia8arroBoaiav. "rriarei KareXirrev Aiyvrrrov, pr) (po/3rj-
HEBBEWS B

18 nPOI EBPAIOYI XI. 27
Bels tov Bvpdv rov j3aaiXews' rbv yap dbparov 00? dptSv
eKaprkprjaev. ^rriarei rrerroirjKev rb rrdaxa Ka^ Tr)v
rrpoaxvaiv tov aip-aros, 'iva p,r) 0 bXoBpevwv rd rrpwrb-
TOKa Biyrj avrwv. idrriarei Sikj3rjaav rrjv ipvBpdv
BdXaaaav to? Sid f;rjpas 77}?, 77? rrelpav Xafibvres oi
Aiyvrrnoi KarerrbBijaav. s°rriaTei rd reixv 'Ispcx®
erreaav KVKXwBkvra irrl errrd rjp.kpas. 31rriaTei 'Pad/8
77 rropvij ov avvarrwXero rois arreiBrjaaaiv, Sef;ap,kvrj
rovs KaraaKorrovs per elprjvrjs.
Kai Tt en Xe7to ; irriXeiyjrei pe 7ap Siijyovp-evov b
Xpovos rrepl TeSewv, HapaK, Sap^tov, 'le(f>Bde, AaveiS
re Kal XapovrjX Kal tcov rrpofprjrwv, 33o'i Bid rriarews
Karrjywviaavro jSaaiXeias, rjpydaavro SiKaioavvrjv , irrk-
rvxov irrayyeXiwv, e(ppa%av arbp,ara Xebvrwv, Meafieaav
Svvap,iv rrvpbs, e<f>vyov arbp,ara pa^aipi;?, iSwap,wBrjaav
drro aaBeveias, iyevr]Brjaav ttr^vpot e'v rroXkp,w, rrapep-
/3oXd? eKXivav dXXorpiwv' 85e'Xa/3ov yvvaiKes e'f dva-
araaews rovs veKpovs avrwv' aXXoi Se irvpnTaviaBvaav,
ov rrpoaSefjdpevoi rrjv drroXvrpwaiv, "va Kpeirrovos
avaardaews Ti/yoocriv' 36eTepot Se iprraip/p,wv Kal p,aari-
700 v rreipav eXaj3ov, en Be Secrptov Kal (pvXaKrjs'
37iXiBdaBijaav, irrpiaBrjaav, irreipdaBrjaav, iv §bvw
/tayatpi;? drrkBavov, rrepirjXBov iv pnjXwrais, iv aiyeiois
Bkppaaiv, varepoip-evoi, BXi/36pevoi, KaKovxoip,evoi,
wv ovk rjv a^ios o Koapos, em eprjpiais rrXavwpevoi
Kai bpeaiv Kai arrrjXaiois Kal rais brrais rrjs yfjs. 3*Kal
ovroi rrdvres p-aprvprjB eyres Sid rrjs rriarews ovk e'/eopt-
aavro rrjv irrayyeXiav, iorov Beov rrepl rjp,wv Kpeirrbv n
rrpo^Xe-^rap.kvov, 'iva p,r) y/opi? T^ptov reXeiwBwaiv.
12 lr£ovyapovv koi r)p,eis, roaovrov eyovTe? 7rept-
/cetpevov Tjpiv vkqbos paprvpwv, 07/cov drroBep,evoi rravra

XII. 15 TTPOI EBPAIOYI 19
/cat tt;v evrrepiararov dpapriav, Si vrrop,ovfjs Tpeyo>/tev
tov rrpoiceipevov rjpiv dywva, 2 d(popwvres els rbv rrjs
rriarews apxrjybv Kal reXeiwrrjv 'Irjaovv, o? dvTt tj}?
rrpoKeipevrjs avrw xupd? vrrepeivev aravpov alaxvvijs
Karaqbpovrjaas, iv Sef;ia re tov Bpbvov rov Beov Kend-
viKev. avaXoyiaaaBe ydp rbv roiavrrjv vrropepevrjKbra
vrro tcov dp,aprwXwv els eavrov dvnXoyiav, "va pr)
Kapvrjre rais yjrvxais vpwv iKXvbp,evoi.
iOiirrw p,kxpts a'iparos dvnKarkar'rjre rrpbs rrjv
dpapriav dvrarywvi£bpevoi, 6/cat eKXkXrjade rrjs rrapa-
KXrjaews, rjns vp,iv to? vlois SiaXkyerai, Tie p,ovi p,rj
oXiywpei rraiSias Kvpiov, p,i]Se e/cXi/ou vrr avrov eXey-
Xop,evos' ov ydp dryarra Kvptos rraiSeiei, paariyoi
Se rravra vibv ov rrapaSexerai. ''els rraiSiav vrrop,e-
vere, to? viois vplv rrpoaobeperai b Beds. Tt? 7ap vlbs
ov ov rraiBevei rrarrjp; 8et Se ^oopt? iare rraiSias, 77?
peroxoi yeybvaaiv rrdvres, dpa vb&oi Kal ovx vloi iare.
9elra toi)? pev tj}? aapKos rjpwv rrarepas efyop-ev rrai-
Sevrds Kal iverperropxBa' ov rroXv p,dXXov vrrorayrj-
abpeBa rw rrarpl tcov rrvevpdrwv Kal ^rjaopev; 10oi
pev 7ap 7rpd? oXiyas r/pepn? Kara rb Sokovv avrois
irralSevov, 0 Be irrl rb avpqbkpov et? rb peraXaj3eiv rrjs
dyiorrjros avrov. nrraaa Be rraiSia rrpbs pev rb rrapbv
ov BoKei xapb^i eivai dXXd Xvrrrjs, varepov Be Kaprrbv
elprjviKov rois Si avrrjs yeyvp,vaap,kvois drroBiSwaiv
BiKaioavvrjs. aSib ras rrapeipevas XeVali Ka' T" r^aP<^m
XeXi/peva ybvara dvopBwaare, 13/cat rpoxids opBds
rroieire rois rroalv vpwv, "va p,r) rb x<dXbv iKrparrfj, laBfj
Se p,dXXov. "elprjvrjv SiWKere perd rrdvrwv Kal rbv
dyiaap,bv, ov %copi? ovSet? o^rerai rbv Kvpiov. 15irn-
aKOrrovvres p.ij ti? varepwv drrb rrjs x<*PlT0'? T0V Beov,
B2

20 nPOI EBPAIOYI XII. is
P77 ns pl£a rriKpias dvw (pvovaa e'vo^Xj} /cat Sid
ravrrjs p,iavBwaiv ol rroXXoi, 16prj ns rrbpvos rj /3e-
/St;Xo? oj? 'Hcrai), o? dvTt fipwaews pid? drrkSoro rd
rrpwroroKia eavrov. "'iare ydp on Kal p,erkrreira
BeXwv KXrjpovopfjaai rrjv evXoylav drreSoKip.daBrj' p,era-
voias ydp rbrrov ovx evpev, Kairrep perd SaKpvwv eKtyjrrj-.
aas avrrjv.
13 Ov 7ap TrpoaeXrjXvBare yfrijXaobwpkvw Kal KeKav-
pkvw rrvpl Kal yvoqbw Kal ^6<pw Kal BveXXrj 19/cat adX-
rriyyos VXm *a* <P(ovV pfJP'dTWV, rjs ol aKovaavres rraprj-
rrjaavro p,r) rrpoareBrjvai avrois Xoyov 20ovk ecpepov ydp
rb SiaareXXop-evov, Kdv Brjplov Blyrj rov opovs, XiBofio-
XrjBrjaerai' 21/cai, o'irw fyofSepbv rjv rb <pavra^bp.evov,
Mooi/ctt}? elrrev, "EiK(po/3bs elpi Kal evrpopos' 2idXXd
rrpoaeXrjXvBare Ziwv d'pei /cat 7rdXet Beov £g3vto? 'lepov-
aaXrjp irrovpavlw, Kal pvpidaiv dyykXwv i3rravijyipei,
Kai iKKXrjaia, rrpwroroKwv arroyeypap,pkvwv iv ovpavois,
Kal Kpny Bew rrdvrwv, Kal rrvevpaai SiKaiwv rereXeiw-
pevwv, M/cat SiaBrjKrjs vea? pealrrj 'Iijaov, Kal a'ipan
pavnapov Kpeirrov XaXovvri rrapd rbv "A/3eX. 25/3Xe-
7reT6 p,r/ rrapairrjarjaBe rbv XaXovvra' el ydp e'/ceiVot
ovk if;e<f>vyov irrl yfjs rrapairrjadpevoi rbv y^paTi'fovTa,
7roXv paXXov rjpeis oi rbv drr ovpavwv drroarpe(pbp,evoi,
26ov 77 <pwvr) rrjv yrjv iaaXevaev Tore, vvv Se irrrjyyeXTai
Xe7tov, ' Eti drra^ iyw aeiaw ov p,bvov rrjv yrjv dXXd
Kai tov ovpavov. ro be Lti arraS; 677X01 rrjv rwv
aaXevopevwv perdBeaiv co? rrerroirjpkvwv, 'iva p,eivrj rd
p,r) aaXevop,eva. 28Std fiaaiXeiav daakevrov rrapaXap-
fidvovres eycopev x^,P,,v> ^'' ^? Xarpevwp.ev evapkarws
too Bew, perd evXafielas Kal Bkovs' B Kal yap o Beos rjp&v
rrvp KaravaXlaKov.

XIII. 17 nPOI EBPAIOYI 21
1«J irH <piXa8eX<pla pevkrw. 2tt}? (piXo^evias pr)
emXavBaveaBe' Bid ravTrjs yap eXa&bv rives f;eviaavres
ayyeXovs. 3 pipvrjaKeaBe tcov Seap,iwv co? avvBeSepkvoi,
rwv KaKovxovpkvwv co? /cat avrol ovres iv awpan.
Ttpto? o ydpos iv rtaaiv Kal r) Koirrj dpiavros' rrbpvovs
yap Kai pioixovs Kpivei b Beos. 5 dobiXdpyvpos b rporros,
apKovp,evoi rois rrapovaiv' ai/rbs ydp e'lprjKev, Ov prj
ae dvw ovS' ov p,rj ae iyKaraXl-rrw, eware Bappovvras
rjpas Xeyeiv, }Lvpios ipol j3orjdbs, [/cai] ov obo^rjd-naop.ai'
ti rroirjaei poi dv&pwrros;
1M.V7jpoveiere rwv riyovpkvwv vpwv, o'inves iXaXrjaav
vpiv rbv Xoyov rov Beov, wv dvaBewpovvres rrjv eKJUaaiv
rrjs avaarpoqbrjs pipeiaBe rrjv rriariv. s lr/aovs Xpiord?
e'y^e? /cat arjpepov b avrbs Kal et? rods alwvas. 9St-
Saxais rroiKikais Kal f;evais p-r) rrapaajepeaBe' /caXdv
7ap ^dptTt fiefiaiovaBai rrjv KapBiav, ov fipwpaaiv,
iv ols ovk wobeXrjBrjaav oi rrepirrarovvres. 10 exopev
Bvaiaarrjpiov if; ov qbayeiv ovk ex^vaiv if;ovalav oi rfj
aKrjvfj Xarpevovres. u wv ydp elatpkperai £eooov rb alpa
rrepl dpaprias et? to ayia Bid rov dp^iepeco?, tovtcov
rd aw para KaraKalerai ef;w rrjs rrapep/3oXr)s. 12Bib Kal
'Iijaovs, "va dyidarj Sid rov ISlov a'iparos rbv Xaov,
ef;o} rrjs rrvXr/s erraBev. "roivvv if;epxwpe8a rrpbs
avrbv ef;w rrjs rrapepp'oXrjs rbv oveiSiapov avrov c/>e-
povres' uov ydp exopev toSe pkvovaav rrbXiv, aXXa rrjv
peXXovtrav erri^rjrovpev. 15St' avrov ovv avaqbepwpev
Bvaiav alvkaews Biarravrbs tcS Bew, rovr eanv Kaprrbv
yetXecov bp,oXoyovvrwv too bvbpari avrov. l6rrjs Be
evrroi'i'as Kal Koivwvias prj erriXav8aveg@e' roiavrais
yap Bvaiais evapeareirai b Beos. "YieiBeaBe rois rjyov-
pkvois vpwv Kal vrreiKere' avrol ydp dypvrrvovaiv vrrep

22 TTPOI EBPAIOYI XIII. 17—25
Ttov tyvxwv vp,wv to? Xoyov drroSwaovres' 'iva perd
Xapd<S tovto rroiwaiv Kal pr) arevd^ovres' dXvaireXes
ydp vpiv tovto. wUpoaevxeaBe rrepl tJ/icoV rreiBop.eBa
ydp on KaXrjv avveiSrjaiv exopev, iv rrdaiv KaXws
BeXovres dvaarpk(j>ea6ai. 19rrepiaaoTepws Se rrapaKaXw
tovto rroirjaai, 'iva rdxiov drroKaraaraBw vpiv.
20f/-\ p.\ /) \ « » / t 9 \ 1 * \
U oe feo? T77? eiprjvrjs, o avayaywv e/c veKpwv tov
rroipeva rwv rrpoj3drwv rbv pkyav iv a'ipan SiaBrjKijs
»/ \ / f « 'T " 21 ' c «
aiwviov, tov Kvpiov rjpwv lrjaovv, Karapnaai vp,as
iv rravrl epyw dya&w et? to rroirjaai to BeXrjpa avrov,
rroiwv iv vpfiv rb evdpearov ivwmov avrov Bid 'Iijaov
"Kpiarov, w r) Sofja et? rovs alwvas Ttov aiwvav' dp,rjv.
2!IIapa/caXeo Se vpds, dSeXcpoi, dvkxeaBe tov Xoyov rrjs
rrapaKXrjaews' Kal ydp Sid /8pa%ecov irrkareiXa vpiv.
S3ytvwaKere rbv dSeXqbbv rjp,wv Tip,b8eov drroXeXvp.kvov,
peB ov idv raxiov epxvrai o\frop,ai vp,ds. M darrdaaaBe
rrdvras rovs rjyovpkvovs vpwv Kal rrdvras rovs dyiovs.
' I Cr P« P»\rt5T«/ 2S(TT ' >
aarralflVTai vpas 01 arro rrjs LraXias. H Y/¥"? P,eTa
rravrwv i5ptov. aprjv.

NOTES.

CHAPTER I.
Title. Ilpds 'EPpotovs. This is the simple title of the Epiatle in
NABC (in subscr.) E. In L we have tou oyiou Kai xavevipripiov mroar.
iravK. eirurr. rrpos ej3p. In M eypa<pr\ airo traXtas Sia ripoBeov n irpos e§p.
ewurr. eKTcBeiva us ev irivaxi. It need hardly be said that these titles
have no particle of authority.
2. «r* i<r\arov. So NABDEKLM. The rec. iaxdrwv rose from
the following 7w.
3. KaOapurpoV. The preceding Si iavrov (EELM) of the rec.
is not found in NAB Vulg. Arm. It may have risen from the preced
ing airov, but would not have been added by so "faultlessly rhetorical"
a writer, and is involved in the middle iroi-qiii.pxvos.
tuv d|utpnuv. The iipiiv in the rec. is a needless dogmatic
intrusion and is not found in NABDEM Vulg. Copt., Ac.
9. dvojiCav. Beo. aSiidav (NA), only a more obvious antithesis to
5iKato(rvvr)v, and therefore unlikely to he altered by -a copyist into
ivoptav. 12. wo-et irepipdXau>v. The us Ip&nov of NABD'E and several
versions is probably a gloss on the rarer word.
eXCJeis, rec. dXXd|eij, which is less well supported.

The title followed in the Authorised Version HaiiXou tov 'Airo<rr6\ov
r\ rrpbs 'E/3pafoi/s eWroXJ) is wholly without authority. The original
title, if there was one at all, probably ran simply irpbs 'E/3pa£oire
as in NABE, and as it was in the days of Origen. In various MSS.
the Epistle is found in different positions. In DEL it stands as in
A.V. In NABO it is placed after 2 Thess. (See for fuller informa
tion Blcek, Hebraerbrief, p. 45.)

24 HEBREWS. [I. 1.
Ch. I. Finality and Transcendence of God's final Eevelation
in Christ (1- — 4). Illustrations op Christ's Preeminence
above Angels (5 — 14).
1 — 4. Thesis of the Epistle.
1. lToXv|i.epus Kal iroXvrpoirus irdXai 6 9e6s . . . XaXijeras. This
Epistle is unique in beginning without the author's name (St John's
first Epistle is hardly an exception, for it was probably sent to the
Churches as a treatise in elucidation of the Gospel) . It is hardly
possible in a translation to preserve the majesty and balance of
this remarkable opening sentence of the Epistle. It must be regarded
as one of the most pregnant and noble passages of Scripture. The
author does not begin, as St Paul invariably does, with a greeting
which is almost invariably followed by a thanksgiving ; but at once,
and without preface, he strikes the keynote, by stating the thesis
which he intends to prove. His object is to secure his Hebrew
readers against the peril of an apostasy to which they were tempted
(a) by the delay of Christ's personal return, (J3) by the persecutions to
which they were subjected, and (y) by the splendid memories and
exalted claims of the religion in which they had been trained. He
wishes therefore not only to warn and exhort them, but also to prove
that Christianity is a Covenant infinitely superior to the Covenant
of Judaism, alike in its Agents and its Kesults. The words w6<riff
piSXXov (ix. 14), Kpelrruv SiaB^Kt; (viii. 6), Suupopilrrepov ovopa (i. 4),
might be regarded as the keynotes of the Epistle (comp. iii. 3,
vii. 19, 20, 22, viii. 6, ix. 23, x. 34, xi. 40, xii. 24, &a.). In many
respects, it is not so much a letter as an address. Into these opening
verses he has compressed a world of meaning, and has also strongly
brought out the conceptions of the contrast between the Old and
New Dispensations — a contrast which involves the transcendence
of the latter. Literally, the sentence may be rendered, "In many
portions and in many ways, God having of old spoken to the fathers
in the prophets, at the end of these days spake to us in a Son." It
was God who spoke in both dispensations ; of old and in the present
epoch : to the fathers and to us ; to them in the Prophets, to us
in a Son; to them "in many portions" and therefore "fragmentarily,"
but — as the whole Epistle is meant to shew — to us with a full and
complete revelation; to them "in many ways," "multifariously," but
to us in one way — namely by revealing Himself in human nature,
and becoming "a Man with men."
TroX\j|x€pws, "in many parts." The nearest English representative
of the word is "fragmentarily," which is not meant as a term of
absolute but only of relative disparagement (ras iravToSairas olxovo-
pias o-ypalvei, Theodoret). It has never been God's method to reveal
all His relations to mankind at once. He revealed himself "in many
portions." He lifted the veil fold by fold. First came the Adamio
dispensation ; then the Noahic ; then the Abrahamio ; then the
Mosaic ; then that widening and deepening system of truth of which
the Prophets were ministers ; then the yet more advanced and elabo-

I. l.J NOTES. 25
rate scheme which dates from Ezra; — the final revelation, the "ful
ness" of revealed truth, came with the Gospel. Each of these systems
was indeed fragmentary, and therefore (so far) imperfect, and yet
it was the .best possible system with reference to the end in view,
which was the education of the human race in the love and knowledge
of God. The first great truth which God prominently revealed was
His Unity; then came the earliest germ of the Messianic hope; then
came the Moral Law; then the development of Messianism and the
belief in Immortality. Isaiah and Ezekiel, Zechariah and Malachi,
the son of Sirach and John the Baptist, had each his several "portion"
and element of truth to reveal. But all the sevenfold rays were
united in the pure and perfect light when God had given us His
Son. Finally, when, by the inbreathing of the Spirit, He had made us
partakers of Himself, the last era of revelation had arrived. To this
final revelation there can be no further addition, though it may be
granted to age after age more and more fully to comprehend it.
Complete in itself, it yet works as the leaven, and grows as the
grain of mustard seed, and brightens and broadens as the Dawn. Yet
even the Christian Revelation is itself but "a part"; "we know in
part (ix pJpovs) and prophesy," says St Paul, "in part." Man, being
finite, is only capable of partial knowledge.
iroXtiTpoirws, "in many manners." The "sundry" and "divers"
of our A. V. are only due to the professed fondness for variety which
King James's translators regarded as a merit. The "many manners"
of the older revelation were Law and Prophecy, Type and Allegory,
Promise and Threatening; the diverse individuality of many of the
Prophets, Seers, Warriors, Eings, who were agents of the revelation ;
the method of various sacrifices ; the messages which came by Urim,
by dreams, by waking visions, and "face to face" (see Num. xii. 6;
Ps. lxxxix. 19; Hosea xii. 10; 2 Pet. i. 21). The mouthpiece of the
revelation was now a Gentile sorcerer, now a royal sufferer, now
a rough ascetic, now a polished priest, now a gatherer of sycomore
fruit. Thus the separate revelations were not complete but partial;
and the methods not simple but complex.
It will be seen, then, how very far the two words (also found
together in Max. Tyrius) are from being a mere rhetorical amplifi
cation of Sia<j>6pus (Chrysostom, followed by many others). They are
on the contrary of the deepest importance as containing a principle
of 0. T. exegesis.
The words irdKvpepws ToXvrpowm are of the rhythm known as
the Paeon quartus (  ¦-). Ancient writers are fond of elaborating
their opening sentences, and the author of this Epistle naturally
clothed in an impressive form a clause so full of profound and original
truth. Thus St Luke begins his Gospel with an Antispastus, eVeiSijirep
(— — — ) and ends his Acts with an Epitrite, AxuXiras (—  ).
irdXai. Malachi the last prophet of the Old Covenant had died more
than four centuries before Christ.
6 0«ds. In this one word, which admits the Divine origin of Mosaism,
the writer makes an immense concession to the Jews. Such expres-

26 HEBREWS. [I. 1—
sions as St Paul had used in the fervour of controversy — when for
instance he spoke of "the Law" as consisting of "weak and beggarly
elements"— tended to alienate the Jews by utterly shocking their
prejudices ; and in very early ages, as we see from the "Epistle of
Barnabas," some Christians had developed a tendenoy to speak of
Judaism with an extreme disparagement, which culminated in the
Gnostic attribution of the Old Testament to an inferior and even
malignant Deity, whom they called "the Demiurge." The author
shared no such feelings. In all his sympathies he shews himself
a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and at the very outset he speaks of the
Old Dispensation as coming from God.
XaXijo-as. The verb \a\eiv is often used, especially in this Epistle,
of Divine revelations (ii. 2, 3, iii. 5, vii. 14, &c). It has none of the
disparaging sense in comparison with \4yeiv which it has in classical
Greek. XaXij<ras...eXdXT|a-ev. There is no relative in the Greek. Instead
of "who. ..spake. ..hath spoken..." the force of the aorists would be
better conveyed by "having spoken. ..spake."
rots Trarpdo-iv. That is to the Jews of old. The writer, a Jew in
all his sympathies, leaves unnoticed throughout this Epistle the very
existence of the Gentiles. As a friend and follower of St Paul he of
course recognised the call of the Gentiles to equal privileges, but the
demonstration of their prerogatives had already been furnished by
St Paul with a force and fulness to which nothing could be added,
This writer, addressing Jews, is not in any way thinking of the
Gentiles. To him "the people" means exclusively "the people of
God" in the old sense, namely Israel after the flesh. It is hardly
conceivable that St Paul, who was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and
whose writings were mainly addressed to them, and written to secure
their Gospel privileges, should, even in a single letter, have so com
pletely left them out of sight as this author does. On the other hand,
the author always tries to shew his "Hebrew" readers that their
conversion does not involve any sudden discontinuity from the religious
history of their race.
iv rots irpo<|)TJTais, " in the Prophets." It is true that the eV
(rendered " by " in the A. V.) may be only a Hebraism, representing
the Hebrew 3 in 1 Sam. xxviii. 6 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. We find iv "in"
used of agents in Matt. ix. 34, "In the Prince of the demons casteth
He out demons," and in Acts xvii. 31. But, on the other hand, the
writer may have meant the preposition to be taken in its proper
sense, to imply that the Prophets were only the organs of the reve
lation; so that it is more emphatic than Sid, "by means of." (Bex
mortalis loquitur per legatum, non tamen in legato, Bengel.) The
same thought may be in his mind as in that of Philo when he says
that "the Prophet is an interpreter, while God from within whispers
what he should utter." In fact the belief that the prophets spoke
ira ecstasy, i.e. with a total suppression and even obliteration of their

L a. J NOTES. 27
individual powers, was a view which the Alexandrian theologians
borrowed from Philo, as he had done from Plato. The iv must not,
however, be pressed to imply the writer's acceptance of this opinion
in its whole extent, for it expresses rather the Pagan than the Scrip
ture view of the nature of prophetic inspiration. "The Prophets,"
Bays St Thomas Aquinas, "did not speak of themselves, but God
spoke in them." Still they spoke with full human self-consciousness
and unimpaired individuality, as St Paul urges on the Corinthians
wveipara irpo^ytrrSsv irpaipirrais iTorda-a-erai (1 Cor. xiv. 32). Comp.
2 Cor. xiii. 3. The word Prophets is here taken in that larger sense
which includes Abraham, Moses, &c.
2. Iir iayjirov t«5v f\p(pav toutcdv, "at the end of these days."
This is the better reading of NABDB, &c. for the eV iaxdruv of
the Textus receptus. The phrase represents the technical Hebrew
expression be-acharith ha-ydmim (Num. xxiv. 14). The Jews di
vided the religious history of the world into "this age" (Olam
hazzeh) and "the future age" (Olam habba). The "future age" was
the one which was to begin at the coming of the Messiah, whose days
were spoken of by the Rabbis as " the last days." But, as Christians
believed that the Messiah had now come, to them the Olam hazzeh
had ended. They were practically living in the age to which their
Jewish contemporaries alluded as the "age to come" (ii. 5, vi. 5).
They spoke of this epoch as "the fulness of the times" (Gal. iv. 4) ;
"the last days" (Jas. v. 3); "the last hour" (1 John ii. 18); "the
crisis of rectification" (Heb. ix. 10); "the close of the ages" (ix. 26).
And yet, even to Christians, there was one aspect in which the new
Messianic dispensation was still to be followed by "a future age,"
because the kingdom of God had not yet come either completely or in
its final development, which depended on the Second Advent. Hence
"the last crisis," "the later crises" (1 Pet. i. 5; 1 Tim. iv. 1) are still
in the future, though Christians thought that it would be a near fu
ture; after which would follow the "rest," the "Sabbatism" (Heb. iv.
4, 10, 11, xi. 40, xii. 28) which still awaits the people of God. The
indistinctness of separation between "this age" and "the future age"
arises from different views as to the period in which the actual " days
of the Messiah" are to be reckoned. The Rabbis also sometimes
include the Messianio reign in the former, sometimes in the latter.
But the writer regarded the end as being at hand (x. 13, 25, 37).
He felt that the former dispensation was annulled and outworn, and
-anticipated rightly that it could not have many years to run.
4XdXi]<rEv, "spake." The whole revelation is ideally summed up
in the one supreme moment of the Incarnation. The aoristic mode
of speaking of God's dealings, and of the Christian life, as single
acts, is common throughout the New Testament, and especially in
St Paul. It conveys the thought that
"Are, and were, and will be are but is,
And all creation is one aot at once."

28 HEBREWS. [I. 2—
The word " spake" is here used in its fullest and deepest meaning of
Him whose very name is " the Word of God." It is true that this
author, unlike St John, does not actually apply the Alexandrian term
" Logos " (" Word ") to Christ, but it always seems to be in his
thoughts, and, so to speak, to be trembling on his lips. The essential
and ideal Unity which dominated over the "many parts" and "many
modes " of the older revelation is implied in the most striking way by
the fact that it was the same God who spake to the Fathers in the
Prophets and to us in a Son.
Iv vtu, "in a Son," rather than (as in A. V.) "in His Son."
The article is purposely omitted to shew that the contrast is in the
Relation rather than the Person of Christ, " in Him who was a Son."
The preposition "in" is here most applicable in its strict meaning,
because "in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
"The Father, that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works" (John xiv.
10). The contrast of the New and Old is expressed by St John (i. 17),
" The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ." In Christ all the fragments of previous revelation were
completed ; all the methods of it concentrated ; and all its apparent
perplexities and contradictions solved and rendered intelligible.
S6t)Kev, "He appointed." This usage of the word is classic. The
question as to the special act of God thus alluded to is hardly appli
cable. Our temporal expressions may involve an inherent absurdity
when applied to Him whose life is the timeless Now of Eternity and
in Whom there is neither before nor after, nor variableness, nor
shadow cast by turning, but Who is always in the Meridian of an
unconditioned Plenitude (Pleroma). See Jas. i. 17. The fatal and
fundamental blunder of the Arian heresy consisted in the failure of
Arius and his followers to see that expressions of time cannot possibly
be a measure of eternal relationship.
kXt)povo|u>v ttovtoiv. Sonship naturally suggests heirship (Gal. iv.
7), and in Christ was fulfilled the immense promise to Abraham that
his seed should be heir of the world. The allusion, so far as we can
enter into these high mysteries of Godhead, is to Christ's mediatorial
kingdom. We only darken counsel by the multitude of words without
knowledge when we attempt to define and explain the relations of the
Persons of the Trinity towards each other. The doctrine of the 7repi-
X&priais, circuminsessio or communicatio idiomatum as it was techni
cally called — that is the relation of Divinity and Humanity as effected
within the Divine Nature itself by the Incarnation — is wholly beyond
the limit of our comprehension. We may in part see this from the
fact that the Son Himself is (in ver. 3) represented as doing what in
this verse the Father does. But that the Mediatorial Eingdom is
given to the Son by the Father is distinctly stated in John iii. 35 ;
Matt, xxviii. 18 (comp. ii. 6 — 8 and Ps. ii. 8).
8i oS, i.e. " by whose means"; "by whom, as His agent." Comp.
"All things were made by Him" (i.e. by the Word) (John i. 3),

L 3.J JSUTMti. 29
"By Him were all things created" (Col. i. 16). " By Whom are all
things" (1 Cor. viii. 6). What the Alexandrian theosophy attributed
to the Logos, had been attributed to "Wisdom " (see Prov. viii. 22 — 31)
in what was called the Ghokhmah or the Sapiential literature of the
Jews. Christians were therefore familiar with the doctrine that Crea
tion was the work of the Prae-existent Christ ; which helps to explain
verses 10 — 12. We find in Philo, " You will discover that the cause of
it (the world) is God... and the Instrument the Word of God, by whom
it was equipped (KaraaKevdirBri)," De Cherub. (Opp. 1. 162); and again
" But the shadow of God is His Word, whom he used as an Instru
ment in making the World," De Leg. Alleg. in. (Opp. 1. 106). The
prepositions are carefully distinguished in the N.T. Thus we find in
1 Cor. viii. 6 els 6ebs 4£ o3 rh. irdvra...Kal els Ktipios 81 01S rb, Trdvra, i.e.
all things derive their origin (il-) from God, and are made by Christ's
agency (Si' o5). The other reading Si' ov in that verse would mean
that all things exist for His sake (propter Ilium).
Kai. He who was the heir of all things was also the agent in their
creation. tovs alcovas, D'Dp'iy. One of the comprehensive plurals common
in Hebrew Hellenistic Greek (Winer, ed. Moulton, p. 220). Literally,
"the aeons" or "ages." This word "aeon" was used by the later
Gnostics to describe the various " emanations" by which they tried at
once to widen and to bridge over the chasm between the Human and
the Divine. Over that imaginary chasm St John had thrown the one
wide arch of the Incarnation when he wrote "the Word beoame
flesh." In the N.T. the word " aeons" never has this Gnostic mean
ing. In the singular the word means "an age"; in the plural it
sometimes means " ages " like the Hebrew olamim. Here it is used in
its Rabbinic and post-biblical sense of " the world" as in xi. 3, Wisd.
xiii. 9, and as in 1 Tim. i. 17 where God is called " the king of the
world" (oomp. Tob. xiii. 6). The word /toV/tos (x. 5) means "the
material world" in its order and beauty ; the word, aluves means the
world as refleoted in the mind of man and in the stream of his
spiritual history ; ^ olKovpAvn (i. 6) means " the inhabited world."
3. dn-atiyaapia, "effulgence," a diraf Xeyd/teiw in the N. T. The
substitution of "effulgence" for "brightness" in the Revised Version
is not, as it has been contemptuously called, " a piece of finery," but
is a rendering at once more accurate and more suggestive. It means
"efflux of light" — <pus 4k (puros, i.e. Light from Light, as in the
Nicene Creed (" effulgentia" not "repercussus," Grotius). It implies
not only resemblance — which is all that is involved in the vague and
misleading word " brightness," which might apply to a mere reflexion:
— but also "origin" and "independent existence." The glory of
Christ is the glory of the Father just as the sun is only revealed by the
rays which stream forth from it. So the " Wisdom of Solomon" (vii.
26) — whioh offers many resemblances to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
and which some have even conjectured to be by the same author —
speaks of wisdom as "the effulgence of the everlasting light." The

30 HEBREWS. [I. 3.
word is also found in Philo where it is applied to man. This passage,
like many others in the Epistle, is quoted by St Clement of Rome (ad
Cor. 36). Many on the analogy of dTrixv^", "echo," and drroaK[aap.a.
"a cast shadow," support the rendering "reflexion," especially be
cause Philo uses ixpayeXov and plp;qpa. as illustrations of it, as the
Book of Wisdom uses elxiiv and drotrrpov. But "effulgence" gives a
truer theological sense, and Hesych. explains diraiy. by ijXfov (piyyos
and Lex. Gyrilli by dxrls rjklov.
¦rijs 86|t|s. God was believed in the Old Dispensation to reveal
Himself by a cloud of glory called "the Shechinah," and the Alexan
drian Jews, in their anxious avoidance of all anthropomorphism and
anthropopathy — i.e. of all expressions which attribute the human form
and human passions to God — often substituted "the Glory" for the
name of God. Similarly in 2 Pet. i. 17 the Voice from God the
Father is a Voice iiirb tt)s peyaXoTrpeirovs Soi-ns " from the magnificent
glory." Comp. Acts vii. 55; Lk. ii. 9. St John says " God is Light,"
and the indestructible purity, impalpable essence, and infinite diffusive
ness of Light make it the best of all created things to furnish an
analogy for the supersensuous light and spiritual splendour of the
Being of God. Hence St John also says of the Word " we beheld His
glory" (i. 14); and our Lord said to Philip "he who hath seen Me
hath seen the Father " (xiv. 9). Comp. Lk. ix. 29.
XapaxTTJp, " the stamp." The word only occurs in the LXX. of
Lev. xiii. 28. The R. V. renders this word by "very image" (after
Tyndale), and in the margin by "impress." (Comp. Col. i. 15;
Phil. ii. 6.) I prefer the word " stamp" because the Greek xapewo^P,
like the English word " stamp," may, according to its derivation, be
used either for the impress or for the stamping-tool itself. This
Epistle has so many resemblances to Philo that the word may have
been suggested by a passage (De plant. Noe, Opp. i. 332) in which
Philo compares man to a coin which has been stamped by the Logos
with the being and type of God ; and in that passage the word seems
to bear this unusual sense of a "stamping-tool," for it impresses
a man with the mark of God. Similarly St Paul in the Epistle to
the Colossians (i. 15) — which most resembles this Epistle in its
Christology — called Christ "the image (eUiiv) of the invisible God";
and Philo says, " But the Word is the image (eUiiv) of God, by Whom
the whole world was created," De Monarch. (Opp. n. 225).
Tijs viroorao-ews ovtoB. Not "of His person" but "of His sub
stance" or "essence." The word \moaraais, substantia (literally that
which "stands under"), is, in philosophical accuracy, the imaginary
substratum which remains when a thing is regarded apart from all its
accidents. The word "person" of our A. V. is rather the equivalent
to irpoiruirov. 'tirourairis only came to be used in this sense some
centuries later. Perhaps "Being" or "Essence," though it corre
sponds more strictly to the Greek oiala, is the nearest representative
which we can find to hypostasis, now that "substance," once the
most abstract and philosophical of words, has come (in ordinary

I. 3.] NOTES. 31
language) to mean what is most solid and concrete. It is only too
possible that the word " substance" conveys to many minds the very
opposite conception to that which was intended, and which alone
corresponds to the truth. Athanasius says, "Hypostasis is essence"
(oicrla); and the Nicene Council seems to draw no real distinction
between the two words. In fact the Western Church admitted that,
when moaraais is used for irpdauvov, we might speak of three hypo
stases of the Trinity ; and in the Western sense, of one hypostasis,
because in this sense the word meant Essence. For the use of the
word in the LXX. see Ps. xxxviii. 6, lxxxviii. 48. It is curiously
applied in Wisd. xvi. 21. In the technical language of theology these
two clauses represent the Sou as co-eternal and co-substantial with
the Father.
tpepwv re tA irdvTa. He is not only the Creative Word, but the
Sustaining Providence. He is, as Philo says, "the chain-band of all
things," but he is also their guiding force. " In Him all things sub
sist" (Col. i. 17). Philo calls the Logos " the pilot and steersman of
everything." Plutarch also uses the word (pipu in the sense of upbear,
i.e. rule. (Comp. Cic. pro Flacco, 38, "Rempublieam vestris humeris
sustinetis." Sen. Ep. xxxi. " Deus ille optimus...ipse vehit omnia.")
rip Ar{|uiTi Ttjs 8vvd|ieo>8 oiirov, " by the utterance of His power."
It is better to keep "word" for Logos, and "utterance" for brjpa.
We find "strength" (/cpdros) and "force" (Icrxfa) attributed to Christ
in Eph. vi. 10, as " power" (Sivapis) here.
Ka8apurudv riav dp.ap-ri.i3v iroM]<rd|Mvos, ' ' after making purification
of sins. The Si' iavrou is omitted by some of the best MSS. (N, A,
B), and the r/puv by many. But the notion of Christ's independent
action (Phil. ii. 7) is involved in the middle voice of the verb, which
the Si' iavroB merely expands and emphasizes. On the purification of
our sins by Christ (in which there is perhaps a slight reference to the
"Day of Atonement," called in the LXX. "the Day of Purification,"
Ex. xxix. 36), see ix. 12, x. 12 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24; 2 Pet. i. 9 (comp. Job
vii. 21, LXX..). The KaOapiapbs is the result of the IXaapAs. The ob
jective gen. tuv ip. implies that the "purification" is the "cleansing"
of our sins. Some prefer to render it "from our sins." Winer, p. 233.
eKdSurcv. His glorification was directly consequent on His volun
tary humiliation (see viii. 1, x. 12, xii. 2; Ps. ex. 1), and here the
whole description is brought to its destined climax.
Iv 8e£i.a. As the place of honour, comp. viii. 1 ; Ps. ex. 1 ; Eph. i. 20.
The controversy as to whether "the right hand of God" means
"everywhere" — which was called the " Ubiquitarian controversy" —
is wholly destitute of meaning, and has long fallen into deserved ob
livion. rijs |/.<YaXucrtfvT|s. In x. 12 he says " at the right hand of God."
But he was evidently fond of sonorous amplifications, which belong
to the dignity of his style ; and also fond of Alexandrian modes of

32 HEBREWS. [I. 3—
expression. The LXX. sometimes went so far as to substitute for
"God" the phrase DlpD makom, " the place" where God stood (see
Ex. xxiv. 10, LXX.).
iv it]n]Xots. Literally, "in high places" ; like " Glory to God" iv
iif/larois, Lk. ii. 14 (comp. Job xvi. 19) ; and iv rois iirovpavlois, Eph.
i. 20 (oomp. Ps. xciii. 4, cxiii. 5). The description of Christ in these
verses differed from the current Messianic conception of the Jews in
two respects. 1. He was Divine and Omnipotent. 2. He was to die
for our sins. The analogy between these two verses and Col. i. 15 — 20
is too close to be accidental.
4. Too-oiiT<p. The familiar classical Hau... Toaovru (involving the
comparison and contrast which runs throughout this Epistle, iii. 3,
vii. 20, viii. 6, ix. 27, x. 25) is not found once in St Paul.
KpeCTTtov. This word, common as it is, is only thrice used by
St Paul (and then somewhat differently), but occurs 13 times in this
Epistle alone (vi. 9, vii. 7, 19, 22, viii. 6, ix. 23, x. 34, xi. 16, 35, 40,
xii. 24).
7Cvduevos, "becoming," or "proving himself to be." The allusion
is to the Redemptive Kingdom of Christ, and the word merely qualifies
the " better name." Christ, regarded as the Agent or Minister of the
scheme of Redemption, became mediatorially superior to the Angel-
ministrants of the Old Dispensation, as He always was superior to
them in dignity and essence.
TocrovT(j> Kpefrrrov tuv ayveXcDV. The writer's object in entering
upon the proof of this fact is not to oheck the tendency of incipient
Gnostics to worship Angels. Of this there is no trace here, though
St Paul in his letter to the Colossians raised a warning voice against
it (Col. ii. 18 eV 6pr)<ri<dq. tuv dyyiXuv). Here the object is to shew
that the common Jewish boast that "they had received the law" els
Siarayds dyyiXuv (Acts vii. 53) involved no disparagement to the
Gospel which had been ministered by One who was "far .above
(virepavu) all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and
every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that
which is to come" (Eph. i. 21). Many Jews held, with Philo, that
the Decalogue alone had been uttered by God, and that all the rest of
the Law had been spoken by Angels. The extreme development of
Jewish Angelology at this period may be seen in the Book of Enoch.
They are there called " the stars," " the white ones," " the sleepless
ones." St Clement of Rome found it necessary to reproduce this
argument in writing to the Corinthians, and the 4th Book of Esdras
illustrates the tendency of mind which it was desirable to counteract.
kekXi)oovo'|i,t)kcv, "hath inherited." Comp. Lk. i. 32, 35. "Where
fore God also hath highly exalted Him and given Him a name which
is above every name" (Phil. ii. 9). He does not here speak of the
Eternal Generation. Christ inherits His most excellent name, not
as the Eternal Son, but as the God-Man. Possibly too the writer

I. 5.]

NOTES. 33

uses the word "inherited" with tacit reference to the prophetic
promises. Suujwptorepov Trap' auTois ovoaa. Aidtpopos in the sense of "excellent"
is only found in later Greek. The name here intended is not the
name of "the ordy-begotten Sou of God" (John iii. 18), which is in its
fulness "a name which no one knoweth save Himself" (Rev. xix. 12).
The "name" in Scripture often indeed implies the inmost essence of
a thing. If, then, with some commentators we suppose the allusion
to be to this Eternal and Essential name of Christ we must under
stand the word " inheritance " as merely phenomenal, the mani
festation to our race of a prae-existent fact. In that view the glory
indicated by the name belonged essentially to Christ, and His work on
earth only manifested the name by which it was known. This is
perhaps better than to follow St Chrysostom in explaining "inherited "
to mean "always possessed as His own." Comp. Lk. i. 32, "He shall
be called the Son of the Highest."
SiacpopuTcpov irapd. Comp. 3 Esdr. iv. 35 tj dX^8eia...l<Txiiporipa.
vapd irdvra. This construction (irapd after a comparative) is not found
once in St Paul's Epistles, but several times in this Epistle (i. 4,
ii. 9, iii. 3, ix. 23, xi. 4, xii. 24). It should be observed, as bearing on
the authorship of the Epistle, that in these four verses alone there are
no less than six expressions and nine constructions which find no — or
no exact — parallel in St Paul's Epistles.
dvoua. The EHlBOn DB", the ovopa 8 oTSev oidels el p.^ airbs,
Rev. xix. 12.
5 — 14. Illustrations from Scripture of the Superiority of Christ
to Angels.
5. ¦ydp. The following paragraphs prove " the more excellent
name. " By His work on earth the God-man Christ Jesus obtained
that superiority of place in the order and hierarchy of salvation which
made Him better than the Angels, not only in intrinsic dignity but
in relation to the redemption of man. In other words the universal
heirship of Christ is here set forth "not as a metaphysical but as
a dispensational prerogative." That it should be necessary for the
writer to enter upon a proof of this may well seem strange to us ;
but that it was necessary is proved by the earnestness with which he
devotes himself to the task. To us the difficulty lies in the mode of
proof, not in the result arrived at ; but his readers were unconvinced
of the result, while they would have freely admitted the validity of
this method of reasoning. The line of proof has been thoroughly
studied by Dr W. Robertson Smith, in some papers published in the
Expositor for 1881, to which I am indebted for several suggestions.
" There is nothing added," he says, "to the intrinsic superiority of
Christ's being, but He occupies towards us a position higher than
the angels ever held. The whole argument turns, not on personal
dignity, but on dignity of function in the administration of the
economy of salvation." It may be due to this Epistle that we find in

34 HEBREWS. [I. 5.
later Jewish books (like the Yalkut Shimeoni) such sentences as " The
King Messiah shall be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and the Minister
ing Angels " (see Schbttgen, p. 905).
etirev. The "He" is God. This indirect mode of reference to
God is common in the Rabbinic writings. The argument here is from
the silence of Scripture, as in i. 13, ii. 16, vii. 13, 14.
Yids |i.ov et <rv. "My Son art Thou." The order and the pro
noun are both emphatic. The quotation is from Ps. ii. 7 (comp.
Ps. Ixxxix. 20, 26, 27). The author does not need to pause in order
to prove that this, and the other passages which he quotes, apply to
the Christ. This would have been at once conceded by every Jewish
reader. Many of the Jews adopted the common view of the Rabbis
that everything in the Old Testament prophecies might be applied to
the Messiah. St Peter, in Acts xiii. 33, also applies this verse to
Christ, and the great Rabbis, Eimcbi and Rashi, admit that the
Psalm was accepted in a Messianic sense in ancient days. The
Divinity of Christ was » truth which the writer does not need to
dwell upon. He might, of course, assume it in addressing Christians.
It must be observed that these passages are not advanced as proofs
that Jesus was the Son of God — which, as Christians, the readers in
no wise disputed — but as arguments ad hominem and ex concessit. In
other words they were arguments to those whom the writer had imme
diately in view, and who had no doubt as to the premisses on which
he based his reasoning. He had to confirm a vacillating and unpro-
gressive faith (vi. 12, xii. 25), not to convince those who disputed the
central truths of Christianity.
Our own conviction on these subjects rests primarily upon historical
and spiritual grounds, and only depends in a very subordinate degree
on indirect Scriptural applications. Yet even as regards these we
cannot but see that, while the more sober-minded interpreters have
always admitted that there was a primary historic meaning in the
passages quoted, and that they were addressed in the first instance
to David, Solomon, &a., yet (1) there is a "pre-established harmony"
between the language used and its fulfilment in Christ ; (2) the
language is often so far beyond the scope of its immediate application
that it points to 'an ideal and distant fulfilment ; (3) it was inter
preted for many centuries before Christ in a Messianio sense ; (4) the
Messianic sense has been amply justified by the slow progress of
history. There is surely some medium between the two common
extremes of (1) regarding these passages as soothsaying vaticinations,
definitely and consciously recognised as such by their writers, and
(2) setting them aside as though they contained no prophetic element
at all. In point of fact the Jews themselves rightly looked on them as
mingling the present and the future, the kingly-theocratic and the
Messianic. No one will enter into their real meaning who does not
see that all the best Jewish literature was in the highest sense
prophetic. It centred in that magnificent Messianic hope which arose
immediately from the connexion of the Jews with their covenant God,
and which elevated them above all other nations. The Divine character

I. 5.] NOTES. 35
of this confident hope was justified, and more than justified, by the
grandeur of its fulfilment. Genuine, simple, historical exegesis still
leaves room in the Old Testament for a glorious and demonstrable
Christology. Although the old aphorism — Novum Testamentum in
Vetere latet, Vetusin Novopatet — has often been extravagantly abused
by allegorio interpreters, every instructed Christian will admit its funda
mental truth. The germ of a highly-developed Messianio propheoy
was involved from the first in the very idea of a theooraoy and a
separated people.
£y<i oijuepov veyevvriKd (re, "I this day have begotten Thee." St Paul
says (Rom. i. 4) that Jesus was "determined" or "constituted"
(bpiuBivTos) Son of God, with power, by resurrection from the dead.
The aorist in that passage points to a definite time — the Resurreotion
(oomp. Acts xiii. 33). In other senses the expression "to-day " might
be applied to the Inoarnation (Lk. i. 31), or to the Asoension, or to
the Eternal Generation. The latter explanation however, — which ex
plains "to-day" of " God's eternal now," the nunc stans of eternity —
though adopted by Origen (who finely says that in God's "to-day"
there is neither morning nor evening) and by St Augustine — is
probably one of the "afterthoughts of theology." Calvin stigmatises
it as a "frivola August ini argutia," but the strongest argument in its
favour is that Philo has a somewhat similar conception {aiipepov S
iariv o diriparos Kcd dSiefinjTos aliiv, De profug., Opp. I. 554). The
words, however, originally referred to the day of David's complete
inauguration as king upon Mount Sion. No one time oan apply to
the Eternal Generation, and the adoption of Philo's notion that
"to-day" means "for ever," and that "all Eternity" is God's to-day,
would here be out of place. Possibly the " to-day " is only, so to
speak, an accidental part of the quotation : in other words it may
belong rather to the literal and primary propheoy than to its Messianio
application. The Ohuroh shews that she understood the word "to
day" to apply to the Resurreotion by appointing the second psalm
as one of the speoial psalms for Easter-day.
'E-yci t'o-oaai avTiji els irarepa, 2 Sam. vii. 14 (LXX.). etvai els is
the Hebrew b rV!X The words were primarily applicable to Solomon,
but the quotation would not, without further argument, have helped
forward the writer's end if he had not been able to assume with
confidence that none of his readers would dispute his typological
method of exegesis. It is probable that the promise to David here
quoted is direotly oonnected with the passage just adduced from Ps. ii.
aii-rds farai (toi els vl6v. The quotation (comp. Philo De Leg.
Allegor. ni. 8), though primarily applied to Solomon, has the wider
sense of prophesying the advent of some perfeot theoorafdo king. The
"Angels" it might be objeoted are oalled "Sons of God" in Gen. vi. 2;
Job i. 6, ii. 1, xxxviii. 7; Dan. iii. 25. In these passages, however,
the Alexandrian manuscript of the LXX. whioh this author seems to
have used (whereas St Paul seems to quote from another type of
C2

36 HEBREWS. [I. 5—
manuscript — the Vatican) has "angels" and not "sons." If it be
further urged that in Ps. xxix. 1, Ixxxix. 7, even the Alexandrian MS.
has also "sons" we must suppose either that the writer means to
distinguish (1) between the higher and lower senses of the word
"sou"; or (2) between "Sons of Elohim" and "Sous of Jehovah,"
since Elohim is so much lower and vaguer a name for God than
Jehovah, that not only Angels but even human beings are called
Elohim; or (3) that he did not regard the name "sons" as in any
way characteristic of angels. He shews so intimate a knowledge of
the Psalms that — on this ground alone, not to dwell on others — the
supposition that he forgot or overlooked these passages is hardly
admissible. 6. oTav 8e irdXiv elo-aYd-yt). The older and literal rendering is
as in the margin of the R. V., "and when he, again, shall have brought
in..." The A. V. takes the word ' ' again ' ' (7rdXix) a3 merely introducing
a new quotation, as in ver. 5, and in ii. 13, iv. 5, &o. The word
"again," says Bp Wordsworth, serves the purpose of inverted commas
(see Rom. xv. 10 — 12). In that case it is displaced by an accidental
hyperbaton or trajection, as this transmission of a word into another
clause is called. If however the "again" belongs to the verb it
can only be explained of Christ's second coming to judge the world
(Matt. xxv. 31), unless the writer, assuming the point of view of the
ancient prophet, alludes to the Resurrection. Chrysostom and others
refer it to the Incarnation. But since the mere displacement of the
¦wdXiv is certainly possible, it is better to accept this simple explanation
than either to adopt these latter theories or to suppose that there had
been some previous and premundane presentation of the Son to all
created beings. Hypotheses non fingo is a rule even more necessary
for the theologian than for the scientist.
eio-aYaY{|. The aorist subjunctive means " shall have brought in,"
exactly as in Ex. xiii. 5, 11 (where the same word occurs in the LXX.)
and as in Lk. xvii. 10, " when ye shall have done all that is com
manded you" (iroi-fia-qre). It is the Latin futurum exactum implying
uncertainty of time.
t6v irpwTdroKov, "first-born." This title (see Ps. Ixxxix. 27) was
always applied in a Messianic sense to Christ as "the first-born
of all creation" (Col. i. 15); and the first-born of many brethren
(ii. 10, 11).
els rr[v olicovuivTjv, " into the inhabited earth."
Xe-yn. The language of the Scriptures is regarded as a permanent,
continuous, and living utterance (iii. 7, v. 6, viii. 8, 9, 10, x. 5, &c).
Kal irpoo"KWT]o-dTci)(rav avT<3 irdvTes aYyeXoi fleou. It is doubtful
whether the quotation is from Ps. xovii. 7 "worship Him all ye gods
(Elohim)" — where the word Elohim is rendered "angels" in the
LXX. as in Ps. viii. 5 — or rather from Deut. xxxii. 43, where there is
an "and," and where the LXX. either added these words or found

I. 7.] NOTES. 37
them in the Hebrew text. The Messianic application of the word
is natural in the latter passage, for there Jehovah is the speaker, and
if the "him" is applied to the ideal Israel, the ideal Israel was the
Jashar or "upright man," and was the type of the Messiah. The
Apostles and Evangelists always describe Christ as returning "with
the Holy Angels" (Matt. xxv. 31; Mark viii. 38), and describe "all
Angels and authorities" as "subject unto him" (1 Pet. iii. 22; Rev. v.
11—13). 7. Kal irpos |iev rois dx(iXov% Xfyel> ' ' and with reference to the Angels,
He saith." The Xiyeiv irpbs here resembles the Latin dicere in aliquem,
Winer, p. 505. He has shewn that the title of "Son" is too special
and too super-eminent to be ever addressed to Angels ; he proceeds to
shew that the Angels are but subordinate ministers, and that often
God clothes them with "the changing garment of natural pheno
mena, " transforming them, as it were, into winds and flames.
' O iroiwv tous d-y veXovs avToO irvevaaTa Kal rois XeiTOvpyoiis avToi)
irupds <j>X6yo, " who maketh His Angels winds," for the Angels are
already "spirits" (ver. 14). This must be the meaning here, though
the words might also be rendered " Who maketh winds His messengers,
and fiery flames His ministers." This latter rendering, though gram
matically difficult, accords best with the context of Ps. civ. 4, where,
however, the Targum has "Who maketh His messengers swift as
winds, His ministers strong as flaming fire." The Rabbis often refer
to the fact that God makes His Angels assume any form He pleases,
whether men (Gen. xviii. 2) or women (Zech. v. 9) or wind or flame
(Ex. iii. 2 ; 2 K. vi. 17). Thus Milton says:
"For spirits as they please
Can either sex assume, or both; so soft
And uncompounded is their essence pure;
Not tied or manacled with joint or limb
Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones,
Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose,
Dilated or condensed, bright or obscure,
Can execute their aery purposes."
But that mutable and fleeting form of existence which is the glory of
the Angels would be an inferiority in the Son. He could not be
clothed, as they are at God's will, in the fleeting robes of varying
material phenomena. Calvin, therefore, is much too rash and hasty
when he says that the writer here draws his citation into a sense
which does not belong to it, and that nothing is more certain than
that the original passage has nothing to do with angels. With a
wider knowledge of the views of Philo, and other Rabbis, he would
have paused before pronouncing a conclusion so sweepingly dogmatic.
The "Hebrew" readers of the Epistle, like the writer, were evidently
familiar with Alexandrian conceptions. Now in Philo there is no
sharp distinction between the Logos (who is a sort of non-incarnate
Messiah) and the Logoi, who are sometimes regarded as Angels just
as the Logos Himself is sometimes regarded as an Archangel (see

38 HEBREWS. [I. 7—
Siegfried's Philo, p. 22). The Rabbis too explained the "us" of
Gen. i. 26 ("Let us make man") as shewing that the Angels had
a share in creation, see Sanhedrin, p. 38, 2. Such a passage as
Rev. xix. 10 may help to shew the reader that the proof of Christ's
exaltation above the Angels was necessary.
8. irpos 8e t6v diov, " but with reference to the Son." The
Psalm (xiv.) from which the quotation is taken, is called in the LXX.
"A song for the beloved," and has been Messianically interpreted by
Jewish as well as Christian expositors. Hence it is chosen as one of
the special Psalms for Christmas Day.
' O 6p6vos crov 6 8e6s els tov aluva rov alwvos. 6 Ocbs is the ordinary
vocative in Hellenistic Greek. This use of the nominative for the
vocative is sometimes scornful in classical Greek (as in xa'/>6 °" pWt-
XeiJs tuv 'lovSaluv), but is used in Hellenistic in direct addresses, comp.
Luke xii. 32 pvti 0o/3oO rb pwpbv irolp.viov, viii. 54 r\ vais eyeipe. The
quotation is from Ps. xiv. 6, 7 (LXX), which in its primary and
historic sense is a splendid epithalamium to Solomon, or Joram, or
some theocratic king of David's house. But in the idealism and
hyperbole of its expression it pointed forward to ' ' the Eing in His
beauty." " Thy throne, 0 Elohim," is the rendering which seems most
natural, and this at once evidences the mystic and ideal character of
the language ; for though judges and rulers are sometimes collectively
and indirectly called Elohim (Ex. xxi. 6, xxii. 8 ; Ps. Ixxxii. 1 ; John x.
34 — 36) yet nothing which approaches a title so exalted is ever given
to a human person, except in this typical sense (as in Is. ix. 6). The
original, however, has been understood by some to mean "Thy divine
throne"; and this verse may be rendered "God is Thy throne for ever
and ever." Philo had spoken of the Logos as "the eldest Angel,"
"an Archangel of many names" (De Gonf. Ling. 28), and it was most
necessary for the writer to shew that the Mediator of the New Cove
nant was not merely an Angel like the ministers of the Old, or even
an Archangel, but the Divine Prae-existent Son whose dispensation
therefore supersedes that which had been administered by inferior
beings. The Targum on this Psalm (xiv. 3) renders it "Thy beauty,
O King Messiah, is greater than the sons of men," and Aben Ezra
says it refers not so much to David as to his son Messiah.
t] pd(3Sos ttjs ei58vn]TOs, " the sceptre of rectitude." The A. V.
gave the same word for eiBirrfros and SiKaioaivqv in the next verse.
The R.V. rightly distinguishes between the two words. Eufli/njs is in
the N.T. a dira^ Xey6p.evov.
¦rijs Pao-iXeCas a-ov. The two oldest MSS. (N, B) read airoO.
9. iiYairtio-as, "Thou lovedst" — idealising the whole reign to
one point. Comp. Is. xxxii. 1, " Behold, a king shall reign in right
eousness"; and Jer. xxiii. 5, "I will raise unto David a righteous
Branch." dvopiav, " lawlessness." Comp. 1 John iii. 4, " sin is lawlessness."

I. 11.] NOTES. 39
SioL tovto. Comp. ii. 9, 16, 17, v. 7, 8, xii. 2.
6 8eds, d 6e<5s o-ov. The first word might be a vocative " 0 God, "
and it is so rendered even by the Jewish translator Symmachus. But
this is contrary to the usage of the 2nd Book of Psalms. Where the
word "God" is taken up and repeated with the suffix, there is no
other instance in which the first is a vocative.
d 6eos o-ov. Comp. John xx. 17, "I ascend to... my God and your
God." expurev o-e. The anointing is fixed ideally by the aorist as a single
act dependent on the irydTnaas, Winer, p. 346. %p£« here has the
double ace. as in Rev. iii. 18, KoXXovpiov tyxpiaov robs 6cj>6aXpois.
dvccXXido-ems, " of exultation." The word means the joy of perfect
triumph, xii. 2. For the "anointing" of Christ by the Spirit see
Lk. i. 35; Matt. iii. 16; Acts x. 38; Is. lxi. 1; but the anointing in
this verse alludes to His glorification in Heaven.
irapd to^s aerdxovs (rov. This use of wapb. in comparisons is common
in the N. T., comp. Lk. xiii. 2 apapruXol irapd irdvras, 1 Cor. iii. 11
dXXos irapd, Winer, p. 504. In the original Psalm this refers to all
contemporary princes ; in its present application it means " above all
the angel-dwellers on Mount Sion " (xii. 22), and " above all men who
have fellowship with God " (iii. 14) only in Christ (ii. 11 ; 1 John i. 3).
10. Ka£, 2v KaT dpxds Kvpie. The quotation is from Ps. eii.
25 — 27. The word "Lord" is not in the original, but it is in the
LXX. ; and the Hebrew Christians who already believed that it was by
Christ that "God made the world" (see note on ver. 2) would not dis
pute the Messianic application of these words to Him, though the
Jews did not regard it as a Messianic Psalm and it is never so applied
by any Rabbi. It is a prayer of the afflicted written at some late
period of the exile. Calvin (on Eph. iv. 8) goes so far as to say of
such passages that the Apostle " by a piouB diversion of their meaning
{pid deflectione) accommodates them to the Person of Christ." The
remark illustrates the courageous honesty and stern good sense of the
great Reformer : but no Jewish-Christian exegete would have thought
that he was practising a mere pious misapplication of the sacred
words, or have admitted the objection of Cardinal Cajetan that "in a
matter of such importance it was unbecoming to use such an argu
ment." The writer's object is not proof — which was for his readers
unnecessary; he wished to illustrate acknowledged truths by admitted
principles. kot dpxds- Heb. tMB?, "face-wards," i.e. of old. It is a classic
phrase, and in the LXX. dif dpxvs or iv dpxv are more common.
11. avrol diroXovvrai,. Is. xxxiv. 4, &c. ; 2 Pet. iii. 12 ; Rev.
xxi. 1.
Siapiveis, "abidest through all times." This, and not the future Sia-
pevets, is the right reading, for it is parallel to av Sid airbs et iuapA-
veiv means to abide through all changes.

40 HEBREWS. [I. 12—
wo-et Trepipo'Xaiov. us Ipdriov is a common Scripture metaphor. Is.
1. 9, &c.
12. £Xi|eis awovs, "Thou shalt roll them up." This reading
(iXl£eis) is found in most MSS. and is perhaps an unconscious reminis
cence of Is. xxxiv. 4 (comp. Rev. vi. 14) ; but N, D read " thou shalt
change them" (dXXdfeis), as in the original, and in the LXX. (God.,
Alex,). On this final consummation, and the destruction of the
material universe, see Matt. xxiv. 35 ; 2 Pet. iii. 7 ; Rev. xxi. 1.
o-v Se 6 aiiTos sl. In the Hebrew (literally) "Thou art He" (N-1l"l).
Ta eTT] crov ovk eKXeCi|/ovo-iv, i.e. they shall never come to an end
(xiii. 8; Rev. i. 8). The verb is used in the LXX. and by St Luke
xvi. 9, xxii. 32. The neut. plur., as is not unusual, here takes a
plural verb. So too in John xix. 31 ; 1 Tim. v. 25. See Winer, p. 646.
13. viroirdSiov. This same passage from Ps. ex. 1 had been quoted
by our Lord, in its Messianic sense, to the Scribes and Pharisees,
without any attempt on their part to challenge His application of it
(Matt. xxii. 41 — 44). It is also referred to by St Peter in Acts ii. 34
and by St Paul (1 Cor. xv. 25). The Greek expression for "till"
(Sus dv) implies entire indefiniteness of time. The reference is to the
oriental custom of putting the feet on the necks of conquered kings
(Josh. x. 24).
14. XeiTovpyiKa irvevaaTa els SiaKovCav, "ministering spirits. ..for
service." Here as elsewhere the A.V. obliterates distinctions, which
it, so often arbitrarily creates out of mere love for variety in other
places. The word XeirovpyiKd implies sacred ("liturgic") service
(viii. 6, ix. 21) ; the word Siaxovlav implies service to men.
"How oft do they their silver bowers leave
And come to succour us who succour want;
How oft do they with golden pinions cleave
The flitting skies like flying pursuivant,
Against foul fiends to aid us militant!
They for us fight, they watch and duly ward
And their.bright squadrons round about us plant,
And all for love and nothing for reward.
Oh! why should heavenly God for men have such regard?"
Spenser.
Sid Tois ueXXovTas KXr)povouetv o-wrripfav. " For the sake of those
who are about to inherit salvation." The salvation is both the state
of salvation here, and its full fruition hereafter. When we are "justi
fied by God's grace" we are "made heirs according to the hope of
eternal life" (Tit. iii. 7). Spenser widens the mission of the Angels
when he speaks of
"Highest God, who loves His creatures sc
That blessed Angels He sends to and fro
To serve to wicked men — to serve His deadliest foe."
For Scriptural instances of the service of Angels "to them that fear
God" see Ps. xxxiv. 7, xci. 11 ; Gen. xix. 15; Dan. vi. 22; Acts xii. 7.

II. l.J

NOTES. 41

diroo-TeXXdpeva, "being sent forth." The ministry of Angels is
regarded as still continuing.
o-wrnpCav. The writer recurs to this great word "salvation" in ii.
3, 10.

CHAPTER II.
7. [koI KaT^o-rr)o-as avTov eirl Ta ?pya tov x6lp(»v (rov]. This
clause, retained in the rec, is found in NACM Vulg. &c, but not in
BEL, and may be only a gloss added from the LXX.
9. xipin Beov NABCDEEL. The x^p's 0eoO of M Syr. and the
rec. is an ancient variation known to Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia,
Jerome and others. It has been supposed to be a Monophysite cor
ruption, but was more ancient than that controversy. It is probably
a mere pragmatic gloss on the iirip iravrbs. By a curious error St
Thomas AquinaB here mistook the gratia Dei of the Vulg. for a
nominative. See the note.
14. aHuaTos Kal o-apKos. This less usual sequence is supported by
NABCDEM.

Ch. II. A solemn Warning and Exhortation (1 — 4). Christ's
temporary humiliation for the redemption and glorification
of Mankind does not disparage His Pre-eminence over Angels
(5 — 13), but was necessary for the Perfectness of His High-
Priestly Work (14 — 18).
1. Aid tovto. Because we are heirs of a better covenant, adminis
tered not by Angels but by a Sou, to whom as Mediator an absolute
dominion is to be assigned.
Set. The word implies moral necessity and not mere obligation.
The author never loses sight of the fact that his purpose was to warn
as well as to teach.
Trepur<roTe'po>s irpoo-e'xeiv. If the command to " take heed to thyself,
and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things that thine eyes
have seen" (Deut. iv. 9), came with awful force to those who had only
received the Law by the disposition of Angels, how much "more
abundantly" should Christians attend to Him of Whom Moses had
spoken to their fathers? (Acts iii. 22).
Tots dKovo-8eto-i.v, "to the things heard," i.e. to the Gospel.
|mjitot€, "lest haply." See hi. 12, iv. 1.
irapapvuuev. This is the 2nd aor. subj. pass, of irapapiu. In
classical Greek it would be spelt pp. There are no such verbs as Tapa/>-
l>viu, Trapafi/itiu, or Trapap"pinp.i, which seem to be mere fictions of gram
marians. The meaning is "should drift away from them." Wiclif

42 HEBREWS. [II. 1—
rendered the word more correctly than the A.V. which here follows
the Genevan Bible of 1560 — "lest peradventure we fleten away."
The verb thus resembles the Latin praetervehi. The metaphor is
taken from a boat which having no " anchor sure and steadfast," slips
its anchor, and as Luther says in his gloss, "before her landing shoots
away into destruction" (Prov. iii. 21 LXX. vie p.1) n-apap'pvQs). It is
obvious that these Hebrew converts were in great danger of "drifting
away " from the truth under the pressure of trial, and in consequence
of the apathy produced by isolation and deferred hopes (iii. 6, vi. 11,
i. 25, 36, 37, xii. 1—3).
2. el ydp. An argument a minori ad majus, of which indeed the
whole Epistle is a specimen. It was the commonest form assumed by
the Rabbinic interpretation of Scripture and was the first of the seven
exegetic rules of Hillel, who called it "light and heavy."
6 8i" dyy^-wv XaXrjBels Xdyos. The "by" is not virb but Sid, i.e.
"by means of," "through the instrumentality of." The presence of
Angels at Sinai is but slightly alluded to in the 0. T. in Deut. xxxiii.
2 ; Ps. lxviii. 17 ; but these allusions had been greatly expanded, and
were prominently dwelt upon in Rabbinic teaching — the Talmud,
Targums, Midrashim, &o. — until, at last, we find in the tract Maccoth
that God was only supposed to have uttered the First Commandment,
while all the rest of the Law was delivered by Angels. This notion
was at least as old as Josephus, who makes Herod say that the
Jews "had learned of God through Angels " the most sacred part
of their laws (Jos. Antt. xv. 5, § 3). The Alexandrian theology espe
cially, impressed with the truth that "no man hath seen God at
any time" (comp. Ex. xxxiii. 20), eagerly seized on the allusions to
Angels as proving that every theophany was only indirect, and that
God could only be seen through the medium of Angelic appearances.
Hence the Jews frequently referred to Ps. civ. 4, and regarded the
fire, and smoke, and storm of Sinai as being Angelic vehicles of the
Divine manifestation. And besides this, their boast of the Angelic
ministry of the Law was founded on the allusions to the "Angel
of the Presence" (Ex. xxxii. 34, xxxiii. 14; Josh. v. 14; Is. Ixiii. 9).
In the N. T. the only two other passages whioh allude to the work
of Angels in delivering the Law are Acts vii. 53 ; Gal. iii. 19 (see my
Life of St Paul, n. 149). Clearly the Hebrew Christians had to be
delivered from the notion that Christ, by being "made under the
Law," had subjected Himself to the loftier position of the Angels who
had ministered the Law.
e-yeveTO pepaios, ' "became" or "proved" steadfast. The Law was
no brutwm fulmen; no inoperative dead-letter, but effective to vindi
cate its own majesty, and punish its own violation. Philo uses the
very same word (pi/3ata) of the institutions of Moses; but the dif
ference of standpoint between him and the writer is illustrated by the
fact that Philo also calls them do-dXeura, "not to be shaken," which
this writer would not have done (xii. 27).

II. 3.]

NOTES. 43

wdo-a TrapafJacris Kal irapaKoij, i.e. all sins against it, whether of
commission or of omission, rrapdfiaais is "transgression"; irapaKo1*)
is "mishearing" and neglect (Matt, xviii. 17; Rom. v. 19).
evSiKov. This form of the word ocours only here and in Rom. iii. 8.
uio-SairoSoo-Cav. The word p.ia$6s, "wage " or "pay" — which is used
of punishment as well as of reward — would have expressed the same
thought; but the writer likes the more sonorous p.ia9awoSoala (from
fuaffbs and diroSovvai) (x. 35, xi. 26). This remorseless self-vindication
by the Law ("without mercy"), the certainty that it could not be
broken with impunity, is alluded to in x. 28. The Israelites found
even in the wilderness (Lev. x. 1, 2; Num. xv. 32 — 36; Deut. iv. 3,
&c), that such stern warnings as that of Num. xv. 30 — threatening
excision to offenders — were terribly real, and applied alike to indi
viduals and to the nation.
3. mis rjaels eK<pev|6ae8a ; The "we" (being expressed in the
original) is emphatic — we who are sons, not servants — the compound
verb means "how shall we succeed in escaping," or, "make good our
escape" — namely, from similar, but yet more awful punishment (comp.
xii. 25).
daeXijo-avTes, "after neglecting," or "when we have neglected,"
not, as in A. V., "if -we neglect."
Tt]XiKa6rr]s o-(i>TT)p£as. The transcendence (vii. 25) of the safety
provided is a measure of the guilt involved in ceasing to pay any
attention to it (x. 29; John xii. 48). It came from Christ not from
Angels ; its sanctions are more eternal, its promises more Divine, its
whole character more spiritual.
tjtis dpx^v Xa|3ovo-a XaXacrBai. The definite relative rjns "one
which" has (as often) a quasi-causal force, "seeing that it, having at
the first been spoken."
8id tov Kvpfov. The Gospels shew that Jesus was the first preacher
of His own Gospel (Mark i. 14). "The Lord," standing alone, is very
rarely, if ever, used as a title for Christ in St Paul. (1 Thess. iv. 15 ;
2 Thess. ii. 2 ; 2 Tim. iv. 18, are, to say the least, indecisive.)
vird twv aKovo-dvTojv. We did not indeed receive the Gospel at first
hand, but from those who were its appointed witnesses (Lk. xxiv.
47, 48; Acts i. 8, v. 32). This verse, as Luther and Calvin so clearly
saw, furnishes a decisive proof that St Paul was not the writer of this
Epistle. He always insisted on the primary and direct character of
the revelation which he had received as his independent Gospel (Gal.
i. 1, 12; Acts xxii. 10, xxvi. 16; 1 Cor. xi. 23, xv. 3, &c). To talk
of "accommodation" or dvaxolvuais with his readers here is quite
beside the mark.
els T|(ids. A sort of constructio praegnans, "was confirmed (so as to
reach) to us," Winer, p. 776.
e|3e|3aiu8T]. The "word of this salvation" — the news of this

44 HEBREWS. [IL 3—
Gospel — was ratified to us (comp. 1 Cor. i. 6), and so it becomes
"steadfast" (fiipaios, verse 2).
4. o-vvemaapTvpovvTos tov Beov, " God bearing witness with them";
the supernatural witness coincided with the human.
a-r]pdois re Kal Tepaoav Kal iroiKCXais Swdaeo-iv. "Signs" to shew
that there was a power behind their witness; "portents" to awaken
the feeling of astonishment, and so arouse interest; and various
"powers." These are alluded to, or recorded, in Mark xvi. 20;
Acts ii. 43, xix. 11. St Paul himself appealed to his own "mighty
signs and wonders " (Rom. xv. 18, 19 ; 1 Cor. ii. 4).
Kal irvevaaTos dyCov uepio-aots, "distributions" (iv. 12 "dividing").
KaTa ttjv avTov BeX^a-iv, "according to His own will." The phrase
applies only to this clause — the gifts which the Holy Spirit distributes
as He wills (1 Cor. vii. 17, xii. 11 ; Rom. xii. 3). BiX-qais is not used
in Attic Greek. Pollux v. 165 r) Si diXnais 18iutik6v.
5 — 13. The voluntary Humiliation of Jesus was a necessary
Step in the Exaltation of Humanity.
5. yap. The "for" resumes the thread of the argument about
the superiority of Jesus over the Angels. He was to be the supreme
king, but the necessity of passing through suffering to His Messianic
throne lay in the fact of His High-Priesthood for the human race.
To Him, therefore, and not to Angels, the "future age" is to belong.
Ov Ydp aYY^Xois vireTaijev ti)v oIkovu€vt]v rffv aeXXovo-av, "For not
to Angels did He subject the inhabited earth to come." In this
"inhabited earth" things in their prae-Christian condition had been
subjected to Angels. This is inferred directly from Ps. viii. where
the "little" of degree is interpreted as "a little" of time. The
authority of Augels over the Mosaic dispensation had been inferred
by the Jews from Ps. lxxxii. 1, where "the congregation of Elohim"
was interpreted to mean Angels ; and from Deut. xxxii. 8, 9, where
instead of "He set the bounds of the people according to the number
of the children of Israel," the LXX. had "according to the number of
the Angels of God." From this passage, and Gen. x., Dan. x. 13, &c.
they inferred that there were 70 nations of the world, each under its
presiding Angel, but that Israel was under the special oharge of God,
as is expressly stated in Ecclus. xvii. 17 (comp. Is. xxiv. 21, 22, LXX.).
The notion is only modified when in Dan. x. 13, 20, Michael "the first
Prince," and in Tobit xii. 15, "the seven Archangels," are regarded
as protectors of Israel. But now the dispensational functions of
Angels have ceased, because in "the kingdom of God" they in their
turn were subordinated to the man Christ Jesus.
rr[v olKovuevTjv ""J v (UXXovo-av. The Olam habba or "future age "
of the Hebrews ; although the word here used is not alS>v but oIkov-
pivrj, properly the inhabited world. In Is. ix. 6 the Theocratic king
who is a type of the Messiah is called "the Everlasting Father,"

II. 7. J

NOTES. 45

which is rendered by the LXX. "father of the future age." In the
"new heavens and new earth," as in the Messianic kingdom which is
"the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ," man, whose nature
Christ has taken upon Him, is to be specially exalted. Hence, as
Calvin acutely observes, Abraham, Joshua, Daniel, are not forbidden
to bow to Angels, but under the New Covenant St John is twice
forbidden (Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 9). But although the Messianic
kingdom, and therefore the "future age," began at the Resurrection,
there is yet another "future age" beyond it, which shall only begin
when this age is perfected.and Christ's kingdom is fully come.
irepl ijs XaXovaev, i.e. which is my present subject.
6. SieaapTvpaTo 8e ttov tis. The writer was of course perfectly
well aware that the Psalm on which he proceeds to comment is the
8th Psalm. This indefinite mode of quotation (" some one, some
where ") is common in Philo (De ebriet., Opp. i. 365, where he quotes
Gen. xx. 12 with the formula eTire ydp woi ns) and the Rabbis. Scrip
ture is often quoted by the words " It saith " or " He saith " or " God
saith. " Possibly the indefinite form (comp. iv. 4) — which is not found
in St Paul — is only here adopted because God is Himself addressed in
the Psalm. (See Schottgen, Nov. Hebr., p. 928.)
T£ eo-Tiv dvBpwTros. The Hebrew word — B>13N — means man in his
weakness and humiliation. The " what " expresses a double feeling —
how mean in himself! how great in Thy love! The Psalm is only
Messianic in so far as it implies man's final exaltation through Christ's
incarnation. It applies, in the first instance, and directly, to Man:
and only in a secondary sense to Jesus as man. But St Paul had
already (1 Cor. xv. 27; Eph. i. 22) applied it in a Messianic sense,
and "Son of man" was a Messianic title (Dan. vii. 13). Thus the
Cabbalists regarded the name Adam as an anagram for Adam, David,
Moses, and regarded the Messiah as combining the dignity of all three.
David twice makes the exclamation — "Whatisman?"; — once when he
is thinking of man's frailty in connexion with his exaltation by God
(Ps. viii.); and once (Ps. cxliv. 3) when he is thinking only of man's
emptiness and worthlessness, as being undeserving of God's care
(comp. Job vii. 17).
7. Ppaxv ti. The "little" in the original (meiit) means "little
in degree"; but is here applied to time — "for a little while" — as is
clear from ver. 9. The writer was only acquainted with the LXX.
and in Greek the Ppa%i ri would naturally suggest brevity of time
(comp. 1 Pet. v. 10). Some of the old Greek translators who took the
other meaning rendered dXtyov rrapa 6ebv.
trap' aYY^Xovs. Ou this comparative use of rrapk see Winer, p. 503,
and the note to i. 9. The original has " than Elohim," i.e. than God ;
but the name Elohim has, as we have seen, a much wider and lower
range than " Jehovah," and the rendering " angels " is here found
both in the LXX. and the Targum. It must, be borne in mind that
the writer is only applying the words of the Psalm, and putting them

46 HEBREWS. [II. 7—
as it were to a fresh use. The Psalm is " a lyric echo of the first
chapter of Genesis " and speaks of man's exaltation. The author is
applying it to man's lowliness (" ad suum institutum deflectit," says
Calvin, " Kar' iiregepyaalav "). Yet David's notion, like that of Cicero,
is that " Man is a mortal God," and the writer is only touching on
man's humiliation to illustrate his exaltation of the God-Man. See
Perowne on the Psalms (i. 144).
[Kal KaTed-TT]o-as avrov eirl rd 'ipya, tuv x^pwv o-ov]. This clause is
probably a gloss from the LXX., as it is absent from some of the best
MSS. and Versions (e.g. B and the Syriac). The writer omitted it as
not bearing on the argument.
8. vfreragas, "Thou didst put..." by one eternal decree. This
clause should be added to the last verse. The clause applies not to
Christ (as in 1 Cor. xv. 25) but to man in his redeemed glory.
irdvra. This is defined in the Psalm (viii. 8, 9) to mean specially
the animal world, but is here applied to the universe in accordance
with its Messianic application (Matt, xxviii. 18).
Ydp. The "for " continues the reasoning of ver. 5. The writer
with deep insight seizes upon the juxtaposition of " humiliation" and
" dominion " as a paradox which only found in Christ its full solution.
ov8ev...dvvirdTaKTov. The inference intended to be drawn is not
" and therefore even angels will be subject to man," but "and there
fore the control of angels will come to an end." When however we
read such a passage as 1 Cor. vi. 3 ("Enow ye not that we shall judge
angels? ") it is uncertain whether the author would not have admitted
even the other inference.
vvv 8e, i.e. but, in this present earthly condition of things man is not
as yet supreme. We see as a fact (bpupiev) man's humiliation: we
perceive by faith the glorification of Jesus, and of all humanity in
Him. avrw, i.e. under man.
9. Ppaxv ti k.t.X. This alludes to the temporal ("for a little
while ") and voluntary humiliation of the Incarnate Lord. See Phil. ii.
7 — 11. For a short time Christ was liable to agony and death from
which angels are exempt; and even to the "intolerable indignity"
of the grave.
pXetroaev. " But we look upon," i.e. not with the outward eye, but
with the eye of faith. The verb used is not bpupev videmus as in the
previous verse, but pXiTropev cernimus (as in iii. 19). In accordance
with the order of the original the verse should be rendered, ' ' But we
look upon Him who has been, for a little while, made low in comparison
of angels — even Jesus — on account of the suffering of death crowned,
&c." 8id to ird6r||i,a tov Savdrov, "because of the suffering of death.''
The via crucis was the appointed via lucis (comp. v. 7 — 10, vii. 26,

II. 9. J NOTES. 47
ix. 12). This truth — that the sufferings of Christ were the willing
path of His perfectionment as the "Priest upon his throne" (Zech.
vi. 13) — is brought out more distinctly in this than in any other
Epistle. 8o|tj Kal Tiarj ea-Tecj>avw|j.e'vov. Into the nature of this glory it was
needless and hardly possible to enter. " On His head were many
crowns " (Bev. xix. 12).
otros. The words refer to the whole of the last clause. The uni
versal efficacy of His death resulted from the double fact of His
humiliation and glorification. He was made a little lower than the
angels, He suffered death, He was crowned with glory and honour, in
order that His death might be efficacious for the redemption of the
world. xdpiTi Beov. The work of redemption resulted from the love of
the Father no less than from that of the Son (John iii. 16 ; Rom. v. 8 ;
2 Cor. v. 21). It is therefore a part of "the grace of God" (Rom.
v. 8; Gal. ii. 21; 2 Cor. vi. 1; Tit. ii. 11), and could only have been
carried into completion by the aid of that grace of which Christ was
full. The Greek is xdpi-ri Beov, but there is a very interesting and
very ancient various reading x«pk Beov, " apart from God." St Jerome
says that he only found this reading " in some copies " (in quibusdam
exemplaribus), whereas Origen had already said that he only found
the other reading " by the grace of God " in some copies (iv riaiv dvn-
ypdipois). At present however the reading " apart from God " is only
found in the cursive manuscript 53 (a MS. of the 9th century), and in
the margin of 67. It is clear that once the reading was more common
than is now the case, and it seems to have been a Western and Syriac
reading which has gradually disappeared from the manuscripts. Theo
dore of Mopsuestia calls the reading "by the grace of God" meaning
less, and others have stamped it as Mouophysite (i.e. as implying that
in Christ there was only one nature). We have seen that this is by no
means the case, though the other reading may doubtless have fallen
into disfavour from the use made of it by the Nestorians to prove that
Christ did not suffer in His divinity but only "apart from God," i.e.
"divinitate tantisper deposits. " (so too St Ambrose and Fulgentius).
But even if the reading be correct (and it is certainly more ancient
than the Nestorian controversy) the words may belong to their own
proper clause — " that He may taste death for every being except God ";
the latter words being added as in 1 Cor. xv. 27. But the reading is
almost certainly spurious. For (1) in the Nestorian sense " (should,
apart from God, taste death ") it is unlike any other passage of Scrip
ture ; (2) in the other sense (' ' should taste death for everything except
God ' ') it is unnecessary (since it bears in no way on the immediate
argument) and may have been originally added as a superfluous mar
ginal gloss by some pragmatic reader who remembered 1 Cor. xv. 27;
or (3) it may have originated from a confusion of letters on the
original papyrus. The incorporation of marginal glosses into the
text is a familiar phenomenon in textual criticism. Such perhaps are

48 HEBREWS. [IL 9—
1 John v. 7; Acts viii. 37; the latter part of Rom. viii. 1; "without
cause" in Matt. v. 22; " unworthily" in 1 Cor. xi. 29, &o.
vire'p, "oti behalf of," not " as a substitution for," which would re
quire dvrl. iravTos. Origen and others made this word neuter, ' 'for
every thing " or " for every existence " ; but this seems to be expressly ex
cluded by ver. 16, and is not in accordance with the analogy of John i.
29, iii. 16; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 John ii. 2. It will be seen that the writer
deals freely with the Psalm. The Psalmist views man in his present
condition as being one which involves both glory and humiliation : his
words are here apphed as expressing man's present humiliation and
his future glory, which are compared with Christ's temporal humilia
tion leading to His Eternal glory. It is the necessity of this applica
tion which required the phrase " a little " to be understood not of
degree but of time. No doubt the writer has read into the words a
pregnant significance; but (1) he is only applying them by way of
illustrating acknowledged truths : and (2) he is doing so in accordance
with principles of exegesis which were universally conceded not only
by Christians but even by Jews.
Yevorvrai BavaTov. The word "taste" is not to be pressed as
though it meant that Christ "saw no corruption." "To taste"
does not mean merely " summis labris delibare." It is a common Se
mitic and metaphoric paraphrase for death, derived from the notion
of Death as an Angel who gives a cup to drink ; as in the Arabic poem
Antar "Death fed him with a cup of absinth by my hand." Comp.
Matt. xvi. 28; John viii. 52. But the " death" here referred to is the
life of self-sacrifice as well as the death of the body. TeiieaBai with
the gen. is common in classical Greek, but its use with Bavdrov in the
N. T. (Matt. xvi. 28 &c.) is a Rabbinic phrase (see Schb'ttgen, Hor.
Hebr. p. 148).
10. eirporev Ydp avTu. tipi-rrei has four constructions; (1) with
dat. and inf. Matt. iii. 15 ; (2) dat. followed by ace. and inf. as here ;
(3) personal as in Heb. vii. 26 ; (4) with ace. and inf. 1 Cor. xi. 13.
Unlike St Paul the writer never enters into what may be called " the
philosophy of the plan of salvation. " He never attempts to throw any
light upon the mysterious subject of the antecedent necessity for the
death of Christ. Perhaps he considered that all which could be pro
fitably said on that high mystery had already been said by St Paul
(Rom. iii. 25; Gal. iii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 21). He dwells upon Christ's
death almost exclusively in its relation to us. The expression which
he here uses, "it was morally fitting for Him," is almost the only one
which he devotes to what may be called "the transcendent side of
Christ's sacrifice" — the death of Christ as regards its relation to God.
He develops no theory of vicarious satisfaction, &c, though he uses
the metaphoric words " redemption " and " make reconciliation for "
(ii. 17, ix. 15). The " moral fitness " here touched upon is the neces
sity for absolutely sympathetic unity between the High Priest and
those for whom He offered His perfect sacrifice. Compare Lk. xxiv.
46, "thus it behoved Christ to suffer." Philo also uses the phrase

II. iu.j NOTES. 49
irpiirei rip Beip (Leg. alleg. p. 48, 8). It is a very remarkable expression,
for though it also occurs in the LXX. (Jer. x. 7), yet in this passage
alone does it contemplate the actions of God under the aspect of inherent
moral fitness,
%£ 'iv, i.e. " for whose sake," " on whose account." The reference
here is to God, not to Christ.
8i' o5, i.e. by whose creative agency. Compare Rom. xi. 36, "of
Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things." The same words
may also be applied to Christ, but the context here shews that they
refer to God the Father.
iroXXovs. " A great multitude which no man could number '' (Rev.
vii. 9 — 14). The word is used iu contrast to the one Captain.
vtovs. This word furnishes an additional proof that the "having
brought" refers to God, not to Christ, for we are called Christ's
"brethren," but never His sons.
aYa-ydvTa, " having brought." The subject is involved in the t<?
Be$. The use of the aorist participle is difficult, but the " glory "
seems to imply the potential triumph of the "sons"in the onefinished
act of Christ which was due to "the grace of God." The "Him"
and the " having brought " refer to God and not to Christ. God led
many sons to glory through the Captain of their Salvation, whom — in
that process of Redemptive Work which is shared by each "Person "
of the Blessed Trinity — He perfected through suffering. On the Cross
the future glory of the many sons was won and was potentially con
summated. dpxTlYov. Comp. 1 Mace. x. 47 dpxi7os Xoyuv elpnviKuv. The
word also occurs in Acts v. 31. Iu Acts iii. 15 it means "author," or
"originator," as in xii. 2. The word primarily signifies one who
goes at the head of a company as their leader (antesignanus) and
guide (see Is. Iv. 4), and then comes to mean "originator." Comp.
v. 9.
Sid TraBTjaaTcov. See note on ver. 9, and comp. Rev. v. 9 ; 1 Pet.
v. 10. Jewish Christians were slow to realise the necessity for a oruci-
fied Messiah, and when they did so they tried to distinguish between
Messiah Bon of David and a supposed Messiah son of Joseph. There
are however some early traces of such a belief. See an Appendix to
Vol. n. of the last Edition of Dean Perowne on the Psalms.
reXeiuo-at. Not in the sense of making morally, or otherwise,
perfect, but in the sense of leading to a predestined goal or consumma
tion. See the similar uses of this word in v. 9, vii. 28, ix. 9, x. 14,
xi. 40, xii. 23. The LXX. uses the word to represent the consecration
of the High Priest (Lev. xxi. 10). In this Epistle the verb occurs
nine times, in all St Paul's Epistles probably not once. (In 2 Cor.
xii. 9 the reading of ABDFG is TeXeirat. In Phil. iii. 12 the reading
of DEFG is SeSixalupai.)

50 HEBREWS. [II. 11—
11. y*P- The next three verses are an illustration of the moral
fitness, and therefore of the Divine necessity, that there should be
perfect unity and sympathy between the Saviour and the saved.
o Te dYux£uv Kal ol aYiagduevoi. The idea would perhaps be well,
though not literally, expressed by "both the sanctifier and the sancti
fied," for the idea of sanctification is here not so much that of
progressive holiness as that of cleansing (xiii. 12). This writer seems
to make but little difference between the words "to sanctify" and
"to purify," because in the sphere of the Jewish Ceremonial Law
from which his analogies are largely drawn, "sanctification meant the
setting apart for service by various means of purification." See ix. 13,
14, x. 10, 14, xiii. 12, and comp. John xvii. 17 — 19; 1 John i. 7. The
progressive sanctification is viewed in its ideal result, and in this
result the whole Church of Christ shares, so that, like Israel of old,
it is ideally "holy."
e| evos irdvTes. Sub. irarpos. The. ii implies descent ; they alike
derive their origin from God; in other words the relation in which
they stand to each other is due to one and the same Divine purpose
(John xvii. 17 — 19). This seems a better view than to refer the "one"
to Abraham (Is. Ii. 2; Ezek. xxxiii. 24, &o.) or to Adam.
ovk erraio^vverai. Sc. d dyidguv.
dSeXcfious avTO^s KaXetv. auVovs sc. tous dyiafrpivovs. If the
Gospels had been commonly known at the time when this Epistle was
written, the author would doubtless have referred not to the Old
Testament, but to such direct and tender illustrations as Matt. xii.
49, 50, "Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall
do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother,
and sister, and mother": or to John xx. 17, "Go to my brethren,
and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father ; and
to my God, and your God": Matt, xxviii. 10, "go unto my brethren."
Or are we to suppose that this application of Messianic Psalms
would have come with even greater argumentative force to his Juda-
ising readers ?
KaXetv, i.e. to declare them to be His brethren by calling them so.
12. 'AiroYYeXw k.t.X. Ps. xxii. 22. This is a typieo-prophetic Psalm,
accepted in a Messianic sense, which was supposed to be mystically
indicated by its superscription, " On the hind of the dawn." The
sense of its prophetic and typical character had doubtless been deep
ened among Christians by our Lord's quotation from it on the Cross
(Matt, xxvii. 46). It is one of our special Psalms for Good Friday.
See the references to it in Matt, xxvii. 35 ; John xix. 24.
eKKXr]o-Cas, "of the congregation."
13. 'Eyw go-opai ireiroiflws err' avTu. The quotation is probably
from Is. viii. 17, but nearly the same words are found in Ps. xviii. 2
and 2 Sam. xxii. 3 (LXX.). The necessity of putting His trust in
God is a proof of Christ's humanity, and therefore of His brotherhood

II. 14.J NOTES. 51
with us. When He was on the Cross His enemies said by way of
taunt, "He trusted in God" (Matt, xxvii. 43).
'I8ov iyu k.t.X. This verse furnishes a marked instance of the
principles of BibHcal interpretation, of which we have already seen
many specimens. Isaiah by the prophetess has a sou to whom he is
bidden to give the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, or "Speed-plunder-
haste-spoil " ; to his elder son he has been bidden to give the name
Shear'Jashub, "a remnant shall remain"; and as the names of both
sons are connected with prophecies concerning Israel he says "Lo! I
and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for
wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts." The words are here en
tirely dissociated from their context and from their primary historical
meaning to indicate the relation between Christ and His redeemed
children. The LXX. in Is. viii. 17 insert the words "And He will
say," and some have supposed that the author (who, like most
Alexandrians, was evidently unacquainted with the original Hebrew)
understood these words to imply' that it was no longer the Prophet but
the Messiah who was the speaker. It is however more probable that
he took for granted the legitimacy of his application. In this he
merely followed the school of interpretation in which he had been
trained, iu accordance with principles which were at that period
universally accepted among Jews and Christians. We must ourselves
regard it as a somewhat extreme instance of applying the words of
Scripture in a Messianic sense. But we see the bearing of the
illustration upon the immediate point in view, when we recall the
typical character and position of Isaiah, and therefore the mystic
significance which was naturally attached to his words. Our Lord
Himself uses, with no reference to Isaiah, a similar expression,
"those that thou gavest me," in John xvii. 12.
14 — 18. A fuller Statement of the moral Fitness of Christ's
Participation in human Sufferings.
14. k€kchvwvt)k€v, " have shared (and do share) in blood and flesh,"
i.e. are human. They are all inheritors of this common mystery.
This is implied by the perfect tense. "Blood and flesh," as in
Eph. vi. 12.
7rapairXT|o-Cus. This word furnished the Fathers with a strong
argument against the Docetae who regarded the body of Christ not as
real but as purely phantasmal.
lAefe'o-xev tov avT(5v. Because, as he goes on to intimate, it would
otherwise have been impossible for Christ to die. Comp. Phil. ii. 8.
The aorist implies the one historic fact of the Incarnation. The
contrasted use of the aor. and perf. in many passages shews the
importance of observing the difference between them. Comp. Lk. iv.
18 exp'0^ pe evayyeXlaaaBai, diriaraXKi pe Knpv^ai, 1 Cor. xv. 4 on
irdipri Kal Sri iy-qyeprai. See Col. i. 16 ; 2 Cor. xi. 28, &o.
KOTapYTJo-rj, "He may bring to nought," or "render impotent."
See 2 Tim. i. 10, "Jesus Christ. ..hath abolished death"; 1 Cor. xv.
D2

52 HEBREWS. [IL 14—
51—57; Rev. i. 18. The word occurs 28 times in St Paul, but
elsewhere only here and in Lk. xiii. 7, though sometimes found in
the LXX.
Tdv...exovTa, "him that hath," i.e. in the present condition of
things. But Christ, by assuming our flesh, became "the Death of
death," as in the old epitaph,
"Mors Mortis Morti mortem nisi morte dedisset,
Aeternae vitae janua clausa foret";
which we may render
"Had not the Death of death to Death by death his death-blow given,
For ever closed were the gate, the gate of life and heaven."
"Paradoxon: Jesus, mortem passus, vicit : diabolus, mortem vibrans,
succubuit." Bengel. It is, however, possible that the phrase, "the
power of death," does not imply that the devil can, by God's per
mission, inflict death, but that he has "a sovereignty, of which death
is the realm."
tov SidpoXov. This is the only place in this Epistle in which the
name "Devil" occurs. It is nowhere very frequent in the N.T. The
English reader is liable to be misled by the rendering "devils" for
"demons" in the Gospels. Satan has thepower of death, if that be
the meaning here, not as lord but as executioner (comp. Rev. ix. 11) ;
his power is only a permissive power (John viii. 44; Rev; xii. 10;
Wisdom ii. 24, "Through envy of the devil came death unto the
world)." The manner in which Christ shall thus bring Satan to
nought is left untouched, but the best general comments on the fact
are in 1 Cor. xv. and the Apocalypse. Nor does this expression
encourage any Manichean or dualistic views ; for, however evil may
be the will of Satan, he can never exercise his power otherwise than
in accordance with the just will of God. The Jews spoke of an Angel
of Death, whom they called Sammael, and whom they identified with
Satan (Eisenmenger, Entd. Judenth. n. p. 821).
15. toiitovs oo-oi. Lit., "those, as many as," i.e. "all who."
(pdpa> BavaTov. This fear was felt, as we see from the O.T., far
more intensely under the old than under the new dispensation. Dr
Robertson Smith quotes from the Midrash Tanchuma, "In this life
death never suffers man to be glad." See Num. xvii. 13, xviii. 5 ; Ps.
vi., xxx., &c, and Is. xxxviii. 10 — 20, Ac. In heathen and savage
lands the whole of life is often overshadowed by the terror of death,
which thus becomes a veritable "bondage." Philo quotes a line of
Euripides to shew that a man who has uo fear of death can never be
a slave. But, through Christ's death, death has become to the
Christian the gate of glory. The different aspect which death assumed
in the eyes of Christians is forcibly illustrated by the contrast between
the passionate despair, resentment, and cynicism of many Pagan
epitaphs, compared with the peace, resignation, and even exultation
displayed by those in the catacombs. Christians had not received the

II. 17.] NOTES. 53
rrvevpa SovXelas rrdXiv els (p6fiov, Rom. viii. 15. It is remarkable that
in this verse the writer introduces a whole range of conceptions which
he not only leaves without further development, but to which he does
not even allude again. They seem to lie aside from the main current
of his views.
8 id ttovtos tov ^v = Sid it dans rr)s fuijs. The substantival inf.
with an adj. is rare, but compare Persius "Scire tuum nihil est."
evoxoi BovXCas. Stronger than SovXela, not merely "liable to" but
"wholly subdued to" or " implicated in" slavery.
16. ov Ydp Si^irov k.t.X., "for assuredly it is not angels whom He
takes by the hand." The word Sijirov, "certainly," "I suppose"
(opinor), occurs here only in the N. T. or LXX., though common in
Philo. In classical Greek it often has a semi-ironic tinge, " you will
doubtless admit that," like opinor in Latin. All are now agreed that
the verb does not mean "to take the nature of," but "to take by the
hand," and so " to help" or "rescue." Beza indeed called it "execrable
rashness" (exsecranda audaeia) to translate it so, when this rendering
was first adopted by Castellio in 1551 ; but the usage of the word
proves that this is the only possible rendering, although all the
Fathers and Reformers take it in the other way. It is rightly cor
rected in the R. V. (comp. Is. xlix. 9, 10 ; Jer. xxxi. 32 ; Heb. viii. 9 ;
Matt. xiv. 31 ; Ecclus. iv. 11, " Wisdom... takes by the hand those that
seek her"). To refer "he taketh not hold" to Death or the Devil is
most improbable.
o-TrepuaTos 'APpacCa, i.e. Jesus was born a Hebrew. He does
not at all mean to imply that our Lord came to the Jews more
than to the Gentiles, though he is only thinking of the former.
Still, as Reuss says, St Paul could hardly have omitted all allusion
to the Gentiles here.
6tn.XanfSdvmu. The present implies Christ's continued advocacy
and aid.
17. SBev. This word "whence," common in this Epistle, does
not occur once in St Paul, but is found in Acts xxvi. 19, in a
report of his speech, and in 1 John ii. 18.
ai(peiXev. He was morally bound, stronger than the "it became
Him" of ver. 10. It means that, with reference to the object in view,
there lay upon Him a moral obligation to become a man with men.
See v. 1; 2.
KaTd travTa. These words should be taken with "to be made
like." 4va...Y^VT)Tai. " That He might become," or, "prove Himself."
e\erj|iuv...Kal mo-Tos apyiepevs, "merciful," or rather "compas
sionate" to men; "faithful'' to God. Iu Christ "mercy and
truth" have met together, Ps. lxxxv. 10. The expression "a

54 HEBREWS. [II. 17—
faithful priest " is found in 1 Sam. ii. 35. Dr Robertson Smith
well points out that the idea of "a merciful priest," which is
scarcely to be found in the 0. T., would come home with peculiar
force to the Jews of that day, because mercy was a quality in
which the Aaronic Priests had signally failed (Yoma, f. 9, 1), and
in the Herodian epoch they were notorious for cruelty, insolence
and greed (see my Life of Christ, n. 329, 330). The Jews said
that there had been no less than 28 High Priests in 107 years
of this epoch (Jos. Antt. xx. 10), their brief dignity being due to
their wickedness (Prov. x. 27). The conception of the Priesthood
hitherto had been ceremonial rather than ethical; yet it is only
"by mercy and truth" that "iniquity is purged." Prov. xvi. 6.
The word "High Priest," here first introduced, has evidently
been entering into the writer's thoughts (i. 3, ii. 9, 11, 16), and
is the most prominent conception throughout the remainder of the
Epistle. The consummating elements of genuine High Priesthood
are touched upon in v. 10, vi. 20, ix. 24.
dpxiepevs. The Greek word is comparatively new. In the Penta
teuch the high priest is merely called " the Priest " (except in
Lev. xxi. 10). In later books of Scripture the epithet "head"
or "great" is added. The word occurs 17 times in this Epistle,
but not once in any other.
Ta irpds tov fleov. This is the adverbial accusative of reference.
Comp. v. 1. The phrase is found in the LXX. of Ex. xviii. 19.
iXdo-Kco-Bai. Tds duapTCas tov Xaov, " to expiate the sins of the
people." In Pagan and classic usage IXaaKopai is always followed
by the accusative of the Person who is supposed to be angry and
to be appeased by a present or sacrifice. And this heathen notion
has been transferred to Christianity by a false theology. But Christ
is nowhere said in the N. T. to "expiate" or "propitiate" God
or "the wrath of God" (which are heathen, not Christian, con
ceptions), nor is any such expression found in the LXX. Nor do
we find such phrases as " God was propitiated by the death of His
Son," or " Christ propitiated the wrath of God by His blood."
Throughout the Old and New Testaments the verb is only used
with the accusative of the sinner, in which case it means "to be
merciful to," and of the sin, in which case it means "to neutralise
the effects of." The propitiation changes us, not God who is un
changeable. We have to be reconciled to God, not God to us. It is
therefore wholly unwarrantable with Winer (p. 285) to understand
rov Beov here and to regard the verb as governing a double accu
sative. Further we may observe that in the N. T. IXdaKeaBai occurs
but twice (Lk. xviii. 13, and here) and lXaap,6s only twice (1 John
ii. 2, iv. 10). God Himself fore-ordained the propitiation (Rom. iii.
25). The verb represents the Hebrew kippeer " to cover," whence is
derived the name for the day of Atonement (Kippurim). In Dan.
ix. 24 Theodotion's version has i&XdaaaBai dSiKlas. We are left to
unauthorised theory and conjecture as to the manner in which and

III.]

NOTES.

55

the reason for which "expiation," in the form of "sacrifice," inter
poses between "sin" and "wrath." All we know is that, in rela
tion to us, Christ is "the propitiation for our sins" (1 John ii. 2,
iv. 10 ; Rom. iii. 25). Accepting the blessed result as regards our
selves we shall best shew our wisdom by abstaining from dogmatism
and theory respecting the unrevealed and transcendent mvsterv as
it affects God.
tov Xaov. Primarily the Jewish people, whom alone the writer
has in mind. Angels, so far as we are told, did not need the Re
demptive work.
18. ev cS y^P irfrovBey avTos ireipao-Befs. These words have
been taken, and grammatically may be explained, iu eight or nine
different ways. One of the best ways is that given by the A. V.
and endorsed by the R. V. This method regards the Greek iv if
as equivalent to the Hebrew "ISJ>N3, which means "in so far as."
"By His Passion," says Bp Wordsworth, "He acquired compas
sion." Of other possible ways, the most tenable is that which
takes iv $ quite literally, "In that sphere wherein (iv tovtu S,
comp. 1 Pet. ii. 12) He suffered by being tempted" — the sphere
being the whole conditions of human life and trial (comp. vi. 17;
Rom. viii. 3). But the first way seems to be the better. Tempta
tion of its own nature involves suffering, and it is too generally
overlooked that though our Lord's severest temptations came in
two great and solemn crises — in the wilderness and at Gethsemane
— yet Scripture leads us to the view that He was always liable
to temptation — though without sin, because the temptation was
always repudiated with the whole force of His will throughout the
whole course of His life of obedience. After the temptation in the
wilderness the devil only left Him "for a season" (Luke iv. 13).
We must remember too that the word "temptation" includes all
trials. tois Treipajouevois, "that are under temptation" (lit., "that are
being tempted," i. e. men in their mortal life of trial). This thought
is the one so prominent throughout the Epistle, viz. the closeness
of Christ's High-Priestly sympathy, iv. 15, v. 1, 2. The aor.
po-r]9TJcrai implies the immediate help to those who are being con
tinuously tempted.
CHAPTER III.
1. 'Ii]o-ovv NABC^M. The reading Xpiarbv 'Iijaovv is not only
supported by inferior authority (EKL), but is against the usage of this
writer, who never elsewhere uses this collocation, and 'lnaovs Xpiaros
only (if at all) in vi. 20. He uses the simple 'Ivaous (ii. 9, iv. 14,
vi. 20, vii. 22, &c.) or the simple Xpiaros (iii. 6, 14, v. 5, vi. 1, &c).
See the note.

56 HEBREWS. [IIL 1—
4. TrdvTa NABC'DiE &o. The reading rd irdvra ( = "the Uni
verse") would be less suitable to the context.
6. Idv NBD^M. The reading iavrtep (ACEL) may be right,
since the author uses it in iii. 14 and vi. 3.
9. ev 8oKiuao-Ca NABCDEM.
10. ttj Y*ve<j TavTfl. This reading (NABDM Vulg. &c.) differs
from the LXX. (iKelvv) but is an intended and admissible change.
See the note.
16. TCves; Who? The rec. has nvis with LM. See the note.
17. eireo-ev most MSS. hreaav DE.

Ch. III. Superiority of Christ to Moses (1 — 6). Exhortation
AGAINST HARDENING THE HEART (7  19).
There is a remarkable parallelism between the general structure
of this and the next chapter, and that of the first and second chapters.
This illustrates the elaborate and systematic character of the entire
Epistle. Christ higher than angels (i. 5— Christ higher than Moses (iii.
14). 1—6).
Exhortation (ii. 1 — 5). Exhortation (iii. 7 — 19).
In Him man is exalted above In Him His people enter into
angels (ii. 6—16). rest (iv. 1—13).
' His Higher Priesthood (ii. 17, His Higher Priesthood (iv. 14—
18). 16).
1. "08ev. The same word as in ii. 17, where see the note. It is
an inference from the grandeur of Christ's position and the blessed
ness of His work as set forth in the previous chapters.
dS«X<f>ol &yun. This form of address is never used by St Paul. It
assumes that all Christians answered to their true ideal, as does the
ordinary term " saints."
KXrjo-eus lirovpavCov ueTOxoi, " partakers of a heavenly calling." _ It
is a heavenly calling because it comes from heaven (xii. 25), and is a
call " upwards " (dvu) to heavenly things (Phil. iii. 14) and to holiness
(1 Thess. iv. 7).
KaTavorjo-aTe, " contemplate," consider attentively, ,/sx your thoughts
upon (aorist). Compare the use of the word in Acts vii. 31, xi. 6,
xxvii. 39.
tov dirdo-roXov. Christ is called 'AttootoXox as being "sent forth"
(direaraXpiivos) from the Father (John xx. 21). The same title is used
of Christ by Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 12). It corresponds both to
the Hebrew maleach ("angel" or "messenger") and sheliach ("dele
gate"). The "Apostle" unites the functions of both, for, as Justin
says of our Lord, He announces (d7rayy^XXei) and He is sent (otto-
crrAXeTai).

III. 2.] NOTES. 57
Kal dpx'epea. Christ was both the Moses and the Aaron of the
New Dispensation; an "Apostle" from God to us; an High Priest
for us before God. As " Apostle" He, like Moses, pleads God's cause
with us ; as High Priest He, like Aaron, pleads our cause with God.
Just as the High Priest came with the name Jehovah on the golden
plate of his mitre iu the name of God before Israel, and with the
names of the Tribes graven on his jewelled breastplate in the name
of Israel before God, so Christ is "God with us" and the propitiatory
representative of men before God. He is above Angels as a Son, and
a Lord of the future world ; above Aaron, as a Priest after the order
of Melchisedek; above Moses, as a Son over the house is above a
servant in it.
ttjs daoXoYCas riufiv, "of our confession" as Christians (iv. 14, x.
23; 2 Cor. ix. 13; 1 Tim. vi. 12). It is remarkable that in Philo
(Opp. i. 654) the Logos is called " the Great High Priest of our Con
fession"; — but the genuineness of the clause seems doubtful.
'I-rio-ovv. This is a better reading than the Xpiarov 'Iriaovv of the
rec. Suoh a variation of reading may seem a matter of indifference,
but this is very far from being the case. First, the traceable dif
ferences in the usage of this sacred name mark the advance of Chris
tianity. In the Gospels Christ is oalled Jesus and "the Christ";
" the Christ" being still the title of His office as the Anointed Messiah,
not the name of His Person. In the Epistles " Christ " has become
a proper name, and He is frequently spoken of as "the Lord," not
merely as a title of general respeot, but in the use of the word as an
equivalent to the Hebrew "Jehovah." Secondly, the differenee of
nomenclature shews that St Paul was not the author of this Epistle.
St Paul uses the title " Christ Jesus," which (if the reading be here
untenable) does not ocour in this Epistle. This author uses " Jesus
Christ" (x. 10, xiii. 8, 21), "the Lord" (ii. 3), "our Lord" (vii. 14),
" our Lord Jesus " (xiii. 20), "the Son of God " (vi. 6, vii. 3, x. 29),
but most frequently " Jesus " alone, as here (ii. 9, iv. 14, vi. 20, vii.
22, x. 19, xii. 2, 24, xiii. 12) or "Christ" alone (iii. 6, 14, v. 5, vi. I,
ix. 11, &c). See Prof. Davidson, On the Hebrews, p. 73.
2. irio-Tdv Svra, "being faithful," i.e. as Cranmer excellently
rendered it, "how that He is faithful." The word is suggested by the
following contrast between Christ and Moses, of whom it had been
said "My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine
house," Num. xii. 7.
t$ iroM)o-avri atlTov, "to Him that made Him" (Heb. HE^).
There can be little doubt that the expression means, as in the A, V.,
"to Him that appointed Him," "made Him such," i.e. made Him an
Apostle and High Priest. For the phrase is doubtless suggested by
1 Sam. xii. 6, where the LXX. has " He that made Moses and Aaron"
(A. V. "advanced"); comp! Mk. iii. 14, "And He made (irolvae)
Twelve, that they should be with Him." Acts ii. 36, " God made
Him Lord and Christ." The rendering "appointed" is therefore a
perfectly faithful one. Still the peculiarity of the phrase was eagerly

58 HEBREWS. [III. 2—
seized upon by Arians to prove that Christ was a created Being, and
this was one of the causes which retarded the general acceptance of
the Epistle. Yet even if " made " was not here used in the sense of
" appointed " the Arians would have uo vantage ground ; for the word
might have been applied to the Incarnation (so Athanasius, and
Primasius), though not (as Bleek and Liinemann take it) to the
Eternal Generation of the Son. Theodoret and Chrysostom under
stood it as our Version does. It may be noticed that the LXX. have
iKnai pe in Prov. viii. 22 (of Wisdom), and that the Fathers perplexed
by this, as they referred it to the Christ, argued that the verb was
used of His human nature.
ev 6'Xco tw oft«p avTov, "in all His (God's) house" Num. xii. 7.
The house is God's house or household, i. e. the theocratic family of
which the Tabernacle was a symbol — " the house of God which is the
Church of the living God," 1 Tim. iii. 15. The "faithfulness" of
Moses consisted in teaching the Israelites all that God had com
manded him (Deut. iv. 5) and himself "doing according to all that
the Lord commanded him " (Ex. xl. 16).
3. oStos, "He," i.e. Christ. The Y<lp depends on the Karavafi-
aare. rjgCuTai, " hath been deemed worthy," namely, by God.
irXe(ovos...8d£i]s "of a fuller glory" (amplioris gloriae, Vulg.).
¦ropd Mwvo-rjv. Eagerly as the writer is pressing forwards to de
velop his original and central conception of Christ as our Eternal
High Priest, he yet has to pause to prove His superiority over Moses,
because the Jews had begun to elevate Moses into a position of almost
supernatural grandeur which would have its effect on the imagina
tions of wavering and almost apostatising converts. Thus the Rabbis
said that "the soul of Moses was equivalent to the souls of all Israel"
(because by the cabbalistic process called Gematria the numerical
value of the letters of "Moses our Rabbi" in Hebrew=613, which is
also the value of the letters of "Lord God of Israel"). They said
that "the face of Moses was like the sun"; that he alone "saw
through a clear glass," not as other prophets "through a dim glass"
(comp. St Paul's "through a mirror in a riddle," 1 Cor. xiii. 12), and
that whereas there are but fifty gates of understanding in the world
"all but one were opened to Moses." See the Rabbinic references in
my Early Days of Christianity, i. 362. St Paul in 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8
contrasts the evanescing splendour on the face of Moses with the
unchanging glory of Christ.
irXefova Ti|i.T|v ex« tov oSkov, "greater honour than the house."
Ihe oIkov depends ou irXelova not on ripfy. The point of this ex
pression is not very obvious. If taken strictly it would imply that
Moses was himself "the house" which Christ built. But o&cos
"house" or "household" ("die Familie und das Dienerschaft")
means more than the mere building (oUla). It means the whole
theocratic family, the House of Israel in its oovenant relation • and

III. 6.] NOTES. 59
though Moses was not this House, he was more than a servant in it,
being also its direct representative and human head. (There is a
somewhat similar phrase in Philo, De plant. Noe, 16.)
d KaTao-Kevdo-as. The word implies rather "equipped" or "esta
blished" than "builded" (see ix. 2, 6, xi. 7 and note on i. 2; Wisd.
xiii. 4).
4. irds Y*P oIkos KaTao-KevdJeTai iird tivos. "Every household is
established by some one." The establisher of the Old Dispensation
as well as of the New was Christ, but yet, in some sense (as an in
strument and minister), Moses might be regarded as the founder of
the Old Covenant (Acts vii. 38), as Jesus of the New. The verb Kara-
aKevd^u is rendered "prepare" in ix. 6, xi. 7; Lk. i. 17.
6 Se trdvTa KaTao-Kevdo-as Beds. In His humanity Jesus was but
"the Apostle" of God in building His house, the Church. "He (the
man whose name is the Branch) shall build the temple of the Lord,"
Zech. vi. 12. God is the supreme, ultimate, and universal Founder.
5. Iv 8Xio tu oIku avTov, i.e. in all God's house. Two "houses"
are contemplated, Mosaism and Christianity, the Law and the Gospel.
Both were established by God. In the household of the Law, Moses
was the faithful minister ; in the household of the Gospel, Christ took
on Him, indeed, "the form of a slave," and as such was faithful even
unto death, but yet was Son over the House. This seems a more
natural explanatipn than that the writer regards both the covenants
as one Household, in which Moses was a servant, and over which
Christ was a Son.
Bepdiruv, "voluntary attendant." The word used is not SovXos
"slave," nor Sidmvos "minister." It is also apphed to Moses in
the Ep. of Barnabas and in Ex. xiv. 31 (LXX.).
tov XaXr]6T]o-onlvoiv. The fut. pass. part, is rare in the N. T.
The things were to be spoken afterwards by Christ, the Prophet
to whom Moses had pointed, Deut. xviii. 15. The Law and the
Prophets did but witness to the righteousness of God which was to
be fully revealed in Christ (Rom. iii. 21). They were but a shadow
of the coming reality (x. 1). But although it is natural to under
stand the expression in this way, the author possibly meant no more
than that the faithfulness of Moses was an attestation of the Law
which was about to be dehvered. If he had directly meant that
Moses witnessed to the Gospel he would perhaps have written tuv
peXXbvruv XaXeiaBai.
6. Irrl Tdv oIkov avrov, "over His (i.e. God's) house." In the
words "Servant" and "Son" we again (as in i. 5, 8) reach the
central point of Christ's superiority to Moses. The proof of this
superiority did not require more than a brief treatment because it
was implicitly involved in the preceding arguments.
oC oIkos lo-(iev rjaets. This is a metaphor which the writer may
well have learnt in his intercourse with St Paul (2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph.

60 HEBREWS. [III. 6—
ii. 21, 22. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 5). It is also found in Philo De Somn.
(Opp. I. 643), airoiSaaov oC», u ij/vxh> Beov oIkos yeviaBai.
Tt]V Trappi]o-£av. Literally, "our cheerful confidence," especially of
utterance, as in x. 19, 35. The word rendered "confidence" in verse
14 is birbaraais. This boldness of speech and access, which were the
special glory of the old democracies, are used by St John also to
express the highest Christian privilege of filial outspokenness (1 John
iii. 21). Apollos, the probable writer of this Epistle, was known for
this bold speech (-tjp£aro irap"pnaid%eaBai Acts xviii. 26), and evidently
feels the duty and privilege of such a mental attitude (Heb. iv. 16,
x. 19, 35).
to Kavxijua Tt}s IXirCSos, "the glorying of our hope." Kaixnpo,
means "an object of boasting," as in Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 6, &o.
The way in which the writer dwells on the need for "a full assurance
of hope" (vi. 11, 18, 19) seems to shew that owing to the delay in
Christ's coming his readers were liable to fall into impatience (x-. 36,
xii. 1) and apathy (vi. 12, x. 25).
ulxpi tIXovs p«pa£av. The same phrase occurs in ver. 14, The
word fiefialav agrees of course with irafrpnalav, so that rb Kaixqpa ttjs
iXwlSos is almost parenthetical. The form of sentence is common
enough in classical Greek, e. g. Horn. II. xv. 344 ; Hesiod Theogon. 974 ;
Thuc. vin. 63 irv8bpevos...Tbv 2Tpop,j3ixlSnv Kal ras vavs aireXnXvBbra.
The repetition of the phrase by a writer so faultlessly rhetorical is
singular. It cannot however be regarded as a gloss, for it is found in
all the best Manuscripts.
jxlxpi tIXovs. That is, not "until death," but until hope is lost iu
fruition ; until this dispensation has attained to its final goal. This
necessity for perseverance in well-doing is frequently urged in the
N. T. because it was especially needed in times of severe trial. Matt.
x. 22; Col. i. 23, and see infra x. 35—39.
7 — 19. A solemn Warning against hardening the Heart.
[The constant interweaving of warning and exhortation with argu
ment is characteristic of this Epistle. These passages (ii. 1 — 4, iii.
7 — 19, iv. 1 — 14, vi. 1 — 9, x. 19 — 39) cannot, however, be called
digressions, because they belong to the object which the writer had
most- distinctly in view — namely, to check a tendency to relapse from
the Gospel into Judaism.]
7. Aid. The verb which depends on this conjunction is delayed
by the quotation, but is practically found in ver. 12, pxiirere. Christ
was faithful : therefore take heed that ye be not unfaithful.
KaBds \iyei to irvevua to oyiov. For this form of quotation see
Mk. xii. 36; Acts i. 16; 2 Pet. i. 21.
Idv dKovo-rjTe, "if ye hear," lit., "shall have heard." The quotation
is from Ps. xcv. 7 — 11, and the word means " Oh that ye would hear

III. lo.j lvuijms. 61
His voice !"; but the LXX. often renders the Hebrew im by "if." The
"to-day" is always the Scripture day of salvation, which is now,
2 Cor. vi. 2; Is. Iv. 6. "If any man hear my voice. ..1 will come in
to him," Rev. iii. 20. The sense of the Imminent Presence of God
which reigns throughout the prophecies of the O. T. as well as in the
N. T. (x. 37; 1, 2 Thess.; 1 Pet. i. 5, &c.) is beautifuUy illustrated in
the Talmudic story of the Rabbi (Sanhedrin, 98. 1) who went to the
Messiah by direction of Elijah, and asked Him when He would come ;
and He answered "To-day." But before the Rabbi could return to
Elijah the sun had set, and he asked "Has Messiah then deceived
me?" "No," answered Elijah; "he meant 'To-day if ye shall hear
His voice.' "
8. arj o-kXt|pvvt)t£. Comp. Acts xix. 9. Usually God is said to
harden man's heart (Ex. vii. 3, &c. ; Is. lxiii. 17 ; Rom. ix. 18), an
anthropomorphic way of expressing the inevitable results of neglect
and of evil habit. But that this is man's own doing and choice is
always recognised (Deut. x. 16 ; 2 Eings xvii. 14, &c).
cos Iv to irapairiKpao-aw. Lit., "in the embitterment." Heb,
!"Q*"ip3. The LXX. nere 'seem to have read Marah (which means
"bitter" and which they render by HiKpia in Ex. xv. 23) for Meribah
which, in Ex. xvii. 1 — 7, they render by AoiS6pijo-is "reproach." This
is not however certain, for though the substantive does not occur
again, the verb irapainKpdtu is frequently used of provoking God to
anger. For the story of Meribah, see Num. xx. 7 — 13.
tov ireipao-uov, "of the temptation," i.e. at Massah; Ex. xvii. 7;
Deut. vi. 16, though the allusion might also be to Num. xiv.
9. oS, not "when" as in the A. V. but "where," i.e. at Massah, or
in the wilderness. The rendering "wherewith" (R. V.) or "with
which temptation," would have been more naturally expressed in
other ways. It is true that ov for Sttov is not found elsewhere in this
Ep. , but it is common in the LXX. and N.T.
iy SoKiuao-Cq., "by proving me"; or possibly "iu your probation by
me." Comp. Ps. Ixxxi. [lxxx.] 7 iSoKlpaad ae.
Tecro-epaKovTa err]. The "forty years" is purposely transferred
from the next verse of the Psalm. The scene at Massah took place
in the 40th and that at Meribah in the 1st year of the wanderings.
Deut. ix. 7, xxxiii. 8. They indicate the spirit of the Jews through
the whole period. The number 40 is in the Bible constantly con
nected with judgement or trial, and it would have sounded more im
pressive in this passage if the date of the Epistle was shortly before
the Fall of Jerusalem, i.e. about 40 years after the Ascension. The
Rabbis had a saying " The days of the Messiah are 40 years."
10. irpoo-ioxflicra, "I was indignant." The word is derived from
the dashing of waves against a bank (7rp6s, 8x0os). I* omv occurs in
the N. T. here and in verse 17, but is common in the LXX.

62 HEBREWS. [III. 10—
Tfl yevid Tavrg, "with this generation," and it is at least possible
that the writer intentionally altered the expression to make it sound
more directly emphatic. The words " this generation " would fall
with grave force on ears which had heard the report of our Lord's
great discourse (Matt, xxiii. 36; comp. xxiv. 34). To the writer of
this Epistle the language of Scripture is not regarded as a thing
of the past, but as being in a marked degree present, living, and
permanent. 'Ael irXavuvrai ttj KapSCa. See Ps. lxxviii. 40, 41. The word
"alway" is not in the Hebrew. The Apostles in their quotations
are not careful about verbal accuracy. The Hebrew says "they are a
people (DJJ) of wanderers in heart," and Bleek thought that the LXX.
read "tj? and understood it to mean " always."
11. us, "as" (Heb. IK'N), not "so" (us) as in A. V., for dis is rare
in prose, and is not found in the N. T.
wuocra. The reference is to Num. xiv. 28 — 30, xxxii. 13.
El IXevo-ovTai, "If they shall enter" ; but "They shall not enter"
(ver. 18 p.?; elaeXeiaeaBai) is here a correct rendering (A. V., R. V.) of
the Hebraism. It is an imitation of the Hebrew DN , and the apodosis
is suppressed (aposiopesis, see Winer, p. 627).
tt|v KaTairavo-Cv aov. See Deut. xii. 9, 10. The writer proceeds
to argue that this expression could not refer to the past Sabbath-rest
of God: or to the partial and symbolic rest of Canaan; and must
therefore refer to the final rest of heaven. But he does not of
course mean to sanction any inference about the future and final
salvation either of those who entered Canaan or of those who died
in the wilderness.
12. BXIireTe. It is evident that deep anxiety mixes with the
warning. ferai. The fut. ind. implies a dread that this will be the case.
Comp. Lk. xi. 35, aKoirei p.7) to (pus...aKaros iarai. Col. ii. 8; Gal.
iv. 11.
iv tivi vuwv. The warning is expressed indefinitely; but if the
Epistle was addressed to a small Hebrew community the writer may
have had in view some special person who was in danger (comp. x. 25,
xii. 15). In any case the use of the singular might lead to individual
searching of hearts. He here begins a homily founded on the quota
tion from the Psalm.
KapSCa irovi|pd dLirurrCas. Unbelief has its deep source in the heart
more often perhaps than iu the mind.
ev tiJ dTroo-rtjvai dird, "in the apostatising from." In that one word —
Apostasy — the moral peril of his Hebrew readers was evidently summed
up. To apostatise after believing is more dangerous than not to have
believed at all.

HI- lo-j NOTES. 63
dird 8eov Jwvros. The epithet is not idle. It conveys directly
the warning that God would, not overlook the sin of apostasy, and
indirectly the thought that Christ was in heaven at the right hand of
God. 13. irapaKaXetre eavTovs. The verb implies the mutually strengthen
ing _ intercourse of consolation and moral appeal. It is the verb from
which comes the word Paraclete, i.e. the Comforter or Strengthener.
The literal rendering is " exhort yourselves," but this is only an idiom
which extends reciprocity into identity, and the meaning is " exhort
one another " (dXX-fjXovs). Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 7 ; Eph. iv. 32, &c.
dxpis 0^ Td a-ijuepov KaXcfrai, "so long as it is called 'To-day.'"
It is however true that dxpis in the N. T. generally means "until."
Another rendering is "so long as to-day is being proclaimed." The
meaning is " while the to-day of the Psalm (rb ar/pepov) can still be
regarded as applicable," i.e. while our "day of visitation" lasts, and
while we still "have the light." Lk. xix. 44; John xii. 35, 36.
o-kXt]pvv8tj. See note on ver. 8. The following clause indicates that
God only "hardens" the heart iu the sense that man is inevitably
suffered to render his own heart callous by indulgence in sin.
14. aeVovoiTov Xpiorov. Lit., "partakers of Christ," but the mean
ing may rather be " partakers with Christ "; for the thought of mystical
union with Christ extending into spiritual unity and identity, which
makes the words "in Christ" the "monogram" of St Paul, is
scarcely alluded to by this writer. His thoughts are rather of " Christ
for us" than of "Christ in us." "To him that overcometh will I
grant to sit with me in my throne," Rev. iii. 21.
YeYovauev, "we are become."
Idvirep. The rrep emphasizes the condition. ' ' If — not otherwise-"
It strikes the same note of distrust — of anxiety respecting their stead
fastness — which marks the whole tone of the Epistle.
tijv dpx^v "rijs viroo-Tdcrecos. The word iiroaraais is here rendered
" confidence," as in Ps. xxxix. 7 (" sure hope "). This meaning of the
word (elsewhere rendered "substance," to which it etymologically
corresponds, i. 3, xi. 1), is found only in later Greek (Polybius, Jose
phus, Diod. Sic). The expression dpxty does not here imply anything
inchoate or imperfect, but is merely in contrast with " end."
ue'xpi tIXovs ptpaCav. See note on ver. 6.
15. kv t$ XlYEo-Bai. " While " or " since it is said." It is better to
give this sense to the phrase than to suppose a long parenthesis
between this verse and the (pofinBupev o!v of iv. 1 (which is the view
of the construction taken by Chrysostom and other Greek fathers) ;
or to join it to the irapaKaXeire iavrobs of ver. 13.
p.i] o-KXT]ptfvT]Te. Some editors mistakenly supposed that aKXripivvre
was a pres. subj., which would involve a solecism. It is an aar. subj.
(iaKXripvva).

64 HEBREWS. [III. 16—
16. TCves YdpdKoio-avTesTrapeTrCKpavav; "For who {rives) when they
heard, embittered (Him)?" This {rives;) is the reading of the Peshito.
It would have been absurd to use the word nvis, "some," of 600,000
with only two exceptions, Num. xiv. 38; Josh. xiv. 8, 9.
dXX' ov irdvTes; "Nay, did not (practically) all?" (i.e. all except
Caleb and Joshua). It is true that the rendering is not free from
difficulty, since there seems to be no exact parallel to this use of
dXX' ov. But it involves less harshness than the other.
17. t£o-iv 81 irpo<rd\6io-€v ; "And with whom was He indignant?"
See ver. 10.
wv Td KuXa. To us the words read as though there were a deep
and awfui irony in this term, as though, "dying as it were gradually
during their bodily life, they became walking corpses" (Delitzsch).
It is doubtful, however, whether any such thought was in the mind
of the writer. The word properly means " limbs," but is used by the
LXX. for the Hebrew pegarim, "corpses." The phrase is taken from
Num. xiv. 29, and is a picturesque description of despairing weariness.
erreo-ev. Compare the use of the word in 1 Cor. x. 8.
18. tois aTreiflijo-ao-iy, "to them that disobeyed."
19. Kal pxiirouev. Lit., "and we observe." BXiireiv means to see
with the eye of the mind and soul, as in ii. 9, xi. 1. The translators
of the A.V. seem by their version, "so we see," to regard the words as
a logical inference from the previous reasoning. It is better, however,
to regard them as the statement of a fact — ex historia cognoscimus,
Grotius. See Ps. cvi. 24—26.
ovk TJSwTJ8r]o-av elo-eXBetv. They did make the attempt to enter,
but failed because they lacked the power which only God could give
them (NumTxiv. 40 — 45).
CHAPTER IV.
2. o-vvKeKepao-alvovs. Rec. avyKeKpapivos. The accusative, with
variations in the spelling, is supported by ABCDM. avyKCKpapivovs
EKL. See the note.
tois dKovo-ao-iv. This is the best supported reading, but among
the many variations Nosselt conjectured tois &Koiapaaiv.
12. <|<vxtjs KaC. The Te before the Kal in the reo. (DEE) is
not found in NABCHL and was probably suggested by the following
dppuv re Kal.
15. ireireipao-ulvov. This perf. part, of ireipdfeaBai is supported by
NABDE, and gives a better sense ("having been tempted") and one
more in accordance with the usage of the writer (ii. 18, xi. 17, 37)
than ireveipapivov from ireipdu ("having made trial").
16. JXeos NABCD, a less correct form than £Xeov but the one which
is most common in the LXX. and N.T. (where gXeos is made neut.).

IV. 2.] NOTES. 65
Ch. IV. Continued Exhortation to embrace the yet open Offer
of God's Rest (1 — 13). Exhortation founded on the High
Priesthood of Christ (14 — 16).
1. $oPr|Puuev. The fear to which we are exhorted is not any
uncertainty of hope, but solicitude against careless indifference. It is
a wholesome fear taught by wisdom (Phil. ii. 12). We have the
same use of (pofiovpai pr) to express spiritual anxiety about the state of
a Christian community in 2 Cor. xi. 3, xii. 20 ; Gal. iv. 11.
pjiroTe, lest haply.
KaTaXeiiropivris. It is better to omit the "us" of the A. V. It
means "since a promise still remains unrealised." The promise has
not been exhausted by any previous fulfilment.
tis, " any one." See note on iii. 12.
e| ipuv. He oannot say "of us," because he proceeds to describe
the case of hardened and defiant apostates.
8oKfj...vo-Tept]Klvai, "should seem to have failed in attaining it."
The Greek might also mean " should imagine that he has failed of
(lit., come too late for) it "; but the writer's object is to stimulate the
negligent, not to encourage the despondent. The word Sok§ is an
instance of the figure called litotes, in which a milder term is designedly
used to express one which is much stronger. The author of this
Epistle, abounding as he does in passages of uncompromising stern
ness, would not be likely to use any merely euphuistic phrase. The
dignity of his expressions adds to their intensity. For a similar
delicate yet forcible use of SoKeiv see 1 Cor. xi. 16. The verb iarepelv
"come short" occurs in xii. 15, together with a terrible example of
the thing itself in xii. 17.
2. Kal Ydp lo-aev «vi]YY£^to"|''e'i/ot KaBdirep KaKetvoi. "For we have
been evangelized" (have had a Gospel preached to us) "even as also
they." If the A. V. had been correct in rendering it ' ' For unto us
was the Gospel preached," we should have had rather "For unto
them as well as unto us." The better version however is " For indeed
we too, just as they, have had a Gospel preached unto us." The
"Gospel" in this instance means the glad tidings of a future rest.
The position of the iapev gives emphasis to the fact, and to the warning
involved in the Kaxeivoi,
6 Xovos ttjs okotjs. Lit., "the word of hearing." The function of
the hearer is no less necessary than that of the preacher, if the spoken
word is to be profitable.
p-f\ o-vvKeKepao-uevovs ttj irCarei tois aKovo-ao-iv. Owing no doubt
to the strangeness of the phrase "because they were not united by
faith with them that heard" there is an extraordinary diversity in the
readings here. The best supported seems to be that of the text,
"because they were not tempered together by faith with them that
heard (i.e. effectually listened to) it." This would mean that the
HEBREWS t?

66 HEBREWS. [IV. 2—
good news of rest produced ho benefit to the rebellious Israelites,
because they were not blended with Caleb and Joshua in their faith.
They heard, but only with the ears, not with the heart. But there
is probably some ancient corruption of the text. Perhaps instead of
"with them that heard," the true reading may have been "with the
things heard." The reading of our A. V. (avyKeKpapivos) gives an
excellent sense, if it were but well supported. The verb, "to mingle"
or "temper," occurs in 1 Cor. xii. 24.
3. elo-epxdaeBa Ydp...ol irio-Tevo-avTes. "For we who believed" (i.e.
we who have accepted the word of hearing) "are entering into that
rest." The present implies a continuous process.
El elo-eXrfo-ovTai, " They shall not enter," as in iii. 11. The argu
ment of the verse is (1) God promised a rest to the Israelites. (2)
Most of them failed to enter into it. (3) Yet this rest of God began on
the first sabbath of God, and some men were evidently meant to enter
into it. (4) Since then the original recipients of the promise had
failed to enjoy it through disbelief, the promise was renewed ages
afterwards, in Ps. xcv. by the word "To-day." The immense stress
of meaning laid on incidental Scriptural expressions was one of the
features of Rabbinic as well as of Alexandrian exegesis.
dird xaTapoXijs koo-|m>v. God's rest had begun since the Creation.
4. eKpT]Kev...irov. " He hath said somewhere." By the indefinite
"He" is meant "God," a form of citation not used in the same way
by St Paul, but common iu Philo and the Rabbis. We have similar
impersonal forms of citation Xiyei, cpnal, paprvpei, &c. in 1 Cor. vi.
16 ; Heb. vii. 17, viii. 5, &o.
irov. The "somewhere" of the original is here expressed in the
A. V. by "in a certain place," see note on ii. 6. The reference is to
Gen. ii. 2 ; Ex. xx. 11, xxxi. 17. The writer always regards the Old
Testament not as a dead letter, but as a living voice.
6. diroXeCireTai. The promise is still left open, is unexhausted.
8i" direCBeiav. Not "because oi unbelief" as iu A. V., but "because
of disobedience." It was not the Israelites of the wilderness, but
their descendants, who came to Shiloh, and so enjoyed a sort of
earthly type of the heavenly rest (Josh, xviii. 1).
7. irdXiv Tivd dpCJei ijalpav. There is no reason whatever for
the parenthesis in the A. V., of which the reading, rendering, and
punctuation are here alike infelicitous to an extent which destroys for
ordinary readers the meaning of the passage. It should be rendered
(putting only a comma at the end of ver. 6), "Again, he fixes a day,
To-day, saying in David, so long afterwards, even as has been said
before, To-day if ye will hear," &o. In the stress laid upon the word
"to-day" we find a resemblance to Philo, who defines "to-day" as
"the infinite and interminable aeon," and says " Till to-day that is for
ever" (Leg. Alleg g. in. 8; De Profug. 11). The argument is that

IV. S.j NOTES. 67
"David" (a general name for "the Psalmist") had, nearly five
centuries after the time of Moses, and three millenniums after the
Creation, still spoken of God's rest as an offer open to mankind. If
we regard this as a mere verbal argument, turning on the attribution
of deep mystic senses to the words "rest" and "to-day," and on the
trains of inference which are made to depend on these words, we must
remember that such a method of deahng with Scripture phraseology
was at this period universally current among the Jews. But if we
stop at this point all sorts of difficulties arise; for if the "rest"
referred to in Ps. xcv. was primarily the land of Canaan (as in Deut.
i. 34 — 36, xii. 9, &c), the oath of God, "they shall not enter into my
rest," only applied to the generation of the wanderings, and He had
said "Your little ones. ..them will I bring in, and they shall know the
land which ye have despised," Num. xiv. 31. If, on the other hand,
the "rest" meant heaven, it would be against all Scripture analogy
to assume that all the Israelites who died in the wilderness were ex
cluded from future happiness. And there are many other difficulties
which will at once suggest themselves. _ The better and simpler way
of looking at this, and similar trains of reasoning, is to regard them
as particular modes of expressing blessed and eternal truths, and to
look on the Scripture language apphed to them in the light rather
of illustration than of Scriptural proof. Quite apart from this
Alexandrian method of finding recondite and mystic senses in the
history and language of the Bible, we see the deep and glorious truth
that God's offer of "Rest" in the highest sense — of participation in
His own rest — is left open to His people in the eternal to-day of
merciful opportunity. The Scripture illustration must be regarded as
quite subordinate to the essential truth, and not the essential truth
made to depend on the Scripture phraseology. When God says
" They shall not enter my rest," the writer — reading as it were between
the lines with the eyes of Christian enlightenment — reads the promise
"but others shall enter into my rest," which was most true.
IV AaveiS Xiyav. A common abbreviated form of quotation like
' ' saying in Elijah " for " in the part of Scripture about Elijah " (Rom.
xi. 2). The quotation may mean no more than " in the Book of
Psalms." The 95th Psalm is indeed attributed to David in the LXX.;
but the superscriptions of the LXX., as well as those of the Hebrew
text, are wholly without authority, and are in some instances en
tirely erroneous. The date of the Psalm is more probably the close
of the Exile. We may here notice the fondness of the writer for the
Psalms, of which he quotes no less than eleven in this Epistle (Ps. ii.,
viii., xxii., xl., xiv., xcv., eii., civ., ex., cxviii., exxxv.).
8. 'Ii]o-ovs, i.e. Joshua. The needless adoption of the Greek form
of the name ("Jesus ") by the A.V. is here most unfortunately per
plexing to uninstructed readers, as also iu Acts vii. 45.
KaTeWvo-ev. He did, indeed, give them a rest and, in some sense
(Deut. xii. 9), the rest partially and primarily intended (Josh, xxiii.
1) ; but only a dim shadow of the true and final rest offered by Christ
(Matt. xi. 28 ; 2 Thess. i. 7 ; Rev. xiv. 13).
E2

68 HEBREWS. [IV. 8—
ovk dv...lXdXei. "He would not have been speaking." The "He"
is here Jehovah. The phrases applied to Scripture by the writer
always imply bis sense of its living power and ideal continuity. The
words are as though they had just been uttered (" He hath said," ver.
4) or were still being uttered (as here, and throughout). There is a
similar mode of argument in vii. 11, viii. 4, 7, xi. 15.
9. dpa. In classical Greek dpa can never occupy the first place in
a clause, but this rule is frequently violated in the N.T. (Luke xi. 48;
Rom. x. 17, &o.) ; and, indeed, in Hellenistic Greek the delicate ironic
use of dpa to express surprise ("it seems," "after all") is almost
obliterated, o-appaTio-uo's. From aapfiarlfeiv (Heb. fiaB5, Ex. xvi. 30). Since
the word used for ' ' rest " is here a different word from that which has
been used through the earlier part of the argument (KaTd7rawris) it is
a pity that King James's translators, who indulge in so many needless
variations, did not here introduce a necessary change of rendering.
The word means " a Sabbath rest," and supplies an important link
in the argument by pointing to the fact that " the rest " which the
author has in view is God's rest, a far higher conception of rest than
any of which Canaan could be an adequate type. The Sabbath, which
in 2 Mace. xv. 1 is called " the Day of Rest," is a nearer type of
Heaven than Canaan. Dr Eay supposes that there is an allusion to
Joshua's first Sabbatic year, when ' ' the land had rest from war "
(Josh. xiv. 15), and adds that Psalms xcii. — civ. have a Sabbatic
character, and that Ps. xcii. is headed " a song for the Sabbath
day." ,
10. 6 Ydp elo-eXBuv k.t.X. This is not a special reference to Christ,
but to any faithful Christian who rests from his labours. The verse is
merely an explanation of the newly-introduced term " Sabbath-rest."
KaTliravo-ev is a gnomic and general aorist.
11. 2irov8do-wp.ev. Not "festinemus " (Vulg.) but " let us be
zealous," or "give diligence" (2 Pet. i. 10, 11 ; Phil. iii. 14).
ai]...Tts. See note on iv. 1.
ttjs direifleCas, " of disobedience."
12. £wv Ydp d Xdyos tov Beov. The writer feels the force of the word
tuv which he four times applies to God, iii. 12, ix. 14, x. 31, xii. 22.
"Quick"is an old English expression for "living"; hence St Stephen
speaks of Scripture as "the living oracles" (Acts vii. 38). The "word.
of God " is not here the personal Logos ; a phrase not distinctly and
demonstrably adopted by any of the sacred writers except St John, who
in the prologue to his Gospel calls Christ "the Word," and in the
Apocalypse "the Word of God." The reference is to the written and
spoken word of God, of the force and almost personality of which the
writer shews so strong a sense. To him it is no dead utterance of the
past, but a living power for ever. At the Bame time the expressions
of this verse could hardly have been used by any one who was not

IV. 13.] NOTES. 69
familiar with the personification of the Logos, and St Clemens of
Rome applies the words " a searcher of the thoughts and desires " to
God. The passage closely resembles several which are found in Philo,
though it applies the expressions in a different manner (see Introduc
tion). evepYiis. Lit., "effective, energetic." The vital power shews itself
in acts.
Tojiurepos virep Trdo-av udxaipav. The same comparison is used by
Isaiah (xlix. 2) and St Paul (Eph. vi. 17) and St John (Rev. ii. 16, xix.
15). See too Wisdom xviii. 15, 16, " Thine Almighty Word leaped
down from heaven... and brought thine unfeigned commandment as a,
sharp sword." Philo, Quis rer. div. haer. §§ 26, 27 (Opp. 1. 491), com
pares the Logos to the flaming sword (popcpala) of Eden (Gen. iii. 24)
and "the fire and knife" (pdxaipav) of Gen. xxii. 6. Comp. Eph.
vi. 17.
Si.iKvovp.evos dxpv aepio-aov k.t.X. The meaning is not that the
word of God divides the soul (the "natural" soul) by which we live
from the spirit by which we reason and apprehend ; but that it pierces
not only the natural soul, but even to the Divine Spirit of man, and
even to the joints and marrow (i.e. to the inmost depths) of these.
Thus Euripides {Hippol. 527) speaks of the "marrow of the soul."
It is obvious that the writer does not mean anything very specific
by each term of the enumeration, which produces its effect by the
rhetorical fulness of the expressions. The ifiirji^ or animal soul is the
sphere of that life which makes a man \pvxiKbs, i.e. carnal, unspiritual ;
he possesses this element of life (anima) in common with the beasts.
It is only by virtue of his spirit (n-vevpa) that he has affinity with God.
KpiTiKos evBv(j.t]o-e(i)v k.t.X. These words are a practical explanation
of those which have preceded. The phraseology is an evident remi
niscence of Philo. Philo compares the Word to the flaming sword of
Paradise ; and calls the Word " the cutter of all things," and says
that " when whetted to the utmost sharpness it is incessantly divid
ing all sensuous things" (see Quis rer. div. haeres, § 27; Opp. ed.
Mangey 1. 491, 503, 506). By ivBvp-qaeis is meant (strictly) our moral
imaginations and desires ; by evvoiai our intellectual thoughts and
active will (1 Pet. iv. 1) : but the distinction of meaning is hardly kept
(Matt. ix. 4, &c).
13. Iviottiov avTov, i. e. in the Sight of God, not of " the Word of
God." " He seeth all man's goings," Job xxxiv. 21. " Thou hast set
our.. .secret sins in the light of Thy countenance," Ps. xc. 8; comp.
Ps. cxxxix. 1 — 12. ivumov like coram is only used of persons.
irdvra SI. The Si is emphatic as iu ii. 6.
TeTpaxTiXio-ulva, " laid bare." The word must have some such
meaning, but it is uncertain what is the exact force of the metaphor
from which it is derived. It comes from rpdxvXos, " the neck," and
has been explained to mean: (1) "seized by the throat and thrown
on the back" ; or (2) "with the neck forced back like that of a male-

70 HEBREWS. [IV. 13—
factor compelled to shew his face" (Sueton. Vitell. 17 ; Plin. Paneg.
§4. 3) ; or (3) " with the neck held back like that of animals in order
that the Priest may cut their throats " (the Homeric av Zpvaav) ; or (4)
"flayed " ; or (5) " anatomised " (comp. Lev. i. 6, 9). This anatomic
examination of victims by the Priests was called pupoaKoirla since it
was necessary that every victim should be "without blemish" (d/*u/ios),
and Maimonides says that there were no less than 73 kinds of blem
ishes. Hence Polyearp (ad Phil, rv.) says that " all things are rigidly
examined (iravra ptupoaKoireiTai) by God." The usage of Philo, how
ever (De Cher. § 24) shews that the word probably means " laid pros
trate." IpaxnXiapbs meant a wrestler's victorious grip on the back
of his adversary as in Plutarch (Spare rbv dBX-nrnv iirb iraiSiaKaplov rpa-
XnXi&pevov). For the truth suggested see Prov. xv. 11 ; "I try the
reins," Jer. xvii. 10; Ps. Ii. 6; Prov. xx. 27, "the candle of the Lord
searching all the inner parts of the belly."
tois d(p6aXv.ois o.vtov. "The Son of God, who hath His eyes like
unto aflame of fire." Rev. ii. 18.
irpds Sv TJp.lv 6 Xoyos. This might be rendered, "to whom our account
must be given." Thus in Luke xvi. 2, " render thy account " (rbv
Xo'yoj'). Perhaps, however, our A. V. correctly represents it, " Him
with whom we have to do." Comp. 1 Eings ii. 14 ; 2 Kings ix. 5
(LXX.), where a similar phrase occurs in this sense.
14—16. Exhortation founded on Christ's High Priesthood.
14. "Exovres ovv d.p\\.tpia. fUyav. These verses refer back to ii. 17,
iii. 1, and form the transition to the long proof and illustration of
Christ's superiority to the Levitic Priesthood which occupies the
Epistle to x. 18. The writer here reverts to his central thought, to
which he has already twice alluded (ii. 17, iii. 1). He had proved that
Christ is superior to Angels the ministers, and to Moses the servant of
the old Dispensation, and (quite incidentally) to Joshua. He has
now to prove that He is like Aaron in all that made Aaron's priesthood
precious, but infinitely superior to him and his successors, and a
pledge to us of the grace by which the true rest can be obtained.
Christ is not only a High Priest, but " a great High Priest," an ex
pression also found in Philo (Opp. I. 654).
SieXrjXvBoTa Tois ovpavovs, "who hath passed through the heavens "
— the heavens being here the lower heavens, regarded as a curtain
which separates us from the presence of God. Christ has passed not
only into but above the heavens (vii. 26). ' ' Trausiit, non modo intra-
vit, caelos." — Bengel.
'Itjo-ovv tov vlov tov 8eov. The title combines His earthly and
human name with His Divine dignity, and thus describes the two
natures which make His Priesthood eternally necessary.
Ttjs daoXoYCas. ' ' Our confession," as in iii. 1. Kpareiv with the
gen. implies to grasp firm hold of a thing. The gen. is partitive; with
the accus. it means " to be master of."

IV. lu.J iH/ijBB, 71
15. y°-P- He gives the reason for holding fast our confession ; [we
may do so with confidence], for Christ can sympathise with us in our
weaknesses, since He has suffered with us (<rv/«rdcrxeu'). Rom. viii.
17 ; 1 Cor. xii. 26.
o-vuira8iio-ai Tats do-8eveCais iip.<Jv. Even the heathen could feel
the force and beauty of this appeal, for they intensely admired the
famous line of Terence,
"Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto";
at the utterance of which, when the play was first acted, it is said that
the whole of the audience rose to their feet ; and the exquisite words
which Virgil puts into the mouth of Dido,
"Haud ignara mali, miseris succurrere disco.''
Trerreipao-ulvov. This is the best-supported reading, not weireipa.-
pivov, "having made trial of," "experienced in." It refers alike to
the trials of life, which are in themselves indirect temptations —
sometimes to sin, always to murmuring and discontent ; and to the
direct temptations to sin which are life's severest trials. From both
of these our Lord suffered (John xi. 33 — 35 ; "ye are they who have
continued with me in my temptations," Luke xxii. 28, iv. 2, &c).
Ka8' daoioTT]Ta, "after the likeness"; a stronger way of expressing
the resemblance of Christ's "temptations" to ours than if an adverb
had been used.
xopls daapTCas, "apart from sin." Philo had already spoken of
the Logos as sinless {De Profug. 20; Opp. I. 562). His words are
"the High Priest is not Man but the Divine Word, free from all
share, not only iu willing but even in involuntary wrongdoing."
Christ's sinlessness is one of the irrefragable proofs of His divinity.
It was both asserted by Himself (John xiv. 30) and by the Apostles
(2 Cor. v. 21; 1 Pet. ii. 22; 1 John iii. 5, Ac). Being tempted,
Christ could sympathize with us ; being sinless, He could plead for us.
16. Trpoo-epx(o(u"a ovv p.eTd irappr|o-Cas, "let us then approach
with confidence." The notion of "approach" to God {irpoaipxeaBai)
in the Levitical service (Lev. xxi. 17, xxii. 3) is prominent in this
Epistle (vii. 25, x. 1, 22, xi. 6, xii. 18—22). In St Paul it only occurs
once (1 Tim. vi. 13), and then in a different sense. His ideal of the
Christian life is not "access to God" (though he does also allude to
this in one Epistle, Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12) but "oneness with Christ."
t§ Bpovw Tijs xdpiTOs. Comp. viii. 1. This throne was typified in
the mercy-seat above the Ark (Ex. xxv. 21), over which the Shechinah
shone between the wings of the cherubim.
eAeos Kal x*Plv- Meroy in our wretchedness, and free favour,
though it is undeserved.
els evKaipov potjBeiav, "for a seasonable succour." Seasonable
because "it is still called to-day" (iii. 13), and because the help is so
deeply needed (ii. 18).

72 HEBREWS. [V. 1—
CHAPTEE V.
3. irepl d|iapTio3v NABCD. The VTrlp of the rec. (EEL) is pro
bably due to its occurrence in ver. 1.
4. KaXovuevos. The d k. of the rec. is only in C2L, and furnishes
no true antithesis-to the ovx iavrQ.
KaBuo-irep. The MSS. also have KaBiis and KaBdirep. The author
probably preferred the rarer and more sonorous KaBuawep, which ac
counts for these variations.

Ch. V. Two Qualifications for High Priesthood : (1) Capacity
for Sympathy (1 — 3); (2) a special Call (4 — 10). Spiritual
dulness of the hebrews (11 — 14).
1. Xap.pav6p.evos, "being taken," or "chosen as he is" (comp.
Ex. xxviii. 1). The writer now enters on his proof that in order to
fit Him for the functions of a High Priest for men it was necessary
that Christ should become Man. He has already called attention to
the subject in a marked manner in ii. 17, iii. 1, iv. 14, 15.
iirep dvflpwirwv KaBCo-raTai. "Is appointed on men's behalf."
Ta irpds tov Beov, ii. 17. It is his part to act as man's representa
tive in the performance of the duties of worship and sacrifice.
Suprf tc Kal flvo-Cas. We have the same phrase in viii. 3, ix. 9.
In 0. T. usage no distinction is maintained between "gifts" and
"sacrifices," for in Gen. iv. 4, Lev. i. 2, 3, "gifts" is used for
animal sacrifices; and in Gen. iv. 3, 5, "sacrifices" is used (as inxi. 4)
for bloodless gifts. When, however, the words are used together the
distinction between them is that which holds in classical Greek, where
Bvalai is never used except to mean "slain beasts." The word Trpotr-
(pipeiv is generally apphed to expiatory sacrifices, and though "gifts"
in the strict sense — e.g. "freewill offerings" and "meat offerings"
(the Gorban and the Minchah) — were not expiatory, yet the "gift" of
incense offered by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement had some
expiatory significance.
virep dpapTiwv. To make atonement for sins (ii. 17).
2. ueTptoTraSetv, "deal gently with." The word means properly
"to shew moderate emotions." All men are liable to emotions and
passions (trdBri). The Stoics held that these should be absolutely
crushed and that "apathy" (dirdBeia) was the only fit condition for a
Philosopher. The Peripatetics ou the other hand — the school of
Aristotle — held that the philosopher should not aim at apathy,
because no man can be absolutely passionless without doing extreme
violence to nature ; but that he should acquire metriopathy (tov
ao(p6v p-q eivai piv diraBfj, peTpioiradrj Si, Diog. Laert.), that is a spirit
of "moderated emotion" and self-control. The word is found both

V. 4.]

NOTES. 73

in Philo and Josephus. In common usage it meant "moderate
compassion"; since the Stoics held "pity" to be not only a weakness
but a vice. The Stoic apathy would have utterly disqualified any
one for true Priesthood. Our Lord yielded to human emotions such
as pity, sorrow, and just anger ; and that He did so and could do so,
"yet without sin," is expressly recorded for our instruction.
tois dvvoovo-iv Kal TrXavaiulvois, "with the ignorant (Luke xxiii. 34)
and erring" (1 Pet. ii. 25). Highhanded sinners, willing sinners,
those who, in the Hebrew phrase, sin "with upraised hand" (Num.
xv. 30 ; Deut. xvii. 12), cannot always be treated with compassionate
tenderness (x. 26) ; but the ignorant and the erring (1 Tim. i. 13) —
those who sin "inadvertently," "involuntarily," "through human
frailty" (Lev. iv. 2, 13, &c.) — and even those who under sudden stress
of passion and temptation sin wilfully (Lev. v. 1, xix. 20 — 22) — need
pity, and Christ's prayer on the cross was for those "who know
not what they do." No untempted Angel, no Being removed from
the possibility of such falls, could have had the personal sympathy
which is an indispensable requisite for perfect Priesthood.
TrepCKetrai. do-6lveiav. Comp. Theocr. Idyll, xxiii. 14 vf}piv irepi-
Ketpevos. Moral weakness is part of the very nature which he wears,
and which makes him bear reasonably with those who are like
himself. The same phrase (trepUeipai with an accusative) occurs in
Acts xxviii. 20 (rijv dXvaiv ravrnv ireplKeipai).
3. Si" avTijv, i.e. because of this moral weakness.
d(j>eCXci. He is bound not merely as a legal duty, but as a moral
necessity. Kal irepl lavrov. The Law assumed that this would be necessary
for every High Priest (Lev. iv. 3 — 12) ; for "under the gorgeous robes
of office there were still the galling chains of flesh." Kay. In the
High Priest's prayer of intercession he said, "Oh do thou expiate
the misdeeds, the crimes, and the sins, wherewith I have done evil,
and have sinned before Thee, I and my house 1" Until he had thus
made atonement for himself, he was regarded as guilty, and so could
not offer any atonement for others who were guilty (Lev. iv. 3, ix. 7,
xvi. 6, and comp. Heb. vii. 27).
irpoo-ipe'peiv irepl duapnuv. The word "offer" may be used ab
solutely for "to offer sacrifices" (Lk. v. 14); but the words "for
sins" are often an equivalent for "sin-offerings" (see x. 6; Lev. vi.
23; Num. viii. 8, See.).
i. Tt)v Tip/qv, ie. this honourable office. We have here the
second qualification for Priesthood. A man's own caprice must not
be the reason for his ordination. He must be conscious of a Divine
call. dXXd KaXovaevos iird tov Beov, "but on being called by God," or
" when he is called by God." Great stress is laid on this point in
Scripture (Ex. xxviii. 1). Any "stranger that cometh nigh"  i.e.

74 HEBREWS. L"V. 4—
that intruded unbidden into the Priesthood — was to be put to death
(Num. iii. 10). The fate of Korah and his company (Num. xvi. 40),
and of Uzziah, king though he was (2 Chron. xxvi. 18 — 21), served
as a terrible warning, and it was recorded aB a special aggravation of
Jeroboam's impiety that "he made priests of the lowest of the
people, which were not of the sons of Levi" (1 K. xii. 31). In one of
the Jewish Midrashim, Moses says to Korah "if Aaron, my brother,
had taken upon himself the priesthood, ye would be excusable for
murmuring against him; but God gave it to him." Some have
supposed that the writer here reflects obliquely upon the High Priests
of that day — alien Sadducees, not descended from Aaron (Jos. Antt.
xx. 10), who had been introduced into the Priesthood from Baby
lonian families by Herod the Great, and who kept the highest office,
with frequent changes, as a sort of appanage of their own families —
the Boethusim, the Eantheras, the Kamhits, the Beni-Hanan. For
the characteristics of these Priests, who completely degraded the
dignity in the eyes of the people, see my Life of Christ, n. 330, 342.
In the energetic maledictions pronounced upon them in more than
one passage of the Talmud, they are taunted with not being true sons
of Aaron. But it is unlikely that the writer should make this
oblique allusion. He was an Alexandrian ; he was not writing to the
Hebrews of Jerusalem ; and these High Priests had been in possession
of the office for more than half a century.
KaBuo-irep Kal 'Aapuv, "exactly as even Aaron was" (Num. xvi. —
xviii.). The true Priest must be a Divinely-appointed Aaron, not a
self-constituted Korah.
5. ovtos Kal 6 Xpicrrds. " So even the Christ." Jesus, the Mes
siah, the true Anointed Priest, possessed both these qualifications.
ovx lavrdv !Sd£ao-ev. He has already called the High Priesthood
"an honour," but of Christ's Priesthood he uses a still stronger word
"glory" (ii. 9 ; John xii. 28, xiii. 31).
Y«vr|6TJvai. The inf. of consequence. Comp. Col. iv. 6, d Xo'yos...
Tjprvpivos, elSivai k.t.X.
dXX° d XaXtjo-as irpds avrdv. God glorified Him, and the writer
again offers the admitted Messianic Prophecies of Ps. ii. 7 and ex. 4,
as a sufficient illustration of this. The fact of His Sonship de
monstrates that His call to the Priesthood was a call of God. "Jesus
said, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing; it is my Father that
honoureth me, of whom ye say that He is your God," John viii. 54.
6. Iv eripio. The phrase is adverbial — "elsewhere." There is no
need to understand roirw. The quotation is from Ps. ex. 4. This
Psalm was so universally accepted as Messianic that the Targum of
Jonathan paraphrases the first verse of it "The Lord said to His
.Word." KaTd tt|V Tdfiv, ^'T^T'S, "according to the style of." Comp. vii.
15, "after the likeness (d/iotdrirra) of Melchisedek."

V. 7.]

NOTES. 75

MeXxio-eSlK. The writer here with consummate literary skill in
troduces the name Melchisedek, to prepare incidentally for the long
argument which is to follow in chapter vii. ; just as he twice introduces
the idea of High Priesthood (ii. 17, iii. 1) before directly dealing with
it. The reason why the Psalmist had spoken of his ideal Theocratic
king as a Priest after the order of Melchisedek, and not after the
order of Aaron, lies in the words "for ever," as subsequently ex
plained. In Zech. iv. 14, the Jews explained "the two Anointed
ones (sons of oil) who stand by the Lord of the whole earth " to be
Aaron and Messiah, and, from Ps. ex. 4, they agreed that Messiah was
the nearer to God.
7. ds, i.e. the Christ.
•rijs o-apKds. The word "flesh" is here used for His Humanity
regarded ou the side of its weakness and humiliation. Comp. ii. 14.
avrov. Here, as elsewhere, some editions read avrov, but according
to Bleek and Buttmann airov is never used in the N. T. for iavrov.
Winer (p. 189) thinks otherwise.
Seijo-eis Te Kal iKertipCas. The idiosyncrasy of the writer, and per
haps his Alexandrian training, which familiarised him with the style
of Philo, made him fond of these sonorous amphflcations or full
expressions. Aer/aeis, rendered ' ' prayers " in the A. V. , is rather ' ' sup
plications," i.e. "special prayers" for the supply of needs. 'iKervpias
rendered "entreaties" (which is joined with it in Job xii. 3, comp.
2 Mace. ix. 18), properly meant olive-boughs held forth to entreat pro
tection. Thus the first word refers to the suppliant, the second
implies an approach (Uviopat) to God. The "supplications and en
treaties " referred to are doubtless those in the Agony at Gethsemane
(Lk. xxii. 39 — 46), though there may be a reference to the Cross, and
some have even supposed that there is an allusion to Ps. xxii. and
cxvi. See Mark xiv. 36 ; John xii. 27 ; Matt. xxvi. 38 — 42.
o-u£eiv Ik BavaTov. Comp. John xii. 27, auabv pe iK tt)s upas ravnjs.
The "death" referred to is not bodily death, but deadly anguish. Or
if we understand it of death it means the final triumph of death,
whereas Christ's death was the defeat of death.
pverd KpavyTJs to-xvpds Kal SaKpvwv. Though these are not directly
mentioned in the scene at Gethsemane they are implied. See John
xi. 35, xii. 27; Matt. xxvi. 39, 42, 44, 53; Mark xiv. 36; Lk. xix. 41.
elo-aKovo-BeCs. "Being heard" or "hearkened to," Luke xxii. 43;
John xii. 28 (comp. Ps. xxii. 21, 24).
dird ttjs evXaPeCas. " From his godly fear," or "because of his reve
rential awe." The phrase has been explained in different ways.
The old Latin renders " exauditus a metu," and some Latin Fathers
and later interpreters explain it to mean ' ' having been freed from the
fear of death." The Greek might perhaps be made to bear this sense,
though the mild word used for " fear " is not in favour of it; but the

76 HEBREWS. [V. 7—
rendering given above, meaning that His prayer was heard because
of His awful submission (pro sud reverentid, Vulg.), is the sense in
which the words are taken by all the Greek Fathers. 'Aird may cer
tainly mean "because of" as in Lk. xix. 3, " He could not because
of (d7rd) the crowd"; xxiv. 41, "disbelieving because of (d7rd) their
joy" (comp. John xxi. 6; Acts xxii. 11, &a.). The word rendered
"feared" is evXdpeia which means "reverent fear," or "reasonable
shrinking," as opposed to terror and cowardice. The Stoics said that
the wise man could thus cautiously shrink (evXa,8e?o-0ai), but never
actually be afraid (<pop~eiaBai). Other attempts to explain away the
passage arise from the Apollinarian tendency to deny Christ's perfect
manhood: but He was "perfectly man" as well as "truly God." He
was not indeed " saved from death," because He had only prayed that
"the cup might pass from Him " if such were His Father's will (x. 7) ;
but he was "saved out of (&) death" by being immediately strengthened
by the Angel of the Agony and by being raised on the third day, so
that "He saw no corruption." For the word evXd/3eia, "piety" or
" reverent awe, " see xii. 28.
8. KaCirep wv vids. "Son though He was," so that it might have
been thought that there would be uo need for the great sacrifice ; no
need for His learning obedience from suffering.
ejiaflev.-.Ttiv viraKOijv. "He learnt His obedience." The stress is
not ou His " learning " (of course as a man), but the whole expression
is taken together, "He learnt from the things which He suffered";
in other words " He bowed to the experience of absolute sub
mission." "The things which He suffered" refer not only to the
Agony and the Cross, but to the whole of the Saviour's life. Some
of the Fathers stumbled at this expression. Theodoret calls it
hyperbolical ; St Chrysostom is surprised at it ; Theophylact goes
so far as to say that here Paul (for he accepts the traditional au
thorship) "for the benefit of his hearers used such accommodation
(olKovoplav) as obviously to say some unreasonable things." All
such remarks would have been obviated if these fathers had borne
in mind that, as St Paul says, Christ " counted not equality with
God a thing at which to grasp " (Phil. ii. 6). Meanwhile pas
sages like these, of which there are several in this Epistle, are
valuable as proving how completely the co-equal and co-eternal Son
" emptied Himself of His glory. " Against the irreverent reverence of
the Apollinarian heresy (which denied Christ's perfect manhood) and
the Monothelite heresy (which denied His possession of a human will),
this passage and the earlier chapters of St Luke are the best bulwark.
The human soul of Christ's perfect manhood " learned " just as His
human body grew (Lk. ii. 52). On this learning of " obedience " see
Is. 1. 5, "Iwas not rebellious." Phil. ii. 8, " being found in fashion
as a man he became obedient {vtt^koos) unto death."
eVaflev. The paronomasia "he learnt (ipaBev) from what He suf
fered (iwaBev)" is one of the commonest in Greek literature, and
originated the proverb paBr\para iraBijpara. For other specimens of

V. 11.] NOTES. 77
this play of sound see Lk. xxi. 11, Xip.ol...Xoipol; Acts xvii. 25, ftot>
/cal irvorjv ; Rom. i. 29, 31, (pdovov, <pbvov...davviTovs, davvBirovs. For
the use oi paronomasia in St Paul see my Life of St Paul, i. 628.
9. TeXeicoSeCs. Having been brought to the goal and consummation
in the glory which followed this mediatorial work. See ii. 10, and
comp. Lk. xiii. 32, "the third day I shall be perfected."
a'inos. " The cause."
ownipCas alwvCov. It is remarkable that the epithet aluvios is here
alone applied to the substantive "salvation."
viraKoiiovo-iv...o-fiiTir)pCas. Iu an author so polished and rhetorical
there seems to be an intentional force aud beauty in the repetition
in this verse of the two leading words in the last. Christ prayed to
God who was able to "save" Him out of death, and He became the
cause of "eternal salvation" from final death ; Christ learnt "obedi
ence" by His life of self-sacrifice, and He became a Saviour to them
that "obey " Him.
10. irpoo-aYopevfleCs, "saluted" or "addressed by God as." This
is the only place in the N. T. where the verb occurs.
KaTa tiiv Tdfjiv MeXxureSeK. We should here have expected the
writer to enter at once on the explanation of this term. But he once
more pauses for a solemn exhortation and warning. These pauses,
aud landing-places (as it were), in his argument cannot be regarded
as mere digressions. There is nothing that they less resemble than
St Paul's habit of "going off at a word," nor is the writer in the
least degree " hurried aside by the violence of his thoughts." Com
mentators who indulge in such criticisms shew an entire lack of
the critical sense. There is in this writer a complete absence of all
the hurry and impetuosity which characterise the style of St Paul.
His movements are not in the least like those of an eager athlete,
but (as I have said) resemble the stately walk of some Oriental Sheykh
with all his robes folded around him. He is about to enter on an
entirely original and far from obvious argument, which he felt would
have great weight in checking the tendency to look back to the rites,
the splendours and the memories of Judaism. He therefore stops
with the calmest deliberation, and the most wonderful skill, to pave
the way for his argument by a powerful mixture of reproach and
warning — which assisted the object he had in view, and tended to
stimulate the spiritual dulness of his readers.
11—11. Complaint that his Readers were so slow in their
spiritual Progress.
11. Ilepl ov, i.e. about Melchisedek in his typical character. There
is no need to render this "of which matter" or to refer oS to Christ.
ttoXvs i]aiv 6 Xo-yos Kal Svo-epuijvevros. "Respecting whom what I
have to say is long, and hard of interpretation." The word ipprjvevo-

78 HEBREWS. [V. 11—
pevos (whence comes the word "hermeneutics") occurs in vii. 2, and
is like Svavorp-os in 2 Pet. iii. 16.
YeYovaTe, "ye are become," as in v. 12, vi. 12. They were not so
sluggish at first, but are become so from indifference and neglect.
vuBpoC. Comp. Matt. xiii. 14, 15. SaBpos "dull" or "blunted"
is the antithesis to dfis " sharp."
Tats aKoals. The plur. is used because he is addressing many.
'Akot; means ' ' mental hearing." Thus Philo says ofs (3to p.iv iariv aKoal
SioiK iveiaiv.
12. Sid tov xP°vov. " On account of the time," comp. ii. 9. Scholz
wrongly rendered it "after so long a time." "Though you ought,
by this time, to be teachers, considering how long a time has elapsed
since your conversion." The passage is important as bearing on the
date of the Epistle.
XpeCav i\ert k.t.X. " Ye again have need that some one teach you
the rudiments of the beginning of the oracles of God." It is uncertain
whether we should read rivb. "that some one teach you," or riva "that
(one) teach you which are." The difference in sense is not great, but
perhaps the indefinite "some one" enhances the irony of a severe
remark. For the word "rudiments" see Gal. iv. 3, 9.
T(3v XoyCuv tov Beov. Here not the 0. T. as in Rom. iii. 2.
YdXaKTos. So the young students or neophytes in the Rabbinic
schools were called thinokoth " sucklings." Philo (De Agric. Opp. i.
301) has this comparison of preliminary studies to milk, as well as
St Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2.
o-Tepeds Tpocjnjs, "solid food."
13. d \uri\av YdXaKTos, " who feeds on milk."
direipos, "inexperienced."
vtjttios. This is a frequent metaphor in St Paul, who also con
trasts "babes" (vqirioi) with the mature (riXeioi), Gal. iv. 3; 1 Cor.
ii. 6; Eph. iv. 13, 14. We are only to be "babes" in wickedness
(1 Cor. xiv. 20).
Xoyov 8iKaioo-vvr]S, i.e. the Scriptures, and especially the Gospel
(see 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; Rom. i. 17, "therein is the righteousness of God
revealed"). The Hebrew nj7"JV has almost the sense of dXiBeia.
14. TeXeCwv. The solid food of more advanced instruction pertains
to the mature or " perfect."
Bid ttjv e|iv, "because of their habit," i.e. from being habituated
to it. This is the only place in the N. T. where this important word
£|is habitus occurs.
rd alo-6T)Ttipta, " their spiritual faculties." It does not occur else.
where in the N. T.

VI. 1.] • NOTES. 79
YeYvuvao-ulva, trained or disciplined by spiritual practice. The
same phrase occurs in Galen De dignit. pulv. 3.
SiaKpio-iv koXov re Kal KaKov. Lit., "the discrimination of good
and evil." By "good and evil" is not meant "right and wrong,"
because there is no question here of moral distinctions ; but excellence
and inferiority in matters of instruction. To the natural man the
things of the Spirit are foolishness ; it is only the spiritual man who
can "distinguish between things that differ" and so "discriminate
the transcendent" (1 Cor. ii. 14, 15; Rom. ii. 18; Phil. i. 9, 10).
The phrase " to know good and evil " is borrowed from Hebrew (Gen.
ii. 17, &c), and is used to describe the first dawn of intelligence
(Is. vii. 15, 16).

CHAPTER VI.
7. iir avTijs. The ill-supported <hr aiirrjv is the common phrase
in this sense.
10. ttjs dydm\9 NABCDE. The beautiful phrase of the rec. tou
kotov rrjs dyaTrqs is a gloss from 1 Thess. i. 3.
14. El |njv NABDE. MSS. vary between rj pty (the classical
affirmation), and el prj. This formula jurandi is used in the LXX.
(Ezek. xxxiii. 27, Sic), and perhaps comes from the Hebraic el p.r\.

Ch. VI. An Exhortation to advance beyond elementary cate
chetical Instructions (1 — 3). A solemn Warning against the
Peril of Apostasy (4 — 8). A Word of Encouragement and
Hope (9 — 12) founded on the Immutability of God's Promises
(13 — 15), to which they are exhorted to hold fast (16 — 20).
1. d(plvTes tov ttJs dpxijs tov Xpio-rov Xo'yov, "leaving the
discourse of the beginning of Christ," i.e. getting beyond, ceasing to
speak of, the earliest principles of Christian teaching. He does not
of course mean that these first principles are to be neglected, still less
forgotten, but merely that his readers ought to be so familiar with
them as to be able to advance to less obvious knowledge.
<pep(6p.e6a, "let us be borne along," as by the current of a stream.
The question has been discussed whether the Author in saying "let
us" is referring to himself or to his readers. It is surely clear that
he means (as in iv. 14) to imply both, although in the words "laying
a foundation" teachers may have been principally in his mind. He
invites his readers to advance with him to doctrines which lie beyond
the range of rudimentary Christian teaching. They must come with
him out of the limits of this Jewish-Christian Catechism.
IwlTirjv TeXeidrnTa. The "perfection " intended is the "full growth"
of those who are mature in Christian knowledge (see v. 14). It does

80 HEBREWS. [VI. 1—
not imply sinlessness. They ought not to be lingering among the ele
mentary subjects of catechetical instruction, which in great measure
belonged no less to Jews than to Christians.
p} irdXiv...KaTapaXXdp.evoi. There is no need for a foundation to
be laid a second time. He is not in the least degree disparaging the
importance of the truths and doctrines which he tells them to "leave,"
but only urging them to build on those deep foundations the necessary
superstructure. Hence we need not understand the Greek participle
in its other sense of "overthrowing."
8ep.IXi.ov, "a foundation." The subjects here alluded to probably
formed the basis of instruction for Christian catechumens. They
were not however exclusively Christian; they belonged equally to
Jews, and therefore baptized Christian converts ought to have got
beyond them.
ueravoCas dird veKpwv epYwv. Repentance is the first lesson of the
Gospel (Mk. i. 15). "Dead works" are such as cause defilement, and
require purification (ix. 14) because they are sinful (Gal. v. 19 — 21),
and because their wages is death (Rom. vi. 23) ; but " the works of the
Law," as having no life in them (see our Article xiii.), may be in
cluded under the epithet.
TrCoreas ItI 8edv. This is also one of the initial steps in religious
knowledge. How little the writer meant any disparagement of it may
be seen from xi. 1, 2, 6.
2. paTTTio-pcov SiSaxTJs. Not " doctrine of baptisms " as in A. V. ,
but "teaching about ablutions." The gen. j3a7rr. is objective and the
SiS. depends on BepiXiov. That "ablutions" (ix. 10; Mk. vii. 3, 4)
are meant, is clear both (1) .from the use of the plural (which cannot
be explained either physically of "triple immersion," or spiritually of
the baptisms of "water, spirit, blood"); aud (2) because Pairriapbs
is never used of Christian baptism, but only pdrrriapa. If, as we
believe, the writer of this Epistle was Apollos, he, as an original
adherent " of John's baptism," might feel all the more strongly that
the doctrine of "ablutions" belonged, even in its highest forms, to
the elements of Christianity. Perhaps he, like Josephus (Antt. xviii.
5, § 2), would have used the word fSairnapbs "a washing," and not
pdwriapa, even of John's baptism. But the word probably implies
the teaching which enables Christian catechumens to discriminate be
tween Jewish washings and Christian baptism. On the construction
see Winer, pp. 240, 690.
ImBlo-eios Te \siodv. For ordination (Num. viii. 10, 11 ; Acts vi. 6,
xiii. 2, 3, xix. 6, &c), confirmation (Acts viii. 17), healings (Mk.'
xvi. 18), &c. Dr Mill observes that the order of doctrines here enume
rated corresponds with the system of teaching respecting them in the
Acts of the Apostles — Repentance, Faith, Baptism, Confirmation,
Resurrection, Judgement.
dvao-Tdo-eus Te vcKpuv. These topics had been severally prominent

VI. 4.] NOTES. 8 1
in the early Apostolio teaching (Acts ii. 38, iii. 19—21, xxvi. 20).
Even the doctrine of the resurrection belonged to Judaism (Lk. xx.
37, 38; Dan. xii. 2; Acts xxiii. 8).
koI KpCuaTos aluvCov. The doctrine respecting that Sentence
((cpfua), whether of the good or of the evil, which shall follow the
Judgement (Kplais) in the future life. This was also known under the
Old Covenant, Dan. vii. 9, 10. — The surprise with which we first read
this passage only arises from our not realising the Author's meaning,
which is this, — your Christian maturity (reXe^Tijs, vi. 1) demands
that you should rise far above your present vacillating condition.
You would have no hankering after Judaism if you understood the
more advanced teaching about the Melchisedek Priesthood — that is
the Eternal Priesthood — of Christ which I am going to set before you.
It is then needless that we should dwell together on the topics which
form the training of neophytes and oatechumens, the elements of
religious teaching whioh even belonged to your old position as Jews ;
but let us enter upon topics which belong to the instruction of
Christian manhood. The verse has its value and its warning for
those who think that "Gospel" teaching consists exclusively in the
iteration of threadbare shibboleths. We may observe that of these
six elements of catechetical instruction two are spiritual qualities —
repentance, faith; two are significant and symbolic acts — washings
and laying on of hands; two are esohatologioal truths — resurrection
and judgement.
3. tovto iroit|o-op.ev. We will advance towards perfection. The
MSS., as in nearly all similar cases, vary between "we will do"
(NBKL) and "let us do" (ACDE). It is difficult to decide between
the two, and the variations may often be due (1) to the tendency oi
scribes, especially in Lectionaries, to adopt the hortative form as being
more edifying; and (2) to the fact that at this period of Greek the
distinction in sound between irorfaopev and iroii\aupev was small.
Idvirep IrriTplTTTj 6 Beds. These sincere and pious formulae became
early ourrent among Christians (1 Cor. xvi. 7 ; Jas. iv. 15).
4 — 8. The Awfulness of Apostasy.
4. y°-P- A" inference from the previous clauses. We must ad
vance, for in the Christian course stationariness means retrogres
sion — non progredi est regredi.
dSvvaTOV Ydp "is k.t.X. We shall see further on the meaning of
the word "impossible." The sentence begins with what is called the
accusative of the subjeot, "For as to those who were, &c, it is im
possible, &c." We will first explain the particular expressions in
these verses, and then point out the meaning of the paragraph as a
whole. dira£. The word, a favourite one with the writer, means "once for
all." It occurs more often in this Epistle than in all the rest of the
N. T. It is the direct opposite of waXiv in ver. 6.

82 HEBREWS. [VI. 4—
dximo-BeVras. ' 'Illuminated " by the Holy Spirit, John i. 9. Comp. x.
26, 32; 2 Cor. iv. 4. In the LXX. "to illuminate" means "to teach"
(2 Kings xii. 2). The word in later times came to mean "to baptize,"
and (puriapbs, even as early as the time of Justin Martyr (a.d. 150),
becomes a technical term for "baptism," regarded from the point of
view of its results. The Syriac Version here renders it by " baptized."
Hence arose the notion of some of the sterner schismatics — such as
the Montanists and Novatians — that absolution was to be refused to
all such as fell after baptism into apostasy or flagrant sin (Tertull.
De Pudic. 20). This doctrine was certainly not held by St Paul
(1 Cor. v. 5; 1 Tim. i. 20), and is rejected by the Church of England
in her xvith Article (and see Pearson, On the Greed, Art. x.). The
Fathers (abandoning the view of St Cyprian in this respect for those
of the Western Church and of St Augustine) deduced from this
passage the unlawfulness of administering Baptism a second time ; a
perfectly right rule, but one which rests upon other grounds, and not
upon this passage. But neither in Scripture nor in the teaching of
the Church is the slightest sanction given to the views of the fanatics
who assert that "after they have received the Holy Ghost they can no
more sin as long as they live here." It will be remembered that
Cromwell on his deathbed asked his chaplain as to the doctrine of
Final Perseverance, and on being assured that it was a certain truth,
said, "Then I am happy, for I am sure that I was once in a state of
grace." Yevo-ap.!vovs Te k.t.X. These clauses may be rendered "having both
tasted of ...and being made. ..and having tasted." It is not possible to
determine which heavenly gift is precisely intended ; perhaps it means
remission, or regeneration, or salvation, which St Paul calls "God's
unspeakable gift" (2 Cor. jx. 15) ; or, generally, "the gift of the Holy
Ghost" (Acts x. 44—46). Calvin vainly attempts to make the clause
refer only to "those who had but as it were tasted with their outward
lips the grace of God, and been irradiated with some sparks of His
Light." This is not to explain Scripture, but to explain it away in
favour of some preconceived doctrine. It is clear from 1 Pet. ii. 3
that such a view is not tenable.
aerdxovs..'irvevuaTos dYCov. The Holy Spirit worked in many
diversities of operations (1 Cor. xii. 8 — 10).
5. KaXdv Y^vo-aulvovs Beov prjua. " That the word of God is good."
The verb "taste," which in the previous verse is constructed with
the genitive (as in the classical Greek), is here followed by an ac
cusative, as is more common in Hellenistic Greek. It is difficult to
establish any difference in meaning between the constructions, though
the latter may imply something which is more habitual — "feeding
ou." But possibly the accusative is only used to avoid any entangle
ment with the genitive "of God" which follows it. There is however
no excuse for the attempt of Calvin and others, in the interests of their
dogmatic bias, to make "taste of" mean only "have an inkling of"
without any deep or real participation ; and to make the beauty (KaXbv)

VI. 6.] NOTES. 83
of the "utterance of God" in this place only imply its contrast to the
rigour of the Mosaic Law. The metaphor means "to partake of,"
and "enjoy," as in Philo, who speaks of one "who has quaffed much
pure wine of God's benevolent power, and banqueted upon sacred
words and doctrines" (De proem, et poen. Opp. 1. 428). Philo also
speaks of the utterance (prjpa) of God, and of its nourishing the soul
like manna (Opp. 1. 120, 564). The references to Philo are always
to Mangey's edition. The names of the special tracts and chapters
may be found in my Early Days of Christianity, 11. 541 — 543, and
passim. Svvdueis Te p.IXXovtos almvos. Here again it is not easy to see
what is exactly intended by "the powers of the Future Age." If the
Future Age be the Olam habba of the Jews, i.e. the Messianic age,
then its "powers" may be as St Chrysostom said, "the earnest of the
Spirit," or the powers mentioned in ii. 4 ; Gal. iii. 5. If on the other
hand it mean "the world to come" its "powers" bring the foretaste of
its glorious fruition.
It will, then, be seen that we cannot attach a definitely certain or
exact meaning to the separate expressions ; on the other hand nothing
can be clearer than the fact that, but for dogmatic prepossessions, no
one would have dreamed of explaining them to mean anything less
than full conversion.
6. irapaireo-dvTas. The rendering "if they shall fall away" is
one of the most erroneous translations in the A. V. The words
can only mean "and have fallen away" (comp. ii. 1, iii. 12, a. 26,
29), and the position of the participle gives it tremendous force. It
was once thought that our translators had here been influenced by
theological bias to give such a rendering as should least conflict with
their Calvinistic belief in the "indefectibility of grace" or in "Final
Perseverance" — i.e. that no converted person, no one who has ever
become regenerate, aud belonged to the number of "the elect," can
ever fall away. It waB thought that, for this reason, they had put
this clause in the form of a mere hypothesis. It is now known how
ever that the mistake of our translators was derived from older
sources (e. g. Tyndale and the Genevan) and was not due to bias.
Calvin was himself far too good a scholar to defend this hypothetical
view of the clause. He attempted to get rid of it by denying that
the strong expressions in vers. 4, 5 describe the regenerate. He
applies them to false converts or half converts who become reprobate
— a view which, as we have seen, is entirely untenable. The falling
away means apostasy, the worst kind of rapdirrupa, the complete and
wilful renunciation of Christianity. Thus it is used by the LXX.
to represent the Hebrew bVJi which in 2 Chron. xxix. 19 they render
by " apostasy."
irdXiv dvaKaivC£eiv els p-eTavoiav. Denuo renovare. The verb dvaxai-
vlfriv came to mean "to rebaptize." If the earlier clauses seemed
to clash with the Calvinistic dogma of the "indefectibility of grace,"
F2

84 HEBREWS. [VI. 6—
this expression seemed too severe for the milder theology of the
Arminians. Holding — and rightly— that Scripture never closes the
door of forgiveness to any repentant sinner, they argued, wrongly,
that the "impossible" of ver. 4 could only mean "very difficult," a,
translation which is actually given to the word in some Latin Ver
sions (perdifficile). The solution of the difficulty is not to be arrived
at by tampering with plain words. What the author says is that
"when those who have tasted the heavenly gift... have fallen away,
it is impossible to renew them to repentance." He does not say that
the Hebrews have so fallen away; nor does he directly assert that
any true convert can thus fall away ; but he does say that when such
apostasy occurs and — a point of extreme importance which is con
stantly overlooked — so long as it lasts (see the next clause), a vital
renewal is impossible. There can, he implies, be no second " Second
Birth." The sternness of the passage is in exact accordance with
x. 26 — 29 (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 20, 21) ; but "the impossibility lies merely
within the limits of the hypothesis itself." See our Article xvi.
dvaoravpovvTas. "While crucifying," "crucifying as they are
doing." The right understanding of the whole passage depends on
the meaning of these present participles in their contrast with the
preceding aorist participles. Even the rigid Novatians did not refuse
Divine forgiveness, but only Church absolution, to post-baptismal
sins. At the Council of Nice the. Novatian Bishop Acesius said that
those who "sinned a sjn unto death" could not indeed be admitted
to the sacraments iXirlSa Se rrjs d(piaeus...irapd tov Beov iKSixeaBai.
Socr. H. E. i. 10. Thus the words imply not only an absolute, but a
continuous apostasy, for the participle is changed from the past into
the present tense. While men continue in wilful and willing sin they
preclude all possibility of the action of grace. So long as they cling
deliberately to their sins, they shut against themselves the open door
of grace. A drop of water will, as the Rabbis said, suffice to purify
a man who has accidentally touched a creeping thing, but an ocean
will not suffice for his cleansing so long as he purposely keeps it held
in his hand. There is such a thing as " doing despite unto the Spirit
of grace " (x. 29).
eavTots- This is "the dative of disadvantage" — "to their own
destruction. "
We see then that this passage has been perverted in a multitude of
ways from its plain meaning, which is, that so long as wilful apostasy
continues there is no visible hope for it. Ou the other hand the pas
sage does not lend itself to the violent oppositions of old controversies.
Iu the recognition that, to our human point of view, there does not
appear to be such a thing as final dereliction, this passage aud
x. 26—29, xii. 15—17 must be compared with the passages which
touch on the unpardonable sin, and the sin against the Holy Ghost
(1 John v. 16; Matt. xii. 31, 32; comp. Is. viii. 21). On the other
hand it is as little meant to be "a rock of despair" as "a pillow
of security." He is pointing out to Hebrew Christians with awful

VI. 8.] NOTES. 85
faithfulness the fatal end of deliberate and insolent apostasy. But
we have no right to suppose that he has anything in view beyond the
horizon of revealed possibilities. He is thinking of the teaching and
iriinistry of the Church, not of the Omnipotence of God. Even the
stern Montanists and even the hard Novatiaus — though they denied
all Church-absolution to deadly sins committed after baptism, did
not pretend to deny the possibility of their receiving Divine forgive
ness. With men it is impossible that a camel should go through the
eye of a needle, but "with God all things are possible" (Matt. xix.
26; Mk. x. 23 — 27; Lk. xviii. 27). In the face of sin — above all
of deliberate wretchlessness — we must remember that " God is not
mocked" (Gal. vi. 7), and that our human remedies are then ex
hausted. On the other hand to close the gate of repentance against
any contrite sinner is to contradict all the Gospels and all the
Epistles alike, as well as the Law and the Prophets.
irapaSeiYuo.TC£ovTas. Exposing Christ to scorn (comp. Matt. i. 19
where the simple verb is used).
7. yij yd|) rj mowa. " For land which has drunk." Land of this
kind, blessed aud fruitful, resembles true and faithful Christians.
The expression that the earth " drinks in " the rain is common
(Deut. xi. 11). Comp. Virg. Eel. in. Ill, "satprata biberunt." For
the moral significance of the comparison — namely that there is a
point at which God's husbandry seems to be rendered finally useless,
— see Is. v. 1 — 6, 24.
Si' ofls Kal -yeupvetTai. ' ' For whose sake (propter quos, Tert.) it is in
fact (ral) tilled " — namely for the sake of the owners of the land. With
the Kal compare 1 Pet. ii. 8, els 0 Kal iriBnaav. See Winer, p. 546.
evXoYCas. Gen. xxvii. 27, " a field which the Lord hath blessed."
Ps. lxv. 10, " thou blessest the inorease of it."
8. lK(j>lpovo-a 81 aKavBas. "But if it freely bear thorns," Is. v. 6;
Prov. xxiv. 31. This neglected land resembles converts who have
fallen away.
TpipdXovs- The Latin tribuli (rpeis, poX-ij). Gen. iii. 18, See. In
N. T. only here, and Matt. vii. 16.
dSoKiuos. The same word, in another metaphor, occurs in Jer.
vi. 30.
KaTapas eyyvs. Lit., " near a curse." Doubtless there is a reference
to Gen. iii. 18. St Chrysostom sees in this expression a sign of
mercy, because he only says "near a curse." " He who has not yet
fallen into a curse, but has got near it, will also be able to get afar
from it"; so that we ought, he says, to cut up and burn the thorns,
and then we shall be approved. And he might have added that the
older "curse" of the land, to which he refers, was by God's mercy
over-ruled into a blessing.

86 HEBREWS. [VI. 8—
Vfs to tIXos els kovo-iv. Lit., "whose end is for burning." Comp.
Matt. xiii. 30; Is. xliv. 15; "that it may be for burning. It is
probably a mistake to imagine that there is any reference to the
supposed advantage of burning the surface of the soil (Virg. Georg. I.
84 sqq.; Pliny, H. N. xviii. 39, 72), for we find no traces of such a
procedure among the Jews. More probably the reference is to land
like the Vale of Siddim, or "Burnt Phrygia," or "the Solfatara,"— like
that described in Gen. xix. 24; Deut. xxix. 23. Comp. Heb. x. 27.
And such a land Judea itself became within a very few years of this
time, because the Jews would not " break up their fallow ground,"
but still continued to "sow among thorns." Obviously the "whose"
refers to the "land," not to the " curse."
9 — 12. Words of Encouragement and Hope.
9. IleireCo-ueBa. Lit., "We have been (and are) convinced of."
Comp. Rom. xv. 14.
dyawt\rot. The warm expression is introduced to shew that his
stern teaching is only inspired by love. This word and dSeXQol are
often introduced to temper the severity of the sterner passages in the
Epistles. Td KpeCo-o-ova. Lit., "the better things." I am convinced that the
better alternative holds true of you; that your condition is, and your
fate will be, better than what I have described.
exdjuva o-oiTTipCas. "Akin to salvation," the antithesis to "near
a curse." What leads to salvation is obedience (v. 9).
el Kal ovtos XaXovaev. In spite of the severe words of warning
which I have just used. Comp. x. 39.
oStos. As in verses 4 — 8.
10. liriXaBe'o-flai. The aorist implies " to forget in a moment."
Comp. xi. 6, 20. God, even amid your errors, will not overlook the signs
of grace working in you. Comp. Jer. xxxi. 16 ; Ps. ix. 12 ; Am. viii. 7.
Kal tijs aYairris. " And your love." The words tov towou of the Text.
receptus should be omitted. They are probably a gloss from 1 Thess.
i. 3. The passage bears a vague general resemblance to 2 Cor. viii.
24; Col. i. 4.
els to dvoua avTov. Which name is borne by all His children.
SiaKovi^o-avTes Tots d-ytois Kal SiaKovovvTes. "In your past and pre
sent ministration to the saints," i.e. to your Christian brethren. It
used to be supposed that the title ' ' the saints " applied especially to
the Christians at Jerusalem (Rom. xv. 25; Gal. ii. 10; 1 Cor. xvi. 1).
This is a mistake ; and the saints at Jerusalem, merged in a common
poverty, perhaps a result in part of their original Communism, were
hardly in a condition to minister to one another. They were (as is
the casS with most of the Jews now living at Jerusalem) dependent in

VI. 13.] NOTES. 87
large measure on the Chaluka or distribution of alms sent them from
without. SiaKovovvTes. The continuance of their well-doing proved its sin
cerity; but perhaps the writer hints, though with infinite delicacy,
that their beneficent zeal was less active than it once had been.
11. em8vp.ovp.ev 8e k.t.X. "But we long to see in you," Sec.
ekaorov vuaiv. Here again in the emphasis of the expression
we seem to trace, as in other parts of the Epistle, some individual
reference. Tip? avTf|v...o-irov8ijv. He desires to see as much earnestness (2
Cor. vii. 11) in the work of advancing to spiritual maturity of
knowledge as they had shewn in ministering to the saints.
irpds Tijv irXr|po(popCav, i.e. with a view to your attaining this full
assurance. Comp. x. 22, iii. 14. The word also occurs in 1 Thess.
i. 5; Col. ii. 2.
axpv tIXovs. Till hope becomes fruition (iii. 6, 14).
12. iva. p,ij voBpol yivr\o-$e. " That ye become not slothful" in the
advance of Christian hope as you already are (v. 11) iu acquiring
spiritual knowledge.
p.ip,T|TaC. "Imitators," as in 1 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. v. 1 ; 1 Thess. i.
6, Sec.
Sid irCo-Teus Kal p.aKpo6vp.Cas. See ver. 15, xii. 1 ; Rom. ii. 7.
~M.aKpoBvp.la is often applied to the " long9uffering '' of God, as 'in
Rom. ii. 4 ; 1 Pet. iii. 20 ; but is used of men in Col. ill; 2 Cor. vi. 6,
Sea., and here implies the tolerance of hope deferred. It is a different
word from the "endurance" of xii. 1, x. 36 (viropovr/).
KXT)povopovvTaiv. Partially, and by faith, here; fully and with the
beatific vision in the life to come.
13. tu -ydp'Appadp.. The "for" implies " and you may feel abso
lute confidence about the promises ; for," die. Abraham is here only
selected as "the father of the faithful " ,(Rom. iv. 13) ; and not as the
sole example of persevering constancy, but as an example specially
illustrious (Calvin).
kot ovSevds etx<v peCgovos dudo-at. In the Jewish treatise Berachoth
(f. 32. 1) Moses is introduced as saying to God, "Hadst thou sworn by
Heaven and Earth, I should have said They will perish, and therefore
so may Thy oath ; but as Thou hast sworn by Thy great name, that
oath shall endure for ever."
KaB' eavrov. Kara with the gen. of the person adjured is peculiar to
Hellenistic Greek (Matt. xxvi. 63). In classical Greek Kara only takes
the gen. of acts or objects by which the oath is made, and the ace. of
the person (or 71-pds with the gen.). " By myself have I sworn " (Gen.
xxii. 16). " God sweareth not by another," says Philo, in a passage

88 HEBREWS. [VI. 13—
of which this may be a reminiscence — "for nothing is superior to
Himself— but by Himself, Who is best of all " (De Leg. Alleg. ra. 72).
There are other passages in Philo which recall the reasoning of this
clause (Opp. i. 622, ii. 30).
14. El ptiv. " In very truth." A mixed and Hebraic form, used
here alone (if the reading be correct) in the N.T. Comp. LXX., 2 Sam.
xix. 35; Job xxvii. 3.
tiXoyuv evXoYiio-o). The repetition represents the emphasis of the
Hebrew, which gives the effect of a superlative by repeating the word
twice. The construction is not known in classical Greek, though
Lucian (who knew something of Christian writings) once uses ISuv
elSov. It is very common in the LXX., where it is used to represent
the Hebrew absolute. Winer, p. 465.
itXt|Bvv(3 o-e. In the Heb. and LXX. we have " I will multiply thy
seed." 15. uaKpo8vp.ijo-as. " Having patiently endured," which may mean
" by patient endurance." The participles in this passage are really
contemporaneous with the principal verbs.
Iirlrvxev. Gen. xv. 1, xxi. 5, xxii. 17, 18, xxv. 7, Sec. ; John viii. 56.
There is of course no contradiction to xi. 13, 39, which refers to a
farther future and a wider hope.
16. avBpuiroi Ydp. Some MSS. read pev yap. But there is no
subsequent Si, and it is better to omit p4v. Winer, p. 719.
KaTd tov ueCjjovos. "By a greater." The article is distributive, as
also in 6 Spxos. Gen. xxi. 23, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 30 — 31. The passage
is important as shewing the lawfulness of Christian oaths (see our
Article xxxix.).
Kal irao-iis k.t.X. " And an oath is to them an end of all gainsaying "
(or "controversy" as to facts) "with a view to confirmation." It
is meant that when men swear in confirmation of a disputed point
their word is believed. There is an exactly similar passage in Philo,
De sacr. Abel et Cain (Opp. i. 181).
17. Iv (3." On which principle " ; " in accordance with this human
custom." The relative might indeed be made to agree with SpKu, but
it seems better here to regard it as nearly equivalent to i(p' <J qua-
propter. irepio-o-dTepov, i.e. than if he had not sworn.
povXdpevos. "Wishing." 8iXu is volo ; poiXopai is malo.
ttjs lirayYeXCas. " Of the promise." The heirs of the promise
were primarily Abraham and his seed, and then all Christians (Gal.
iii. 29).
Ti dp.eTa6eTov. " I am the Lord, I change not " (MaL iii. 6. See
too Is. xlvi. 10, 11; Ps. xxxiii. 11 ; Jas. i. 17). His changeless

VI. 19.] NOTES. 89
" decree " was that in Abraham's seed all the nations of the world
should be blessed. On the other hand the Mosaio law was mutable
(vii. 12, xii. 27).
lp.eo-CTevo-ev 8pK(p. "Intervened (interposed, or mediated) with an
oath," i.e. made His oath intermediate between Himself and Abra
ham. Philo, with his usual subtle refinements, observes that whereas
our word is accredited because of an oath, God's oath derives its oredit
because He is God. On the other hand, Rabbi Eleazer (in the second
century) said "the word Not has the force of an oath," which he
deduced from a comparison of Gen. ix. 11 with Is. liv. 9; and there
fore a fortiori the word "yes" has the force of an oath (Shevuoth,
f. 36. 1). The word peaireia occurs here only in the N. T.
18. 8id 8vo. Namely, by the oath and by the word oi God. The
Targums for " By Myself" have "By My Word have I sworn."
dSvvaTov <|<evo-ao-8ai fledv. St Clement of Rome says "Nothing is
impossible to God, except to lie" (Ep. ad Cor. 27). " God that oanuot
lie " (Tit. i. 2. Comp. Num. xxiii. 19).
irapaKXtio-iv, "encouragement."
KaTa(pvYdvres. As into one of the refuge-cities of old. Num.
xxxv. 11.
IXttCSos. "The hope" is here (by a figure called metonymy) used
for " the object of hope set before us as a prize " (comp. x. 23) ; " the
hope which is laid up for us in heaven," Col. i. 5.
19. (is aYKvpav. An anohor seems to have been an emblem of Hope
— being something which enables us to hope for safety in danger — from
very early days (Aesoh. Agam. 488), and is even found as a symbol of
Hope on coins. Clement of Alexandria tells us that it was one of the
few symbols which Christians wore on their signet-rings, and it is
frequent in the Catacombs. The notion that this metaphor adds any
thing to the argument in favour of the Pauhne authorship of the
Epistle, because St Paul too sometimes uses maritime metaphors,
shews how little the most ordinary canons of literary oriticism are
applied to the Soriptures. St Paul never happens to use the metaphor
of "an anohor," but it might have been equally well used by a person
who had never seen the sea in his life.
"Or if you fear
Put all your trust in God : that anchor holds."
Tennyson, Enoch Arden.
elo-epxou|vr)v els to IcruTepov tov KaTaireTao-uaTos. This expression
is not very clear. The meaning is that the hawser whioh holds the
anohor of our Christian hope passeth into the space which lies behind
the veil, i.e. into the very sanctuary of Him who is " the God of
Hope " (Rom. xv. 13). "The veil " is the great veil (Parocheth) which
separated the Holy from the Holy of Holies (Ex. xxvi. 31—35 ;
Heb. x. 20; Matt, xxvii. 51, See.). The Christian's anchor of hope

go HEBREWS. [VI. 19—
is not dropped into any earthly sea, but passes as it were through the
depths of the aerial ocean, mooring us to the very throne of God.
"Oh! life as futile then as frail!
What hope of answer or redress? —
Behind the veil! Behind the veil!" In Memoriam.
The word Karairiraapa usually applies to this veil before the Holy of
Holies, while mXuppa (as in Philo) is strictly used for the outer veil.
20. oTrovirpd8pop.os...elo-fjX8ev. Lit., "where a forerunner entered...
Jesus"; or better "where, as a forerunner" (or harbinger), "Jesus
entered." I see no reason to depart from the normal force of the
aorist by rendering it (as in the A.V.) "is entered," which would rather
require the perfect elaeX-fjXvBev. The aorist calls attention to the
single act, and is therefore, here, a vivid picture.
virep r\puv, "ora our behalf." This explains the introduction of the
remark. Christ's Ascension is a pledge that our Hope will be ful
filled. He is gone to prepare a place for us (John xiv. 2, 3). His
entrance into the region behind the veil proves the reality of the
hidden kingdom of glory into which our Hope has cast its anchor
(Ahlfeld). This is evidently a prominent thought with the writer
(iv. 14, ix. 24).
Kara tt|V to|iv MeXxio-e8lK. Melchisedek resembled Christ in his two
fold rdgis of kingly rank, and priestly office. By repeating this quota
tion, as a sort of refrain, the writer once more resumes the allusion of
v. 10, and brings us face to face with the argument to which he evidently
attached extreme importance as the central topic of his epistle. In
the dissertation which follows there is nothing which less resembles
St Paul's manner of "going off at a word" (as in Eph. v. 12 — 15,
Sea.). The warning and exhortation which ends at this verse, so far
from being "a sudden transition" (or "a digression") "by which
he is carried from the main stream of his argument," belongs essen
tially to his whole design. The disquisition on Melchisedek — for
which he has prepared the way by previous allusions and with the
utmost deliberation — is prefaced by the same kind of solemn strain
as those which we find in ii. 1 — 3, iii. 12 — 14, xii. 15 — 17. So far
from being "hurried aside by the violence of his feelings" into these
appeals, they are strictly subordinated to his immediate design, and
inwoven into the plan of the Epistle with consummate skill. "Hurry"
and "vehemence" may often describe the intensity and impetuosity
of St Paul's fervent style which was the natural outcome of his im
passioned nature ; but faultless rhetoric, sustained dignity, perfect
smoothness and elaborate eloquence are the very different character
istics of the manner of this writer.
Yevduevos, " having become," as the result of His earthly life.
els tov aluva. The words come emphatically at the end, and as
Dr Kay says strike the keynote of the next ohapter (vii. 3, 16, 17, 21,

VII. L] NOTES. 91
24, 25, 28). St Luke in the same way begins his Gospel and ends
his Acts of the Apostles with a sonorous antispastus (~  • eVeiSrjirep)
and epitrite (-  dKwXtirus).

CHAPTER VII.
3. dcpcopoi.wp.tvos ABK. The less correct form dipopoiupivos is
found in CDEL.
11. Iir avTiis NABCDE. The rec. has eV airy, K al.
vevop,o6lTT)Tai NABCD. Rec. vevopoBirnro.
13. p.eTlo-xT)Kev followed by irpoaiaxyKev is probably an intentional
paronomasia, and is well supported by the MSS. (NDEEL). npoaeaxev
AC. 14. irepl lepluv NABCDE. The irepl lepuaivns of the rec. is an
explanatory gloss.
16. o-apKCvt)S NABCDL. Corrected by copyists into the common
word aapKiKTJs. See the note.
17. paprvpeiTai NABDE. Rec. paprvpet.

Ch. VII. Christ, as an eternal High Priest after the Order
of Melchisedek, is superior to the Levitio High Priest.
Historic reference to Melchisedek (1—3). His Priesthood typically
superior to that of Aaron in seven particulars, i. Because even
Abraham gave him tithes (4 — 6). ii. Because he blessed Abra
ham (7). iii. Because he is the type of an undying Priest (8).
iv. Because even the yet unborn Levi paid him tithes, in the
person of Abraham (9, 10). v. Because the permanence of his
Priesthood, continued by Christ, implied the abrogation of the
whole Levitio Law (11 — 19). vi. Because it was founded on
the swearing of an oath (20 — 22). vii. Because it is intrans
missible, never being vacated by death (23, 24). Summary and
conclusion (25 — 28).
1. Ovtos yip d MeXxio-eSlK. All that is historically known of
Melohisedek is found in three verses of the book of Genesis (xiv. 18,
19, 20). In all the twenty centuries of sacred history he is only men
tioned once, in Ps. ex. 4. This chapter is a mystical explanation of
the significance of these two brief allusions. It was not wholly new,
since the Jews attached high honour to the name of Melchisedek,
whom they identified with Shem, and Philo had already spoken of
Melchisedek as a type of the Logos (De Leg. Alleg. in. 25, Opp.
1. 102).Pao-iXevs ZaXijp.. Salem is probably a town near Sheohem. It is
the same whioh is mentioned in Gen. xxxiii. 18 (though there the
words rendered "to Shalem" may mean "in safety"), and in John
iii. 23 ; and it is the Salumias of Judith ir. 4. This is the view of

92 HEBREWS. [VII. 1—
Jerome, who in his Onomasticon places it eight miles south of
Bethshean. The site is marked by a ruined well still called Sheikh
Salim (Robinson, Bibl. Bes. in. 333). In Jerome's time the ruins of
a large palace were shewn in this place as " the palace of Melchisedek ";
and this agrees with the Samaritan tradition that Abraham had been
met by Melchisedek not at Jerusalem but at Gerizim. The same
tradition is mentioned by Eupolemos (Euseb. Praep. Evang. rx. 17.
See Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 237). The more common view has
been that Salem is a shortened form of Jerusalem, but this is very
improbable; for (1) only a single instance of this abbreviation has
been adduced, and that only as a poetic license in a late Psalm which
the LXX. describe as "A Psalm with reference to the Assyrian"
(Ps. lxxvi. 2). (2) Even this instance is very dubious, for (a) the
Psalmist may be intending to contrast the sanctuary of Melchisedek
with that of David ; or (p) even here the true rendering may be " His
place has been made in peace" as the Vulgate renders it. (3) Jeru
salem in the days of Abraham, and for centuries afterwards, was only
known by the name Jebus. (4) The typical character of Melchisedek
would be rather impaired than enhanced by his being a king at
Jerusalem, for that was the holy city of the Aaronic priesthood of
which he was wholly independent, being a type of One in whose
priesthood men should worship the Father in all places alike if they
offered a spiritual worship. We must then regard Salem as being a
different place from Jerusalem, if any place at all is intended. For
though both the Targums and Josephus (Antt. 1. 10, § 2) here identify
Salem with Jerusalem, the Bereshith Rabba interprets the word Salem
as an appellative, and says that "King of Salem" means "Perfect
King," and that this title was given to hirn because he was circumcised
(see Wiinsche, Bibl. Babbinica, Beresh. Rabba, p. 198). Philo too says
"king of peace, for that is the meaning of Salem" (Leg. Alleg. in. 25,
comp. Is. ix. 6; Col. i. 20). Nothing depends on the solution of the
question, for in any case the fact that "Salem" means "peace" or
"peaceful" is pressed into the typology. But the Salem near Sichem
was itself in a neighbourhood hallowed by reminiscences scarcely less
sacred than those of Jerusalem. Besides this connexion with the
name of Melchisedek, it was the place where Jacob built the altar
El-Elohe-Israel ; the scene of John's baptism; and the region in
which Christ first revealed Himself to the woman of Samaria as the
Messiah. tepeis tov Beov tov v»|/Co-tov. The union of Royalty and Priesthood
in the same person gave him peculiar sacredness ("He shall be a
Priest upon His throne " (Zech. vi. 13). " Rex Anius, rex idem hominum,
Phoebique sacerdos" (Virg. Aen. in. 80 and Servius ad loc). The
expression "God most high" in Genesis is El Elton, and this was
also a title of God among the Phoenicians. It is however certain
that Moses meant that Melchisedek was a Priest of God, for though
this is the earliest occurrence of the name El Elibn it is afterwards
combined with "Jehovah" in Gen. xiv. 22, and in other parts of the
Pentateuch and the Psalms. There is no difficulty in supposing that

VII. 2.J NOTES. 93
the worship of the One True God was not absolutely confined to the
family of Abraham. The longevity of the early Patriarchs facilitated
the preservation of Monotheism at least among some tribes of man
kind, and this perhaps explains the existence of the name Elidn
among the Phoenicians (Philo Byblius ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. 1. 10).
6 o-vvavTTJo-as k.t.X. Amraphel king of Shinar, with three allies,
had made war on Bera king of Sodom with four allies, and had
carried away plunder and captives from the Cities of the Plain.
Among the captives was Lot. Abraham therefore armed his 318
servants, and with the assistance of three Canaanite chiefs, Aner,
Mamre, and Eshcol, pursued Amraphel's army to the neighbourhood
of Damascus, defeated them, rescued their prisoners, and recovered
the spoil. The word here rendered "slaughter" (/con-i) from Kbirru
"cut") may perhaps mean no more than "smiting," i.e. defeat. On
his return the king of Sodom going forth to greet and thank Abraham
met him at "the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale," a place
of which nothing is known, but which was probably somewhere in the
tribe of Ephraim near mount Gerizim. This seems to have been in
the little domain of Melchisedek, for we are not told that "he went
forth to meet" Abraham, but only that (being apparently at the place
where Bera met Abraham) he humanely and hospitably brought out
bread and wine for the weary victors, and blessed Abraham, and
blessed God for granting him the victory. In acknowledgement of
this friendly blessing, Abraham "gave him tithes of all," i.e. of all
the spoils.
evXoYrjo-as. Evidently as a priestly act. Gen. xiv. 19, 20.
2. irpuTov. This seems to imply that of his two names or titles
"Melchisedek," and "King of Salem," the first means "Eing of
Righteousness" and the second "King of Peace." In a passage of
mystic interpretation like this, however, the writer may intend to
suggest that there is a direct connexion between the two titles, and
that "Righteousness" is the necessary antecedent to "Peace," as is
intimated in Ps. lxxii. 7, lxxxv. 10. Comp. Rom. v. 1.
epp.T)vevdp.evos. The name Melchisedek may mean "King of
Righteousness." This is the paraphrase of the Targums, perhaps
with tacit reference to Is. xxxii. 1, where it is said of the Messiah
"Behold a king shall reign in righteousness." (Comp. Zech. ix. 9;
Jer. xxiii. 5.) In the Bereshith Rabba Tzedek is explained to mean
Jerusalem with reference to Is. i. 21, "Righteousness lodged in it."
Josephus (Antt. I. 19, § 12; B. J. vi. 10) and Philo, however, render
it paaiXebs StKaios. Later on in Jewish history (Josh. *.. 3) we read of
Adonizedek ("Lord of righteousness") who was a king of Jerusalem.
Apart from any deeper meaning "Righteousness" or "Justice" was
one of the most necessary qualifications of Eastern Kings, who are
also Judges. In the mystic sense the interpretation of the names
Melchizedek and Salem made him a fit type of "the Lord our
Righteousness" (Jer. xxiii. 6) and "the Prince of Peace" (Is. ix. 6):
and he was also a fit type of Christ because he was a Eingly Priest ;

94 HEBREWS. [VII. 2—
a Priest who blessed Abraham ; a Priest who, so far as we are told,
offered no animal-sacrifices ; and a Priest over whom Scripture casts
"the shadow of Eternity." See Bishop Wordsworth's note on this
passage. PacriXevs elprjvr)s. " The work of Righteousness shall be Peace,
and the effect of Righteousness quietness and assurance for ever"
(Is. xxxii. 17 ; Eph. ii. 14, 15, 17 ; Rom. v. 1. Comp. Philo Leg.
Alleg. in. 25, Opp. i. 102).
3. airdrop, dp-iyrap, aYeveaXdYT)Tos, "without lineage" or "pedigree''
as in ver. 6. The mistaken rendering " without descent " is ancient, for
in consequence of it Irenaeus claims Melchisedek as one who had lived
a celibate life (which in any case would not follow). The simple and un
doubted meaning of these words is that the father, mother, and lineage
of Melchisedek are not recorded, so that he becomes more naturally
a type of Christ. In the Alexandrian School, to which (whether he
was Apollos or not) the writer of this Epistle belonged, the custom of
allegorising Scripture had received an immense development, and the
silence of Scripture was regarded as the suggestion of mysterious
truths. The Jewish interpreters naturally looked on the passage
about Melchisedek as full of deep significance because the Psalmist
in the 110th Psalm, which was universally accepted as a Psalm
directly Messianic (Matt. xxii. 44), had found in Melchisedek a Priest-
King, who, centuries before Aaron, had been honoured by their great
ancestor, and who was therefore a most fitting tyrje of Him who was
to be "a Priest upon his Throne." The fact that he had no recorded
father, mother, or lineage enhanced his dignity, because the Aaronic
priesthood depended exclusively on the power to prove direct descent
from Aaron, which necessitated a most scrupulous care in the pre
servation of the priestly genealogies. (See Ezra ii. 61, 62 ; Nehem.
vii. 63, 64, where families which could not actually produce their
pedigree are excluded from the priesthood.) Moreover this was par
ticularly remarkable in the Book of Genesis where the genealogy of
all the leading characters is given, and where they form the frame
work of the Book, as Ewald has observed. The idiom by which
a person is said to have no father or ancestry when they are not
recorded, or are otherwise quite unimportant, was common to Greek,
Latin, and Hebrew. In a Greek tragedy "Ion" calls himself "mother
less" when he supposes that his mother is a slave (Eurip. Ion, 850).
Scipio said scornfully to the mob of the Forum "St! tacete quibus
nee pater nee mater est " (Cic. De Orat. n. 64). Horace calls himself
"a man nullis majoribUs ortus" (Hor. Sat. i. 6. 10). In the Bere-
shith Rabba we find the rule "a Gentile has no father," i.e. the
father of a proselyte- is not counted in Jewish pedigrees. Further
the Jews mystically applied the same sort of rule which holds in legal
matters which says "that things not producible are regarded as non
existent." Hence their kabbaHstic interpretation of particulars not
mentioned in Scripture. From the fact that Cain's death is nowhere
recorded in Genesis, Philo draws the lesson that evil never dies among
the human race ; and he calls Sarah "motherless " because her mother

VII. 3.] NOTES. 95
is nowhere mentioned. There is then no difficulty either as to the
idiom or its interpretation.
dprJTwp. The mention of this particular may seem to have no
bearing on the type, unless a contrast be intended to the Jewish
Priests who were descended from Elisheba the wife of Aaron (Ex.
vi. 23). But "Christ as God has no mother, as man no Father."
The primitive Church neither used nor sanctioned the name QeorbKos
"Mother of God" as applied to the Virgin Mary.
d-yeveaXdvr|Tos. " Without a genealogy ." Melchisedek has no re
corded predecessor or successor. Bishop Wordsworth quotes "Who
shall declare His generation?" which however is not the meaning of
the Hebrew.
p.TJTe apx^v rjaepuv k.t.X. The meaning of this clause is exactly
the same as that of the last — namely that neither the birth nor death
of Melchisedek is recorded, which makes him all the more fit to be a
type of the Son of God. Dean Alford's remark that it is "almost
childish" to suppose that nothing more than this is intended, arises
from imperfect familiarity with the methods of Rabbinic and Alex
andrian exegesis. The notion that Melchisedek was the Holy Spirit
(which was held by an absurd sect who called themselves Melchi-
sedekites); or "the Angel of the Presence"; or "God the Word,
previous to Incarnation"; or "the Shechinah"; or "the Captain of
the Lord's Host " ; or "an Angel"; or " a reappearance of Enoch " ; or
an " ivadpKuais of the Holy Ghost"; are, on all sound hermeneutical
principles, not only "almost" but quite "childish." They belong to
methods of interpretation which turn Scripture into an enigma and
neglect all the lessons which result so plainly from the laws which
govern its expression, and the history of its interpretation. No
Hebrew, reading these words, would have been led to these idle and
fantastic conclusions about the superhuman dignity of the Canaanite
prince in himself, aud apart from his purely typical character. If the
expressions here used had been meant literally, Melchisedek would
not have been a man, but a Divine Being — and not the type oi one. It
would then have been not only inexplicable, but meaningless, that in
all Scripture he should only have been incidentally mentioned in three
verses of a perfectly simple and straightforward narrative, and only
once again alluded to in the isolated reference of a Psalm written
centuries later. The fact that some of these notions about bim may
plead the authority of great names is no more than can be said of
thousands of the absolute, and even absurd, misinterpretations iu
the melancholy history of slowly-corrected errors which passes under
the name of Scripture exegesis. Less utterly groundless is the belief
of the Jews that Melchisedek was the Patriarch Shem, who, as they
shewed, might have survived to this time (Avodath Hakkodesh, m. 20,
Sec. and in two of the Targums). Yet even this view cannot be correct ;
for if Melchisedek had been Shem (1) there was every reason why he
should be called by his own name, and no reason whatever why his
name should be suppressed ; and (2) Canaan was in the territory of
Ham's descendants, not those of Shem ; and (3) Shem was in no sense,

96 HEBREWS. [VII. 3—
whether mystical or literal, "without pedigree." Yet this opinion
satisfied Lyra, Cajetan, Luther, Melanchthon, Lightfoot, See.
Who then was Melchisedek ? Josephus and some of the most learned
fathers (Hippolytus, Eusebius, Sec), and many of the ablest modern
commentators, rightly hold that he was neither more nor less than what
Moses tells us that he was — the Priest-King of a little Canaanite town,
to whom, because he acted as a Priest of the True God, Abraham gave
tithes ; and whom his neighbours honoured because he was not sensual
and turbulent as they were, but righteous and peaceful, not joining in
their wars and raids, yet minghng with them in acts of mercy and
kindness. How little the writer of this Epistle meant to exaggerate
the typology is shewn by the fact that he does not so much as allude to
the " bread and wine "to which an unreal significance has been attached
both by Jewish and Christian commentators. He does not make it (as
the Jews do) in any way a type of the shewbread and libations ; or an
offering characteristic of his Priesthood; nor does he make him (as
Philo does) offer any sacrifice at all. How much force would he have
added to the typology if he had ventured to treat these gifts as
prophecies of the Eucharist, as some of the Fathers do! His silence
on a point which would have been so germane to his purpose is
decisive against such a view. As regards the pipe we may observe
that as in Modern Greek pr\ has become the invariable negative with
participles, so we find a tendency in this direction in Hellenistic
Greek. Here for instance though the reference is to one person, the
attribute implied by the participle is ascribed only in conception.
Comp. Lk. vii. 33, iXifkvBev 'ludvvns pyre iaBluv...pr\re wtvuv. See
Winer, p. 607.
dcpojpotcope'vos Be to> vlu> tov Beov, "having been likened to the Son
of God," i.e. having been invested with a typical resemblance to
Christ. The expression explains the writer's meaning. It is a com
bination of the passage in Genesis with the allusion in Ps. ex.,
shewing that the two together constitute Melchisedek a Divinely
appointed type of a Priesthood received from no ancestors and trans-
mitted to uo descendants. The personal importance of Melchisedek
was very small ; but he is eminently typical, because of the sudden
ness with which he is introduced into the sacred narrative, and the
subsequent silence respecting him. He was born, and lived, and
died, and had a father and mother no less than any one else, but by
not mentioning these facts, the Scripture, interpreted on mystic
principles, "throws on him a shadow of Eternity: gives him a typical
Eternity." The expressions used of him are only literally true of
Him whose type he was. In himself only the Priest-prince of a little
Canaanite community, his venerable figure was seized upon, first by
the Psalmist, then by the writer of this Epistle, as the type of an
Eternal Priest. As far as Scripture is concerned it may be said of
him, that "he lives without dying, fixed for ever as one who lives by
the pen of the sacred historian, and thus stamped as a type of the
Son, the ever-living Priest."
els to 8iT|veKls, in perpetuum.

VII. 7.] NOTES. 97
4. ©eupetre 81, "Now contemplate spiritually."
itt)XCkos oBtos. Here begin the seven particulars of the typical
superiority of Melchisedek's Priesthood over that of Aaron. First.
Even Abraham gave him tithes.
a Kal 8eKaTT|v k.t.X. The Kal must not be connected with 'Appa&p
by trajection (hyperbaton), but emphasises the act of giving or tithe.
See Winer, p. 701.
d iraTpidpxis. There is great rhetorical force in the order of the
original, "to whom even Abraham gave a tithe out of his best spoils —
he the patriarch." Here not only is the ear of the writer gratified by
the sonorous conclusion of the sentence with an Ionicus a minore
patriarches ; but a whole argument about the dignity of Abraham is
condensed into the position of one emphatic word. The word in the
N. T. occurs only here and in Acts ii. 29, vii. 8, 9.
Ik tov aKpoSivCov, "from the spoils." The word properly means
that which is taken from the top of a heap (dV-pos, Bis) ; hence some
translate it "the best of the spoils," and Philo describes the tithe
given by Abraham in similar terms. But this is to press too much
the derivation of the word.
5. UpaTeCav. Defined by Aristotle to mean "care concerning the
gods." diroSeKaTotv. The Priests only took tithes of the people indirectly,
through the agency of the Levites. Delitzsch argues that after the
Exile the Priests collected the tithes themselves. It cannot however
be proved that the Priests themselves tithed the people. This was
done by the Levites, who gave the tithe of their tithes to the priests,
Num. xviii. 22 — 26, Nehem. x. 38. There is however no real dif
ficulty about the expression, for the Priests might tithe the people, as
Jewish tradition says that they did in the days of Ezra ; and (2) Qui
facit per alium facit per se. There is therefore no need to alter "the
people" (Xaov) into Levi (Aeutv). The Priests stood alone in receiving
tithes and giving none.
Ik ttjs do-(jnios. A Hebrew expression, Gen. xxxv. 11.
6. 6 SI uij YtveaXo-you'pevos. Oi', which might have been here expect
ed, would simply state the fact. The p.7) is practically here a stronger
negative because it denies the very conception. Comp. Lk. i. 20, xal
lay. ..pi) Swdpevos XaXrjaai. John vii. 49, d dxXos ovtos 6 prj yiyvuaKuv
rbv vbpov.
tv\6yr\K.ev, "and hath blessed." Second point of superiority. The
perfects imply that the acts are regarded as permanent and still
continuous in their effects, in accordance with the writer's manner of
regarding Scripture as a living and present entity.
7. vird tov kpcCttovos, i.e. the inferior is blessed by one who is
(pro hac vice or quoad hoc) the Superior. Hence blessing was one of
the recognised priestly functions (Num. vi. 23 — 26).
HEBREWS Or

98 HEBREWS. [VII. 8—
8. Kal wSe. As things now are ; while the Levitic priesthood still
continues. diro6vT)'o-KovTes d'vBpwiroi, "weak dying men" — men who are under
liability to die (comp. verse 23), as in the lines
"He preached as one who ne'er should preach again,
And as a dying man to dying men."
The word dvBpuvoi implies men in their mortal frailty.
8ti ft}, i.e. he stands as a living man on the eternal page of
Scripture, and no word is said about his death ; so far then as the
ietter of Scripture is concerned he stands in a perpetuity of mystic
life. This is the Third point of superiority.
9. ws erros eliretv, "so to speak"; shewing the writer's conscious
ness that the expression is somewhat strained, especially as even
Isaac was not born till 14 years later. The phrase is classic, and_ is
common in Philo, but is the only example of the adverbial ififinitive
in the N.T. (Winer, p. 399), and the only instance in which us ex
presses design (id. p. 563). Theophylact says it may mean either
iv avvrbpu e'nreiv or 'iv olhus etiru. The latter is clearly the meaning
here. Aevels...8e8eKaTOTai, "Levi. ..hath been tithed." This is the Fourth
point of superiority.
11. El p.!v otfv k.t.X. At this point begins the a fortiori argument
which occupies the next nine verses. "Perfection" (compare the
verb in ix. 9, x. 1, 14, xi. 40) means power of perfectionment, capacity
to achieve the end in view ; but this was not to be attained through
the Levitic priesthood. The Fifth point of superiority is that the
Melchisedek Priesthood implies the abrogation of the Levitic, and of
the whole law which was based upon it.
!ir" avTijs, "for on the basis of it." The writer regards the Priest
hood rather than the Law as constituting the basis of the whole
Mosaic system ; so that into this slight parenthesis he really infuses
the essence of his argument. The Priesthood is obviously changed.
For otherwise the Theocratic King of Ps. ex. would not have been
called "a Priest after the order of Melchisedek" but "after the order of
Aaron." Clearly then " the order of Aaron" admitted of no attain
ment of perfection through its means. But if the Priesthood was
thus condemned as imperfect and inefficient, the Law was equally
disparaged as a transitory institution. Righteousness did not "come
by the Law"; if it could so have come Christ would have died in
vain (Gal. ii. 21. Comp. Heb. x. 1 — 14).
6 Xads...vevoy.o6!rr]Tai. As vop. takes the dat. (LXX.) the noun
which denotes the person becomes the subject of the passive verb.
Winer, p. 326.
tCs Sti xpe'a. We may supply either iji> or av %v. There could be
no need, since none of God's actions or dispensations are superfluous.

VII. 14.] NOTES. 99
cTepov...Up!a. Not "another priest" as in A. V. (which would have
required iXXov) but "a different priest."
Kal ov...XiY«H)ai, "and that he should not be said (viz. in Ps. ex. 4)
to be after the order of Aaron." If the ov seem harsh (instead of p-rf)
in this construction, we may with Winer (p. 605) join the ov to Kara
ripi raiiv, "and be called 'not after the order of Aaron.'" That
XeyeaBai does not here mean eligi is clear from ver. 13.
12. ueraTiBeuevTis. He here uses the comparatively mild and
delicate term "being transferred." When he has prepared the mind
of his readers by a little further argument, he substitutes for perd-
Beais the much stronger word "annulment" (dBirnais, ver. 18). It
is a characteristic of the writer to be thus careful not to shock the
prejudices of his readers more than was inevitable. His whole style
of argument, though no less effective than that of St Paul in its own
sphere, is more conciliatory, more deferential, less vehemently ico
noclastic. His relation to St Paul is like that of Melanchthon to
Luther. Ig dvd-yKT]s. The Law and the Priesthood were so inextricably
united that the Priesthood could not be altered without disintegrating
the whole complex structure of the Law.
13. p.eTlo-xt]Kev, "hath had part in." The expression seems to
be designedly indirect, with reference to the Virgin birth.
ovSeCs- Sacerdotal privileges were exclusively assigned to the tribe
of Levi (Deut. x. 8 ; Num. iii. 5 — 8). The attempt of King Uzziah,
who was of the tribe of Judah, to assume priestly functions, had been
terribly punished (2 Chron. xxvi. 3, 19).
14. irpd8i]Xov, " known to all." The word rrpbSnXov occurs in
1 Tim. v. 24, 25. The delicate shades of difference between peria-
Xi>"ev...irpoaeax'iKev, Trp6S-i)\ov...KardSrjXov shew the careful elaboration
of the style.
dvaTlraXKev, "hath spi-ang." The verb is used generally of the sun
rising (Mal. iv. 2 ; Lk. xii. 54 ; 2 Pet. i. 19), but also of the springing
up of plants (Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12, &c). Hence the LXX. choose the
word 'AvaToXr/, which usually means sunrise, to translate the Messianic
title of "the Branch."
Ig 'IovSa. Gen. xlix. 10 ; Is. xi. 1 ; Lk. iii. 33. "The Lion of the
tribe of Judah," Rev. v. 5.
d Kvpios ijpwv. This is the first time that we find this expression
in the N. T. standing alone as a name for Christ. It iB from this
passage that the designation so familiar to Christian lips is derived.
irepl lepluv, "concerning priests," a better reading than the one
followed by the A. V. u-epi lepuaivns. Uzziah, of the tribe of Judah,
king though he was, had been punished by lifelong leprosy for
usurping the functions of the tribe of Levi.
'in. So eri is used to strengthen a comparative in Phil. i. 9.
G2

ioo HEBREWS. [VII. 15—
15. KaTdSr|Xov. The word used is stronger than irpoSrjXov iu ver.
14 and does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. The change of the Law
can be yet more decisively inferred from the fact that Melchisedek is
not only a Priest of a different tribe from Levi, but a priest con
stituted in a wholly different manner, and even — as he might have
said — out of the limits of the Twelve tribes altogether ; and yet a
Priest was to be raised after his order, not after that of Aaron.
el. Followed by the present indicative el means "if" (as is the case),
i.e. " seeing that."
16. KaTd vduov IvtoXijs o-apKCvr)s. Rather, "in accordance with
the law of a fleshen (i.e. earthly) commandment." Neither this
writer, nor even St Paul, ever called or would have called the Law
"carnal" (aapmKbs), a term which St Paul implicitly disclaims when
he says that the Law is "spiritual" (Rom. vii. 14); but to call it
"fleshen" (adpKivos) is merely to say that it is hedged round with
earthly limitations and relationships, and therefore unfit to be adapt
ed to eternal conditions. Its ordinances indeed might be called
"ordinances of the flesh" (ix. 10), because they had to do, almost
exclusively, with externals. An attentive reader will see that even in
the closest apparent resemblances to the language of St Paul there
are differences in this Epistle. For instance his relative disparage
ment of the Law turns almost exclusively on the conditions of its
hierarchy; and his use of the word "flesh" and "fleshen," refers not
to sensual passions but to mortality and transience.
yiyovev, " is become."
£c)tjs aKOToXiiTov, " of an indissoluble life," the life of a tabernacle
which "could not be dissolved." The word drardXvTos is not found
elsewhere in the N. T. The Priest of .this new Law and Priesthood is
"the Prince of Life" (Acts iii. 15).
17. p,apTvpeiTai, " he is testified of."
oti. This serves the purpose of our modern marks of quotation.
18. 'A6Itt)o-is. See note on ver. 12. Comp. Gal. iii. 15.
yCvstoi, "there occurs" or "results," in accordance with Ps. ex. 4.
irpoaYoi!o-T)S. Comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, v. 24. The "commandment"
was only a temporary precursor of the final dispensation.
IvtoXt|S. Most ancient and modern commentators understand this
of the Mosaic Law in general.
Sid Td avTrjs do-Beves Kal dvucpeXIs. These very strong expressions —
almost as strong as any that St Paul has used — would have caused
terrible offence to all Judaists had they been introduced suddenly.
As it is they only occur incidentally in the midst of a sustained and
powerful train of reasoning. The writer here shews how completely
he is of the school of St Paul, notwithstanding the strength of his
Judaic sympathies. For St Paul was the first who clearly de-

VII. 22.] NOTES. 101
monstrated that Christianity involved the abrogation of the Law, and
thereby proved its partial, transitory, and inefficacious character as
intended only to be a, preparation for the Gospel (Rom. viii. 3). The
law was only the "tutor" or attendant-slave to lead men to Christ,
or train their boyhood till it could attain to full Christian manhood
(Gal. iii. 23, 24). It was only after the consummation of the Gospel
that its disciplinary institutions became reduced to "weak and beg
garly rudiments" (Gal. iv. 9).
19. ovSev-.-lreXeCcoo-ev. This is illustrated in ix. 6 — 9.
erreio-aYoiY1! SI k.t.X. The better punctuation is "There results
a disannulment of the preceding commandment on account of its
weakness and unprofitableness — for the Law perfected nothing — but
(there results) the superinduction of a better hope." The latter
clause is a nominative not to ireXeluaev, but to yiverai in ver. 18.
The "better hope" is that offered us by the Resurrection of Christ ;
and the whole of the New Testament bears witness that the Gospel
had the power of " perfecting," which the Law had not. Rom. iii. 21;
Eph. ii. 13—15, Sec.
20. Ka8' oo-ov ov yapXs dpKupoo-Cas. This is the Sixth point of
superiority. He has lingered at much greater length over the Fifth
than over the others, from the extreme importance of the argument
which it incidentally involved. The oath on which the Melchisedek
Priesthood was founded is that of Ps. ex. 4. For the common word
opms (as in vi. 17), he prefers the more sonorous opKupoala which
means the same thing, but sounds more emphatic.
21. ol p.ev Ydp k.t.X., " these men have been made priests without an
oath." There is no mention of any oath of perpetuity in connexion
with the Aaronic priesthood.
elo-lv Y^yovoTes. This is merely the periphrastic perfect (sind

22. KpeCTTOvos 8ia8r]Ki]s. " By so much better was the covenant of
which Jesus has been made surety." The words — which might be
taken as the keynote of the whole Epistle — should undoubtedly be
rendered "of a better covenant." The Greek word SiaB^Kn is the
rendering of the Hebrew Berith, which means a covenant. Of "tes
taments" the Hebrews knew nothing until they learnt the custom of
"making a will" from the Romans. So completely was this the
case that there is no word in Hebrew which means "a will," and
when a writer in the Talmud wants to speak of a "will," he has to
put the Greek word SiaB^Kr/ in Hebrew letters. The Hebrew berith is
rendered diaflijfciy in the LXX, and "covenant" by our translators
at least 200 times. When we speak of the "Old" or the "New
Testament" we have borrowed the word from the Vulgate or Latin
translation of St Jerome in 2 Cor. iii. 6. The only exception to this
meaning of SiaBr/Kn in the N. T. is in ix. 15 — 17. Of the way in
which Jesus is "a pledge" (eyyvos) of this "better covenant," see ver.
25 and viii. 1, 6, ix. 15, xii. 24. The word eyyvos occurs here alone
in the N. T., but is found in Ecclus. xxix. 15.

102 HEBREWS. [VIL 23—
23. Kal oi plv k.t.X. " And they truly have been constituted priests
many in number."
6avdTu>. The vacancies caused in their number by the ravages of
death required to be constantly replenished (Num. xx. 28 ; Exod.
xxix. 29, 30).
24. 6 SI, "but He." The A.V. "but this man" is not felicitous.
dirapdparov, " hath his priesthood unchangeable " (Oecumen. dreXeiJ-
rnrov, Theoph. dSidSoxov, sempiternum Vulg.) : a rendering which is
more in accordance with usage than " untransmissible," "a priest
hood that doth not pass to another," as it is rendered in the margin
of our Revised Version. The rendering "not to be transgressed
against," or "inviolate" (intransgressibile, Aug.), is not tenable here.
The word belongs to later Greek, is not found in the LXX., and here
only in the N.T. This is the Seventh particular of superiority. I
think it quite needless to enter into tedious modern controversies as
to the particular time of Christ's ministry at which He assumed His
priestly office, because I do not think that they so much as entered
into the mind of the author. The one thought which was prominent
in his mind was that of Christ passing as our Great High Priest with
the offering of His finished sacrifice into the Heaven of Heavens.
The minor details of Christ's Priestly work are not defined, and those
of Melchisedek are passed over in complete silence.
25. els to iravTeXIs, i. e. " to the consummate end." All the Apostles
teach that Christ "is able to keep us from falling and to present
us faultless before the presence of His glory" (Jude 24 ; Rom. viii. 34;
John vi. 37—39).
o-»|eiv. He saves them in accordance with His name of Jesus,
"the Saviour." Bengel.
Si' ovtov. "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."
els Td IvrvYXdveiv vire'p, "to appear in the presence of God for us "
(Heb. ix. 24). Philo also speaks of the Logos as a Mediator and
Intercessor (Vit. Mos. in. 16).
Having thus proved in seven particulars the transcendence of the
Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ, as compared with the Levitic
Priesthood, he ends this part of his subject with a weighty summary,
into which, with his usual literary skill, he introduces by anticipation
the thoughts which he proceeds to develop in the following chapters.
26. Toiovtos Ydp- The "for" clinches the whole argument with
a moral consideration. There was a spiritual fitness in this annul
ment of the imperfect Law and Priesthood, and the introduction of
a better hope and covenant. So great and so sympathetic and so
innocent a High Priest was suited to our necessities. There is
much rhetorical beauty in the order of the Greek. He might have
written it in the order of the English, but he keeps the word
"Priest" by way of emphasis as the last word of the clause, aud then
substitutes High Priest for it.

VII. 27.] NOTES. 103
80-ios. Heb. "Vpn, pure towards God (Lev. xx. 26, xxi. 1 ; Ps. xvi.
10; Acts ii. 27). He bore "holiuess to the Lord" not on a golden
mitre-plate, but as the inscription of all His hfe as "the Holy One of
God " (Mk. i. 24).
dKOKos, as regards men. Chrys. dirbynpos, ovx vtovXos. Is. liii. 9.
dpCavTos. Not stained, Is. liii. 9 (and as the word implies un-
stainable), with any of the defilements which belonged to the Levitic
priests from their confessed sinfulness. Christ was " without sin "
(iv. 15); "without spot" (ix. 14; 1 Pet. i. 19). He "knew no sin"
(2 Cor. v. 21).
Kex»pio-ulvos dird rav dpapTioXoov. "Having been separated from
sinners." The writer is already beginning to introduce the subject of
the Day of Atonement on which he proceeds to speak. To enable
the High Priest to perform the functions of that day aright the
most scrupulous precautions were taken to obviate the smallest
chance of ceremonial pollution (Lev. xxi. 10 — 15) ; yet even these
rigid precautions had at least once in living memory been frustrated —
when the High Priest Ishmael ben Phabi had been incapacitated from
his duties because in conversing with Hareth (Aretas), Emir of Arabia,
a speck of the Emir's saliva had fallen upon the High Priest's beard.
But Christ was free not only from ceremonial pollution, but from
that far graver moral stain of which the ceremonial was a mere
external figure ; and He had now been exalted above all contact with
sin in the Heaven of Heavens (iv. 14).
<n|n)XdTepos. Having "ascended up far above all heavens" (Eph.
iv. 10).
27. KaB' Tiplpav. A difficulty is suggested by this word, because
the High Priest did not offer sacrifices daily, but only once a year on
the Day of Atonement. In any case the phrase would be a mere
verbal inaccuracy, Bince the High Priest could be regarded as poten
tially ministering in the daily sacrifices which were offered by the
inferior Priests; or the one yearly sacrifice may be regarded as
summing up all the daily sacrifices needed to expiate the High Priest's
daily sins (so that "dally" would mean "continually"). It appears
however that the High Priest might if he chose take actual part in
the daily offerings (Ex. xxix. 38, 44 ; Lev. vi. 19 — 22 ; Jos. B. J. v.
5 — 7). It is true that the daily sacrifices and Minchah or "meat
offering" had no recorded connexion with any expiatory sacrifices;
but an expiatory significance seems to have been attached to the
daily offering of incense (Lev. xvi. 12, 13, LXX. ; Yoma, f. 44. 1).
Wieseler's notion that there is any reference to the Jewish Temple
built by Onias at Leontopolis is entirely baseless. Both Philo (De
Spec. Legg. § 53) and the Talmud use the very same expression as the
writer, who seems to have been perfectly well aware that, normally
and strictly, the High Priest only offered sacrifices on one day in the
year (ix. 25, x. 1, 3). The stress may be on the necessity. Those
priests needed the expiation by sacrifice for daily sins ; Christ did not.

104 HEBREWS. [VII. 27—
Ididiralj, "once for all" (ix. 12, 26, 28, x. 10 ; Rom. vi. 10). Christ
offered one sacrifice, once offered, but eternally sufficient.
lavTov. The High Priest was also the Victim, viii. 3, ix. 12, 14,
25, x. 10, 12, 14; Eph. v. 2 (Liinemann).
28. dvBpwirovs, i.e. ordinary "human beings."
p.6Td tov vduov. Namely, in Ps. ex. 4.
TereXeiuplvov, "who has been perfected." The word "consecrated"
in our A.V. is a reminiscence of Lev. xxi. 10; Ex. xxix. 9. The
' ' perfected " has the same meaning as in ii. 10, v. 9.

CHAPTER VIII.
1. IttI tois XeYopivois. This is the undoubted reading for which
iv (A) is a (correct) explanatory gloss.
6. tItuxcv NADKL. The rec. has rirevxe with B. Some MSS.
have the correct Attic renixvKe.
8. avrovs NADK. avrois BEL followed by the rec. and most
editors, but not Westc. Hort. The airois must be construed with
pep(p. but airois with Xeyei.

Ch. VIII. Having compared the two Priesthoods, and shewn the
inferiority of the Aaronic priesthood to that of Christ as "a
High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek," the writer
now proceeds to contrast the two Covenants. After fixing the
attention of his readers on Christ as the High Priest of the True
Sanctuary (1 — 6) he shews that God, displeased with the diso
bedience of those who were under the Old Covenant, had by the
prophet Jeremiah promised a New Covenant (7 — 9) which should
be superior to the Old in three respects, i. Because the Law
of it should be written on the heart (10). ii. Because it should
be universal (11), and iii. because it should be a covenant of
forgiveness (12). The decrepitude of the Old Covenant, indicated
by its being called "old," iB a sign of its approaching and final
evanescence (13).
1. KecpdXaiov 81 k.t.X. Rather than A.V., " the chief point in what
we are saying is this." The word Ke^dXaiov may mean, in its classical
sense, "chief point," and that must be the meaning here, because
these verses are not a summary and they add fresh particulars to
what he has been saying. Dr Field renders it "now to crown our
present discourse"; because Ke<pdXaiov iiriBeivai, like fastigium impo-
nere, is to crown a pillar with its capital, and a building with its
coping-stone. Tyndale and Cranmer, "pyth."
toiovtov. "Such as I have described." roibaSe is prospective, roi-
oCtos is retrospective.

VIII. 3.] NOTES. 105
lKdBio-ev, ''sat" — a mark of preeminence (x. 11, 12, xii. 2). In St
Stephen's Vision our Lord appears standing to aid the Martyr.
tov Bpdvov. This conception seems to be the origin of the Jewish
word Metatron (peradpbvios), a sort of Prince of all the Angels, near
the throne.
ttjs |ieYaX(oo-vvr|s Iv Tots ovpavois. A very Alexandrian expression.
See note on i. 3.
2. XevrovpYos- From this word (derived from Xeus, "people,"
and Ipyov, "work") comes our "liturgy."
tov dyiav, "of the sanctuary." This (and not "of holy things,"
or "of the saints") is the only tenable rendering of the word in this
Epistle. KaC. The "and" does not introduce something new; it merely
furnishes a more definite explanation of the previous word.
ttjs o-kt]vtjs ttjs dXtiflivTJs, " of the genuine tabernacle." The word
dkriBivbs means "genuine," and in this Epistle "ideal," " archetypal."
It is the antithesis not to what is spurious, but to what is material,
secondary and transient. 'AXnBTjs is the opposite to if/evSr/s, but
dXnBivbsto dpSrjXos. So Christ Brmself is the "real" Vine, that which
corresponds to the true idea, of which the Earthly Vine is only the
transient symbol. The Alexandrian Jews, as well as the Christian
scholars of Alexandria, had adopted from Plato the doctrine of Ideas,
which they regarded as Divine and eternal archetypes of which
material and earthly things were but the imperfect copies. They
found their chief support for this introduction of Platonic views into
the interpretation of the Bible in Ex. xxv. 40, xxvi. 30 (quoted in
ver. 5). Accordingly they regarded the Mosaic tabernacle as a mere
sketch, copy, or outline of the Divine Idea or Pattern. The Idea is
the perfected Reality of its material shadow. They extended this
conception much farther: "What if earth
Be but the shadow of heaven, and things therein
Each to the other like, more than on earth is thought?"
The "genuine tabernacle" is the Heavenly Ideal (ix. 24) shewn to
Moses. To interpret it of "the glorified body of Christ" by a mere
verbal comparison of John ii. 19, is to adopt the all-but-universal
method of perverting the meaning of Scripture by the artificial ela
borations and inferential afterthoughts of a scholastic theology.
'{¦mfev. Lit., "fixed."
ovk dvBpwiros. Not a mere human being, as Moses was. Comp.
ix. 11, 24.
3. KaBCo-raTai. " Is appointed."
Siopd Te Kal Bvo-Cas. See note on v. 1.
Kal tovtov. " That He too." It would be better as in the R.V. to
avoid introducing the word "man" which is not in the original, and
to say " that this High Priest."

106 HEBREWS. [VIII. 3—
S irpoo-evcYKij. In Attic prose relatives with the conj. mood usually
have dv, but this is sometimes omitted in the N.T. , Jas. ii. 10, dans...
TijpiJoTj ; Matt. X. 33, Sans dpvrfanral pe. It is essential to the concep
tion of a priest that he should have an offering, — the aorist denotes
the one past act, not that there is a continual offering, or representa
tion of the offering. Christ's offering is mainly the blood of this one
sacrifice, i.e. His vivifying life outpoured for, and imparted to, His
people. The point is one of the extremest importance, and though the
writer does not pause to explain what was the sacrifice which Christ
offered as High Priest, he purposely introduces the subject here to
prepare for his subsequent development of it in ix. 12, a. 5 — 7, 11, 12.
Similarly St Paul tells us "Christ... hath given Himself for us, an
offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour " (Eph. v. 2).
4. el ulv ovv ijv. " Now if He were still on earth."
Iirl y^s. His sanctuary must be a heavenly one, for in the earthly
one He had no standpoint.
ov8' dv f|v tepevs. He would not even be so much as a Priest at all;
still less a High Priest ; for He was of the Tribe of Judah (vii. 14),
and the Law had distinctly ordained that "no stranger, which is not
of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the Lord"
(Num. xvi. 40).
ovtov tov irpoo-(pepdvT(i>v k.t.X. "Since there are (already) those who
offer their gifts according to the Law." The writer could not possibly
have used these present tenses if the Epistle had been written after
the Fall of Jerusalem. Jewish institutions are, indeed, spoken of in the
present tense, after the fall of Jerusalem, by Barnabas and Clement of
Rome ; but they are merely using an every-day figure of speech. In the
case of theEpistle to the Hebrews the argument would have gained such
indefinite force and weight in passages like this by appealing to a fact
so startling as the annulment of the Mosaic system by God Himself,
working by the unmistakable demonstrations of history, that no
writer similarly circumstanced could possibly have passed over such a
point in silence.
5. otrives k.t.X. Namely, the priests — who are ministering in
that which is nothing but a copy and shadow (x. 1 ; Col. ii. 17) of the
heavenly things. The verb Xarpeieiv usually takes a dative of the
person to whom the ministry is paid. Here aud in xiii. 10 the dative
is used of the thing in which the service is done. It is conceivable
that there is a shade of irony in this — they serve not a Living God,
but a dead tabernacle. Aud this tabernacle is only a sketch, an
outline, a ground pattern (1 Chron. xxviii. 11) as it were — at the
best a representative image — of the Heavenly Archetype.
t»v eirovpavCwv. " Of the heavenly things," R.V. Perhaps rather
" of the heavenly sanctuary " (ix. 23, 24).
KexpT)|«iTio-Tai. " Even as Moses, when about to complete the taber
nacle, has been divinely admonished..." On this use of the perfect
Bee note on iv. 8, See. xpv^tI^u is used of Divine intimations in
Matt. ii. 12 ; Luke ii. 26 ; Acts x. 22, See.

VIII. 6.] NOTES. 107
"Opa...iroiTJo-eis. This is not a classical idiom, though not abso
lutely unknown to classical Greek (Lobeck, Phryn. p.-734). It is here
taken from the LXX. (Ex. xxv. 40). Hoir/ans would be better Greek.
irdvTa. This expression is not found either in the Hebrew or the
LXX. of the passages referred to (Ex. xxv. 40, xxvi. 30) ; it seems to
be due to Philo (De Leg. Alleg. m. 33), who may, however, have fol
lowed some older reading.
kotA tov tvttov k.t.X. Here, as is so often the case in comments
on Scripture, we are met by the idlest of speculations, as to whether
Moses saw this " pattern " in a dream or with his waking eyes ;
whether the pattern was something real or merely an impression pro
duced upon his senses; whether the tabernacle was thus a copy or
only " a copy of a copy and a shadow of a shadow," See. Such ques
tions are otiose, because, even if they were worth asking at all, they do
not admit of any answer, and involve uo instruction, and no result of
the smallest value. The Palestinian Jews in their slavish literal way
said that there was in Heaven an exact literal counterpart of the
Mosaic Tabernacle with " a fiery Ark, a fiery Table, -a, fiery Candle
stick," See. , which descended from heaven for Moses to see ; and that
Gabriel, in a workman's apron, shewed Moses how to make the can
dlestick, — an inference which they founded on Num. viii. 4, " And this
work of the candlestick " (Menachoth, f. 29. 1). Without any such
fetish-worship of the letter it is quite enough to accept the simple
statement that Moses worked after a pattern which God had brought
before his mind. The chief historical interest in the verse is the fact
that it was made the basis for the Scriptural Idealism by which Philo
and the Alexandrian Jews tried to combine Judaism with the Platonic
philosophy, and to treat the whole material world as a shadow of the
spiritual world. It is one of several narrow points on which were
built huge inverted pyramids of inference, which even .when it was
intrinsically tenable, could still not be deduced from the passages
quoted. 6. wvl 81, i. e. but as it is.
Tervxev. This form ia often found in ancient grammarians. See
Veitch, Greek Verbs, p. 578.
Sia(pop(i>Tepas k.t.X. "A ministry more excellent in proportion as He
is also." This proportional method of stating results runs throughout
the Epistle (see i. 4, iii. 3, vii. 22). It might be said with truth that
the gist of his argument turns on the word " how much more." He
constantly adopts the argumentum aminori admajus (vii. 19, 22, ix. 11,
14, 23, x. 29). For his object was to shew the Hebrews that the pri
vileges of Judaism to which they were looking back with such longing
eyes were but transitory outlines and quivering shadows of the more
blessed and more eternal privileges, which they enjoyed as Christians.
Judaism was but a shadow of which Christianity was the substance ;
Judaism was but a copy of which Christianity was the permanent Idea,
and heavenly Archetype; it was but a scaffolding within which the

108 HEBREWS. [VIII. 6—
genuine Temple had been built; it was but a chrysalis from which the
inward winged life had departed.
p.eo-CTT)S. ix. 15, xii. 24; 1 Tim. ii. 5.
KpeCTToo-iv. "Better," because not physical but spiritual, and not
temporal but heavenly and eternal. Bengel notices that the main
words in the verse are all Pauline. Rom. ix. 4 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5.
7 — 13. Threefold Superiority of the New to the Old Covenant,
as prophesied bt jeremiah ; being a proof that the "pro
MISES" of the New Covenant are "better."
7. El Ydp...dp.epirros. Whereas it was as he has said daBevys
and dvuipeXrfs and aapdvn (vii. 16, 18). The difference between the
writer's treatment of the relation between Christianity and Judaism
and St Paul's mode of dealing with the same subject consists in
this : — to St Paul the contrast between the Law aud the Gospel was
that between the Letter and the Spirit, between bondage and freedom,
between Works and Faith, between Command and Promise, between
threatening and mercy. All these polemical elements disappear almost
entirely from the Epistle to the Hebrews, which regards the two dis
pensations as furnishing a contrast between Type and Reality. This
was the more possible to Apollos, or one of similar training to his,
because he regards Judaism not so much in the light of a Law as in
the light of a Priesthood and a system of worship. Like those who
had been initiated into the ancient mysteries the Christian convert
from Judaism could say tipvyov kok6v, eipov dpeivov — " I fled the bad, I
found the better "; not that Judaism was in any sense intrinsically aud
inherently "bad" (Rom. vii. 12), but that it became so when it was
preferred to something so much more Divine.
ovk d'v liJiyreiTO. There would not have been — as we know there
was — any demand for a second.
8. peptpoptvos Ydp avrdis. The "for" introduces his proof that
"place for a better covenant was being sought for." The persons
blamed are not expressed, unless we read airovs. Perhaps the mean
ing is "blaming the first covenant, He says to them" (who were
under it). _ The *' He " is God speaking to the Prophet. This would
(reading airois) however have been expressed more naturally by Trpds
aiirovs. If it can mean "He says to them," the blame is, with deli
cate rhetoric, transferred from the covenant to those who received it.
'I8od k.t.X. The quotation is from Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34.
o-vvTeX!o-w. "I will accomplish." The Hebrew word means literally
"I will cut," alluding perhaps to the slaying of victims at the inaugu
ration of a covenant. But the LXX. and the writer of the Epistle
substitute a less literal word.
9. l-mXapopevov. See note on ii. 16. The construction is harsh
but is taken from the LXX. of Jer. xxxi. 32, and represents the infi
nitive. Winer, p. 714.

VIII. 12.] NOTES. 109
ovk Ivlueivav. The disobedience of the Israelites was a cause of
nullifying the covenant which they had transgressed (Judg. ii. 20, 21 ;
2 Kings xvii. 15 — 18). Comp. Hos. i. 9, "Ye are not my people, and
I will not be your God."
T]pe'Xt|o-a avrov. These words correspond to the "though I was a
husband unto them" of the original. The quotation is from the LXX.,
who perhaps followed a slightly different reading. Rabbi Kimchi
holds that the rendering of the LXX. is justifiable even with the pre
sent reading.
10. Iirl KapSCas. The gift of an inner law, not written on granite
slabs, but on the fleshen tablets of the heart, is the first promise of the
New Covenant. It involves the difference between the Voice of the
Spirit of God in the Conscience and a rigid external law : the differ
ence, that is, between spirituality and legalism. This is brought out
in Ezek. xxxvi. 26—29.
eo-opai avTois els fledv. The phrase etvai, ylyveaBai els (fieri, mutari
in aliq.) became an established formula in the LXX.
11. ov p.T^ Si8d£uo-iv. Dawes's canon that only the second aor. subj.
act. aud mid. is used after oi pi) is at any rate inapplicable to the N.T.
(see Rev. xviii. 14) , nor does Hermann's canon on the difference of
meaning between oi pr) with the fut. and with the aor. subj. remain
valid in Hellenistic Greek. See Winer, pp. 635, 636.
tov itoXCtt]v avTov. Lit., " his fellow-citizen." The repetition
evcaoTos.../cal iKaaros is a sort of echo of the Hebrew idiom "the man
to his brother," Winer, p. 217.
irdvTes. The second promise of the New Covenant is that there
shall be no appropriation of knowledge ; no sacerdotal exclusiveness ;
no learned caste that shall monopolise the keys of knowledge, and
lock out those that desire to enter in. " All thy children shall be
taught of the Lord" (Is. liv. 13), and all shall be "a chosen genera
tion, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people."
eloTJo-ovo-iv. This form of the future tl5-qau> from elSiw is Ionic and
extremely rare. It is found in Isocrates, but does not occur elsewhere
in the LXX. or N.T.: see Veitch, Greek Verbs, p. 187.
elS^o-ovo-tv |«. By virtue of the anointing of the Holy Spirit, which
" teaches us of all things " (1 John ii. 27).
dird uiKpov k.t.X. That is, from the eldest to the youngest (Gen.
xix. 11 j Acts viii. 10, &c).
12. IXeos 80-op.ai. Comp. Rom. xi. 27. The third promise of the
New Covenant is the forgiveness of sins, with a fulness and reality
which could not be achieved by the sacrifices of the Old Covenant (see
ii. 15, ix. 9, 12, x. 1, 2, 4, 22). Under the Old Covenant there had
been a deep feeling of the nullity of sacrifices in themselves, which led
to an almost startling disparagement of the sacrificial system (1 Sam.
xv. 22 ; Ps. xl. 6, 1. 8—10, li. 16; Mic. vi. 6, 7 ; Is. i. 11; Hos. vi. 6;
Am. v. 21, 22, &c).

no HEBREWS. [VIII. 13—
13. ireiraXaCuKev. "He hath rendered obsolete." The very ex
pression, " a New Covenant," used in the disparaging connexion in
which it stands, superannuates the former covenant, and stamps it as
antiquated. The verse is a specimen of the deep sense which it was
the constant object of the Alexandrian interpreters to deduce from
Scripture. The argument is analogous to that of vii. 11.
to 81 iraXaiovaevov k.t.X. Lit.," Now that which is becoming anti
quated and waxing aged, is near obliteration." The expression " near
evanescence " again shews that the Epistle was written before the
Fall of Jerusalem, when the decree of dissolution which had been
passed upon the Old Covenant was carried into effect. Even the
Rabbis, though they made the Law an object of superstitious and ex
travagant veneration, yet sometimes admitted that it would ultimately
cease to be — namely, when ' ' the Evil Impulse " (Deut. xxxi. 21)
should be overcome.
iyyis d(pavio-p.ov. Compare the expression i^yis Kardpas (vi. 8),
and Dr Kay points out the curious fact that " curse " and " oblitera
tion" (dipaviaphs here alone in the N.T.) appear in juxtaposition in
2 Kings xxii. 19 (where our version renders it " desolation").

CHAPTER IX.
1. tj irp(oTi). The addition of ovojvi; in the rec. is very ill supported,
and the sense requires the word SiaB-qKn to be understood. Besides
which rj 7rp. cr/c. has a different meaning altogether in the next verse.
5. 8dgi]S. This is much better supported than the rrjs 5. of the rec.
9. koB' •rjv NABD. The KaB' ov of the rec. was a correction of the
more difficult expression.
10. [koI]. Not in NAD. SiKaiwaaTa NAB.
11. rov pcXXovrwv. This is also the reading of the rec. and is
better than tuv yevopivuv of BD adopted by Lachmann, &c, which is
perhaps accidentally due to the preceding irapayevo/Aevos.
12. evpdaevos. The rarer form, altered by D into evpopievos.
19. IpdvTKrev. Better supported than the ifydvriaev of the rec.
24. _ Xpioros NACD. By the time that this Epistle was written the
title 6 Xpiords (rec.) had been superseded in general by the name
Xpiarbs.

Ch. IX. After thus tracing the contrast between the Two Covenants,
the writer proceeds to shew the difference between their ordi
nances of ministration (ix. 1— x. 18). He contrasts the sanctuary
(1—5), the offering, aud the access (6, 7) of the Levitical Priests,
in their shadowy and inefficacious ritual (9, 10), with the sane-

IX. 2.] NOTES. in
tuary (11), the offering, and the access of Christ (12), stating how
far superior was the efficacy of Christ's work (13, 14). In the
remainder of the chapter (15 — 28) he explains the perfection and
indispensableness of Christ's one sacrifice for sin. His object in
this great section of the Epistle is to prove to the Hebrews that
Christ is " the end of the Law"; that by His sacrifice all other
sacrifices have been rendered needless ; and that unlike the brief,
intermittent, and partial access of the High Priest to the Holy of
Holies on the Day of Atonement, we have through Christ a per
fect, universal, and continuous access to God.
1. Etxe |iev ovv K.T.X. " To resume then, even the first (SiaBrjKv)
had its ordinances." No substantive is expressed with "first," but
the train of reasoning in the last chapter sufficiently shews that
"Covenant," not " Tabernacle," is the word to be supplied.
etxe. Although he often refers to the Levitic ordinances as still con
tinuing, he here contemplates them as obsolete and practically an
nulled. to T6 d/yiov Koo-piKov. " And its sanctuary — a material one." The
word Koapixbv, rendered "worldly," means that the Jewish Sanctuary
was visible and temporary — a mundane structure in contrast to the
Heavenly, Eternal Sanctuary. The adjective only occurs here and in
Tit. ii. 12. Some editors, both here and in Josephus (B. J. rv. 5, § 2),
render it "complete," i.e. iu perfect order. It is impossible to render
with the A.V. " a worldly sanctuary," for the N.T. writers keep the
rule about the attributive adj. being placed before the article or after
the noun. KoapiKov is in apposition, and some regard it as a sort of
substantive. See Winer, p. 166.
2. KaTeo-Kevdo-BT]. " Was prepared " or " established." He treats
of the Sanctuary iu 2 — 5, and of the Services in 6 — 10.
rj irpaTT]. By this is not meant the Tabernacle in contrast with
the Temple, but "the outer chamber (or Holy Place)." It is however
true that the writer is thinking exclusively of the Tabernacle of the
Wilderness, which was the proper representative of the worship of the
Old Covenant. He seems to have regarded the later Temples as deflec
tions from the Divine pattern, and he wanted to take all that was
Judaic at its best. His description applies to the Tabernacle only.
It is doubtful whether the seven-branched candlestick was preserved
in the Temple of Solomon; there was certainly no ark or mercy-seat,
much less a Shechinah, in the Herodian Temple of this period. When
Pompey profanely forced his way into the Holy of Holies he found to
his great astonishment nothing whatever (vacua omnia).
iv tj. Understand " is." The whole tabernacle is ideally pre
sent to the writer's imagination.
ij t« XvxvCa. Ex. xxv. 31—39, xxxvii. 17 — 24. The word would
more accurately be rendered ' ' lampstand. " In Solomon's temple there
seem to have been ten (1 Eings vii 49). There was indeed one only
in the Herodian temple (1 Mace. i. 21, iv. 49; Jos. Antt. xn. 7, § 6,

112 HEBREWS. [IX. 2—
and allusions in the Talmud). It could not however have exactly
resembled the famous figure carved on the Arch of Titus (as Josephus
hints in a mysterious phrase, Jos. B. J. vn. 5, § 5), for that has marine
monsters carved upon its pediment, which would have been a direct
violation of the second commandment.
Kal i\ Tpdireija. Ex. xxv. 23 — 30, xxxvii. 10 — 16. There were ten
such tables of acacia-wood overlaid with gold in Solomon's temple
(2Chron. iv. 8, 19).
tj irpd6eo"is tov dpT«v. Rendered by the LXX. dprot ttjs irpoBi-
aeus. Lit., " the setting forth of the loaves." The Hebrew name
for it is "the bread of the face" (i.e. placed before the presence
of God), Ex. xxv. 23—30 ; Lev. xxiv. 5—9.
dYia. Neut. plur. ayia dyluv represents the Hebr. superlative
D'KHiJn &ip. In the 0. T. Kodesh is " the Holy Place." ayut.
dviuv. Lit., "the Holy of Holies," a name which, like the Latin
Sancta Sanctorum, is the exact translation of the Hebrew Kodesh
Hakkodashim. In Solomon's Temple it was called " the Oracle."
3. ptTd Se Td SevTcpov KaTaire'rao-pa. "Behind the second veil." There
were two veils in the Tabernacle — one called 'ijpp (Ex. xxvi. 36, 37,
LXX. KaXvppa, or irrlarraarpov) which hung before the entrance ; and
"the second," called rD~fi (LXX. Karawiraapa) , which hung between
the Holy Place and the Holiest (Ex. xxvi. 31 — 35). The Rabbis invent
two curtains between the Holy Place and the Holiest with a space of
a cubit between them, to which they give the name Tarkesin, which
is of uncertain origin. They had many fables about the size and weight
of this curtain — that it was a handbreadth thick, and took 300 priests
to draw it, Sec See.
4. ¦jtfiva-ovv. . .BvpiaTTJpiov. It has been long disputed whether Bvpia-
Ttjpiov means Censer or Altar of Incense. It does not occur in the Greek
version of the Pentateuch (except asa various reading) , where the " altar
of incense" is rendered by Bvaiaarr/piov Bvpidparos (Ex. xxx. 27; comp.
Lk. i. 11); but it is used by the LXX. in 2 Chron. xxvi. 19 ; Ezek. viii.
11, and there means "censer"; and the Rabbis say that "a golden
censer " was used by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement only
(Yoma, iv. 4) . " Censer " accordingly is the rendering of the word in this
place in the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Aethiopic versions ; and the
word is so understood by many commentators ancient and modern.
On the other hand (which is very important) both in Josephus (Antt.
m. 6, § 8) and in Philo (Opp. i. 504) the word Bvpiarripiov means " the
Altar of Incense," which, Uke the table, might be called " golden,"
because it was overlaid with gold ; and this is the sense of the word in
other Hellenistic writers of this period down to Clemens of Alexandria.
The Altar of Incense was so important that it is most unlikely to
have been left unmentioned. Further, it is observable that we are
not told of any censer kept in the Tabernacle, but only in the

IX. 4.] NOTES. 113
Temple. The incense in the days of the Tabernacle was burnt in a
HFITO (rrvpetov, "brazier," Lev. xvi. 12); nor could the censer have
been kept in the Holiest Place, for then the High Priest must have
gone in to fetch it before kindling the incense, which would have
been contrary to all the symbolism of the ritual.
But it is asserted that the writer is in any case mistaken, for that
neither the censer nor the " altar of incense " was in the Holiest.
But this is not certain as regards the censer. It is possible that
some golden censer-stand may have stood in the Holiest, on which
the High Priest placed the small golden brazier (machettah, LXX. vv-
peiov), which he carried with him. There is indeed no doubt that the
" Altar of Incense " was not in the Holiest Place, but as all authorities
combine in telling us, in the Holy Place. But there was a possibility
of mistake about the point, because in Ex. xxvi. 35 only the table and
the lampstand arementioned; and Ex. xxx. 6 is a little vague. Yet the
writer does not say that the altar of incense was in the Holiest. It
was impossible that any Jew should have made such a mistake, unless
he were, as Delitzsch says, " a monster of ignorance"; and if he had
been unaware of the fact otherwise, he would have found from Philo in
several places (De Victim. Offer. § 4 ; Quis rer. div. haer. § 46) that
the Altar, which Philo also calls Bvpiarijpiov, was outside the Holiest.
Josephus also mentions this, and it was universally notorious (B. J.
v. 5, § 5). Accordingly, the writer only says that the Holiest "had"
the Altar of Incense, in other words that the Altar in some sense
belonged to it. And this is rigidly accurate ; for in 1 Eings vi. 22
the Altar is described as "belonging to" the Oracle (Ut. the Altar
which was to the Oracle, laddebir), and on the Day of Atonement
the curtain was drawn, and the Altar was intimately associated
with the High Priest's service in the Holiest Place. Indeed the
Altar of Incense (since incense was supposed to have an atoning
power, Num. xvi. 47) was itself called "Holy of Holies" (A.V.
"most holy," Ex. xxx. 10), and is expressly said (Ex. xxx. 6, xl. 5)
to be placed "before the mercy-seat." In Is. vi. 1 — 8 a seraph flies
from above the mercy-seat to the Altar. The writer then, though he
is not entering into details with pedantic minuteness, has not made
any mistake ; nor is there the smallest ground for the idle conjecture
that he was thinking of the Jewish Temple at Leontopolis. The close
connexion of the Altar of Incense with the service of the Day of Atone
ment in the Holiest Place is illustrated by 2 Mace. ii. 1 — 8, where the
Altar is mentioned in connexion with the Ark.
TTJV kiP<otov. This, as we have seen, applies only to the Tabernacle
and to Solomon's Temple. " There was nothing whatever," as Jo
sephus tells us, in the Holiest Place of the Temple after the Exile
(£. J. v. 5, § 5). The stone on which the Ark had once stood, called
by the Rabbis " the stone of the Foundation," alone was visible.
irdvToflev. The word rendered " round about " means literally " on
all sides," i.e. " within and without" (Ex. xxv. 11).
Xpvo-Cu. The diminutive xp^V here used for gold seems to imply
HEBREWS H

u4 HEBREWS. [IX. 4—
nothing distinctive. Diminutives always tend to displace the simple
forms in late dialects.
ordavos xp"o"Tl- The Palestine Targum says that it was an earthen
jar, but Jewish tradition asserted that it was of gold. The LXX.
inserts the word "golden" in Ex. xvi. 33 and so does Philo. It con-
. tained an "omer" of the manna, which was the daily portion for
each person. The writer distinctly seems to imply that the Ark con-
tained three things — a golden jar (arapvos) containing a specimen of
the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the Stone Tables of the
Decalogue. Here again it is asserted that he made a mistake. Cer
tainly the Stone Tables were in the Ark, and the whole symbolism of
the Ark represented the Cherubim bending in adoration over the
blood-sprinkled propitiatory which covered the tables of the broken
moral law. But Moses was only bidden to lay up the jar and the rod
"before the Testimony," not "in the Ark"; and in 1 Kings viii. 9,
2 Chron. v. 10 we are somewhat emphatically informed that " there
was nothing in the Ark " except these two tables, which we are told"
(Deut. x. 2, 5) that Moses placed there. All that can be said is that
the writer is not thinking of the Temple of Solomon at all, aud that
there is nothing impossible in the Jewish tradition here followed,
which supposes that " before the Testimony " was interpreted to mean
"in the Ark." Rabbis like Levi Ben Gershom and Abarbauel had
certainly no desire to vindicate the accuracy of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and yet they say that the pot and the rod were actually at
one time in the Ark, though they had been removed from it before
the days of Solomon.
i] pap 8 6s. Num. xvii. 6—10.
5. XepovpeCv. "The Cherubim," since im is the Hebrew plural
termination (not as in A. V. " Cherubims ").
SdijTjs. Not "the glorious Cherubim" but " the Cherubim of the
Shechinah " or cloud of glory. This was regarded as the symbol of
God's presence, and was believed to rest between their outspread
wings (see 1 Sam. iv. 22 ; 2 Eings xix. 15 ; Hagg. ii. 7—9 ; Ecclus. xlix.
8). They were emblems of all that was highest aud best in animated
uature — the grandest products of creation combined in one living
angelic symbol (Ezek. x. 4) — upholding the throne of the Eternal as
on "a chariot" and bending in adoring contemplation of the moral
law as the revelation of God's will.
to iXao-TTJpiov, "the propitiatory," is the translation used by the
LXX. for the Hebrew cappdreth or "covering." The word probably
meant no more than "lid" or "cover"; but the LXX. understood it
metaphorically of the covering of sins or expiation, because the blood
of the expiatory offering was sprinkled upon it.
KaTd plpos. "Severally," rather than "particularly" (A. V.), "in
detail." It was no part of the writer's immediate purpose to enter
upon an explanation of that symbolism of the Tabernacle which has
largely occupied the attention of Jewish historians and Talmudists as

IX. 8.] NOTES. nS
well as of modern writers. Had he done so he would doubtless have
thrown light upon much that is now obscure. But he is pressing on
to his point, which is to shew that even the most solemn and magni
ficent act of the whole Jewish ritual — the ceremony of the Day of
Atonement — bears upon its face the signs of complete transitoriness
and inefficiency When compared with the work of Christ.
6. Tovrov 81 ovtws Kareo-Kevao-plvuv. "Since then these things
have been thus arranged."
els p.lv tt\v Trp(OTT)v...liriTeXovvTes. "Into the outer tabernacle the
priests enter continually in performance of their ministrations." Then-
ordinary ministrations were to offer sacrifice, burn incense, and light
the lamps, and in the performance of these they certainly entered the
Holy Place twice daily, and apparently might do so as often as they
saw fit. No inference can be securely drawn as to the continued
existence of the Temple service from the present elalaaiv, because the
present is used by the writer of things ideally existent on the page of
Scripture (vii. 3, 5, ix. 22, Sea.).
7. ttjv SevTepav, i.e. " the inner," "the Holiest." There was a
graduated sanctity in the Tabernacle and in the Temple. In the
Temple any one might go into the Outer Court or Court of the
Gentiles; Jews into the Second Court; men only into the Third;
priests only in their robes into the Holy Place; and only the High
Priest into the inmost shrine (Jos. c. Apion. n. 8).
dira! tov Iviovtov, i.e. only on one day of the whole year, viz. on
the tenth day of the seventh month Tisri, the Day of Atonement. In
the course of that day he had to enter it at least three, and possibly
four times, namely (1)~ with the ineense, (2) with the blood of the
bullock offered for his own sins, (3) with the blood of the goat for the
sins of the people, and perhapB (4) to remove the censer (Lev. xvi.
12 — 16 ; Yoma, v. 2). But these entrances were practically one.
irpoo-(f>lpei. A vivid present.
virep...dYvoT]p.dTOv. Lit., "for the ignorances," but the word seems
to be used in the LXX. to include sins as well as errors (v. 2, 3 ; Ex.
xxxiv. 7; Lev. xvi. 2, 11, 34 ; Num. xv. 27—31).
8. ttjv tov dYCwv dSdv. Entrance into the Holiest symbolised
direct access to God, and the "way" into it had not been made
evident until He came who is "the way, the truth, and the life"
(John xiv. 6). He is "the new and living way " (x. 19, 20).
ttjs irp(oTT)S o-kt)Vtjs Ixovo-tjs ordo-iv. " While yet the outer Tabernacle
is still standing," i.e. so long as there is — for the Temple, which
represented the continuity of the Tabernacle and the Old Covenant,
had not sunk in flames, as it did a few years later — an outer Taber
nacle, through which not even a Priest was ever allowed to enter into
the Holiest. Hence the deep significance of the rending of the veil
of the Temple from the top to the bottom at the Crucifixion (Matt.
xxvii. 51).
H2

116 HEBREWS. [IX. 9—
9. t(tis irapaPoXii els tov Kaipdv Tdv lveo-Tt)KdTa. tjitis. It is per
haps better, with Mr Reudall, to refer this to ardaiv rather than to
aKi\vT\s "while this outer tabernacle is still holding a position which
Sec." It is more often understood to mean "and this outer Taber
nacle is a parable for the present time." By "the present time" he
means the prae-Christian epoch in which the unconverted Jews were
still practically living. The full inauguration of the New Covenant,
of which Christ had prophesied as His Second Coming, began with
the final annulment of the Old, which was only completed when the
Temple fell, and when the observance of the Levitic system thus
became (by the manifest interposition of God in history) a thing
simply impossible. A Christian was already living in "the Future
Aeon" (Ha-olam habba); a Jew who had not embraced the Gospel
still belonged to "the present time" {Ha-olam hazzeh, b Kaipbs b ivearn-
Kiis). The meaning of the verse is that the very existence of an outer
Tabernacle ("the Holy Place") emphasized the fact that close access
to God (of which the entrance of the High Priest into the Holiest was
a symbol) was not permitted under the. Old Covenant.
KaB' t)'v. The true reading is not Kaff ov but KaB' r\v, so that the
"which" refers to the word "parable" or "symbol," "in accordance
with which symbolism of the outer Tabernacle both gifts and
sacrifices are being offered, such as (pfj) are not able, so far as the
conscience is concerned, to perfect the worshipper." He says "are
offered" and "him that does the service," using the present (not as in
the A.V. the past tense), because he is throwing himself into the
position of the Jew who still clings to the Old Covenant. The
introduction of "a clear conscience" (or moral consciousness) into the
question may seem like a new thought, but it is not. The implied
argument is this: only the innocent can "ascend the hill of the Lord,
and stand in His Holy Place": the High Priest was regarded as
symbolically innocent by virtue of minute precautions against any
ceremonial defilement, and because he carried with him the atone
ment for his own sins and those of the people : he therefore, but he
alone, was permitted to approach God by entering the Holiest Place.
The worshippers in general were so little regarded as "perfected in
conscience" that only the Priests could enter even the outer "Holy"
(vii. 18, 19, x. 1—4, 11).
p.ij Svvdpevai. The fig. indicates the thought of the writer, quae
non valeant; oi Svvdpevai (comp. x. 1) would have been equally
admissible, and would have emphasized the fact of their being in
herently unable to perfect the conscience (quae non valent).
10. pdvov lirC. The "which" of the A.V. refers to the "present
time." The Greek is here elliptical. The meaning is that the
"gifts and sacrifices" consist only in meats and drinks and divers
washings — being ordinances* of the flesh, imposed (only) till the
season of reformation.
ppwp.ao-iv. Ex. xii. ; Lev. xi. ; Num. vi.
irdpao-tv. Lev. x. 8, 9, xi. 34 ; Num. vi. 2, 3.

IX. IL] NOTES. 117
Siacpopois Paimo-uots. Lev. viii. 6, 12; Ex. xl. 31, 32; Num. xix.
and the Levitical law passim. All these things had already been
disparaged by Christ as meaning nothing in themselves (Mark vii.
1 — 15); and St Paul had written "Let no man judge you in meat, or
in drink. ..which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of
Christ" (Col. ii. 16, 17).
[Kal] SiKauuuaTa crapKos. The Kal should be omitted, and for
the StKatupaai of the Text, receptus we should read SiKaiupara. It
stands in apposition to the sentence in general, and to the "gifts and
sacrifices " of the last verse ; they could not assure the conscience,
because they had only to do with meats, See. — being only ordinances
of the flesh, i.e. outward, transitory, superficial.
ulxpi Kaipov SiopBuo-eus- The season of reformation is that of
which Jeremiah prophesied : it is in fact the New Covenant, see viii.
7 — 12. The "yoke of bondage," which consists of a galling and
wearisome externalism, was then changed for "an easy yoke and a
light burden" (Matt. xi. 30).
em.KeCp.eva. There is no need for the " on them " of the A.V. The
verb means "imposed as a burden," "lying as a yoke." Comp.
Acts xv. 10, 28 ; Gal. v. 1.
11 — 14. Assurance of Conscience, the Condition of Access to
God, was secured through Christ alone.

11. Trapavevopevos. Being come among us.
tov aeXXdvrov aYaflwv. Another and perhaps better reading ia 1/
"of the good things that have come" (yevopivuv BD, not peXXbvruvjM
The writer here transfers himself from the Jewish to the Christian f<
standpoint. The "good things" of which the Law was only "the
shadow" (x. 1) were still future to the Jew, but to the Christian they
had already come. Bleek takes tuv p.e\X. dy. to be a gen. of de
pendence or reference, Delitzsch and Afford regard it as a gen. of the
object. Sid. The preposition rendered "by " may mean either " through" —
in which case "the greater and better tabernacle" means the outer
heavens through which Christ (anthropomorphically speaking) passed
(see ver. 24 and iv. 14); or "by means of" — in which case "the
better tabernacle" is left undefined, and may here mean either the
human nature in which for the time "He tabernacled" (x. 20; John
i. 14, ii. 19; Col. ii. 9; 2 Cor. v. 1), or as in viii. 2, the Ideal Church
of the firstborn in heaven (comp. Eph. i. 3).
ov x^poiTOiTJTov. Because whatever tabernacle is specifically meant
it is one which "the Lord pitched, not man."
ov TavTi|s ttjs KTCo-eus. The word Krlais may mean either "build
ing" or "creation." If the latter, then the meaning is that the
better tabernacle, through which Christ entered, does not belong to
the material world. But since ktI$u means "to build," Krlais may

118 HEBREWS. [IX. 11—
mean "building," and then the word rairns by a rare idiom means
"vulgar," "ordinary" (Field, Otium Norvicense, in. 142); otherwise
the clause would be a mere tautology.
12. ov8l. "Nor yet."
Si' alpaTos TpaY<ov Kal ado^wv. "By means of the blood of goats and
calves" (this is the order of the words in the best MSS.). It is not
meant that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were useless, but only
that when they were regarded as meritorious in themselves — apart
from the faith, and the grace of God, by which they could be blessed
to sincere and humble worshippers — they could neither purge the
conscience, nor give access to God. When the Prophets speak of
sacrifices with such stern disparagement they are only denouncing the
superstition which regarded the mere opus operatum as sufficient
apart from repentance and holiness (Hos. vi. 6 ; Is. i. 10 — 17, Sec).
Bid 81 tov ISCov aiparos- His own blood (i.e. His essential life
poured out for us) was the offering by which He was admitted as our
High Priest aud Eternal Redeemer into the Holy of Holies of God's
immediate presence (xiii. 20; Rev. v. 6). Aid expresses the means by
which Christ entered.
I(pdira{;. " Once for all."
els Td aYia, i.e. into the Holiest, as in Lev. xvi. 2, 3.
alwvCav X^Tpeoo-iv, i.e. the forgiveness of sins (Eph. i. 7), and ransom
from sinful lives (1 Pet. i. 18, 19) to the service of God (Rev. v. 9).
It should always be borne in mind that the Scriptural metaphors of
Ransom and Propitiation describe the Atonement by its blessed effects
as regards man. All speculation as to its bearing on the counsels of
God, all attempts to frame a scholastic scheme out of metaphors only
intended to indicate a transcendent mystery by its results for us, have
led to heresy and error. To whom was the ransom paid? The
question is idle, because "ransom" is only a metaphor of our de
liverance from slavery. For nearly a thousand years the Church was
content with the most erroneous and almost blasphemous notion
that the ransom was paid by God to the devil, which led to still more
grievous aberrations. Anselm who exploded this error substituted
for it another — the hard forensic notion of indispensable satisfaction.
Such terms as those of "substitution," "vicarious punishment,"
"reconciliation of God to us" (for "of us to God"), have no sanction
in Scripture, which only reveals what is necessary for man, and
what man can understand, viz. that the love of God in Christ has
provided for him a way of escape from ruin, and the forgiveness
of sins.
evpdp.evos. "Having obtained." The "for us " is rightly supplied
in the A.V. ; but the middle voice of the verb shews that Christ in
His love to us also regarded the redemption as dear to Himself.
eipdpnv is the aor. mid. for eipbpvv. It is also found in Pausanias'
and is due to a kind of false analogy with the form of the 1st aor.

IX. 14.] NOTES. 119
13. el Ydp to atp.a k.t.X. The writer has designedly chosen the
two most striking sacrifices and ceremonials of the Levitical Law,
namely the calf and the goat offered for the sins of people and priest
on the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.), and "the water of separation,"
or rather "of impurity," i.e. "to remove impurity" "as a sin-
offering," described in Num. xix. 1 — 22 (comp. Heb. vii. 26). The
blood of Christ is described as having at once a cleansing (1 John i. 7,
Rev. vii. 14) and an atoning efficacy, and by blending the two distinct
types of the great yearly Atonement and of the Red Heifer, the
writer here combines this twofold efficacy of expiation and puri
fication into one.
SaudXeos. The Jews have the interesting legend that nine such
red heifers had been slain between the time of Moses and the de
struction of the Temple.
Tois KeKoivoipevovs. Those that have become ceremonially defiled,
especially by having touched a corpse.
wpds ttjv t^s o-apKds Ka6apdTT|Ta, i.e. if these things are adequate
to restore a man to ceremonial cleanness which was a type of moral
purity. So much efficaoy they had; they did make the worshipper
ceremonially pure before God : their further and deeper efficacy de
pended on the faith and sincerity with which they were offered, and
was derived from the one offering of which they were a type.
14. irdo-<j) pdXXov. Again we have the characteristic word — the
keynote as it were — of the Epistle.
tA alp,a tov Xpio-Tov. Which is typified by "the fountain opened
for sin and for uneleanness " (Zech. xiii. 1).
8id irvevparos alwvCov. If "through the Eternal Spirit" be the
right rendering the reference must be to the fact that Christ was
"quickened by the Spirit" (1 Pet. iii. 18); that "God gave not the
Spirit by measure unto Him " (John iii. 34) ; that "the Spirit of the
Lord was upon Him" (Lk. iv. 18); that He "by the Spirit of God"
cast out devils (Matt. xii. 28). For this view of the meaning see
Pearson on the Greed, Art. in., and it is represented by the reading
"Holy " for Eternal in some cursive MSS. and some versions. It may
however be rendered "by an Eternal Spirit," namely by His own
Spirit— by that burning love which proceeded from His own Spirit —
and not by a mere "ordinance of the flesh" (verse 10). In the
Levitic sacrifices involuntary victims bled ; but Christ's sacrifice was
offered by the will of His own Eternal Spirit.
dp-wpov. Christ had that sinless perfection which was dimly fore
shadowed by the unblemished victims which could alone be offered
under the Levitio law.
dird veKpwv epYwv. See vi. 1. If sinful works are meant, they are
represented as affixing a stain to the conscience ; they pollute as the
touching of a dead thing polluted ceremonially under the Old Law
(Num. xix. 11 — 16). But all works are "dead" which are done
without love. This seems to be the meaning, for the Writer speaks

120 HEBREWS. [IX. 14—
of the conscience as cleansed. It is the conscience which impels a
man to work, but all works done in slavish obedience even to con
science uncleansed are dead. It is to be observed that the writer —
true to the Alexandrian training which instilled an awful reverence
respecting Divine things... attempts even less than St Paul to explain ,
the modus operandi. He tells us that the Blood of Christ redeems
and purifies us as the old sacrifices could not do. Sacrifices removed
ceremonial defilement — they thus " purified the flesh" : but the Blood
of Christ perfects and purifies the conscience (x. 22) and so admits
us into the Presence of God, because the Blood of Christ means the
Life of Christ which vivifies the soul. The "how can this be?" be
longs to the secret things which God has not revealed ; we only
know and believe that so it is.
els to Xarpeveiv 6e(3 £(Dvti. Not to serve "dead works" or a mere
material tabernacle, or fleshly ordinances, but to serve the Living
God who can -only be truly served by those who are "alive from the
dead" (Rom. vi. 13).
15 — 28. The Indispenbablenebs and Efficacy of the Death
of Christ.
15. Sid tovto, i.e. on account of the grandeur of His offering.
8ia8TJKT)s KaivTJs peo-CTT)s. "A mediator of a New Covenant." Moses
had been called by Philo "the Mediator" of the Old Covenant, i.e. he
who came between God and Israel as the messenger of it. But
Christ's intervention — His coming as One who revealed God to man —
was accompanied with a sacrifice so infinitely more efficacious that it
involved a New Covenant altogether.
Bavarov -yevope'vov. The rendering of the A.V. makes the passage
entirely unintelligible. The true rendering and explanation of this
highly condensed and elliptical clause seem to be as follows : " And
on this account He is a Mediator of a New Covenant, thaV-since
death" [namely the death of sacrificial victims]- "occurred for the
redemption of the transgressions which took place under the first
covenant — those who have been called [whether Christians, or faith
ful believers under the Old Dispensation] may [by virtue of Christ's
death, which the death of those victims typified] receive [ie. actually
enjoy the fruition of, vi. 12, 17, x. 36, xi 13] the promise of the
Eternal Inheritance." Volumes of various explanations have been
written on this verse, but the explanation given above is very simple.
The verse is a sort of reason why Christ's death was necessary. The
ultimate, a priori, reason he does not attempt to explain, because it
transcends all understanding ; but he merely says that since under
the Old Covenant death was necessary, and victims had to be slain in
order that by their blood men might be purified, and the High Priest
might enter the Holiest Place, so, under the New Covenant, a better
and more efficacious death was necessary, both to give to those old
sacrifices the only real vahdity which they possessed, and to secure
for all of God's elect an eternal heritage.

IX. 17.] NOTES. 121
rov. . .irapapdo-euv. The gen. of the object, sin-redemption, i.e.
redemption from sins. Winer, p. 231.
16. Sirov Ydp SiaBTJKT). In these two verses (16, 17), and these
only, SiaBriKv is used m its Greek and Roman sense of "a will," and
not in its Hebrew sense of "a covenant." The sudden and moment
ary change in the significance of the word explains itself, for he has
just spoken of an inheritance, and of the necessity for a death. It was
therefore quite natural that he should be reminded of the fact that
just as the Old Covenant (SiaBqKn) required the constant infliotion of
death upon the sacrificed victims, and therefore (by analogy) necessi
tated the death of Christ under the New, so the word SiaB-qKn in its
other sense of "Will" or "Testament" (which was by this epoch
familiar also to the Jews) involved the necessity of death, because a
will assigns the inheritance of a man who is dead. This. may be
called "a mere play on words"; but such a play on words is per
fectly admissible in itself; just as we might speak of the "New
Testament" (meaning the Book) as "a testament" (meaning "a
will") sealed by a Redeemer's blood. An illustration of this kind
was peculiarly consonant with the deep mystic significance attached
by the Alexandrian thinkers to the sounds and the significance of
words. Philo also avails himself of both meanings of SiaBriKn (De
Norn. Mutat. % 6; De Sacr. Abel, Opp. i. 586, 172). The passing
illustration which thus occurs to the writer does not indeed explain
or attempt to explain the eternal necessity why Christ must die ; he
leaves that in all its awful mystery, and merely gives prominence to
the fact that the death was necessary, by saying that since under the
Old Covenant death was required, bo the New Covenant was in
augurated by a better death ; and since a "Will" supposes that some
one has died, so this "Will," by which we inherit, involves the
necessity that Christ must die. The Old Covenant could not be
called "a Will" in any ordinary sense ; but the New Covenant was,
by no remote analogy, the Will and Bequest of Christ.
(f>!peo-8ai. Wherever there is a will the supposition that the maker
of the will has died is implied, or legally involved ((pipeaBai, constare).
17. Iirl veKpois. Lit., "over the dead." The A.V. rendering (" after
men are dead") expresses the meaning rightly — a will is only valid
"in cases of death," "in the case of men who are dead." Ex vi
termini, "a. testament" is the disposition which a man makes of his
affairs with a view to his death. The attempt to confine the word
SiaBriKn- to the sense of " covenant," which it holds throughout the
rest of the Epistle, has led to the most strained and impossible
distortion of these words iirl veKpois in a way which is but too
familiar iu Scripture commentaries. They have been explained to
mean "over dead victims," See. ; but all such explanations fall to the
ground when the special meaning of SiaByKn in these two verses is
recognised. The author thinks it worth while to notice, in passing,
that death is the condition of inheritance by testament, just as death
is necessary to ratify a covenant (Gen. xv. 7 — 10; Jer. xxxiv. 18). To
his readers, in all probability, the momentary change of sense would

122 HEBREWS. [IX. 17—
have been at once intelligible ; and especially if they were readers of
Philo. The unusual expression eVi veKpois, where irrl rois diroBavovaiv
might have been more intelhgible, is due to the silent parallel between
the "testament" and the " covenant " which is passing through the
author's mind. 'E7rl often implies supposition or condition; iwl v.
over dead persons, i.e. not until there are dead persons, when death
has taken place. Winer, p. 491.
lirel...pt]iroTe lo-xvei...; The words are perhaps better taken as a
question — " Since is there any validity in it at all while the testator is
alive ? " This is an appeal to the reader's own judgement. The p't] is
thus accounted for, which we must otherwise explain by the fact that
he is not thinking of any particular testament, Winer, p. 602. As
a matter of fact, however, though we should here have expected the
absolute denial of otiirore, later writers constantly use pf/ after iirel.
18. oBev. "Wherefore"; because both " a covenant " and " a tes
tament " involve the idea of death.
ovS'. "Not even."
IvKeKaCvio-Tai. Lit., "has been handselled" or "inaugurated." The
word is from the same root as "Encaenia," the name given to the
re-dedication of the Temple by the Maccabees (John x. 22. Comp.
Deut. xx. 5; 1 Eings viii. 63; LXX.). The perfect is used by the
author, as in so many other instances where we should have expected
an aorist.
19. Kal tov TpaY«v. This is not specially mentioned, but it may
be supposed that "goats" were among the burnt-offerings mentioned
in Ex. xxiv. 5.
iiSaTos Kal IpCov kokkCvov Kal vo-o-(oirov. These again are not
mentioned in Ex. xxiv. 6, but are perhaps added from tradition on
the analogy of Ex. xii. 22; Num. xix. 6; and Lev. xiv. 4 — 6.
vo-o-uirov. The dry stalks of a plant resembling marjoram.
ovto tc to pipXCov. See Ex. xxiv. 6 — 8, where however it is not
specially mentioned that the Book was sprinkled. The Jewish tra
dition was that it lay upon the altar (see Ex. xxiv. 7). The "book"
seems to have been the written record of what was uttered to Moses
in Ex._ xx. 22 to xxiii. 33. This is one of several instances in which
the writer shews himself learned in the Jewish legends (Haggadoth).
20. Tovto. In the Hebrew " Behold ! " Some have supposed that
the writer adopted the variation from a reminiscence of our Lord's
words— "This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for
many for the remission of sins" (Matt. xxvi. 28). But if such a
reference or comparison had been at all present to his mind, he
would hardly have been likely to pass it over in complete silence.
¦t^s IveTeCXaTO irpds vpds d Beds. " Which God commanded with regard
to you," i.e. which (covenant) Jehovah commanded me to deliver
to you.
21. Kal tt)v o-kt)vtjv 81. This again is not mentioned in the scene

IX. 24.] NOTES. 123
to which the writer seems to be referring (Ex. xxiv. 6 — 8), which
indeed preceded the building of the Tabernacle. It is nowhere re
corded in Scripture that the Tabernacle was sprinkled, although it
is perhaps implied that on a later occasion this may have been done
(Ex. xl. 9, 10) ; and Josephus, closely following the same Haggadah as
the writer, says that such was the case (Jos. Antt. in. 8, § 6).
irdvTa Ta o-kcvt). This again is not mentioned, though we are told
that Aaron and his sons, and the altar, were consecrated by such a
sprinkling (Lev. viii. 30), and that the "propitiatory" was so sprin
kled on the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi. 14). By these references to
unrecorded traditions the writer shews that he had been trained in
Rabbinic Schools.
22. o-xe8dv...irdvTa. There were a few exceptions (Ex. xix. 10;
Lev. v. 11 — 13, xv. 5, xvi. 26, Sec). The word axeSdv, "almost,"
is only found in two other passages of the N. T. (Acts xiii. 44,
xix. 26).
Xopls alpaTeicxvo-Cas. " Without shedding of blood." This, and not
"pouring out of blood" at the foot of the altar (Ex. xxix. 16, Sec), is
undoubtedly the true rendering. Comp. Lev. xvii. 11 ; Lk. xxii. 20.
The Rabbis have a proverb, " no expiation except by blood." (Yoma,
f. 5. 1 ; Menaehoth, f . 93. 2.) The writer merely mentions this as a
revealed fact : he does not attempt to construct any theory to account
for the necessity.
23. viro8eCY|J'O.Ta. " Copies," or outlines — Abbilden (not Urbilden),
iv. 11, viii. 5.
avTd Se Td lirovpdvia. Not " the New Covenant," or " the Church,"
or "ourselves as heirs of heaven," but apparently the Ideal Taber
nacle in the Heavens, which was itself impure before Him to whom
" the very heavens are not clean." If this conception seem remote we
must suppose that by the figure called Zeugma the verb "purified"
passes into the sense of "handselled," "dedicated."
KpeCTToo-iv 8vo-Cais. The plural is here only used generically to ex
press a class. He is alluding to the one transcendent sacrifice.
24. oi3 Y"p els xelP0,ro'1lTa k.t.X. "For not into any Material
Sanctuary did Christ enter — a (mere) imitation of the Ideal, — but into
Heaven itself, now to be visibly presented before the face of God for
us." The Ideal or genuine Tabernacle is the eternal uncreated
Archetype as contrasted with its antitype (or " imitation ") made
with hands. The Ideal in the Alexandrian philosophy, so far from
being an antithesis of the real, meant that which alone is absolutely
and eternally real ; it is the antithesis of the material which is but a
perishing imitation of the Archetype.
lp4avio-8TJvai. The inf. of purpose. The aor. is used to call atten
tion to the special moment of the God-man's manifestation before
the Presence of God. The word " to be visibly presented" (ipipavia-
0t>ai) is not the same as that used in ver. 26 (rcecpavipurai " He hath
been manifested"), nor with that used in ver. 28 (dipBr/aerai "He

124 HEBREWS. [IX. 24—
shall be seen"), though all these are rendered in English by the verb
"appear." 25. KaT* eviavTdv. In this entrance of the High Priest once a
year, on the Day of Atonement, into the Hohest Place culminated all
that was gorgeous and awe-inspiring in the Jewish ritual. The writer
therefore purposely chose it as his point of comparison between the
ministrations of the Two Covenants. For if he could shew that even
the ceremonies of this day — called by the Jews " the Day" — were a
nullity compared with the significance of the Gospel, he was well
aware that no other rite would be likely to make a converted Hebrew
waver in his faith. The Day of Atonement was called " the Sabbath
of Sabbatism " or " perfect Sabbath." It was the one fast-day of the
Jewish Calendar. The 70 bullocks offered during the Atonement-
week were regarded as a propitiation for all the 70 nations of the
world. On that day the very Angels were supposed to tremble.
It was the only day on which perfect pardon could be assured to sins
which had been repented of. On that day alone Satan had no power
to accuse, which is inferred by " Gematria" from the fact that "the
Accuser " in Hebrew was numerically equivalent to 364, so that on
the 365th day of the year he was forced to be silent. On the seven
days before the Day of Atonement the High Priest was scrupulously
secluded, and was kept awake all the preceding night to avoid the
chance of ceremonial defilement. Till the last 40 years before the
Fall of Jerusalem it was asserted that the tongue of scarlet cloth tied
round the neck of the goat "for Azazel" (" the Scape Goat") used to
turn white in token of the Remission of Sins. The function of the
High Priest was believed to be attended with much peril, and the
people awaited his reappearance with deep anxiety. The awful im
pression made by the services of the day is shewn by the legends which
grew up respecting them, and by such passages as Ecclus. 1. 5 — 16,
xiv. 6 — 22. See an Excursus on this subject in my Early Days of
Christianity, u. 549 — 552.
Iv atpaTi dXXoTpCu. " With blood not his own," namely that of the
goat and bullock. See ver. 22. The iv expresses that with which
any one is furnished. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 21. A Rabbinic book says
" Abraham was circumcised on the Day of Atonement ; and on that
Day God annually looks on the blood of the Covenant of the Circum
cision as atoning for all our iniquities. "
26. SSei. Sub. dv. " It would have been necessary for Him." The
omission of dv only calls more forcible attention to the necessity in
the case supposed. See Winer, p. 356.
TroXXaKis. Since He could not have entered the Sanctuary of
God's Holiest in the Heavens without some offering of atoning blood.
airog. " Once for all." This is emphasized several times in the
Epistle. Iirl o-vvTeXe£(j. twv atwvwv. The phrase of the A. V. " in the end
of the world" hardly conveys the meaning of the Greek, which is
" at the consummation of the ages " (Matt. xiii. 39, 49, xxiv. 3, xxviii.

IX 28.] NOTES. 125
20), in other words "when God's full time was come for the revelation
of the Gospel " (comp. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. x. 11).
els a6eTT|0-iv duaprCas- " For the annulment of sin." Into this one
word is concentrated the infinite superiority of the work of Christ.
The High Priest even on the Day of Atonement could offer no sacri
fice which could even put away (dipaipeiv) sin (x. 4), but Christ's
sacrifice was able to annul {dBereiv) sin altogether.
Sid ttjs 8vo-Cas ovtov. " By His sacrifice." If the A. V. rendering
" by the sacrifice of Himself" had been correct we should have had
eavrov. The object of the sacrifice was, as St Peter tells us, " to bring
us to God" (1 Pet. iii. 18).
ire(|>avep(DTai. Lit., "He has been manifested" — namely, "in the
flesh " at the Incarnation (1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 1 Pet. i. 20, Sec).
27. KaB' 00-ov. " Inasmuch as."
diroKeiTai. " It is reserved" ; lit., "it is laid up for."
KpCo-is. "A judgement." By this apparently is not meant "a day in
the which He will judge the world in righteousness " (Acts xvii. 31),
but a judgement which follows immediately after death.
28. 6 Xpio-Tos. "The Christ"; the Anointed High Priest.
dira£ irpoo-evexBeCs. " Having been once offered." Christ may also
be said as in ver. 14 "to offer Himself"; just as He is said "to be deli
vered for us" (Rom. iv. 25) and "to deliver up Himself" (Eph.
v. 2).
iroXXuv. "Many" is only used as an antithesis to "few." Of
course the writer does not mean to contradict the lesson which runs
throughout the N. T. that Christ died for all. Once for all One died
for all who were "many " (see my Life of St Paul, 11. 216).
dvevryKetv. " To carry them with Him on to the Cross," as in 1
Pet. ii. 24 : or as probably in Is. liii. 12 " to take them away."
X<»pCs. Not merely "without {drep)" but "apart from (xupls) sin,''
i.e. apart from all connexion with it, because He shall have utterly
triumphed over, and annulled it (ver. 26 ; Dan. ix. 24, 25 ; Is. xxv. 7,
8). The words do not go with " the second time," for at Christ's first
coining He appeared without sin indeed, but not " apart from sin,"
seeing that "He was numbered with the transgressors" (Is. liii. 12)
and was "made sin for us " (2 Cor. v. 21).
els o-(i)TT)pCav. " It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God ;
...we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in His salva
tion" (Is. xxv. 9). It is remarkable that the Sacred writers — unlike
the Mediaeval painters and moralists — almost invariably avoid the
more terrible aspects of the Second Advent. " How shall He appear? "
asks St Chrysostom on this passage, "As a Punisher? He did not
say this, but the bright side." The parallelism of these verses is:
Man dies once, and is judged; Christ died once, and shall return 

126 HEBREWS. [IX. 28—
he might have said "to be man's judge" (Acts xvii. 31) — but he
does say "He shall return. ..for salvation."
We may sum up some of the contrasts of this previous chapter as
follows. The descendants of Aaron were but priests; Christ, like
Melchisedek, was both Priest and King. They were for a time ; He
is a Priest for ever. They were but links in a long succession, in
heriting from forefathers, transmitting to descendants; He stands
alone, without lineage, without successor. They were established by a
transitory ordinance, He by an eternal oath. They were sinful, He
is sinless. They weak, He all-powerful. Their sacrifices were ineffec
tual, His was perfect. Their sacrifices were offered daily, His once
for all. Theirs did but cleanse from ceremonial defilement, His
purged the conscience. Their tabernacle was but a copy, and their
service a shadow ; His tabernacle was the Archetype, and His service
the substance. They died and passed away ; He sits to intercede for
us for ever at God's right hand. Their Covenant is doomed to abro
gation ; His, founded on better promises, is to endure unto the end.
Their High Priest could but enter once and that with awful precau
tions, with the blood of bulls and goats, into a material shrine ; He,
entering once for all with the blood of His one perfect sacrifice into
the Heaven of Heavens, has thrown open to all the right of continual
and fearless access to God. What a sin then was it, and what a
folly, to look back with apostatising glances at the shadows of a petty
Levitism while Christ the Mediator of a New, of a better, of a final
Dispensation — Christ whose blood had a real and no mere symbolic
efficacy, had died once for all, and Alone for all, as the sinless Son of
God to obtain for us an eternal redemption, and to return for our
salvation as the Everlasting Victor over sin and death I

CHAPTER X.
1. Svvarai DEKL. Sivavrai NAC. The plural is probably a mere
oversight due to the previous wpoaipipovaiv.
2. KeKaBapio-plvovs NDEK. The KemBepiapivovs of A is probably
a mere clerical error. The rec. has KeKaBappivovs, L.
11. irds p.lv lepevs DEKL. The reading was pev dpxiepeis is sup
ported by AC and is possibly right, as Jepei>s may have been a correc
tion to avoid the apparent error involved in the KaB' r/pipav, and ¦
perhaps ol lepeis would have been a more natural and accurate ex
pression (as Bleek says) than 7rSs lepeis, which in its Uteral sense was
not true.
34. toIs Seo-pCois AD Vulg. and many Fathers. This seems to
have first changed by oversight into rois Seapdis, to which pov
(NEKL) was perhaps added as an explanatory gloss.
eavTovs NA. iavrois DEEL, iv eavrdis only a few cursive MSS.
See the note.

X. 2.] NOTES. 127
[iv ovpavois']. Omitted in NAD Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. and many
fathers. It is an explanatory gloss, and a mistaken one. See the
note. 38. pov. This is found in most MSS. of the LXX., and especially
in the Alexandrine which the writer seems to have used. See the
note.

Ch. X. The first eighteen verses of this chapter are a summary, rich
with fresh thoughts and illustrations, of the topics on which he
has been dwelling ; namely (1) The one sacrifice of Christ com
pared with the many Levitic sacrifices (1 — 10). (2) The perfect-
ness of His finished work (11 — 18). The remainder of the
chapter is occupied with one of the earnest exhortations (19 — 25)
and solemn warnings (26 — 31), followed by fresh appeals and
encouragements (32 — 39), by which the writer shews throughout
that his object in writing is not speculative or theological, but
essentially practical and moral.
1 — 14. The one Sacrifice and the many Sacrifices.
1. SKidv. The ama is the opposite to the ehiiv, and the two words
sum up the whole of the preceding argument.
tov peXXdvrov dyaiuv. Of the good things which Christ had now
brought into the world (ix. 11).
ovk ovttiv ttjv elKova. " The Law," says St Ambrose, " had the
shadow ; the Gospel the image ; the Reality itself is in Heaven." By
the word image is meant the true historic form. The Gospel was as
much closer a resemblance of the Reality as a statue is a closer
resemblance than a pencilled outline.
Tats avrais Bvcrlais. Not " with those " (as in A. V.), but "with the
same sacrifices, year by year, which they offer continuously, make
perfect them that draw nigh," i.e. the Priests can never with their
sacrifices, which are the same year by year, perfect the worshippers.
Some have given a fuller sense to the words " the same," as though it
meant that even the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement cannot make
any one perfect, being as they are, after all, the same sacrifices in
their inmost nature as those which are offered every morning and
evening. els fd SiTjveKes. " To perpetuity." See verse 12, &c.
ovSeiroTe 8iivaTat. This may be the right reading, though the plural
Sivavrai "they are never able," is found in some MSS. If the latter
be the true reading the sentence begins with an unfinished con
struction (anakoluthon).
2, erravo-avTO irpoo-(|>epdp.Evai. The participle is classically used
after waieaBai, Winer, p. 323.
o-vve£8T|o-iv. " Consciousness."

128 HEBREWS. [X. 2—
KeKaBapio-plvovs. "Having been cleansed," by these sacrifices, once
for all.
3. dvdp.VT|o-is dpapnuv. This view of sacrifices — that they are " a
calling to mind of sins yearly" — is very remarkable. It seems to be
derived from Num. v. 15, where "the offering of jealousy" is called
"an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance." Philo
also speaks of sacrifices as providing "not an oblivion of sins, but a
reminding of them." De plant. Noe, § 25. De Vit. Mos. in. § 10
(Opp. i. 345, ii. 246)/ But if the sacrifices thus called sins to remem
brance, they also daily symbolised the means of their removal, so
that when offered obediently with repentance and faith they became
valid symbols.
4. dSvvaTov Y*p. This plain statement of the nullity of sacrifices
in themselves, and regarded as mere outward acts, only expresses what
had been deeply felt by many a worshipper under the Old Covenant.
It should be compared with the weighty utterances on this subject in
the O.T., 1 Sam. xv. 22; Is. i. 11—17; Jer. vi. 20, vii. 21—23; Amos
v. 21 — 24 ; Mic. vi. 6 — 8 ; Ps. xl. 6 — 8 (quoted in the next verses), and
Pss. 1. and li. ; and above all Hos. vi. 6, which, being a pregnant
summary of the principle involved, was a frequent quotation of our
Lord. Any value which the system of sacrifices possessed was not
theirs intrinsically (proprid virtute) but relatively and typically (per
accidens). "By a rudely sensuous means," says Liinemann, "we
cannot attain to a high spiritual good." Philo in one of his finest
passages shews how deeply he had realised that sacrifices were value
less apart from holiness, and that no mere external acts can cleanse
the soul from moral guilt. He adds that God accepts the innocent
even when they offer no sacrifices, and delights in unkindled altars if
the virtues dance around them (De plant. Noe). The heathen had
learnt the same high truths. Horace (Od. m. 23) sings,
" Immunis aram si tetigit manus
Non sumptuosa blandior hostia
Mollivit aversos Penates
Farre pio et saliente mica."
5. elo-epxdpevos els tov Koo-pov XIyci. The quotation is from Ps. xL
6 — 8. The words of the Psalmist are ideally and typologically trans
ferred to the Son, in accordance with the universal conception of the
0. T. Messianism which was prevalent among the Jews. It made no
difference to their point of view that some parts of the Psalm (e. g. in
ver. 12) could only have a primary and contemporary significance.
The " coming into the world " is here regarded as having been long
predetermined in the Divine counsels ; it is regarded, as Delitzsch says,
" not as a point but as a line."
©vo-Cav Kal irpocnpopdv ovk T)8!XT)o-as. " Thou caredst not for slain
beast or bloodless oblation." This is in accordance with the many
magnificent declarations which in the midst of legal externalism de
clares its nullity except as a means to better things (Is. i. 11 ; Jer. vi
20; Hos. vi. 6; Amos v. 21; 1 Sam. xv. 22, See.).

X. 7.]

NOTES. 129

o-dpa 81 KarrjpTCo-u p,oi. " But thou didst prepare a body for me."
This is the rendering of the LXX. In the Hebrew it is "But ears
hast thou digged for me." The text of the Hebrew does not admit of
easy alteration, so that either (1) the reading of the Greek text in the
LXX. must be a clerical error, e.g. KATHPTI2A2QMA for KATHPTI-
SASfiTIA, or (2) the LXX. rendering must be a sort of Targum or
explanation. They regarded "a body didst Thou prepare" as equi
valent to "Ears didst thou dig." The explanation is usually found
in the Hebrew custom of boring a slave's ear if he preferred to remain
in servitude (Ex. xxi. 6; Deut. xv. 17), so that the " bored ear" was
a symbol of willing obedience. But the Hebrew verb means " to dig"
rather than " to bore," and the true explanation seems to be "thou
hast caused me to hear and obey." So in Is. xlviii. 8 we have "thine
ear was not opened," and in 1. 5, " God hath opened my ear and I was
not rebellious." Thus in the two first clauses of each parallelism in
the four lines we have the sacrifices which God does not desire;
and in the second olause the obedience for which He does care.
" The prepared body " is " the form of a servant," which Christ took
upon Him in order to "open His ears" to the voice of God (Phil. ii.
7). See Rev. xviii. 13, where "bodies" means "slaves," St Paul
says, ' ' Ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ " (Rom.
vii. 4).
6. oXoKauTajpaTa. Lit., " Holocausts." The word ocours here
alone in the N. T. These "whole burnt offerings" typified absolute
self-dedication ; but the holocaust without the seJ/-sacrifice was
valueless. irepl dpaprCas. "Sin-offerings." An ellipse for Bvalas irepl dp.
derived from the LXX. (Lev. vii. 27 [37]).
7. 'ISov rJKa>. "I am come." This 40th Psalm is one of the
speoial Psalms for Good Friday.
Ik Ke(paXCSi PipXCov. The word KeipaXls, here rendered volume,
does not occur elsewhere in theN. T. It means the knob {umbilicus)
of the roller on which the vellum was rolled. The word in the Hebrew
is n^JO, "a roll." See LXX. Ezek. ii. 9, iii. 1. It cannot be ren
dered " iu the chief part " or " in the beginning." The words " it is
written of me " may mean in the Hebrew " it has been prescribed to
me," and others take the clause to mean "I am come with the roll of
the book whioh is written for me." If we ask what was " the book "
to which the axithor of the Psalm referred the answer is not easy; it
may have been the Law, or the Book of God's unwritten counsels,
as in Ps. cxxxix. 16. The writer of the Epistle, transferring and
applying David's words to Christ, thought doubtless of the whole
0. T. (oomp. Lk. xxiv. 26, 27, "He expounded unto them in all the
Scriptures the things concerning Himself").
tov Troitjo-ai d Beds t4 8IXT|pd o-ov. The writer has omitted the
words "I delight" (LXX. 7)/3ov\ij&V) and has made the gen. of pur-
hebrewb I

130 HEBREWS. [X. 7—
pose depend on tjku. Slavish accuracy in quotation is never aimed at
by the sacred writers, because they had no letter-worshipping theory
of verbal inspiration. They held that the inspiration lay in the
sense and in the thoughts of Scripture, not in its ipsissima verba.
Hence they often consider it sufficient to give the general tendency of
a passage, and frequently vary from the exact words.
8. koto vdpov. "According to the Law." A whole argument is
condensed into these words, which the context would enable readers
to develop for themselves.
9. TOTe el'pT)Kev. Lit. , " Then he has said."
to irpuTov. Namely, Sacrifices, Sec
Td SevTepov. Namely, the Will of God.
10. TJYiao-pe'voi lo-plv. " We have been sanctified." As we have
already seen, the word dytaapbs is not used of progressive sanctifica
tion, but of consecration in a pure state to God's service (ii. 11, xiii.
12, Sec, and comp. John xvii. 19; 1 Thess. iv. 3, " This is the will of
God, even your sanctification").
tov o-wpaTos. The " body " is a reference to ver. 5. And because
Christ thus offered His body we are bidden to offer our bodies as " a
living sacrifice, holy, well-pleasing to God " (Rom. xii. 1).
11. irds pev Eepevs. The better reading seems to be dpxiepeis,
" High Priest."
eWriKev. None were permitted to sit iu the Holy Place. Christ
sat in the Hohest, far above all Heavens.
iroXXdKis. " Day by day for a continual burnt-offering " (Num.
xxviii. 3 ; comp. vii. 27).
irepieXeiv. This is a much stronger word than d(paipeiv in verse 4.
It means "at once to strip away," as though sin were some close-
fitting robe (see xii. 1) (" ringsum wegnehmen").
12. Iv Sefjuj. i. 13, viii. 1.
13. ews Te8»o-iv. The more usual construction of ?ws when no
definite time is indicated would be 'ius dv ; but dv is frequently
omitted, and especially in later Greek. 2 Pet. i. 19 tus oi ripipa
Siavydan. Winer, p. 371.
vttottoSiov. Ps. ex. 1 ; 1 Cor. xv. 25.
14. TCTeXeCuKev. vii. 11, 25.
tovs dYia£op,!vovs. " Those who are in the way of sanctification "
(ii. 11 ; comp. Acts ii. 47).
15. 81. "But." The A. V. inserts " whereof " in italics to make
the connexion easier.
Td irvevpa t6 aYiov. "For holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost " (2 Pet. i. 21).

X. 21.] NOTES. 1.31
peTd Ydp to elpT|Klvai. There is no direct completion of this sen
tence, but the words "again He saith" are found in some editions
before ver. 17. They have no manuscript authority, but were added
by Dr Paris (from the Philoxenian Syriac) in the margin of the Cam
bridge Bible of 1762.
16. AiiTT) T| SiaBrJKT). Jer. xxxi. 33, 34 (comp. viii. 10 — 12).
17. ov pT) pvT|o-Bijo-opai 6ti. This oblivion of sin is illustrated by
many strong metaphors in Is. xliv. 22, xxxviii. 17; Jer. 1. 20; Ps.
ciii. 12; Mic. vii. 19, Sec
18. ovkIti irpoo-(popd irepl dpapTCas. Since the object of all sacri
fices is the purging of the soul from guilt, sacrifices are no longer
needed when sins have been annulled (ix. 26). Those words form the
triumphant close of the argument. To revert to Judaism, to offer
sacrifices, meant henceforth faithlessness as regards Christ's finished
work. And if sacrifices were henceforth abolished there was obviously
an end of the Aaronic Priesthood, and therewith of the whole Cove
nant. The shadow had now been superseded by the substance, the
sketch by the reality. And thus the writer has at last made good his
opening words, that "at this end of the days God had revealed Him
self to us by His Son," and that the New Covenant thus revealed was
superior to the First, alike in its Agent (vii. 1—25), its Priesthood
(vii. 25 — ix. 12), its Tabernacle, and its sacrificial ordinances (ix. 13
—x. 18).
19 — 25. An Exhortation to Christian Confidence and Fel
lowship.
19. dSeX(poC. iii. 1, 12, xiii. 22.
irappTjo-Cav els rf|v eto-oSov k.t.X. "Confidence in the blood of Jesus,
for our entrance into the Holiest." This right of joyful confidence
in our access to God through Christ is dwelt upon in Eph. ii. 18,
iii. 12.
20. Trpoo-(paTov. The word rendered " new " both in A. V. and
R. V. is substituted for Kaivbs {recens) which is used throughout the
Epistle, probably because iveKalviaev (" He dedicated " or inaugurated,
comp. ix. 18) immediately precedes. np6<r0aros by its derivation
means ' ' newly-slain. ' ' It may be doubted however whether the writer
intended the oxymoron " newly-slain yet living." That the road was
"new" has already been shewn in ix. 8 — 12. It is called "living"
not as "life-giving" or "enduring," but because "the Lord of life"
is Himself the way (John xiv. 6; comp. Eph. iii. 12).
8id tov KaTaireTdo-paTos k.t.X. There is here a passing com
parison of Christ's human body to the Parocheth or Veil (vi. 19, ix. 3)
through which the Priest passed into the Holiest, and which was rent
at the crucifixion (Matt, xxvii. 51). It was through His Suffering
Humanity that He passed to His glory.
21. lepla pd-yav. Lit., "a great Priest" (as in Lev. xxi. 10), by
12

132 HEBREWS. [X. 21—
which is meant not only a High Priest, but also a Eingly Priest
(Zech. vi. 11—13).
Iirl tov oIkov tov Beov. See iii. 6 ; 1 Tim. iii. 15.
22. irpoo-epxwaefla. We have seen throughout that the notion of
free access and approach to God is prominent in the writer's mind.
iv TrX-qpotpopia. See vi. 11.
pepavTio-ulvoi k.t.X. In verbs beginning with p the MSS. vary in their
method of writing both the augmented and the reduplicated tenses.
Thus we find both ip"pip£voi and pep. The dirb means that we are so
sprinkled as to be removed from the evil conscience (Winer, p. 736).
The words mean " having our souls — our inmost consciousness —
sprinkled as it were with the blood of Christ (ix. 14, xii. 24, 1 Pet.
i. 2) and so cleansed from the consciousness of guilt." So the Jewish
priests were purified from ceremonial defilement by being sprinkled
with blood (Ex. xxix. 21 ; Lev. viii. 30).
XeXovpevoi. The perfect participles in these clauses — " having been
sprinkled," "having been washed" — imply that it is to be done once
and for ever. All Christians are priests to God (Rev. i. 5, 6); and
therefore Christian Priests, before being permitted to approach to God,
must, like the Jewish Priests (Ex. xxx. 20), be sprinkled with the
blood of Christ, and bathed in the water of baptism (Eph. v. 26 ; Tit.
iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 21).
vSaTi KaSapu. "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye
shall be clean " (Ezek. xxxvi. 25).
23. ttJv dpoXoYlav ttjs IXttCSos. " The confession of our Hope"
Here we have the same trilogy of Christian graces as in St Paul —
Faith (ver. 22), Hope (ver. 23), and Love (ver. 24).
aKXivfj. " So that it do not bend." It must be not only " secure "
(iii. 6, 14), but not even hable to be shaken.
irio-Tds y*P- vi. 13, xi 11, xii. 26. The writer felt the necessity of
insisting upon this point, because the sufferings of the Hebrew con
verts, and the long delay (as it seemed to them) of Christ's return,
had shaken their constancy.
24. els Trapofjvo-p,6v dYamis. "For provocation to love." The
word rrapo^vapbs (whence our "paroxysm") is more generally used in
a bad sense, like the English word "provocation" (see Acts xv. 39;
Deut. xxix. 28, LXX). And perhaps the writer here chose the word
to remind them that the " provocation " at present prevailing among
them was to hatred not to love.
25. ttjv eirio-vvaYuiYTIv eavrwv, i.e. "our Christian gatherings."
Apparently the flagging zeal aud waning faith of the Hebrews had
led some of them to neglect the Christian assemblies for worship and
Holy Communion (Acts ii. 42). ''EiTiavvayuy^ only occurs in 2 Thess.
ii. 1, and is perhaps chosen to avoid the Jewish word " synagogue";

X. 26.] NOTES. 133
and the more so because the duty of attending " the synagogue" was
insisted on by Jewish teachers. In the neglect of public worship the
writer saw the dangerous germ of apostasy.
KaBus e"8os tio-Cv. This neglect of attending the Christian gather
ings may have been due in some cases to fear of the Jews. It shewed
a fatal tendency to waver in the direction of apostasy.
irapaKaXovvres. Though the active is used it implies the duty of
mutual encouragement.
tt)v Tjplpav. The Day which Christians expected was the Last Day
(1 Cor. iii. 13). They failed to see that the Day which the Lord had
primarily in view in His great eschatological discourse (Matt, xxiv.)
was the Close of the Old Dispensation in the Fall of Jerusalem. The
signs of this were already in the ah-, and that approaching Day of the
Lord was destined to be "the bloody and fiery dawn" of the Last
Great Day— "the Day of days, the Ending-day of all days," the
Settling-day of all days, the Day of the promotion of Time into Eter
nity, the Day which for the Church breaks through and breaks off the
night of this present world " (Delitzseh).
26 — 31. A solehn Warning of the Peril of wilful Apostasy.
26. 'Ekovo-Cus ydp. The word "wilfully" stands in contrast
with sins of weakness, ignorance and error in v. 2. If the writer
meant to say that, after the commission of wilful and heinous sins,
' ' there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins," this would not only be
the most terrible passage iu Scripture, but would do away with the
very object of Redemption, and the possibility of any Forgiveness of
Sins. It would, as Kurtz says, " be in its consequences truly sub
versive and destructive of the whole Christian soteriology." But the
meaning rather is, "If ice are willing sinners," "iiwe are in a state
of deliberate and voluntary defiance to the will of God." He is
alluding not only to those sins which the Jews described as being
committed presumptuously " with uplifted hand " (Num. xv. 30 ; Ps.
xix. 13 ; see vi. 4—8, xii. 16, 17), but to the deliberate continuity of
such sins as a self-chosen law of life; as for instance when a man has
closed against himself the door of repentance aud said "Evil, be thou
my good." Such a state is glanced at in 2 Pet. ii. 20, 21 ; Matt. xii.
43—45. ttjv IttCyvmo-iv. " The full knowledge of the truth." Something more
is meant than mere historical knowledge. He is contemplating Chris
tians who have made some real advance, and then have relapsed into
" desperation or the wretchlessness of unclean living."
ovkIti irepl dpapTiuv diroXeCireTai 8vo~Ca. Lit., "no sacrifice for sins
is any longer left for them." They have rejected the work of Christ,
and it cannot be done for them over again. There is one atoning sa
crifice, and that they have repudiated. He does not say that they have
exhausted the infinite mercy of God, nor can we justly assert that he
held such a conclusion ; he only says that they have, so long as they

i34 HEBREWS. [X. 26—
continue in such a state, put themselves out of God's covenant, and
that there are no other covenanted means of grace. For they have
trampled under foot the offer of mercy in Christ and there is no sal
vation in any other (Acts iv. 12).
27. (popepd 8e tis Ik8oxt|. All that is left for willing apostates
when they have turned their backs on the sole means of grace is
" some terror-causing expectance of a judgement." They are " heaping
up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath " (Rom. ii. 5).
(popepbs means " inspiring fear," not "feeling fear." 'EkSoxv is a
drrai. Xeybpevov in the N. T. The tis adds strong emphasis to the
expression = "a very terrible." Comp. Lucian ipopepbv ti 8ia/ia. Diod.
Sic. iirlirovbs ns pios.
Kal irvpos £ijXos. Lit., " and a jealousy of fire." He is thinking
of God " as a consuming fire " (xii. 29) and of the question " Shall thy
jealousy burn like fire?" Ps. lxxix. 5 (comp. Ezek. xxxvi. 5).
eo-BCeiv pIXXovTos Tois virevavTCovs. "Destined" (by prophecy)
"to devour opponents." "Yea, let fire devour thine enemies" (Is.
xxvi. 11). It has so long been the custom to interpret such passages
of " eternal torments " that we lose sight of the fact that such a
meaning, if we may interpret Scripture historically, was in most cases
not consciously present to the mind of the writers. The constant
repetition of the same metaphor by the Prophets with no reference
except to temporal calamities and the overthrow of cities and nations
made it familiar in this sense to the N. T. writers. By " the adver
saries" here are not meant "sinners," but impenitent Jews and
wilful apostates who would perish in the Day of the Lord (2 Thess.
i. 8). It is at least doubtful whether the writer meant to imply
anything beyond that prophecy of doom to the heirs of the Old Cove
nant which was fulfilled a few years later when the fire of God's wrath
consumed the whole system of a Judaism which had rejected its own
Messiah. The word for "adversaries" only occurs besides in the
N. T. in Col. ii. 14.
28. d8erTJo-as tis- Especially by being guilty of the sin of idolatry
(Deut. xvii. 2 — 7). Literally, it is "any one, on setting at nought
Moses' law."
X^pls olKTippuv. The Mosaic law pronounced on offenders an in
exorable doom. " The letter killeth " (2 Cor. iii. 6).
Iirl 8vo-lv tJ Tpio-lv p.dprvo-iv, i. e. by the testimony of at least two
(John viii. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 1). Comp. the use of iirl " ou the condition
of " in ix. 17.
diroflvTJo-Kei. Lit., "dies." Here is another of the favourite Jewish
exegetical arguments a minori ad majus.
29. SoKevre. This word is parenthetic, and does not affect the
construction. TipwpCas. The word for " punishment " in the N.T. is in every other

X. 30.] NOTES. 135
passage KbXaais, which means, in accordance with its definition, and
in much of its demonstrable usage, "remedial punishment." Here
the word (though the difference is not observed by our A. V., which
has created so many needless variations, and obliterated so many
necessary distinctions) means "vengeance" or "retribution." It need
hardly be said that "vindictive punishment" can only be attributed
to God by the figure of speech known as anthropopathy, i.e. the repre
sentation of God by metaphors drawn from human passions. It is
also obvious that we misuse Scripture when we press casual words
to unlimited inferences. "Vengeance" is here used because (1) the
author is alluding to defiant and impenitent apostates, in language
derived from the earthly analogies, and (2) because he is referring
to the temporal ruin and overthrow of the Jewish polity at the fast-
approaching Day of Christ's Coming. The passage which he proceeds
to quote (Deut. xxxii. 35) refers directly to national and temporal
punishments. The verb ripupelv is only used twice in the N. T.
(Acts xxii. 5, xxvi. 11) — both times of the persecution of Christians by
Saul. KaTairaTrfo-as. The writer could hardly use stronger language to
imply the extremity of wilful rebellion which he has in view. It
scarcely applies to any except blaspheming infidels and to those Jews
who have turned the very name of Jesus in Hebrew into an anagram
of malediction, and in the Talmud rarely allude to Him except in
words of scorn and execration.
to atpa ttjs SiaBiJK-ris. He uses the same phrase in xiii. 20 ; and
naturally, since the thoughts are full of the analogy of Jewish
sacrifices. koivov. Lit., " a common thing," i.e. either " unclean " or " value
less." Clearly such conduct as this must be the nearest approach we
can conceive to "the sin against the Holy Ghost," "the unpardon
able sin," " the sin unto death," for which no remedy is provided in
any earthly means of grace (Matt. xii. 31 ; 1 John v. 16).
IvvPpCo-as. Lit., "insulted"; e.g. "by blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost" (Matt. xii. 31, 32). It is possible to grieve utterly that
Holy Spirit (Eph. iv. 30) and so to become "reprobate." The apos
tates whose case is here imagined despise alike the Father (v. 5), the
Son, and the Holy Spirit (vi. 4 — 6). They reject the very promises of
their baptismal profession and abnegate the whole economy of grace.
The verb ivuPpl^eiv occurs here only in the N. T. It may also govern
the dative.
30. 'Epol !k8Ckt|o-is. The Scripture warrant adduced in support
of this stern language is Deut. xxxii. 35, and a similar phrase (" 0
God, to whom vengeance belongeth ") is used in Ps. xciv. 1, 2. It is
remarkable that the citation does not agree either with the Hebrew
or the LXX., but is quoted in the same form as in Rom. xii. 19, where
however the application is quite different, for it is there used as an
argument against avenging our own wrongs. The writer of this

136 HEBREWS. [X. 30—
Epistle, as a friend of St Paul and one who was of his school, may
have been familiar with this form of the quotation, or may have read
it in the Epistle to the Romans, with which he seems to have been
familiar (comp. xiii. 1—6 with Rom. xii. 1 — 21) ; and indeed there are
traces that the quotation in this form was known in the Jewish
schools. Perhaps it had become proverbial.
The words "saith the Lord" are omitted in N, D, and most ancient
versions, and may have been added from Rom. xii. 19.
Kal irdXiv. Deut. xxxii. 36.
Kptvei Kvpios. In the original passage the ' ' judgement " consists in
saving His people from their enemies, as also in Ps. cxxxv. 14.
31. <poPepdv. Fearful for the deliberate apostate and even for the
penitent sinner (1 Chron. xxi. 13; 2 Sam. xxiv. 14; LXX. Ecclus. ii.
18), and yet better in any case than to fall into the hands of man.
Beov Juvtos. iii. 12.
32 — 39. Words of Appeal and Encouragement.
32. dvapipvTJo-Keo-fle 81. "But keep in remembrance." Here,
as in vi. 9 — 12, he mingles appeal and encouragement with the
sternest warnings. The " former days " are those in which they
were in the first glow of their conversion.
(puTio-BlvTes. The word (purlfreiv " to enlighten " only became a
synonym for "to baptize" at a later period. Naturally however in
the early converts baptism was synchronous with the reception of the
gifts of the Holy Spirit (see vi. 4). For the metaphor— that " God
hath shined in our hearts " — see 2 Cor. iv. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 9.
iroXXiiv dflXT)o-iv...iraflT|pdT(i)v. "Much wrestling of sufferings."
"ABXnais occurs here only in the N. T. The sufferings were doubtless
due to the uncompromising hostility of the Jewish community (see
1 Thess. ii. 14 — 16), which generally led to persecutions from the
Gentiles also. To the early Christians it was given "not only to
believe on Christ, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. i. 29).
33. tovto pev... tovto 81. Distributive formula, used adverbially,
Winer. 6eaTpC£opevoi. Lit., "being set upon a stage." The same metaphor
is used in 1 Cor. iv. 9 ("We became a theatre," comp. 1 Cor. xv. 32).
It was however fearfully literal to many Christians in the Neronian
and later persecutions in which Christian youths had to undertake on
the stage the characters of Hercules and Mucius and Laureolus, dis
playing to the blood-corrupted spectators a horrible realism of agony ;
and even Christian maidens had to appear in the characters of Dirce
or theDanaids. See Sueton. Nero, 12, Caius, 57; Juv. Sat. vni. 186;
Mart. x. 25, vm. 30, Spectac. ra. ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. i. 6 ywalKe's
Aava'ISes Kal AlpKai. And see Renan L' Antichrist, pp. 168  175.
koivuvoC. "Partakers."

X. 36.] NOTES. 137
ovtos dvao-rpe(|>op!vw. " Who lived in this condition of things."
34. to!s 8eo-pCois o-vveiraBrjo-aTe. " Ye pitied the prisoners." The
other reading of the A.V. had more to do than anything else with the
common assumption that this Epistle was written by St Paul. The true
reading however undoubtedly is not tois Seapdis pov, but tois Seaplois,
"ye sympathised with the prisoners." The reading of our text was
probably introduced from Col. iv. 18 ; Phil. i. 7, See. In the first per
secutions many confessors were thrown into prison (Acts xxvi. 10), and
from the earliest days Christians were famed for their kindness to their
brethren who were thus confined. See too xiii. 3. The verb avpwaBeiv
occurs only here and in iv. 15. St Paul uses avpirdaxeiv " to suffer
with" in Rom. viii. 17. The extreme care and attention paid by
Christians to imprisoned confessors is illustrated in the letters of Igna
tius, and in those of Cyprian. It had even attracted the astonished
notice of the heathen, and Lucian in his satirical romance De Morte
Peregrini indicates that it was one of the motives for the sham-con
version of that charlatan.
ttiv dpiraYiiv. Christians were liable to be thus plundered by
lawless mobs. Epictetus, by whose time Stoicism had become uncon
sciously impregnated with Christian feeling, says, ' ' I became poor at
thy will, yea and gladly." On the supposition that the letter was
addressed to Rome, " the spoiling of goods " has been referred to the
edict of Claudius which expelled the Jews (and with them the Chris
tian Jews) from Rome; or to the Neronian persecution. But the
supposition is improbable ; and indeed confiscation was one of the
most ordinary incidents of persecution, as we see in the letters of
Cyprian. Yivao-KOVTes ?Xeiv &"roi>s KpeCo-o-ova <iirap£iv. The "in heaven"
(of the A. V.) is almost certainly a spurious gloss, and the "in"
before " yourselves " should be unquestionably omitted. If the true
reading be iavrdis, the meaning is "recognising that ye have for
yourselves," but if we may accept lavroiJs, the reading of N, we have the
very beautiful and striking thought — "recognising that ye have your
selves as a better possession and an abiding." He points them to the
tranquil self-possession of a holy heart (Lk. ix. 25, xxi. 19), the acqui
sition of our own souls, as a sufficiently present consolation for the
loss of earthly goods (Heb. xi. 26), independently of the illimitable
future hope (Matt. vi. 20 ; Rom. viii. 18; 1 Pet. i. 4—8).
35. TrappT|o-Cav. iii. 6, iv. 16.
iJTis. " Seeing that it has " (quippe quae).
pio-6airo8oo-£av. ii. 2, xi. 26 ; comp. xi. 6.
36. iiropovfjs. Few graces were more needed in the terrible trials
of that day (vi. 12; Lk. xxi. 19 ; Col. i. 11 ; Jas. i. 3, 4).
iroiTJo-avTes. The meaning perhaps rather is " by doing," or " by
having done, the will of God ye may win the fruition of the pro
mise." The apparently contradictory expressions, about "receiving"

138 HEBREWS. [X. 36—
and " not receiving " the promise or the promises, arise in part from
the fact that " promise" is used both for the verbal promise, and for
its actual fulfilment (ix. 15, xi. 39).
37. piKpiv ocrov do-ov. A very emphatic phrase to imply the near
ness of Christ's return, "yet but a very very little while" (lit., "little,
how very, how very." Comp. Arist. Vesp. 213 Saov tiaov arlXi}v=quan-
tillum; Arrian, Indie, xxix. 15 dXtyoi Si airuv aireipovaiv oaov rijs x<6pas).
The phrase occurs in the LXX. in Is. xxvi. 20. The quotations in
this and the next verse are adapted from Hab. ii. 3, 4. In the
original it is " the vision " which will not tarry, but the writer quotes
from the LXX., only inserting the definite article before ipxbpevos, and
applying it to the Messiah. " The coming one" was a Messianic title
(Matt. xi. 3 ; Lk. vii. 19.; comp. Dan. vii. 13, Sec). In Matt. xxiv.
34 our Lord has said, " This generation shall not pass till all these
things be fulfilled"; and by the time that this Epistle was written few
still survived of the generation which had seen our Lord. Hence,
Christians felt sure that Christ's coming was very near, though it is
probable that they did not realise that it would consist in the close of
the Old Dispensation, and not as yet in the End of the World. It is
most probable that by the time this Epistle was written the Roman
eagles were already beginning to gather to the carcase of a corrupted
nationality and a decadent rehgionism ; so that no wise man could
overlook the indications of the rapidly approaching end.
38. d 81 8Ckoios pov k.t.X. The true reading here (though not in
the Hebrew) perhaps is, "But my righteous one shall live by faith" (as
in N, A, H), and this is all the more probable because the "my" is
omitted by St Paul, and therefore might be omitted here by the copy
ists. In D, as in some MSS. of the LXX., "my" is found after
" faith." In the original Hebrew the passage seems to mean "But
the righteous shall live by his fidelity." On the deeper meaning read
into the verse by St Paul see my Life of St Paul, i. 369. The
Rabbis said Habakkuk had compressed into this one rule the 365
negative and 218 positive precepts of the Law.
Kal Idv viroo-TeCXT|Tai. " And if he shrink back." The A.V. renders
this "but if any man draw back." But it is clear that 6 SUaws is
understood, not dvBpuiros. The introduction of the words " any man"
is wholly unwarrantable, and at first sight looks as if it were due to
dogmatic bias and a desire to insinuate the Calvinistic doctrine of the
" indefectibility of grace." But throughout this Epistle there is not
a word which countenances the dogma of " final perseverance." The
true rendering is " And if he draw back My soul approveth him not";
i.e. "if my just man draw back " (comp. Ezek. xviii. 24, "'when the
righteous turneth away from his righteousness"). The verb viroariX-
XeaBai implies that shrinking from a cpurse once begun which is used
of St Peter in Gal. ii. 12. It means primarily " to strike or shorten
sail," and then to withdraw or hold back (comp. Acts xx. 20, 27).
This quotation follows the LXX. in here diverging very widely from
the Hebrew of Hab. ii. 4, which has, "Behold his (the Chaldean's)

XL] NOTES. 139
soul in him is puffed up, it is not humble (lit. " level ") ; but the
righteous shall live by his faithfulness." All that we have seen of
previous quotations shews us how free was the use made, by way of
illustration, of Scripture language. Practically the writer here applies
the language of the old Prophet, not in its primary sense, but to ex
press his own conceptions (Calvin). On the possible defection of
'-' the righteous " see Article xvi. of our Church.
39. ovk lo-plv vttoo-toXtjs k.t.X. " But we are not of defection unto
perdition, but of faith unto gaining of the soul." (The genitives are
genitives which imply a property, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 33, oi ydp iariv
dKaraaraalas b Beos.) " Faith," says Delitzsch, " saves the soul by
Unking it to God. ..The unbelieving man loses his soul; for not
being God's neither is he his own." He does not possess himself. The
word vepiiroltjais is also found in Eph. i. 14. In these words the
writer shews that in his awful warnings against apostasy he is only
putting a hypothetical case. " His readers," he Bays, " though some
of them may have gone towards the verge, have not yet passed over
the fatal line." The word Faith is here introduced with the writer's
usual skill to prepare for the next great section of the Epistle.

CHAPTER XI.
3. p-.'| Ik ipaivoplvuv. This is the true reading. See the note.
8. KaXovpevos. In AD 6 is inserted. See the note.
15. pvTjpovevovo-iv. See the note.
28. dXoflpevuv. In ADE we find oXeBpeiuv (from SXeBpos).
32. TeSeuv, BapaK, Zapipuv, 'Ie(|>6de, AaveCS Te Kal Sapovr^X N.
The MSS. vary considerably. The reading, if correct, pays no attention
to chronology.
34. paxaCpT|s NAD1. Altered in some MSS. into the more, classic
paxalpas. 37. lirpCo-Biio-av, l7reipdo-BT|o-av. The MSS. vary in the order. See
the note.

Ch. XI. The Heroes of Faith.
The main task of the writer has now been performed, but the re
mainder of the Epistle had also a very important purpose. It would
have been fatal to the peace of mind of a Jewish convert to feel that
there was a chasm between his Christian faith and the faith of his
past life. The writer wishes to shew that there is no painful discon
tinuity in the religious convictions of Hebrew converts. They could
still enjoy the viaticum of good examples set forth in their 0. T.
Scriptures. Their faith was identical, though transcendently more

140 HEBREWS. [XL 1—
blessed than that which had sustained the Patriarchs, Prophets, and
Martyrs of their nation in all previous ages. The past history of the
Chosen People was not discarded or discredited by the Gospel; it was,
on the contrary, completed and glorified.
1. "Eo-tiv 81 ttCo-tis. " But faith ia Sec." Since he has said " we
are of faith to gaining of the soul," the question might naturally
arise, What then is faith ? It is nowhere defined in Scripture, nor is
it defined here, for the writer rather describes it in its effects than in
its essence ; but it is described by what it does. The chapter which
illustrates "faith" is full of works; and this alone should shew how
idle is any contrast or antithesis between the two. Here however the
word "faith" means only "the belief which leads to faithfulness" —
the hope which, apart from sight, holds the ideal to be the most real,
and acts accordingly. It is not used in the deeper mystical sense of
St Paul as equivalent to absolute union with Christ.
virdo-Tao-is. "The assurance" or "the giving substance to." 'Tird-
araais, as in i. 3, may mean (1) that underlying essence which gives
reality to a thing. Faith gives a subjective reality to the aspirations
of hope. But it may be used (2) in an ordinary and not a meta
physical sense for "basis," foundation; or (3) for "confidence," as
in iii. 14 (comp. 2 Cor. ix. 4, xi. 17) : and this seems to be the most
probable meaning of the word here. St Jerome speaks of the passage
as breathing somewhat of Philo ("Philoneum aliquid spirans"), who
speaks of faith in a very similar way.
8XeYX°s. "Demonstration," or "test."
ov pXeiropevov, i.e. tuv dopdruv, which are as yet invisible, because
they are eternal and not temporal (2 Cor. iv. 18, v. 7). God Himself
belongs to the things as yet unseen ; but Faith — in this sense of the
word, which is not the distinctively Pauline sense (Gal. ii. 16, iii. 26;
Rom. iii. 25) — demonstrates the existence of the immaterial as though
it were actual. The object of faith from the dawn of man's hfe had
been Christ, who, even at the Fall, had been foretold as "the seed of
the woman who should break the serpent's head." The difference
between the Two Covenants was that in the New He was fully set
forth as the effulgence of the Father's glory, whereas in the Old
He had been but dimly indicated by shadows and symbols. Bishop
Wordsworth quotes the sonnet of the poet Wordsworth on these
lines: "For what contend the wise? for nothing less
Than that the Soul, freed from the bonds of sense,
And to her God restored by evidence
Of things not seen, drawn forth from their recess,
Root there — and not in forms — her holiness."
2. !papTvpij6T]o-av. Lit., "For therein the elders had witness
borne to them." Their "good report " was won in the sphere of faith.
The elders — a technical Jewish term (D\Jj?T) — means the ancient
fathers of the Church of Israel (i. 1).

XL 4.] NOTES. 141
3. ri£o-Tei. In this chapter we find fifteen special instances of the
work of faith, besides the summary enumeration in the 32nd aud
following verses.
voovpev. " We apprehend with the reason." See Rom. i. 20.
KaTTipTCerflai. "Have been established" (xiii. 21; Ps. lxxiv. 16,
LXX.). tovs aUSvas. The word for "worlds" means literally ages (i. 2),
i.e. the world regarded from the standpoint of human history. The
"time- world" necessarily presumes the existence of the space- world
also. See i. 2.
prjpaTi Beov. "By the utterance of God," namely by His fiat, as in
Gen. i. ; Pb. xxxiii. 6, 9 ; 2 Pet. iii. 5. There is no question here as
to the creation of the world by the Logos, for he purposely alters the
word Xbyu used by the LXX. in Ps. xxxiii. into jy-qpan.
els to p,T| Ik <paivopeva>v Td pXeirdpevov Y«Y0V^va1, ^e ^rne reading
and literal translation are "so that not from things which appear hath
that which is seen come into being," a somewhat harsh way of ex
pressing that "the visible world did not derive its existence from
anything phenomenal." The translation of the Peshito ("from those
things which are not perceived"), of the Vulgate ("ex invisibilibus"
and iu d, e, f "ex non apparentibus"), seem to imply a reading ix
¦p-r) ipaivoplivuv, which would be an interpretation of the unusual order,
but hardly suit the Greek as it stands. In other words, the clause
denies the pre-existence of matter. It says that the world was made
out of nothing, not out of the primeval chaos. So in 2 Mace. vii. 28
the mother begs her son "to look upon the heaven and earth and all
that is therein, and consider that God made them out of things
that are not" (If oiK Svruv). If this view be correct, the writer would
seem purposely to avoid Philo's way of saying that the world was
made out of tci prj Svra, "things conceived as non-existent," by which
he meant the "formless matter" (as in Wisd. xi. 17). He says that
the world did not originate from anything phenomenal. This verse,
so far from being superfluous, or incongruous with what follows,
strikes the keynote of faith by shewing that its first object must be
a Divine aud Infinite Creator. Thus like Moses in Gen. i. the verse
excludes from the region of faith all Atheism, Pantheism, Polytheism,
and Dualism.
4. "ApeX. Intending, so to speak, "to pluck only the flowers
which happen to come within his reach, while he leaves the whole
meadow full to his readers," he begins to cull his instances from
the world before the flood. His examples of faith fall into five
groups. 1. Antediluvian (4 — 6). 2. From Noah to Abraham (7 — 19,
including some general reflexions in 13 — 16). 3. The Patriarchs
(20 — 22). 4. From Moses to Rahab (23 — 31). 5. Summary reference
to later heroes and martyrs down to the time of the Maccabees
(32—40). irXeCova. Lit., "more" or "greater."

i42 HEBREWS. [XL 4—
irapd KdXv. This we learn from Gen. iv. 5, but we are not told the
exact points in virtue of which the sacrifice was superior. We may
naturally infer that Abel's was a more carefully-chosen and valuable
offering, but especially that it was offered in a more sincere and
humble spirit of faith and love.
lpapTvpTJ6t|. By God's sign of approval (Gen. iv. 4, LXX.).
Hence he is called "righteous" in Matt, xxiii. 35; 1 John hi. 12.
The Jewish Haggadah was that God had shewn His approval by fire
from heaven which consumed Abel's sacrifice.
uopTvpovvTos Iirl tois Supois. "Bearing witness to his gifts."
8i avrrjs, ie. by his faith.
diroBavuv 5™ XaXei. Another reading (XaXeirai, DEEL) is "though
dead, he is still being spoken of." But the allusion seems to be to
"the voice of his blood" (Gen. iv. 10), as seems clear from the re
ference in xii. 24. No doubt it is also meant that he- speaks by his
example, but there seems to have been some Jewish Haggadah on the
subject, for Philo says " Abel — which is most strange — has both been
slain and lives" (Opp. i. 200). He deduces from Gen. iv. 10 that
Abel is still unforgotten, and hence that the righteous are immortal.
5. peTeTeBr). Lit., "was transferred (hence)" (Gen. v. 24; Ecclus.
xliv. 16, xlix. 14; Jos. Antt. i. 3, § 4).
ovx TivpCo-KeTo. Gen. v. 24 (LXX. Cod. Alex.).
p,epapTvpT)Tai. "He hath had witness borne to him"; "Enoch walked
with God," Gen. v. 24 iLXX. "pleased God").
6. oti Soriv. The object of Faith is both the existence and the
Divine government of God. "We trust in the living God, who is the
Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Tim. iv. 10).
YiveTai. " And that He becomes (i.e. shews or proves Himself to
be) a rewarder."
7. xp-qpaTio-Befs. The same word is used as in viii. 5, xii. 25.
tov pTjSeiro pXeiropevuv. The participle with the art. is in the X. T.
normally negatived by pi\, except in cases of antithesis (like Rom. ix.
25) and in Eph. v. 4 if to oi/k drTJKovra be there the true reading. Here
the p.rj indicates the subjective standpoint.
evXaPi]8eLs. Influenced by godly caution and reverence ; the same
kind of fear as that implied in v. 7.
KaTeKpivev. His example was in condemnatory contrast with the
unbelief of the world (Matt. xii. 41; Lk. xi. 31).
ttjs KaTd ttCo-tiv. " Which is according to faith" (comp. Ezek. xiv.
14). Noah is called "righteous " in Gen. vi. 9, and Philo observes that
he is the first to receive this title, and erroneously says that the name
Noah means "righteous" as well as "rest." St Paul does not use

XI. 10.] NOTES. 143
the phrase "the righteousness according to faith," though he has
"the righteousness of faith " (Rom. iv. 13). " Faith however in this
writer never becomes the same as mystic oneness with Christ, but
means general belief in the unseen; and "righteousness" is not
"justification," but faith manifested by obedience. Throughout this
chapter righteousness is the human condition which faith produces
(xi. 33), not the Divine gift which faith receives. Hence he says that
Noah "became an heir of the righteousness which is according to
faith," i.e. he entered on the inheritance of righteousness which faith
had brought him. In 2 Pet. ii. 5 Noah is called " a preacher of
righteousness"; and in Wisd. x. 4 "the righteous man."
8. 'Appadp. As was natural, the faith of "the father of the
faithful" was one of the commonest topics of discussion in the
Jewish Schools. Wordsworth (Eccles. Sonnets, xxvi.) speaks of
"Faith, which to the Patriarchs did dispense
Sure guidance ere a ceremonial fence
Was needful to men thirsting to transgress."
KaXovpevos. If 6 KaXovpevos were the right reading it could only
mean literally either "he who is called Abraham," which would be
somewhat meaningless; or "Abraham, who was called to go out."
l|eX8eiv. From Ur of the Chaldees (Acts vii. 4).
tou-ov. Gen. xii. 7.
iroii epx?rai. Strictly irot would be required, but the adv. of rest
is often thus joined to a verb of motion. The Ipxerai is used
graphically. 9. ws dXXoTpCav. "I am a stranger and a. sojourner with you"
(Gen. xxiii. 4). The patriarchs are constantly called irdpoiKoi, "dwellers
beside," "sojourners" (Gen. xvii. 8, xx. 1, Sec).
iv o-KTivals, i.e. in tents (Gen. xii. 8, xiii. 3, Sec).
10. ttjv tovs BepeXCovs ex.ovo-av. "The city which hath the foun
dations," namely, "the Jerusalem above" (Gal. iv. 26; Heb. xii. 22,
xiii. 14 ; Rev. xxi. 2, 14). The same thought is frequently found in
Philo. The tents of the Patriarchs had no foundations ; the founda
tions of the City of God are of pearl and precious stone (Rev. xxi.
14, 19). There is perhaps a reference to Ps. lxxxvii. 1, "Her founda
tions are upon the holy hills." Mr Rendall too precariously infers a
contrast with the foundations of the earthly Jerusalem, shaken by the
Roman engines of war.
TexvCTT]s Kal 8r|pioup-y6s. " Architect and builder." This is the
only place in the N. T. where the word Snpiovpyos occurs. It is
found also in 2 Mace. iv. 1, and plays a large part iu the vocabulary
of Gnostic heretics, who believing in the inherent evil of matter
spoke of the Demiurge as the Evil creator. But God is called the
"Architect" of the Universe in Philo and in Wisd. xiii. 1, "neither
by considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster."

144 HEBREWS. [XL 11—
11. Kal avTi^ 2dppa. "Even Sarah herself." Perhaps the "even"
refers to her original weakness of faith when she laughed (Gen. xviii.
12, xxi. 2 ; comp. Rom. iv. 19). Dr Field thinks that these words
may be a gloss, and that the verse refers to Abraham, since ereKev,
"waB delivered," is not found in N, A, D.
els KaTaPoXTJv o-irlppaTOs. For technical reasons the probable
meaning is "for the founding of a family" (comp. the use of the
word KarapoXij in iv.- 3, ix. 26 and "seed" in ii. 16, xi. 18).
tov 6TraYY«iXdpevov. Comp. *. 23.
12. Ta do-Tpa k.t.X. Gen. xxii. 17 ; Deut. 1. 10.
to x^lXos. Comp. "labrum fossae" Liv. xxxvn. 37.
13. KaTd ttCo-tiv. Lit., "According to faith."
pr) Kopio-dpevoi. They received the promises in one sense, as
promises (ver. 17), but had not yet entered upon their fruition (comp.
ver. 39; vi. 15, and ix. 15).
do-irao-dpevoi. "Saluting them" (Gen. xlix. 18). "Your father
Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad" (John
viii. 56).
irapeirCSTipoi. Gen. xxiii. 4, xlvii. 9; 1 Chron. xxix. 15; Ps. xxxix.
12, See.
14. oti iraTpCBa IttiJt|tovo-iv. " That they are seeking further aftet
a native land." Hence comes the argument of the next verse that it
was not their old home in Chaldea for which they were yearning, but
a heavenly native-land.
15. el pev...pvT|povevovo-iv...e!xov dv. The tenses imply the mean
ing, "Assuming that they bore that land in continuous memory, they
would at all times have had See." See Winer, p. 382. The reading
pvnpoveidvaiv for epvrjpbvevov is very ill-supported ; but it is the difficilior
interpretatio ; is found in Theodoret ; and derives some sanction from
the pvripovevovaav of D.
dvaKdpi|/ai. But they never attempted to return to Mesopotamia.
They were home-sick not for that land but for heaven.
16. vvv SI. "But, as the case now is."
dpe'YOVTai. The word means, " they are yearning for," " they stretch
forth their hands towards."
ovk liraio-xvveTai avrovs k.t.X. "Is not ashamed of them, to be
called their God " (Gen. xxviii. 13 ; Ex. iii. 6 — 15).
iroXiv. The "inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that
fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us" (1 Pet. i. 4). This
digression is meant to shew that the faith and hopes of the Patriarchs
reached beyond mere temporal blessings.

XI. 20.] NOTES. i4S
17. irpoo-evT|voxev...irpoo-|<pep6V. Reverting to Abraham, whose
faith (1) in leaving his country, (2) in living as a stranger in Canaan,
he has already mentioned, he now adduces the third and greatest
instance of his faithful obedience in being ready to offer up Isaac.
Both tenses, "hath offered up " (perf.) and ' ' was offering up " (imperf.),
are characteristic of the author's views of Scripture as a permanent
record of events which may be still regarded as present to us.
St James (ii. 21) uses the aorist.
dvaSegdpevos- Four verbs are used with reference to "receiving"
the promises, dvaSixeaBai (here), Xapelv (ix. 15), iirirvxelv (xi. 33),
KoplaaaBai (xi. 39). The word here used implies a joyous welcome of
special promises. The context generally shews with sufficient clear
ness the sense in which the Patriarchs may be said both to have
" received" and "not to have received" the promises. They received
and welcomed special promises, and those were fulfilled ; and. in those
they saw the germ of richer blessings which they enjoyed by faith but
not in actual fruition.
18. irpds ov. Lit., "with reference to whom" (Isaac) ; or perhaps
" to whom," i.e. to Abraham.
KXT|6ijo-eTai. Gen. xvii. 8, 19, xxi. 12, See.
19. oflev. The only place in this Epistle where SBev has its local
sense. Iv irapapoXij. Lit., "in a parable." For the use of the word see
ix. 9. The exact meaning is much disputed. It has been rendered
"as a type" (comp. Vulg. in parabolam), or " in a bold venture," or
"unexpectedly." These views are hardly tenable. But how could
Abraham have received Isaac back " in a figure" when he received him
back " in reality "? The answer is that he received him back, figu
ratively, from the dead, because Isaac was typically, or figuratively,
dead — potentially sacrificed — when he received him back. Josephus
in narrating the event uses the same word (Antt. i. 13, § 4). But in
this instance again it is possible that the key to the expression might
be found in some Jewish legend. In one Jewish writer it is said
(of course untruly) that Isaac really was killed, and raised again.
The restoration of Isaac was undoubtedly a type of the resurrection of
Christ, but it is hardly probable that the writer would have expressed
so deep a truth in a passing and ambiguous expression.
20. evXoYT]o-ev. It is true that the blessing of Esau when rightly
translated, "Behold thy dwelhng shall be away from the fatness of
the earth and away from the dew of blessing" (Gen. xxvii. 39), reads
more like a curse ; but the next verse (40) involves a promise of ulti
mate freedom, and Esau obtained the blessings of that lower and less
spiritual life for which he was alone fitted by his character and
tastes. [Kal] irepl peXXdvTOv. The true reading seems to be " even con
cerning," though it is not easy to grasp the exaot force of the "even."
HEBREWS E

146 HEBREWS. [XI. 21—
21. eKao-Tov tov viwv. "Each of the sons." He made a marked
difference between them (Gen. xlviii. 17 — 19).
irpoo-eK»ivT|o-ev Iirl to aKpov k.t.X. In this verse there is an allusion
to two separate events. The first is the blessing of Ephraim and
Manasseh (Gen. xlviii. 1 — 20); the other an earlier occasion (Gen.
xlvii. 29 — 31). In our version it is rendered "And Israel bowed
himself upon the bed's head," but in the LXX. and Peshito as here,
it is " upon the top of hiB staff." The reason for the variation is
that having no vowel points the LXX. understood the word to be
matteh, "staff," not mittah, " bed," as in Gen. xlviii. 2. If they were
right in this view, the passage means that Jacob, rising from his bed
to take the oath from Joseph, supported his aged limbs on the staff,
which was a type of his pilgrimage (Gen. xxxii. 10), and at the end
of the oath bowed his head over the staff in sign of thanks and rever
ence to God. The Vulgate (here following the Itala) erroneously
renders it adoravit fastigium virgae ejus, Jacob " adored the top of
his (Joseph's) staff," and the verse has been quoted (e.g. by Cornelius
a Lapide) in defence of image- worship ! Yet in Gen. xlvii. 31 the
Vulgate has " adoravit Deum, conversus ad leetuli caput." Probably
all that is meant is that, being too feeble to rise and kneel or stand,
Jacob " bowed himself upon the head of his couch " in an attitude of
prayer, just as the aged David did on his deathbed (1 Eings i. 47).
22. TeXevToiv, sc. rbv piov. The less common word for " dying" is
here taken from the LXX. of Gen. 1. 26.
irepl tov dorlojv avTov. A sign of his perfect conviction that God's
promise would be fulfilled (Gen. 1. 24, 25 ; Ex. xiii. 19 ; comp. Acts
vii. 16).
23. M&>vo-t|s...!kpvPt). The "faith" is of course that of his
parents, Amram and Jochebed.
tov iraTlpoiv. This is implied in the LXX. of Ex. ii. 2, but the
Hebrew only says that his mother concealed him.
doretov tA iraiSCov. " That the child was fair. " In Acts vii. 20 he is
called dareios Tip 8e$. In his marvellous beauty (see Philo, Vit. Mos.)
they saw a promise of some future blessing, and braved the peril
involved in breaking the king's decree. The Hebr. word is simply
3113. Theophyl. upaiov, rg 6ifiei xaplev.
Td 8idTaY|ia. To drown all male children (Ex. i. 22, ii. 2). In
D, E we have the interpolation (from Acts vii. 23) 7n<m peyas yevo-
pevos puvans aviXev tov aiyvirriov Karavouv rnv rairivuaiv tuv aSe\<puv
avrov. 24. vlds BvYaTpds 3>apa(6. He refused the rank of an Egyptian
prince. The reference is to the Jewish legends, which were rich in
details about the infancy and youth of Moses. See Jos. Antt. n. ix. 
xi.; Philo, Opp. n. 82; Stanley, Led. on Jewish Church. The only
reference to the matter in Scripture is in Ex. ii. 10 ; Acts vii. 22  25.

XI. 28.] NOTES. 147
25. T(p Xaoi tov Beov. iv. 9.
irpdo-Kaipov. The brevity of sinful enjoyment is alluded to in Job
xx. 5, "The triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the
hypocrite but for a moment." The special sin would have been the
very one to which the readers were tempted— apostasy.
26. tov AIyvittov. The reading tuv iv Alyimov is less well
supported. It is of course explicable by an ellipse of 73.
tAv dveiSurpdv tov Xpio-Tov. " The reproach of the Christ " (comp.
xiii. 13; Matt. v. 11, 12; 2 Cor. i. 5; Rom. xv. 3; Phil. iii. 7—11;
Col. i. 24). There may be in the words a reminiscence of Ps.
Ixxxix. 50, 51, "Remember, Lord, the reproach of thy servants...
wherewith thine enemies have reproached the footsteps of thine
anointed." By " the reproach of the Christ " is meant " the re
proach which He had to bear in His own person, and has to bear in
that of His members" (2 Cor. i. 5). It is true that in no other passage
of the Epistle does the writer allude to the mystical oneness of Christ
and His Church, but he must have been aware of that truth from
intercourse with St Paul and knowledge of his writings. Otherwise
we must suppose him to imply that Moses by faith realised, at least
dimly, that he was suffering as Christ would hereafter suffer.
diripXeirev Ydp. Lit., " for he was looking away from it to." What
Moses had in view waB something wholly different from sinful plea
sure. The verb is found here only in the N. T.
27. KarlXiTrev AIyvtttov. This must allude to the Exodus, not to
the flight of Moses into Midian. On the latter occasion, he distinctly
did " fear the wrath of the king " (Ex. ii. 14, 15). It is true that for
the moment Pharaoh and the Egyptians pressed the Israelites to
depart, but it was only in fear and anger, and Moses foresaw the
immediate pursuit.
aij <poPT)6eCs. " Because he did not fear."
rbv Ydp ddpaTov k.t.X. The words have also been rendered, but
less correctly, " He was steadfast towards Him who is invisible, as if
seeing Him."
tAv ddpaTov. "The blessed and only Potentate... whom no man
hath seen, nor can see" (1 Tim. vi. 16, 17). Perhaps we should
render it " the King Invisible," understanding the word paaiXia, and
so emphasizing the contrast between the fear of God and the conse
quent fearless attitude towards Pharaoh.
28. ireiroCiiKev. Lit., " he hath made," or " instituted." Another
of the author s characteristic tenses (see ver. 17). Iloieiv is also used
for celebrating the passover (Deut. xvi. 1, Sec).
rf[v irpdo-xvo-iv tov atpaTos. " The effusion of the blood." Ex. xii.
21 — 23. The "faith" consisted primarily in believing the promises
and obeying the command of God, and secondarily, we may believe,
in regarding the sprinkled blood as in some way typioal of a better
K2

i48 HEBREWS. [XL 28 —
propitiation (Rom. iii. 25). The word for sprinkling is not ^avnapbs,
as in xii. 24, but irpbaxvais, which is found here only, but is derived
from the verb used in Lev. i. 5 (LXX.).
6 dXoflpevuv. The term is derived from the LXX. The Hebrew
(Ex. xii. 23) has mashchith, "destruction." Comp. 1 Chron. xxi. 15 ;
2 Chron. xxxii. 21 ; 1 Cor. x. 10 ; Ecclus. xlviii. 21.
29. Siipijo-av. They, i.e. Moses and the Israelites.
tjs ireipav XapdvTes. " Of which sea (or " of which dry land ") the
Egyptians making trial."
KaTeiroflT|o-av. Lit., "were swallowed up" (Ex. xiv. 15 — 28; Ps.
cvi. 9—12).
30. 'Iepeix". Josh. vi. 12 — 20.
eireo-av. Neuters plur. sometimes take a plur. verb where the inani
mate objects stand out in their plurality and separateness. Winer,
p. 645.
Iirl eirrd Tjulpas- 'Eiri with the ace. denotes the period over which
a thing extends, as in Iirl iipipas irXelovs, Acts xiii. 31.
31. irCo-Tei. Josh. ii. 9 — 11, " The Lord your God, He is God."
^ irdpvT]. So she is called in Josh. ii. 1 ; Jas. ii. 25 ; and it shews
the faithfulness of the sacred narrative that her name is even intro
duced as well as that of Ruth, a Moabitess, in the genealogy of our
Lord (Matt. i. 5). The Targum softens it down into " innkeeper " and
others render it ' ' idolatress." Her name was highly honoured by the
Jews, who said that eight prophets — among them Baruch, Jeremiah,
and Shallum, and the prophetess Huldah — were descended from her.
Megillah, f. 14. 2.
tois aTrei8r|o-ao-iv. " That were disobedient."
32. tC Sti \iya ; The sense is the same whether we regard Xiya as
the indicative (comp. John xi. 47), or the deliberative subjunctive.
liriXeCt|/ei pe...6 XP0V°S- The future is sometimes used of a
case, merely conceivable, as in ipei tis, dicat aliquis, 1 Cor. xv.
35. Comp. -the Latin " longum est narrare." The phrase is also
found in Philo, De Somniis. The names of "the heroes of faith"
here mentioned are drawn from the Books of Judges and Samuel,
with a reference to the Books of Kings and Chronicles, and what is
known of the history of the Prophets. There does not seem to be
any special design in the arrangement of the pairs of names, though
it is' a curious circumstance that, in each pair, the hero who came
earlier in time is placed after the other. In 32 — 34 we have instances
of active, and in 35 — 38 of passive faith.
33. pao-iXeCas. The allusion is specially to the conquest of Ca
naan by Joshua, and to the victories of David (2 Sam. v. 17 — 25,
xxi. 15, See.).

XI. 36.] NOTES. 149
8iKaioo-vvT)v. The allusion is somewhat vague, but seems to refer
to the justice of Judges and Eings (1 Sam. xii. 3, 4 ; 2 Sam. viii. 15 ;
1 Chron. xviii. 14, See.), and perhaps especially to the Judgement of
Solomon. " To exeoute judgement and justice" belonged especially
to the Princes of Israel (Ezek. xiv. 9).
liraYYAiwv. If we compare the expression with verses 13, 39, we
see that the primary reference must be to temporal promises (see
Josh. xxi. 43 — 45, Sec) ; but they also obtained at least a partial frui
tion of spiritual promises also.
Xedvrov. Samson (Judg. xiv. 5, 6), David (1 Sam. xvii. 34, 35),
Daniel (Dan. vi. 22), Benaiah (2 Sam. xxiii. 20).
34. irvpds. Dan. iii. 25 ; 1 Maoo. ii. 59.
pa\atpT|s. David (1 Sam. xviii. 11, xix. 10, Sec), Elijah (1 K. xix.
2), Elisha (2 E. vi. 12—17), Jer. xxvi. 24, &c.
dird do-8eveCas- Hezekiah (2 K. xx. 5), Samson (Judg. xv. 15, xvi.
28—30), David (1 Sam. xvii. 42, 51, Sec).
SKXivav. This and the previous clause may refer specially to the
Maccabees, though they also suit Joshua, the Judges, David, &o. The
word irapepPoXds is the word used for "camp " in xiii. 11, 13; Rev.
xx. 9. It has both senses in the LXX. (Judg. iv. 16). The olassic
verb for " drove back" is found here only in the N. T. (kXIvu).
35. YuvalKes- The woman of Sarepta (1 K. xvii. 22), the Shu-
namite (2 K. iv. 32—36).
I? dvao-rdo-eus. Lit. , " by resurrection."
eTvpiravCo-flr|o-av. Josephus calls the instrument of torture rpoxos.
The word means technically, ' ' were broken on the wheel, " and the
special reference may be to 2 Mace. vi. 18 — 30, vii., where the word is
used to describe the tortures of Eleazar the Scribe, and of the Seven
Brothers. tt)v diroXvTpwo-iv. " The deliverance offered them " (2 Macs. vi. 20,
21, vii. 24).
KpeCTTovos. Not a mere resurrection to earthly life, Uke the children
of the women mentioned, but "an everlasting reawakening to life"
(2 Maco. vii. 9 and passim).
36. luiravypuv Kal uairrCyav. " Seven brethren and their mother
...being tormented with scourges and whips... and they brought the
second for a mooking-stook. ..And after him was the third made a
mocking-stook. . . And. ..they tortured and tormented the fourth in Uke
manner" (2 Mace. vii. 1, 7, 10, 13, See.). "And they sought out...
Judas' friends. ..and he took vengeanoe on them and mocked them "
(1 Maco. ix. 26).
Seo-uuiv Kal (pvXaKTJs. Joseph (Gen. xxxix. 20), Micaiah (1 E. xxii.
26, 27), Jeremiah (Jer. xx. 2, xxxvii. 15), Hanani (2 Chron. xvi. 10).

1 50 HEBREWS. [XL 37—
37. IXifldo-flT|o-av. Zechariah (2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21). Jewish tra
dition said that Jeremiah was stoned. See Matt, xxiii. 35 — 37 ; Lk.
xi. 51.
eTrpCo-flr|o-av. This was the traditional mode of Isaiah's martyrdom.
Hamburger, Talm. Worterb. s.v. Jesaia. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 51. The
punishment was well known in ancient days (2 Sam. xii. 31).
!ireipdo-8r|o-av- This would not seem an anticlimax to a pious reader,
for the intense violence of temptation, and the horrible dread lest the
weakness of human nature should succumb to it, was one of the most
awful forms of trial which persecutors could inflict (see Acts xxvi. 11),
especiaUy if the tempted person yielded to the temptation, as in 1 E.
xiii. 7, 19 — 26. There is no variation in the MSS., but some have con
jectured iirp^aBrjaav "they were burned." In a recent outbreak at
Alexandria some Jews had been burnt aUve (Philo, in Flacc. 20), and
burnings are mentioned in 2 Mace. vi. 11. The reason for the posi
tion of the word, as a sort of climax, perhaps lies in the strong effort
to tempt the last and youngest of the seven brother-martyrs to
apostatise in 2 Mace. vii.
Iv <pdy(p p.axaCpT|s. " They have slain thy prophets with the sword "
(1 E. xix. 10). Jehoiakim "slew Urijah with the sword" (Jer. xxvi.
23). The Jews suffered themselves to be massacred on the Sabbath in
the war against Antiochus (1 Mace. ii. 38; 2 Mace. v. 26).
Iv p.T)X(t>Ta!s, Iv alYeCois. Elijah (1 E. xix. 13 ; 2 E. i. 8). A hairy
garment seems subsequently to have been a common dress among
prophets, and it was sometimes adopted for purposes of deception
(Zech. xiii. 4). Clement in his Ep. ad Bom. i. 17 says that EUsha
and Ezekiel also wore hairy garments.
38. oi»k tjv dfjios. The world was unworthy of them though it
treated them as worthless. The Greek would also admit the meaning
that they outweighed in value the whole world (see Prov. viii. 11,
LXX.). The remark would be a striking source of consolation to
Christians, on whom every epithet of hatred was exhausted and every
disgraceful charge accumulated by their heathen adversaries. No
small part of the task of the early Christian apologists consisted in
shewing the baselessness and absurdity of the views respecting Chris
tians which were held alike by the multitude, by rulers, and by phi
losophers. Speo-iv Kal o-iTTiXaCois. The Israelites in general (Judg. vi. 2). The
prophets of the Lord (1 K. xviii. 4, 13). Elijah (1 K. xix. 9). Mat-
tathias and his sons " fled into the mountains " (1 Mace. n. 28), and
many others " into the wilderness " (id. 29). Judas the Maccabee
(2 Mace. v. 27). Refugees in caves (2 Mace. vi. 11). "Like beasts "
(id. x. 6). The catacombs were often used as places of refuge by the
early Roman bishops and martyrs.
ttjsy'Is. Not "of the earth "but" of the land." The writer's historic
view rarely extends beyond the horizon of Jewish history.

XII.] NOTES. 151
39. papTvpT|fl!vTes Sid ttjs irCo-reais. "Having been borne witness
to through their faith," i.e. though they had this testimony borne to
them, they did not see the fulfilment of the promises.
ovk iKopCo-avro. See verses 17, 33, vi. 15, ix. 15. They did not
enjoy the fruition of the one great promise.
40. tov Beov...TrpopXe>|/aplvov. Lit., "since God provided" (ov
"foresaw") "some better thing concerning us." The middle voice is
used because it differs from the active by expressing a mental act ; so
too irpoopdaBai, rrpo'iSiaBai. In one sense. Abraham, and therefore
other patriarchs, " rejoiced to see Christ's day," and yet they did but
see it in such dim shadow that " many prophets and kings desired to
see what ye see, and saw them not, and to hear the things which ye
hear, and did not hear them" (Matt. xiii. 17), though all their earnest
seekings and searchings tended in this direction (1 Pet. i. 10, 11).
iva. pt) x°>pls TJpuv TeXeiwfliSo-iv. "Not unto themselves but unto
us they did minister " (1 Pet. i. 12). Since in their days " the fulness
of the times " had not yet come (Eph. i. 10) the saints could not be
brought to their completion — the end and consummation of their
privileges — apart from us. The "just " had not been, and could not
be, " perfected " (xii. 23) until Christ had died (vii. 19, viii. 6). The
implied thought is that if Christ had come in their days — if the "close
of the ages" had fallen in the times of the Patriarchs or Prophets —
the world would long ago have ended, and we should never have been
born. Our present privileges are, as he has been proving all through
the Epistle, incomparably better than those of the fathers. It was
necessary in the economy of God that their " perfectionment " should
be delayed until ours could be accomplished ; in the future world
we and they shall equally enjoy the benefits of Christ's redemption.

CHAPTER XII.
2. KEKaBiKev. Much better supported than the rec. iKdBiaev.
3. els eavrov. The MSS. vary between this reading (A, Vulg.) and
els avrbv, els avrbv, and els iavrois.
4. dvTiKaTlo-TT|T6. In some MSS. and quotations the word ap
pears naturaUy with the double augment avreKariarnre.
7. els NADKL, Vulg. Syr. Copt., Sea.
16. ottISoto NDKL. In AC dwiSero, which is probably a mere
oversight, and a form which has no authority.
18. \|>T|Xa<p(Dplv(a Kal KtKavpe'vw irvpC The Spei of DEL Vulg.
followed by the rec. is a gloss, not found in NAC and many ver
sions. It is perhaps due to the Xiuv 6pei of ver. 22.
Kal -yvdcpu) Kal Jd(p({> AC. The MSS. vary considerably, but the
aKbrij> of the rec. is probably taken by L from Deut. iv. 11, v. 22.

1 52 HEBREWS. [XII. 1—
20. [t) /3oX*5i KaTaToJeverio-erai]. An ill-supported gloss from Ex.
xix. 13.
28. ex(HH-ev...XaTpe'6<i>pev ACDL. In the constant variations of
the MSS. between the indicative and the hortative in all similar pas
sages, it is not easy to be sure of the reading.
peTd evXaPeCas Kal Slovs AC. The MSS. vary ; the perd alSoOs Kal
eiX. of the rec. is found in KL.

Ch. XH. An exhortation to faithful endurance (1 — 3) and a reminder
that our earthly sufferings are due to the fatherly chastisement
of God (4 — 13). The need of earnest watchfulness (14 — 17).
Magnificent concluding appeal founded on the superiority and
grandeur of the New Covenant (18 — 24), which enhances the
guilt and peril of apostasy (25 — 29).
1 — 3. An Exhortation to patient Steadfastness.
1. Tovyapovv. A very strong particle of inference not found else
where in the N. T. except in 1 Thess. iv. 8.
Kal T)pets k.t.X. " Let us also, seeing we are compassed with so
great a cloud of witnesses... run with patience."
ve'tpos. A classical Greek and Latin, as well as Hebrew, metaphor
for a great multitude. Thus Homer speaks of " a cloud of foot-sol
diers." We have the same metaphor in Is. Ix. 8, " who are these that
fly as clouds?" (Heb.) Here, as Clemens of Alexandria says, the
cloud is imagined to be " holy and translucent."
papTvpuv. The word has not yet fully acquired its sense of " mar
tyrs. It here probably means " witnesses to the sincerity and the
reward of faith." The notion that they are also witnesses of our
Christian race lies rather in the word irepiKelp,evov, "surrounding us
on all sides," like the witnesses in a circus or a theatre (1 Cor. iv. 9).
oykov dirofllpevoi irdvTa. Lit., "stripping off at once cumbrance of
every kind." The word "weight" was used, technically, in the lan
guage of athletes, to mean "superfluous flesh," to be reduced by
training. The training requisite to make the body supple and
sinewy was severe and long-continued. Metaphorically the word
comes to mean " pride," " inflation."
evirepCoraTov. The six words " which doth so easily beset us "
represent this one Greek word, of which the meaning is uncer
tain, because it occurs nowhere else. It means Uterally "weU
standing round," or " well stood around." (1) If taken in the latter
sense it is interpreted to mean (a) " thronged," " eagerly encircled,"
and so "much admired" or " much applauded," and wiU thus put us
on our guard against sins which are popular; or (/3) " easily avoid
able," with reference to the verb vepitaraao, "avoid" (2 Tim. ii. 16;
Tit. iii. 9). The objections to these renderings are that the writer is

XII. 3.] NOTES. 153
thinking of private sins. More probably it is to be taken in the active
sense, as in the A.V. and the R.V., of the sin which either (a) " presses
closely about us to attack us"; or (/3) which "closely clings (tenaciter
inhaerens, Erasmus) to us" Uke an enfolding robe (ararbs ^x'-r^")-
The latter is almost certainly the true meaning, and is suggested by
the participle diroBipevoi, "stripping off " (comp. Eph. iv. 22). As an
athlete lays aside every heavy or dragging article of dress, so we must
strip away from us and throw aside the clinging robe of familiar sin.
The metaphor is the same as that of the word direKSiaaaBai (Col. iii.
9), which is the paraUel to diroBiaBai in Eph. iv. 22. The gay garment
of sin may at first be Ughtly put on and lightly laid aside, but it after
wards becomes like the fabled shirt of Nessus, eating into the bones as
it were fire.
dpapTCav, "sin," — all sin, not, as the A.V. would lead us to sup
pose, some particular besetting sin.
81* iiropovTJs. Endurance characterised the faith of aU these
heroes and patriarchs, and he exhorts us to endure because Christ
also endured the cross (v7rop.e(i<as). Aid with the gen. is used in clas
sical Greek also for the temper of mind.
tov irpoKeCpevov i|piv aYwva. One of the favourite metaphors of
St Paul (Phil. iii. 12—14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 24, 25 ; 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8).
2. d(pop(5vT6s. It is not possible to expresB in English the thought
suggested by this verb, which implies that we must " look away (from
other things) unto Jesus." It implies "the concentration of the
wandering gaze into a single direction.'' Comp. dwopXiTeiv xi. 26.
irCo-Teus, " of faith," rather than " of our faith."
dpxHYov. The word is the same as that used in ii. 10. In Acts iii.
15, v. 31 it is rendered "a Prince," as in Is. xxx. 4 (LXX.). By His
faithfulness (iii. 2) he became our captain and standard-bearer on the
path of faith.
TeXeia)TT|V. He leads us to " the end of our faith," which is the sal
vation of our souls (1 Pet. i. 9).
iirlpeivev o-ravpdv alo-xdvT]S KaTO(ppovTio-as. Lit., " endured a cross,
despising shame."
KeKaBiKev, " hath sat down" (i. 3, viii. 1, x. 12). The "is set down"
of the A. V. is also a perfect and means the same thing.
3. dvaXoYCo-ao-8e. Lit., "compare yourselves with." Contrast the
comparative immunity from anguish of your lot with the agony of
His (John xv. 20).
tov touivtt|v k.t.X. Who hath endured at the hand of sinners such
opposition. dvTiXoYiav, " gainsaying " or "contradiction," has already occurred
in vi. 16, vn. 7. Three uncials (N, D, E) read "against themselves."
Christ was a mark for incessant "contradiction," — "a sign whioh is
spoken against" — (Lk. ii. 34).

154 HEBREWS. [XII. 3—
Iva pi) KapT|Te Tats <|ruxa^ vpiZv IxXvopevoi. The correction of the
R. V., "that ye wax not weary , fainting in your souls," will be reck
oned by careless and prejudiced readers among the changes which
they regard as meaningless. Yet, as in hundreds of other instances,
it brings out much more fully and forcibly the exact meaning of the
original. "That ye wax not weary " is substituted for " lest ye be
weary " because the Greek verb, being in the aorist, suggests a
sudden or momentary break-down in endurance ; on the other hand,
"fainting" is in the present, and suggests the gradual relaxation of
nerve and energy which culminates in the sudden relapse. Lastly,
the word in the original is "souls," not "minds." Endurance was
one of the most needful Christian virtues in times of waiting and of
trial (Gal. vi. 9).
4 — 13. Fatherly Chastisements should be cheerfully
endured.
4. H.lxPts etfuaTos. If this be a metaphor drawn from pugilism, as
the last is from " running a race," it means that as yet they have not
" had blood drawn." This would not be impossible, for St Paul
adopts pugilistic metaphors (1 Cor. ix. 26, 27). More probably how
ever the meaning is that, severe as had been the persecutions which
they had undergone (x. 32, 33), they had not yet— and perhaps a
shade of reproach is involved in the expression — resisted up to the
point of martyrdom (Rev. xii. 11). The Church addressed can scarcely
therefore have been either the Church of Rome, which had before this
time furnished "a great multitude" of martyrs (Tac. Ann. xv. 44;
Rev. vii. 9), or the Church of Jerusalem, in which, beside the martyr
doms of St Stephen, St James the elder, and St James the Lord's
brother, some had certainly been put to death in the persecution of
Saul (Acts viii. 1).
irpds ttjv dpaprCav avTa-yroviiJopevoi, "in your struggles against
sin." Some from this expression give a more general meaning to the
clause — "You have not yet put forth your utmost efforts in your
moral warfare."
5. Kal lKXIXi]o-8e. "Yet ye have utterly forgotten," or possibly
the words may be intended interrogatively, "Yet have ye utterly
forgotten ? "
ttjs irapaKXT|o-e(i)s, " the encouragement," or " strengthening con
solation." SiaXeYeTai, " discourseth," or " reasoneth."
YU. The quotation is from Prov. iii. 11, 12, and is taken mainly
from the LXX. There is a very similar passage in Job v. 17, and
Philo de Gongr. quaerend. erudit. gr. (Opp. i. 544).
pT| dXvyuSpei. "Regard not lightly."
iraiSCas. "The training."
pTiSe IkXvov, "nor faint." In tne Hebrew it is "and loathe not
His correction."

XII. 11.] NOTES. 155
IXeYxd|Mvos, "on being tested," " corrected."
6. iraiSetiei. This blessedness of being "trained by God"
(" Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, 0 Lord, and teachest
him out of thy law," Ps. xciv. 12) is found in many parts of Scrip
ture. "As many as I love, I test {iXiyxu) and train" (iraiSeiu),
Rev. iii. 19 ; Ps. cxix. 75 ; Jas. i. 12.
pao-Tvyoi 81 k.t.X. The writer foUows the reading of the LXX., by
a slight ohange in the vowel-points, for " even as a father to a son
He is good to him."
7. els iraiSCav vrroplveTe. The true reading is not el, " if" (which
is followed by the A. V., but for whioh there is hardly any good
authority), but eis, "unto." "It is for training that ye endure," or
better, "Endure ye, for training," i.e. "regard your trials as a part
of the moral training designed for you in love and mercy by your
Father in Heaven."
vpiv irpoo-(p!peTai. " In dealing with you." Here only in the N. T.
in this sense.
tCs Ydp vlds. The thought and its application to our relationship
towards God are also found in Deut. viii. 5 ; 2 Sam. vii. 14 ; Prov.
xiii. 24.
8. irdvTes. He speaks of God's blessed and disciplinary chastise
ment as a gift in which all His sons have their share.
dpa. See note on iv. 9.
9. IvcTpeirdpeBa. In classical Greek this verb is found with the
gen. but in later Greek with an ace. as here. Comp. Matt. xxi. 37,
ivrpairqaovrai rbv vlbv pov, Lk. xviii. 4, dvBpuirov ovk ivrpiiropai.
to iraTpl tov irvevpaTOv. God might be called " the Father of the
spirits," as having created Angels and Spirits; but more probably the
meaning is " the Father of our spirits," as in Num. xvi. 22, " the God
of the spirits of aU flesh." God made our bodies and our souls, but
our spirits are in a yet closer relation to Him (Job xii. 10, xxxii. 8,
xxxiii. 4 ; Eccl. xii. 7 ; Zech. xii. 1 ; Is. xiii. 5, Sec). If it meant "the
Author of spiritual gifts," the expression would be far-fetched, and
would be no contrast to " the father of our flesh." Here aud in
vii. 10 theologians have introduced the purely verbal, meaningless,
and insoluble dispute about Creationism and Traducianism — i.e. as
to whether God separately creates the soul of each one of us, or
whether we derive it through our parents by hereditary descent from
Adam. 10. irpds oXCyos TJplpas. Comp. irpos Kaipbv Lk. viii. 13.
KaTd tA Sokovv ovtois. "As seemed good to them." He is con
trasting the brief authority of parents, and their liability to error, and
even to caprice, with the pure love and eternal justice of God.
11. x^*8, "A matter of joy"; the gen. of a property, or perhaps
of the sphere to which a thing belongs. Winer, p. 244.

156 HEBREWS. [XII. 11—
vo-repov 81 k.t.X. The original is expressed in the emphatic and
oratorical style of the writer, ' ' but afterwards it yieldeth a peaceful
fruit to those who have been exercised by it — (the fruit) of righteous
ness." He means that though the sterner aspect of trammg is never
pleasurable for the time, it results in righteousness — in moral hardi
hood and serene self-mastery — to all who have been trained in these
gymnasia (yeyvpvaapivois). See Rom. v. 2 — 5.
12. 8id. The poetic style, and even the metrical form of diction,
in these two verses (of which ver. 13 contains a complete hexameter,
Kal rpoxids ipBds ironware rois iroalv vpuv
and half an iambic, tva p.7j tA xw^0" iKTpairfj),
reflect the earnestness of the writer, as he gives more and more ela
boration to his sentences in approaching the climax of his appeal.
It is most unlikely that they are quotations from Hellenistic poets,
for the first agrees closely with' Prov. iv. 26 (LXX.). On these acci
dentally metrical expressions see my Early Days of Christianity,
i. 464, n. 14.
Tds irapeipevas xe^P0S k.t.X. Lit., " straighten out the relaxed hands
and the palsied knees." Make one effort to invigorate the flaccid
muscles which should be so tense in the struggle in which you are
engaged. The writer is thinking of Deut. xxxii. 36 ; Is. xxxv. 3 ;
Ecclus. xxv. 23, and perhaps of the metaphors of the race and the
fight which he has just used.
13. iKTpairfj. Lit. ," that the lame (i.e. lameness) may not be quite
out of joint, but may rather be cured." The verb inTpairij may mean
"be turned out of the way," as in 1 Tim. i. 6, v. 15; 2 Tim. iv. 4;
but as it is a technical term for " spraining" or " dislocation" it may
have that meaning here, especially as' he has used two medical terms
in the previous verse, and has the metaphor of "healing" in his
thoughts. The writer may have met with these terms in ordinary
life, or in his intercourse with St Luke, with whose language he shews
himself familiar throughout the Epistle. Intercourse with the be
loved physician is perhaps traceable in some of the medical terms of
St Paul's later Epistles (see Dean Plumptre's papers on this subject in
the Expositor, rv. 134 (first series). But tA xwXdv is a natural meta
phor for weakness, and may be derived from the curious translation
of the LXX. in 1 K. xviii. 21, (us Trore vpets x^Xaveire iirl dp(poripais
rais lyviais ;
taBfj 81 paXXoy. Is. Ivii. 17—19.
14 — 17. Need of earnest Watchfulness.
14. perd irdvTOv. The word "men" is better omitted, for doubtless
the writer is thinking mainly of peace in the bosom of the little
Christian community — a peace which, even in these early days, was
often disturbed by rival egotisms (Rom. xiv. 19 ; 2 Tim. u. 22).

XII. 17.] NOTES. 157
Kal tov aYiao-pdv. "And the sanctification" (ix. 13, x. 10, 29,
xiii. 12).
o{! xwpts. We have here in succession two iambics :
ov x°>pls ovSels diperai rov Kipiov,
iiriaKOirovvres pr] rts varepuv a7rd.
15. vo-repwv K.T.X. Lit., "whether there be any man who is falling
short of" or possibly " faUing back from the grace of God." We have
aUeady noticed that not improbably the writer has in view some one
individual instance of a tendency towards apostasy, which might have
a fatal influence upon other weary or wavering brethren (comp.
ui. 12). For iarepeiv diro we find eKKXlveiv dirb in Num. xxii. 32.
IvoxXij. The words "root of bitterness" are a reference to Deut.
xxix. 18, " a root that beareth gall and wormwood," or, as in the
margin, "a poisonful herb." Here the LXX. in the Vatican MS. has
ev x°XS "in gall," for evoxXjj, "should trouble you." But the Alex
andrian MS., which the writer habituaUy follows in his quotations,
has evoxXy. Some have supposed that there is a curious aUusion to
this verse and to the reading " in gall " in the apparent reference to
this Epistle by the Muratorian Canon as " the Epistle to the Alex
andrians current under the name of Paul, but forged in the interests
of Marcion's heresy," which adds that " gall ought not to be mixed
with honey." The allusion is, however, very doubtful.
01 iroXXoC. " The ¦ms.nj." Comp. 1 Cor. v. 6 (" a little leaven ");
1 Cor. xv. 33 (" evil communications ") ; Gal. v. 9.
16. irdpvos. The word must be taken in a literal sense, since
Esau was not "an idolater." If is true that Esau is not charged with
fornication in the Book of Genesis (which only speaks of his heathen
marriages, xxvi. 34, xxviii. 8), but the writer is probably alluding to
the Jewish Haggadah, with which he was evidently familiar. There
Esau is represented in the blackest colours, as a man utterly sensual,
intemperate, and vile, which is also the view of Philo (see Siegfried,
Philo, p. 254).
pipTjXos. A man of coarse and unspiritual mind (Gen. xxv. 33).
Philo explained the word "hairy" to mean that he was sensuous and
lustful. ovtI ppuo-eus pids. " For one meal" (Gen. xxv. 29 — 34).
17. peTlireiTa. The verse runs Uterally, "for ye know that even,
afterwards, when he wished to inherit the blessing, he was rejected^-for
he found no opportunity for a change of mind — though with tears he
earnestly sought for it." It is clear at once that if the writer means
to say " that Esau earnestly sought to repent, but could not," then he
is contradicting the whole tenor of the Scriptures, and of the Gospel
teaching with which he was so famihar. This would not indeed
furnish us with any excuse for distorting the meaning of his language,
if that meaning be unambiguous ; and in favour of such a view of his

iS8 HEBREWS. [XII. 17—
words is the fact that he repeatedly dwells on the hopelessness—
humanly speaking — of aU wilful apostasy. On the other hand, "apo
stasy," when it desires to repent, ceases to be apostasy, and the very
meaning of the Gospel is that the door to repentance is never closed
by God, though the sinner may close it against himself. Two modes
of interpreting the text would save it from clashing with this precious
truth. (1) One is to say (a) that " room for repentance" means " op
portunity for changing his father's or his brother's purpose"; no
subsequent remorse or regret could undo the past or alter Isaac's
blessing (Gen. xxvii. 33) ; or (p) no room for changing his own mind
in such a way as to recover the blessing which he had lost ; in other
words, he "found no opportunity for such repentance as would restore
to him the lost theocratic blessing." But in the N. T. usage the word
"repentance" (perdvoia) is always subjective, and has a deeper mean
ing than in the LXX. The same objection applies to the explanation
that " he found no room to change God's purpose," to induce God " to
repent" of His rejection of him, since God "is not a man that He
should repent" (Num. xxiii. 19). (2) It seems simpler therefore, and
quite admissible, to regard " for he found no place for repentance" as
a parenthesis, and refer "it" to the lost blessing. (So the R.V.)
" Though he earnestly sought the lost blessing, even with tears, when
(perhaps forty years after his shameful indifference) he wished once
more to inherit it, yet then he found no room for repentance"; or in
other words his repentance, bitter as it was, could not avert the earthly
consequence of his profanity, and was unavailing to regain what he
had once flung away. As far as his earthly life was concerned, he
heard the awful words " too late." The text gives no ground for pro
nouncing on Esau's future fate, to which the writer makes no aUusion
whatever. His "repentance," if it failed, could only have been a
spurious repentance — remorse for earthly foolishness, not godly sorrow
for sin, the dolor amissi, not the dolor admissi. This explanation
accords with the sense of " locus poenitentiae," the Latin translation of
tottos peravoias. The phrase itself occurs in Wisd. xii. 10. The abuse
of this passage to support the merciless severity of the Novatians was
one of the reasons why the Epistle was somewhat discredited in the
Western Church.
peTa SaKpvwv. ' ' In former days he might have had it without tears ;
afterwards he was rejected, however sorely he wept. Let us use the
time" (Lk. xiii. 28). Bengel.

tr
l-OF

18 — 29. The Mercy and Sublimity of the New Covenant as con?]
TRASTED WITH THE OLD (18 — 24) ENHANCE THE GUILT AND PeRIlI
of the Backslider (25 — 29). -J
18. Ov Ydp. At the close of his arguments and exhortations the
writer condenses the results of his Epistle into a climax of magnificent
eloquence and force, in which he shews the transcendent beauty and ¦
supremacy of the New Covenant as compared with the terrors and
imperfections of the Old.

XIT. 21.] NOTES. 159
i|/nXacpwplvw Kal KeKavplvu irvpC. Unless we allow the textual
evidence to be overruled by the other considerations, which are techni
cally called "paradiplomatic evidence," the_ verse should be rendered
" For ye are not come near to a palpable and enkindled fire." In any
caseThe aUusion is to Ex. xix. 16—19; Deut. iv. 11, and generally to
"the fiery law." The present participle ipnX. here means "which
could be felt" because the capability is involved in the property ; just
as to pXeirbpeva may mean "things which can be seen." Winer,
p. 431.
Yvd(pu. Deut. iv. 11, v. 22.
19. o-dXiriYYOS. Ex. xix. 16, 19, xx. 18.
(puvrj pT)pdTwv. Deut. iv. 12.
TrapTjTTJo-avTo. The verb means Uterally " to beg off."
pf|. The common redundant negative (expressing the negative
result) after verbs of denying. See Winer, p. 755.
\kf Trpoo-reBT|vai k.t.X. Lit., " that no word more sliould be added to
them" (Deut. v. 22—27, xviii. 16 ; Ex. xx. 19).
20. ovk ^(pepov Y<ip k-t.X. " For they endured not the injunc
tion, If even a beast..." (Ex. xix. 12, 13). This injunction seemed to
them to indicate an awful terror and sanctity in the environment of
the mountain. It filled them with alarm. The Jewisb TTagnaAah sa.id
that ni the nttpranna nf pack nnmrmnirmPTit thp Taraalires remilpd
twelve miles, and_were_Qnly brought forward again by tVip ministering
angelsT St Paul, in different style, contrasts "the Mount Sinai which
gendereth to bondage" with "the Jerusalem which is free and the
mother of us aU" (Gal. iv. 24—26).
7) P0XIS1 KaTaTo^evB-qaerai. This clause is a gloss added from Ex.
xix. 13. Any man who touched the mountain was to be stoned, any
beast to be transfixed (Ex. xix. 13) : but the quotation is here abbre
viated, and the aUusion is summary as in vii. 5; Acts vii. 16.
21. tA (paVTO^dpeVOV. " The ^Ifydmir nf tii* ^Dctnole" (hp.rp nn]y
in N.T.). The true punctuation of the verse is And — so fearful was
thTspectacle — Moses said...
"EK(f>opds etpi k.t.X. No such speech of Moses at Sinai is recorded
in the Pentateuch. The writer is either drawing from the Jewish
Haggadah or (by a mode of citation not uncommon) is compressing
two incidents into one. For in Dent, ix. 19 Moses, after the apostasy
of Israel in worshipping the Golden Calf, "said " I was afraid (LXX.
Kai eK0o|3o's elpi) of the anger and hot displeasure of the Lord," and in
Acts vii. 32 .we find the words "becoming a-tremble" (Ivrpopos yevb-
/xevos) to express the fear of Moses on seeing the Burning Bush (though
here also there is no mention of any trembUng in Ex. hi. 6). The
tradition of Moses' terror is found in Jewish writings. Igjgggihaift)
f. 88. 2 he exclaims " Lord of the Universe, I am afraid lest they (the

160 HEBREWS. [XII. 21—
Angels) should consume me with the breath of their mouths." Comp.
Midrash Koheleth, f. 69. 4.
22. Siwvopei... The true Sion is the antitype of all the promises
with which the name had been connected (Ps. ii. 6, xlviU. 2, lxxviii.
68, 69, cxxv. 1 ; Joel U. 32 ; Mic. iv. 7). Hence the names of Sion
and "the heavenly Jerusalem" are given to "the city of the Uving
God" (GaL iv. 26; Rev. xxi. 2). Sinai and Mount Sion are contrasted
with each other in six particulars. Bengel and others make out an
elaborate sevenfold antithesis here. (
pvpido-iv dyyiXav... This punctuation is suggested by the word
"myriads," which is often apphed to angels (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps.
lxviii. 17 ; Dan. vii. 10). But under the New Covenant the Angels are
surrounded with attributes, not of terror but of beauty and goodness
(i. 14; Rev. v. 11, 12).
23. iravT)Yvpei. The word means a general festive assembly, as in
Cant. vi. 13 (LXX.). It has been questioned whether both clauses
refer to Angels — " To myriads of Angels, a Festal Assembly, and
Church of Firstborn enrolled in Heaven" — or whether two classes of
the Blessed are intended, viz. "To myriads of Angels, (and) to a
Festal Assembly and Church of Firstborn." The absence of "and"
before irarfyvpis makes this latter construction doubtful, and the first
construction is untenable because the Angels are never called in the
N.T. either "a Church" (but see Ps. Ixxxix. 5) or "Firstborn." On
the whole the best and simplest way of taking the text seems to be
"But ye are come... to Myriads — a Festal Assembly of Angels — and
to the Church of the Firstborn... and to spirits of the Just who have
been perfected."  '
.^-dTTOYeYPap.|1e'v<0V Iv ovpavois- " Who have been enrolled in heaven."
This refers to the Church of living Christians, to whom the Angels
are " ministering spirits," and whose names, though they are stiU
living on earth, have been enrolled in the heavenly registers (Lk. x.
20; Rom. viu. 16, 29; Jas. i. 18) as "a kind of firstfruits of His
creatures" unto God and to the Lamb (Rev. xiv. 4). These, Uke
Jacob, have inherited the privileges of firstborn which the Jews, Uke
Esau, have rejected.
KpiTTj 8e(ji irdvTOv. Into whose hands, rather than into the hands
of man, it is a blessing to fall, because He is "the righteous Judge"
(2 Tim. iv. 8).
TereXeKoplvuv. That is, to saints now glorified and perfected — i.e.
brought to the consummation of their course — in heaven (Rev. vii.
14 — 17). This has been interpreted only of the glorified saints of the
Old Covenant, but there is no reason to confine it to them. The
writer tells the Hebrews that they have come not to a flaming hiU,
and a thunderous darkness, and a terror-stricken multitude, but to
Mount Sion and the Heavenly Jerusalem, where they wiU be united
with the Angels of joy and mercy (Lk. xv. 10), with the happy Church

XII. 26.] NOTES. 161
of bring Saints, and with the spirits of the Just made perfect. The
three clauses give us a beautiful conception of "the Communion of
the Saints above and the Church below" with myriads of Angels
united in a Festal throng, in a Heaven now ideally existent and soon
to be actually realised.
24. SiaBrjKTis vias peo-CrTj. " Mediator of a New Covenant." The
word for "new" is here vias ("new in time"), not Kaivijs ("fresh in
quality"), implying not only that it is "fresh" or "recent," but also
young and strong (Matt. xxvi. 27 — 29 ; Heb. ix. 15, x. 22).
irapd tAv "APeX. Better things "than Abel" is a comparatio com-
pendiaria for " than the blood of Abel." The allusion is explained by
ix. 13, x. 22, xi. 4, xiii. 12. " The blood of Abel cried for vengeance;
that of Christ for remission" (Erasmus). In the original Hebrew it-
is (Gen. iv. 10) "The voice of thy brother's bloods crieth from the
ground," and' this was explained by the Rabbis of his blood "sprinkled
on the trees and stones." Itjwas a_curious Jewish Haggadah that the
dispute between Cain and Abel roselrom Cain's denial tnat liod_was_
a__Judge. The " sprinkling" of the blood of Jesus, an expression
borrowed from the blood-sprinklings of the Old Covenant (Ex. xxiv.
8), is also alluded to by St Peter (1 Pet. i. 2).
25. tov XoXovvto. Not Moses, as Chrysostom supposed, but God.
The speaker isjhe same under both dispensations, different as they
are. God spoke alike from Sinai and from heaven. The difference
of the places. whence they spoke involves the whole difference oTTEeir
tone and revelations. Perhaps the writer regarded Christ as the
speaker alike from Sinai as from Heaven, for even the Jews repre
sented the Voice at Sinai as being the Voice of Michael, who was
sometimes identified with "the Shechinah," or the Angel of the
Presence. The verb for "speaketh" is xp^Mot^ovto, as in viii. 5,
xi. 7.
ovk illdMryov. ii. 2, 3, iii. 17, x. 28, 29.
irapaiTT|o-dpcvoi tAv xPIP'O-T'SovTa. The A.V. "who refused Him
that spake " is in this, as in many thousands of instances, far less
closely acourate to the exact sense of the original than the "when
they refused Him that warned them " of the R. V. There are, how
ever, instances in classical Greek as well as in N. T. where the parti
ciple without the article may be rendered as a relative in English,
e.g. Luke xiii. 1.
iroXv pdXXov. On this proportional method of statement, charac
teristic of the writer, as also of Philo, see i. 4, ui. 3, vii. 20, viii. 6.
Kuinol mistakenly renders it multo minus, and connects it with
ix(pev£bpe8a instead of oiK iKip.
ol diroo-Tpe(pdp.evoi. Not " if we turn away from " (A. V.) but "who
turn " (or "are turning") " away from."
26. yr\v lo-dXevo-ev. Ex. xix. 18; Judg. v. 4; Ps. cxiv. 7.
HEBREWS L

l62 HEBREWS. [XII. 26—
ImiYYATai. "He has promised." The verb has the sense of the
middle voice as in Rom. iv. 21.
"Eriaira|. " Again, once for all." The quotation is from Hagg. ii.
6, 7, "yet once, it is a Uttle whne" (comp. Hos. i. 4).
Kal tov ovpavdv. "For the powers of the heavens shaU be shaken "
(Lk. xxi. 26).
27. to 81 "Eti airag. The argument on the phrase "Again, yet
once for all," and the bringing it into connexion with the former
shaking of the earth at Sinai, resembles the style of argument on the
word "to-day" in Ui. 7— iv. 9; and on the word "new" in viu. 13.
uerdBeoiv. The rest of this verse may be punctuated " Signifies
the removal of the things that are being shaken as of things which
have been made, in order that things which cannot be shaken may
remain." The " things unshakeable " are God's heavenly city and
eternal kingdom (Dan. n. 44 ; Rev. xxi. 1, See.). The material world—
its shadows, symbols and all that belong to it — are quivering, unreal,
evanescent (Ps. cn. 25, 26; 2 Pet. ui. 10; Rev. xx. 11). It is only the
Ideal which is endowed with eternal reaUty (Dan. U. 44, vn. 13, 14).
This view, which the Alexandrian thpnlngy had la»mt fi-pj" fr« TMbnin
inspiration of Plato, is the reverse of the view taken by materiaUsts
andsensuaUsts. They only beUeve in what they can taste, and see,
and "grasp with both hands"; but to the fihTiatian idp^liaf, who ,
walks by faith and not by sight, the TTtikppti ia visible, (lis bpuv rbv
'Abparov (xi. 27), Td ydp dbpara a6rov...vooip£va KaSopdrai, Rom. i. 20),
and the material is only a perishing copy of an Eternal Archetype.
The earthquake which dissolves and annihilates things sensible is
powerless against the Things Invisible.
tva. Bleek and De Wette make the Iva dependent on ttjv p^rdBeaw.
ueCvtj. The aor. shews the meaning to be that the threatened con
vulsion wiU at once test the quaUty of permanence of the things not
to be shaken.
28. Sid. This splendid strain of comparison and warning ends
with a brief and solemn appeal.
exopev xdp w. " Let us have grace," or "let us feel thankfulness,
whereby, See."
prrd evXaPeCas (v. 7, xi. 7) Kal Slovs. "With godly caution and
fear." The word Sios for "fear" does not occur elsewhere in the
N.T. 29. Kal Yap. Comp. iv. 2.
irvp KaTavaXCo-Kov. The reference is to Deut. iv. 24, and the special
application of the description to one set of circumstances shews that
this is not. — like " God is Ught " and " God is love " — a description of
the whole character of God, but an anthropomorphic way of express
ing His hatred of apostasy and idolatry. Here the reference is made
to shew why we ought to serve God with holy reverence and fear.

XIII. 2.] NOTES. 163

CHAPTER XIII.
9. irapo(f>!peo-8e NACDM. The irepi(pipea8e of the rec. (EL) comes
from Eph. iv. 14.

Ch. XIII. Concluding Exhortations to Love (1) ; HospitaUty (2) ;
Kindness to Prisoners and the Suffering (3) ; Purity of Life (4) ;
Contentment (5); Trustfulness (6); Submission to Pastoral
Authority (7, 8) ; Steadfastness and Spirituality (9) ; The Altar,
the Sacrifice, and the Sacrifices of the Christian (10 — 16) ; The
Duty of Obedience to Spiritual Authority (17). Concluding
Notices and Benedictions (18 — 25).
We may notice that the style of the writer in this chapter offers
more analogies to that- of St Paul than in the rest of the Epistle
(comp. Bom. xii. 1 — 21, xiv. 17, xv. 33 with 1 — 6, 9, 20) ; the reason
being that these exhortations are mostly of a general character, and
probably formed a characteristic feature in all the Christian corre
spondence of this epoch. They are almost of the nature of theological
loci communes.
1. 'H 4>iXaSeX(pCa. "Your brotherly affection." Not only was
" brotherly love " a new and hitherto almost undreamed of virtue but
it was pecuUarly necessary among the members of a bitterly-perse
cuted sect. Hence all the Apostles lay constant stress upon it (Rom.
xn. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 9; 1 Pet. i. 22; 1 John in. 14—18, Sec). It was
a special form of the more universal "Love" ('Aydirrj), and our Lord
had said that by it the world should recognise that Christians were
His disciples (John xin. 35). How entirely this prophecy was fulfilled
we see aUke from the fervid descriptions of Tertullian, from the mock
ing admissions of Lucian in his curious aud interesting tract " on the
death of Peregrinus" (§ 16), and from the remark of the Emperor
Julian (Ep. 49), that their "kindness towards strangers" had been a
chief means of propagating their "atheism." But brotherly-love in
the limits of a narrow community is often imperilled by the self-
satisfaction of egotistic and dogmatic orthodoxy, shewing itself in
party rivalries. This may have been the case among these Hebrews
as among the Corinthians ; and the neglect by some of the gatherings
for Christian worship (x. 25) may have tended to deepen the sense of
disunion. The disunion however was only incipient, for the writer
has already borne testimony to the kindness which prevailed among
them (vi. 10, x. 32, 33).
2. (fnXogevCas. The hospitality of Christians (what Julian caUs
r) irepl £ivovs (piXavBpuirla) was naturally exercised chiefly towards the
brethren. The absence of places of pubUc entertainment except in
the larger towns, and the constant interchange of letters and mes
sages between Christian communities — a happy practice which also
prevailed among the Jewish Synagogues — made "hospitality" a very
L2

164 HEBREWS. [XIII. 2—
necessary and blessed practice. St Peter tells Christians to be hospi
table to one another ungrudgingly, and unmurmuringly, though it
must sometimes have been burdensome (1 Pet. iv. 9 ; comp. Rom.
xii. 13; Tit. i. 8 ; 1 Tim. iu. 2). We find similar exhortations in the
Talmud (Berachoth, f. 63. 2 ; Shabbath, f. 27. 1). The " Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles " shews that hospitality to wandering teachers
was an ordinary duty.
dYY&ovs. Abraham (Gen. xvui. 2 — 22. Lot (Gen. xix. 1, 2).
Manoah (Judg. xiu. 2—14). Gideon (Judg. vi. 11—20). Our Lord
taught that we may even entertain Him — the King of Angels — un
awares. " I was a stranger, and ye took Me in " (Matt. xxv. 35 — 40).
There is an aUusion to this "entertaining of angels" in PhUo, De
Abrahamo (Opp. n. 17). The classic verb rendered "unawares" (i\a-
flov) is not found elsewhere in the N. T. in this sense, and forms a
happy paronomasia with "forget not." The verb is used adverbially,
" unconsciously." 3. tov Seo-pCuv. Comp. Col. iv. 18.
us o-vvSe8epevoi. Lit., " as having been bound with them." In the
perfectness of sympathy their bonds are your bonds (1 Cor. xii. 26),
for you and they alike are Christ's slaves (1 Cor. vii. 22) and Christ's
captives (2 Cor. ii. 14 in the Greek). This seems to be the meaning
rather than that the Hebrew Christians too have had their own per
sonal experience of imprisonment for the faith. Luciah's tract (re
ferred to in the previous note) dwells on the effusive kindness of
Christians to their brethren, who 'were imprisoned as confessors.
Iv o-upaTi. And therefore as being yourselves Uable to similar
maltreatment. "In the body" does not mean "in the body of the
Church," but "human beings, born to suffer." You must therefore
"weep with them that weep" (Rom. xii. 15). The expressions of the
verse (KaKovxovpivuv, us «ai airol ivres iv aapari) read like a remi
niscence of Philo (De Spec. Legg. § 30) who says «s iv tois iripuv
aupaaiv airol KaKoipevoi, " as being yourselves also afflicted in the
bodies of others "; but if so the reminiscence is only verbal, and the
application more simple. Incidentally the verse shews how much the
Christians of that day were called upon to endure.
4. Ttpios d vapos k.t.X. Probably this is an exhortation, "Let
marriage be held honourable among aU," or rather "in aU respects."
Scripture never gives even the most incidental sanction to the exalta
tion of celibacy as a superior virtue, or to the disparagement of mar
riage as an inferior state. CeUbacy and marriage stand on an exactly
equal level of honour according as God has called us to the one or the
other state. The mediaeval glorification of Monachism sprang partly
from a rehgion of exaggerated gloom and terror, and partly from a
complete misunderstanding of the sense applied by Jewish writers to
the word "Virgins." Nothing can be clearer than the teaching on
this subject alike of the Old (Gen. ii. 18, 24) and of the New Covenant
(Matt. xix. 4—6; John ii. 1, 2; 1 Cor. vu. 2). There is no "forbid-

XIII. 5.] NOTES. 165
ding to marry " (1 Tim. iv. 1 — 3) among Evangelists and Apostles.
They shared the deep conviction which their nation had founded on
Gen. i. 27, U. 18 — 24 and which our Lord had sanctioned (Matt. xix.
4 — 6). The warning in this verse is against unchastity. If it be
aimed against a tendency to disparage the married state it would
shew that the writer is addressing some Hebrews who had adopted in
this matter the prejudices of the Essenes (1 Tim. iv. 3). In any case
the truth remains "Honourable is marriage in aU"; it is only lawless
passions which are "passions of dishonour" (Rom. i. 26).
Iv irdo-iv. This may mean "in aU things" as in verse 18; or
"among aU," which would however be normaUy expressed by 7rapd
rrdaiv. In the A.V. iariv is supphed, in the R.V. laru.
dpCavros- "And let the bed be undefiled" by adultery. A warning
to Antinomians (such for instance as the Nicolaitans, Rev. u. 6, 15)
who made Ught of unchastity (Acts xv. 20 ; 1 Thess. iv. 6).
irdpvovs. Christianity introduced a wholly new conception regard
ing the sin of fornication (GaL v. 19, 21 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10 ; Eph. v. 5 ;
Col. Ui. 5, 6 ; Rev. xxn. 15) which, especiaUy in the depraved deca
dence of Heathenism under the Empire, was hardly regarded as any
sin at all. Hence the necessity for constantly raising a warning voice
against it (1 Thess. iv. 6, Sec).
Kpivei. The more because they often escape altogether the judge
ment of man (1 Sam. ii. 25; 2 Sam. iii. 39).
5. 6 Tpdrros. Lit.," Let your turn of mind be unavaricious." In
the A.V. it is "Let your conversation be without covetousness "; but
the word here used is not the one generaUy rendered by ' ' conversa
tion" in the N.T. (avaarpixpT) as in ver. 7, "general walk," Gal. i. 13;
Eph. n. 3), or "citizenship" {rroXlrevpa, as in Plul. i. 27, Ui. 20), but
"turn of mind" (TpoVos).
dcfnXdpvvpos. Not merely without covetousness (irXeovegla) but
"without love of money." It is remarkable that " covetousness " and
" uncleanness " are constantly placed in juxtaposition in the N.T.
(1 Cor. v. 10, vi. 9; Eph. v. 3, 5; Col. iii. 5).
dpKovpcvoi. The form oi the sentence "Let your turn of mind be
without love of money, being content " is the same as r) dyain\ dwirb-
Kpiros, diroarvyovvTes in Rom. xu. 9. The few marked similarities
between this writer and St Paul only force the radical dissiirnlarity
between their styles into greater prominence ; and as the writer had
almost certainly read the Epistle to the Romans a striking syntactical
peculiarity Uke this may weU have lingered in his memory.
avTos Ydp etpT|Kev. " Himself hath said." The "Himself" of course
refers to God, and the phrase of citation is common in the Rabbis
("IOK Kin). "He" and "I" are, as DeUtzsch says, used by the Rabbis
as mystical names of God.
Ov pTj o-e dvu k.t.X. These words are found (in the third person)
in Deut. xxxi. 6, 8 ; 1 Chron. xxviii. 20, and similar promises, in the

1 66 HEBREWS. [XIII. 5—
first person, in Gen. xxviii. 15 ; Josh. i. 5 ; Is. xii. 17. The very
emphatic form of the citation (first with a double then with a triple
negation), " I will in no wise faU, neither will I ever in any wise for
sake thee," does not occur either in the Hebrew or the LXX., but it is
found in the very same words in PhUo (De Confus. Ling. § 32), and
since we have had occasion to notice again and again the thorough
familiarity of the writer with Philo's works, it is probable that he
derived it from Philo, unless it existed in some proverbial or liturgical
form among the Jews. The triple negative oiS' oi pij is found in Matt.
xxiv. 21.
6. BappovvTas- " We boldly say," not as in A.V. " we may boldly
say." Kvpios. Ps. cxviii. 6.
ov (poprjBi]o-opai. " I will not fear. What shall man do unto me J"
The rendering of the A.V. "I will not fear what man shall do unto
me" is ungrammatical, as is that of the Vulg., "Non timebo quid
faciat mihi homo."
7. tov TJYOvp!vcov...oiTives. " Your leaders, who spoke to you";
for, as the next clause shews, these spiritual leaders were dead. At
this time the ecclesiastical organisation was stnl unfixed. The vague
term "leaders" (found also in Acts xv. 22), like the phrase "those
set over you" (irpo'CaTiipevoi, 1 Thess. v. 12) means "bishops" and
_" presbyters," the two terms being, in the ApostoUc age, practicaUy
identical. In later ecclesiastical Greek this word (nyoipevoi) was used
for "abbots."
av dvafleupovvTes k.t.X. In the emphatic order of the original,
" and earnestly contemplating the issue of their conversation, imitate
their faith."
ttjv IkPoo-iv. Not the ordinary word for "end" (tIXos) but the
very unusual word iKpaaiv, "outcome." This word in the N.T. is
found only in 1 Cor. x. 13, where it is rendered " escape." In Wisd.
ii. 17 we find, "Let us see if his words be true, and let us see what
shall happen at his end " (ev iKpdaei). It here seems to mean death,
but not necessarily a death by martyrdom. It merely means "imitate
them, by being faithful unto death." The words ?|o5os " departure"
(Lk. ix. 31 ; 2 Pet. i. 15) and drifts (Acts xx. 29) are similar euphe
misms for death.
8. 'It|o-ovs Xpio-TAs...A avTos. " Jesus Christ is the same" (comp.
i. 12). ^ The A. V. by its omission of the copula seems to connect this
with tt> (Kpaaiv as if Jesus Christ were the "end of their conversation,"
which it is scarcely necessary to say is impossible. The coUocation
" Jesus Christ" is in this Epistle only found elsewhere in ver. 21 and
x. 10. He commonly says "Jesus " in the true reading (U. 9 iii. 1
vi. 20 &c.) or "Christ" (iii. 6, 14, v. 5, &c). He also has "the
Lord (ii. 3), "our Lord" (vii. 14), and "our Lord Jesus" (xiii. 20).
Christ Jesus," which is so common in St Paul, only occurs as a
very dubious various reading in iii. 1.

XIII. 10.] NOTES. 167
IvBIs k.t.X. See vii. 24. The order of the Greek is "yesterday
and to-day the same, and to the ages." See i. 12 ; Mal. iii. 6 ; Jas.
i. 17. The unchangeableness of Christ is a reason for not being swept
about by winds of strange teaching.
9. SiSaxats k.t.X. Lit., " With teachings various and strange be
ye not swept away." From the aUusion to various kinds of food
which immediately foUows we infer that these "teachings" were not
like the incipient Gnostic speculations against which St Paul and St
John had to raise a warning voice (Eph. iv. 14 ; Col. ii. 8 ; 1 John iv.
1), but the minutiae of the Jewish Halachah with its endless refine
ments upon, and inferences from, the letter of the Law ; possibly
doctrines akin to those of the Essenes. This is the sort of teaching
of which the Talmud is full, and most of it has no real connexion
with true Mosaism.
koXov- " A beautiful or excellent thing."
XapiTi. By the favour or mercy of God as a pledge of our real
security. ov Ppupxuriv. Not by minute and pedantic distinctions between
various kinds of clean and unclean food (ix. 10). The word Ppapara,
" kinds of food," was never apphed to sacrifices. On the urgency of
the question of "meats" to the early Christians see my Life of St
Paul, 1. 264.
ovk (»(peXTJBT|o-av. These outward rules were of no real advantage
to the Jews under the Law. As Christianity extended, the Rabbis
gave a more and more hostile elaboration and significance to the
Halachoth, which decided about the degrees of uncleanness in different
kinds of food, as though salvation itself depended on the scrupulosities
and micrologies of Rabbinism. The reader wiU find some iUustra-
tions of these remarks in my Life of St Paul, 1. ,264. The importance
of these or analogous questions to the early Jewish Christians may
be estimated by the aUusions of St Paul (Rom. xiv. ; Col. ii. 16 — 23 ;
1 Tim. iv. 3, &c). No doubt these warnings were necessary because
the Jewish Christians were liable to the taunt, "You are breaking the
law of Moses; you are Uving GentUe-fashion (iBviKus) not Jewish-
wise (lovSa'iKus) ; you neglect the Kashar (rules which regulate the
slaughter of clean and unclean animals, which the Jews scrupulously
observe to this day) ; you feed with those who are poUuted by habi
tually eating swine's flesh." These were appeals to " the eternal
Pharisaism of the human heart," and the intensity of Jewish feeling
respecting them would have been renewed by the conversions to
Christianity. The writer therefore reminds the Hebrews that these
distinctions involve no real advantage (vii. 18, 19).
10 — 16. The One Sacrifice of the Christian, and the Sacrifices
which he must offer.
10. exopev 6vo-iao-TTJpiov. These seven verses form a little episode
of argument in the midst of moral exhortations. They revert once
more to the main subject of the Epistle — the contrast between the

168 HEBREWS. [XIII. 10—
two dispensations. The connecting link in the thought of the writer
is to be found in the Jewish boasts to which he has just referred in
the word "meats." Besides trying to alarm the Christians by de
nunciations founded on their indifference to the Levitical Law and
the oral traditions based upon it, the Jews would doubtless taunt
them with their inabiUty henceforth to share in eating the sacrifices
(1 Cor. ix. 13), since they were aU under the Cherem — the ban of
Jewish excommunication. The writer meets the taunt by pointing
out (in an aUusive manner) that of the most solemn sacrifices in the
whole Jewish year — and of those offered on the Day of Atonement —
not even the priests, not even the High-priest himself, could partake
(Lev. vi. 12, 23, 30, xvi. 27). But of our Sacrifice, which is Christ,
and from (If) our Altar, which is the Cross — on which, as on an
altar, our Lord was offered — we may eat. The "Altar" is here
understood of the Cross, not only by Bleek and De Wette, but even
by St Thomas Aquinas and Estius ; but the mere figure implied by
the " altar" is so subordinate to that of our participation in spiritual
privileges that if it be regarded as an objection that the Cross was
looked on by Jews as " the accursed tree," we may adopt the alterna
tive view suggested by Thomas Aquinas — that the Altar means Christ
Himself. To eat' from it will then be "to partake of the fruit of
Christ's Passion." So too Cyril says, "He is Himself the Altar."
We therefore have loftier privileges than they who " serve the taber
nacle." The other incidental expressions wUl be iUustrated as we
proceed; but, meanwhhe, we may observe that the word "Altar" is
altogether secondary and (so to speak) "out of the Figure." There
is no reference whatever to the material "table of the Lord," and only
a very indirect reference (if any) to the Lord's Supper. Nothing can
prove more strikingly and conclusively the writer's total freedom from
any conceptions resembling those of the " sacrifice of the mass" than
the fact that here he speaks of our sacrifices as being "the bullocks
of our lips." The Christian priest is only a presbyter, not a sacri
ficing priest. He is only a sacrificing priest in exactly the same
sense as every Christian is metaphoricaUy so caUed, because alike
presbyter and people offer "spiritual sacrifices," which are alone
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Pet. ii. 5). The main
point is " we too have one great sacrifice," and we (unlike the Jews,
as regards their chief sacrifice, Lev. iv. 12, vi. 30, xvi. 27) may per-
petuaUy partake of it, and live by it (John vi. 51 — 56). We live not
on anything material, which profiteth nothing, but on the words of
Christ, which are spirit and truth ; and we feed on Him — a symbol of
the close communion whereby we are one with Him — only in a
heavenly and spiritual manner.
Ig oi. Lit., "from which." It is one of the numerous forms of
constr. praegnans, implying " to take from the altar and eat."
ovk exovo-iv Ifjovo-Cav. Because they utterly reject Him whose flesh
is meat indeed and whose blood is drink indeed (John vi. 54, 55).
Forbidden to eat of the type (see ver. 11) they could not of course, in
any sense, partake of the antitype which they rejected.

XIII. 14] NOTES. 169
ttj o-kt|vxj XaTpevovTes. See viii. 5. It is remarkable that not even
here, though the participle is in the present tense, does he use the
word " Temple" or " Shrine" any more than he does throughout the
whole Epistle. There may, as Bengel says, be a slight irony in the
phrase " who serve the Tabernacle," rather than " in the Tabernacle."
11. Sj-nj ttjs irapepPoXfjs. Of the sin-offerings the Priests could not,
as in the case of other offerings, eat the entire flesh, or the breast and
shoulder, or aU except the fat (Num. vi. 20 ; Lev. vi. 26, Sea.). The
word for " burn" (saravph) means " entirely to get rid of," and is not
the word used for burning upon the altar. The rule that these sin-
offerings should be burned, not eaten, was stringent (Lev. vi. 30,
xvi. 27).
12. Sid tov 18Cov ai'paTos. Lit., " through," or "by means of His
own blood." The thought is the same as that of Tit. ii. 14, " Who
gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from aU iniquity, and
purify unto Himself a pecuUar people. " This sanctification or purify
ing consecration of His people by the blood of His own voluntary
sacrifice corresponds to the sprinkling of the atoning blood on the
propitiatory by the High-priest. For " the people," see ii. 17.
eijio ttjs ittSXt|S. ix. 26 ; Matt, xxvii. 32 ; John xix. 17, 18.
13. I£epx<°pc6a. Let us go forth out of the city and camp of
Judaism (Rev. xi. 8) to the true and eternal Tabernacle (Ex. xxxiii.
7, 8) where He now is (xii. 2). Some have imagined that the writer
conveys a hint to the Christians in Jerusalem that it is time for them
to leave the guilty city and retire to PeUa ; but, as we have seen, it is
by no means probable that the letter was addressed to Jerusalem.
tAv dveiSio-pAv avrov. The reproach which Christ bore and still
bears. "If ye be reproached," says St Peter, "for the name of
Christ, happy are ye " (comp. xi. 26). As He was excommunicated
and insulted and made to bear His Cross of shame, so wiU you be,
and you must foUow Him out of the doomed city (Matt. xxiv. 2). It
must be remembered that the Cross, an object of execration and dis
gust even to Gentiles, was viewed by the Jews with religious horror,
since they regarded every crucified person as "accursed of God"
(D*ut. xxi. 22, 23 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; see my Life of St Paul, n. 17, 148).
Christians shared this reproach to the fullest extent. The most
polished heathen writers, men like Tacitus, PUny, Suetonius, spoke
of their faith as an "execrable," "deadly," and "malefic" super
stition; Lucian aUuded to Christ as "the impaled sophist ";_ and to
many Greeks and Romans no language of scorn seemed too intense,
no calumny too infamous, to describe them and their mode of worship.
The Jews spoke of them as " Nazarenes," " Epicureans," " heretics,"
"foUowers of the hung," and especiaUy "apostates," "traitors," and
" renegades. " The notion that there is any allusion to the ceremonial
uncleannesB of those who burnt the bodies of the offerings of the Day
of Atonement "outside the camp" is far-fetched.
14. tt^v pIXXovo-av. " The city which is to be " (xi. 10, 16). Our

170 HEBREWS. [XIII. 14—
earthly city here may be destroyed, and we may be driven from it, or
leave it of our own accord ; this is nothing, — for our real citizenship
is in heaven (PhU. in. 20).
16. Bvo-Cav alvlo-ews. A thanksgiving (Jer. xvn. 26 ; Lev. vu. 12),
not in the form of an offering, but something which shaU "please the
Lord better than a buUock which hath horns and hoofs" (Ps. lxix. 31).
SiairavTos. Even the Rabbis held that the sacrifice of praise would
outlast animal sacrifices and would never cease.
Kapirov yjiiXiuv dpoXoyovvTwv t§ dvdpaTi avrov. " The fruit of lips
which confess to His name." The phrase " the fruit of the Ups" is
borrowed by the LXX. from Is. lvii. 19. In Hos. xiv. 2 we have "so
wiU we render the calves of our Ups," Uterally, "our Ups as buUocks,"
i.e. " as thank-offerings." Dr Kay notices that (besides the perhaps
accidental resemblance between i~& peri, "fruit," and CHD parim,
" calves") Kdpirupa and simUar words were used of burnt-offerings.
opoXovovvTtov t£. Like the Hebrew ? CHin.
16. koivcdvCos. To share your goods with others (Rom. xv. 26).
It is rendered " distribution" in 2 Cor. ix. 13.
Toiavrais Ydp flvo-Cais. The verse is meant to remind them that
sacrifices of weU-doing and the free sharing of their goods are even
more necessary than verbal gratitude unaccompanied by sincerity of
action (Is. xxix. 13 ; Ezek. xxxiii. 31).
17. toIs T|Yovp!vois. See ver. 7. The repetition of the injunction
perhaps indicates a tendency to self-assertion and spurious independ
ence among them. "Bishops" in the modern sense did not as yet
exist, but in the importance here attached to due subordination to
ecclesiastical authority we see the gradual growth of episcopal powers.
See 1 Thess. v. 12, 13 ; 1 Tim. v. 17.
aYpvirvovo-iv. Lit., " are sleepless."
\6yov. See Acts xx. 26, 28.
pETa Xapds. See 1 Thess. ii. 19, 20.
o-revdjovres. Lit., "groaning."
dXva-iTeXIs. A litotes — i.e. a mild expression purposely used that
the reader may correct it by a stronger one — for " disadvantageous."
18. Hpoo-evx«r8e irepl r|puv. A frequent and natural request in
Christian correspondence (1 Thess. v. 25 ; 2 Thess. iii. 1 ; Rom. xv.
30; Eph. vi. 18; Col. iv. 3). The "us" probably means "me and
those with me," shewing that the name of the writer was well known
to those addressed.
ireiBdpeBa. " We are persuaded."
KaXrjv o-vveC8T)o-iv. The writer, being one of the Paulinists, whose
freedom was so bitterly misinterpreted, finds it as necessary as St

XIII. 22.] NOTES. 171
Paul had done, to add this profession of conscientious sincerity (Acts
xxiii. 1, xxiv. 16 ; 1 Cor. iv. 4 ; 2 Cor. i. 12). These resemblances to
St Paul's method of concluding his letters are only of a general cha
racter, and we have reason to suppose that to a certain extent the
beginnings and endings of Christian letters had assumed a recognised
form. Iv irao-iv. "Among all men."
BIXovtcs. I.e. " desiring," " determining."
19. tva Taxiov diroKaTaoraflu vptv. So St Paul in PhUem. 22.
We are unable to conjecture the circumstances which for the present
prevented the writer from visiting them. It is clear from the word
" restored " that he must once have lived among them.
20. Beds ttjs e!pTJvT]s. The phrase is frequent in St Paul (1 Thess.
v. 23; 2 Thess. in. 16; Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20; Phil. iv. 9).
6 dvaYa-ywv. Among many aUusions to the Ascension and Glorifi
cation of Christ this is the only direct aUusion in the Epistle to His
Resurrection (but comp. vi. 2, xi. 35). The verb dvijyayev may be
"raised again" rather than "brought up," though there may be a
reminiscence of "the shepherd" (Moses) who "brought up" his
people from the sea in Is. lxiii. 11.
Iv atpaTi k.t.X. "By virtue of (Ut. " in") the blood of an eternal
covenant." The expression finds its full explanation in ix. 15—18.
Others connect it with " the Great Shepherd." He became the Great
Shepherd by means of His blood. So in Acts xx. 28 we have " to
shepherd the Church of God, which He purchased for Himself by
means of His own blood." A similar phrase occurs in Zech. ix. 11,
"By (or "because of") the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy
prisoners out of the pit."
21. KaTaprCo-ai. TeXeibu, the verb so often used to express " per
fecting," is here replaced by another verb — "may He fit" or " stabhsh "
or "equip you."
iroiT]o-ai...Troiuv. There is a play on the words "to do His wiU,
doing in you." There is a similar play on words in Phil. ii. 13.
<f t) Sdija k.t.X. Lit., " to whom be the glory (which is His of right)
unto the ages of the ages." The same formula occurs in Gal. i. 5 ;
2 Tim. iv. 18. The doxology may be addressed to Christ as in 2 Pet.
ui. 18.
22. dve'x«o-9e. " Bear with the word of my exhortation." Comp.
Acts xin. 15. This is a courteous apology for the tone of severity and
authority which he has assumed.
Kal Ydp. " For indeed," as in xii. 29.
8id Ppaxlov. "In paucis." "Briefly," considering the breadth
and dignity of the subject, which has left him no room for lengthened

1 7 2 HEBREWS. [XIII. 22—
apologies, and for anything but a direct and compressed appeal. Or
the force of the words may be "bear with my exhortation, for I have
not troubled you at any great length" (comp. Si' SXlyuv, 1 Pet. v. 12).
Could more meaning have been compressed into a letter which could
be read aloud in less than an hour, but which was to have a very deep
influence on many centuries 1
eirld-TeiXa. This is the epistolary aorist, and is therefore equivalent
to our perfect "I have written you a letter." This is the only place
in the N. T. (except Acts xv. 20, xxi. 25) where emariXXu has this
sense. Usually it means "I enjoin."
23. Ytv<"<rK£T£> Either "ye are aware"; or "know ye," i.e. let
me inform you.
diroXeXvplvov. The word probably means (as in Acts iii. 13, iv. 21 )
"has been set free from prison." It is intrinsically Ukely that Timothy
at once obeyed the earnest and repeated entreaty of St Paul, shortly
before his martyrdom, to come to him at Rome (2 Tim. iv. 9, 21), and
that, arriving before the Neronian persecution had spent its last force,
he had been thrown into prison. His comparative youth, and the un
offending gentleness of his character, together with the absence of
any definite charge against him, may have led to his liberation. All
this however is nothing more than reasonable conjecture. The word
airoXeXvpiivov may mean no more than official, or even ordinary,
" sending forth" on some mission or otherwise, as in Acts xui. 3, xv.
30, xix. 41, xxiii. 22.
Tdxiov. Lit. , " i/ he come sooner," i.e. earUer than I now expect
(comp. koXXiov, Acts xxv. 10 ; piXnov, 2 Tim. i. 18). This again is an
aUusion to circumstances unknown to us. Bonnie said "non est
comparativa stricte intellegenda," but it always refers to some special
fact. Comp. John xui. 27.
24. do-Trdo-ao-fle. This salutation to all their spiritual leaders im
plies the condition of Churches, which was normal at that, period —
namely, Uttle communities, sometimes composed separately of Jews
and Gentiles, who in default of one large central bunding, met for
worship in each other's houses.
ol dird ttjs 'iTaXCas. This merely means " the ItaUans in the place
from which I write," just as "they of Asia" means Asiatic Jews
(Acts xxi. 27. Comp. xvii. 13, vi. 9, Sec). The phrase therefore gives
no clue whatever to the place from which, or the persons to whom,
the Epistle was written. It merely shews that some Christians from
Italy — perhaps Christians who had fled from Italy during the Neronian
persecution — formed a part of the writer's community ; but it suggests
a not unnatural inference that it was written to some ItaUan com
munity from some other town out of Italy. Had he been writing
from Italy he would perhaps have been more likely to write ' ' those
in Italy " (comp. 1 Pet. v. 13), and some have explained the phrase as
a constr. praegnans for oi ev Ty 'IraXla dair. ipds dirb rrjs 'IraXlas. But
this is quite needlesB, and as Winer says (p. 784) "a critical argument

XIII. 25.] NOTES. 173
as to the place where the Epistle was written should never have been
founded on these words."
25. 'H \dpis (MTd TrdvTuv flpwv. This is one of the shorter forms
of final conclusion found in Col. iv. 18 ; 1 Tim. vi. 21 ; 2 Tim. iv. 22;
Tit. ui. 15.
The superscription "Written to the Hebrews from Italy by Timothy' '
is whoUy without authority, though found in K and some versions.
It contradicts the obvious inference suggested by xiii. 23, 24. We
have no clue to the bearer of the Epistle, or the local community for
which it was primarily intended, or the effect which it produced. But
it would soaroely be possible to suppose that such a composition did
not have a powerful influence in checking aU tendency to retrograde
into Judaism from the deeper and far more inestimable blessmgs of
the New Covenant. The Manuscripts $< and C have only " To the
Hebrews." A has "It was written to the Hebrews from Rome."

INDICES.

I. GENERAL.

Aaron, 57, 70, 75, 94, 97, 100,
106, 123
Abel, 161
Abraham, 50, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94,
97, 124
Adonizedek, 93
Alexandrian MS., 36, 157
altar of incense, 112
Ambrose, St, 47, 127
Amraphel, 93
Antar, poem of, 48
Antiochus, 150
ApoUos, 80, 94, 108
Ark, the, 71, 114
Athanasius, 30, 58
Atonement, Day of, 31, 54, 72,
103, 112, 113, 115, 123, 125,
168, 169
Augustine, St, 35, 82
BamabaB, 106
Bengel, 70, 158, 169
Beni-Hnnan, the, 74
Berith, 101
Bleek, 24, 58, 62, 75, 117, 168
Boethusim, 74
brotherly love, 163
Cain, 94, 161
Cajetan, Cardinal, 39, 96
Caleb, 64, 66
Calvin, 39, 82
Canon of Muratori, 157
Chaluka, 87

Chokhmah, 29
Chrysostom, St, 25, 33, 36, 63,
83, 85, 125
Cicero quoted, 31, 94
Claudius, 137
Clemens, St, of Alexandria, 89,
112, 152
Clement of Rome, 30, 32, 69, 89,
106
confidence, 63
conversation, 165
counted worthy, 58
Covenant, the new, 38, 45, 109,
110, 116, 117, 120, 121; the
old, 38, 59, 110, 111, 115, 116,
118, 120, 121, 134
Cyril, 167
David, 34, 35, 38, 45, 46, 66, 92
Day of Atonement, 31, 54, 72,
103, 112, 113, 115, 123, 168,
169
dead works, 120
Delitzsch, 64, 97, 113, 117, 128,
133, 139
Demiurge, the, 26, 143
demons, 52
de Wette, 168
Dispensation, the old, 24, 30, 32,
59, 70, 132, 138 ; the new, 24,
57, 59, 120, 125
divers manners, 25
elders, 140

176 INDEX I.

Elijah, 150
Elisha, 150
Elohim, the, 36, 38, 44, 45
embitterment, 61
entreaties, 75
Epictetus, 137
Erasmus quoted, 153, 161
Esau, 157, 158
Estius, 168
eternal judgement, 81
Eupolemos, 92
Euripides, 52, 69
Eusebius, 96
Ezra, 25, 97
faithful, 57
fear of death, 75
Field, Dr, quoted, 104, 144
forerunner, 90
foundation, 80
Fulgentius, 47
Gematria, 58, 124
Gethsemane, 55, 75
Gideon, 164
Grotius, 29, 64
Halachah, the, 167
Hebrews, author of, 26, 80 ; title
of, 23
heresy, the ApoUinarian, 76 ; the
Arian, 28 ; the Monothelite, 76
High Priest, the, 74, 103, 106, 107
High Priesthood, the, 74
Hippolytus, St, 96
holocausts, 129
Holy of Holies, the, 89, 111, 112,
113, 118
Homer quoted, 152
Horace quoted, 94, 128
household, 58
hypostasis, 30, 31
incense, altar of, 112
Irenaeus, St, 94
Jehoiakim, 150
Jehovah, 36, 37, 45, 57, 68, 92,
122

Jerome, St, 41, 92, 101, 140;
quoted, 47
Joshua, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70
Justin Martyr, 56, 82
Kamhits, the, 74
Kantheras, the, 74
Korah, 74
Leontopolis, 103, 113
Logos, 38, 57, 68, 91, 102
Lot, 93
Lucian, 88, 137, 163
Luke, St, 77, 90, 156
Liinemann, 58, 128
Luther, 42, 43, 96, 99
Maimonides, 70
Manoah, 164
Marah, 61
Marcion, 157
Melanchthon, 96, 99
Melchizedek, 57, 74, 75, 77, 81,
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97,
100, 102
mercy seat, the, 71
Midrash Tanchuma, 52
Mill, Dr, quoted, 80
MUton quoted, 27
Monophysite, 41, 47
Mosaic Law, the, 83, 89, 100
Moses, 42, 45, 57, 58, 70, 74, 107,
120
Muratori, Canon of, 157
near a curse, 85
Noah, 142
oath, 101
Olam habba, 27, 44, 83, 116
Onias, 103
Origen, 35, 41, 47, 48
Paraclete, 63
Parocheth, 89, 131
Paul, St, 108, 132, 154, 165, 172
pegarim, 64
Pentateuch, 54, 112
perfectionment, 47, 151
Peripatetics, the, 72

INDEX I.

177

Peter, St, 161, 164, 169
PhUo, 26, 35, 42, 69, 73, 83, 88,
114, 122, 128, 140
Plato, 27, 105, 162
Pompey, 111
prayers, 75
Priesthood, the High, 74
Primasius, 58
prophets, 26, 27, 59, 85
Rabbi HiUel, 42
Reuss quoted, 53
Robertson Smith quoted, 33, 52,
54
saints, 86
Salem, 91, 92, 93
Salumias, 91
salvation, 77
Shechinah, the, 30, 71, 95, 111,
114, 161
Shepherd, the Great, 171
Siddim, the Vale of, 86
slave, 59
Solfatara, the, 86
sons of oil, 75
soul, 69
Spenser quoted, 40
spoils, 97
Stanley, Dean, 92

Stoics, the, 72, 73, 76
sundry times, 25
synagogue, 132, 133
Tabernacle, the, 58, 105, 107,
111, 112, 115, 116, 123
Targum, the, 37, 45, 74, 129, 148
tempted, 71
Tennyson quoted, 89, 90
Terence quoted, 71
Tertulhan, 163
Theodoret, 24, 58, 76
Theodotion, 54
Theophylaot, 76, 98
Thomas Aquinas, St, 27, 41, 168
Timothy, 172, 173
Titus, 112
to-day, 66, 67, 162
Traducianism, 155
Urim, 25
Uzziah, 74, 99
Vatican MS., the, 36, 157
veU, the, 89, 112
Via crucis, 46
Virgh quoted, 71, 85, 92
Wordsworth quoted, 140, 143

II. GREEK.

dyaXXlaais, 39
ayairdv, 38
dydirn, 86
dyairnrbs, 86
a7eveaX67T^-os, 94, 95
dyia dyluv, 112
dyidgeiv, 50, 130
dyiaaubs, 157
ayKvpa, 89
dyvbrjpa, 115
dyvoetv, 73
dypvirveiv, 170
d7t6v, 153
dSeXipbs, 50, 56, 131
dSoKipos, 85
dSiWTos, 81, 89
dBereiv, 134
dBirnais, 125
dBXnais, 136
aifyeios, 150
alpareKXvata, 123
afveffis, 170
alaBnrrjpiov, 78
atnos, 77
aiciv, 38, 83, 90, 124, 141
aitiwos, 77, 81, 118, 119
d/caKos, 103
&Kav8a, 85
d/cardXyros, 100
d/cXivTJs, 132
cucot), 65, 78
cucpoBlviov, 97
aKpov, 146
dXr/toos, 105
dXXbrpios, 124, 143
dXviriTeX?}s, 170

dpapruXbs, 103
dpeXeiv, 43, 109
dp.ep.TTTOs, 108
dprjrup, 94, 95
dplavros, 103, 165
dpupos, 119
avdyKi), 99
dva5exeo"0ai,- 145
dvaKaivlfrlv , 83
dvaKdpirreiv , 144
dvaXo7££eo-0ai, 153
dvapupvqaKeiv , 136
dvdpvijais, 128
avdoratris, 149
dvaaravpovv, 84
dvaarpi<peiv, 137
dvarlXXeiv, 99
dvatpipeiv, 125
dvopla, 38
dvTa70)»'^o*5at, 154
dvTiXo7te, 153
dvv7r6raKTOS, 46
dvu(peXi)s, 100
d6paros, 147
a7ra77lXXeiv, 50
dVaf, 81, 124, 125, 162
dirapdparos, 102
dirdrup, 94
diraiyaapa, 29
direlBeia, 66, 68
direiBeiv, 64, 148
direipos, 78
diricr/a, 62
dTroSe/carouv, 97
diroev^erKeiK, 98
d7ro/ce(o-9ai, 125

INDEX II.

179

diroXeiireiv, 66
diroXXivai, 39
diroXirpuais, 149
d7To<rTlXXew, 41
dirdffToXos, 56
drroarpitpeiv, 161
dpa, 68
dpirayr), 137
apxT/bs, 49, 153
dpxiepeis, 53, 54, 57, 70
daBiveia, 71, 73
daBevis, 100
iawdteaBai, 144, 172
BflTews, 146
Harpov, 144
dipaviapibs, 110
dipiivai, 79
dtpiXdpyvpos, 165
dipiardvai, 62
dtpopoiovcrdai, 96
dipopav, 153
Parnapds, 80, 117
PaaiXeis, 91, 94
/3!/9aios, 42, 60, 63
pepaiovv, 43
/S!|8t/Xos, 157
p\|SXfov, 122, 129
pXiireiv, 46, 62, 64
Por)8eia, 71
ponBeiv, 55
poiXeaBai )( 0Aew, 88
ppaxis, 45, 46
p>yta, 116, 167
Ppuais, 157
7dXa, 78
7d/M>s, 164
7eped, 62
7eveaXo7eiv, 97
yewdv, 35
yeieaBai, 48, 82
yeupyelv, 85
yvb(pos, 159
yvpvdfetv, 79
Saxpvov, 75
SduaXis, 119
Siriais, 75
Se/cdrr/ (sc. /*!/>«), 97

deKarovv, 98
Sefids, 31, 130
Siap.ios, 137
Svpiovpybs, 143
Srjirov, 53
Bid, force of, 28, 42, 46, 49, 66,
78, 85, 117, 118, 120, 125
Sid Ppa%iuv (inpaucis), 171
ScdjSoXos, 52
Sia^icr;, 101, 120, 121, 131, 135,
161
SiaKopeiv, 86, 87
Sia/covfa, 40
Std/cotcis, 79
SiapaprvptTcdat, 45
Siapiveiv, 39
Sidraypa, 146
Sidipopos, 33, 107, 117
SiSdaxeiv, 109
SiSaxr), 80, 167
5irjve/cr)s, 96, 127
Siwcpercrtfac, 69
SiKaioaivv, 78, 149
SiKalupa, 117
SiopBuais, 117
SoKetv, 65
SoKipaala, 61
Sofa, 30, 47, 58, 114
Sofdfea-, 74
SovXefa, 53
SiW/ius, 31, 44, 83
SivaaBai, 64
SvaeppApievros, 11
el prp>, 88
ei«c6v, 127
eivai eis, 109
elpr/vv, 94
eladyeiv, 36
elaaKoieiv, 75
Ik, force of, 50
iKpaais, 166
iKSlKnais, 135
iKooxv> 134
iKKXrjaia, 50
iKXelireiv, 40
iKTpiireiv, 156
iK(pipeiv, 85
iK<peiyeiv, 43
eVc^o/Sos, 159

INDEX II.

iXiyxeiv, 155
iXeyxos, 140
iXeripuv, 53
iXeos, 71
iXlaaeiv, 40
iXrrls, 60, 39
ippiveiv, 109
ipiraiypos, 149
iptpavlfriv, 123
ivSiKos, 43
ivepyris, 69
ivBi/jenais ) ( ivvoia, 69
bnavros, 115, 124
iviardvai, 116
ivKaivlteiv, 122
IvoxXew, 157
Ivoxos, 53
ivriXXeaBai, 122
IvroXr), 100
ivrpiireiv, 155
ivrvyxdveiv, 102
ivvppl^eiv, 135
ivuiriov, 69
«£«, 78
l£ou<rfa, 168
l7ra77eX(a, 88, 149
iirayyiXXeiv, 144, 162
iiraiaxiveiv, 50, 144
eVeiOTry&ryr), 101
lir(, force of, 121
eV£7vwo"is, 133
imgirreiv, 144
iirlBeais, 80
iiridvpelv, 87
iiriKetaBai, 117
imXappdveiv, 53, 108
liriXavtfdvew, 86
imavvayuyri, 132
l7riTeXe?i', 115
iiriTpiireiv, 81
liriTvy^dveiv, 88
iirovpdvios, 56, 106, 123
epic, 122
ippriveieiv, 93
eo-xOT0S> 27
iailirepos, 89
eVepos)(dXXos, 99
eiayyeXlfcaBai, 65
ed&Snjs, 38
eOxaipos, 71

eiXd^eia, 75, 162
eiXapeiaBai, 142
eiXoyetv, 88, 93, 97, 145
ei5Xo7£a, 85
eiireplararos, 152
eiplaKeiv, 118
l^diraf, 103, 118
I^Ws, 167
ews, constructions with, 130
fijXos, 134
f«r), 100
ffdvaTos, 46, 48, 52, 75, 102, 120
Bearpl^eiv, 136
0IXi7/m, 129
0IX7/o-is, 44
BepiXiov, 79, 143
Bepdrruv, 59
Beupeiv, 97
fydj-os, 38, 71, 104
Bvprnrfpiov , 112
Bvaiaar^piov, 167
IdaBai, 156
leparela, 97
iKervpla, 75
lXd<TKecr0ai, 54
IXaartfpiov, 114
ZXews, 109
foxvpos, 75
KaBdtrep, 65
KaBaplfceiv, 128
KaBapiapbs, 31
KaBapbs, 132
KaBaporr/s, 119
KaBiardvai, 72, 105
/ca(, emphatic, 29, 85, 97
Kaleiv, 159
Kaivbs, 120
Kdpveiv, 154
KapSia, 62, 109
<caTd, force of, 39, 44, 87, 114
KarapdXXeiv, 80
KarapoX^, 66, 144
KardSnXos )( irpbSnXos, 100
KaraKplveiv, 142
KaTaXeiTreiv, 65
KaTavaXfo-xeiv, 162

INDEX II.

181

Karavoeiv, 56
Karairareiv, 135
Karairaieiv, 67, 68
Kardiravais, 62
KaTairiraaua, 89, 112, 131
Karawlveiv, 148
xardpa, 85
Karapyeiv, 51
Karaprlteiv, 129, 141, 171
KaTaovcevafeu/, 59, 111, 115
/cara^eifyeiv, 89
Karaippoveiv, 153
Kauo-is, 86
Kaixypa, 60
KeipdXaiov, 104
KeipaXls, 129
Kipuros, 113
KXr)povop.eiv, 32, 40, 87
KXvpovopos, 28
kXt/o-is, 56
koivovv, 51, 119
Koivavla, 170
koivuvos, 136
K0KKIV0S,122
Koapixbs, 111
xbapos, 66, 128
Kpavyij, 75
Kpipa, 81
Kplais, 125
KpiTlKOS, 69
kt£<tcs, 117
kim\ov, 64
XaTpeiW, 120, 169
XeiT0up7i/cds, 40
Xevrovpyos, 37, 105
XiBdfeiv, 150
\0710v, 78
XliTp(i)(7lS, 118
Xv^a, 111
paxpoBvpeiv, 88
paKpoBvpla, 87
paprvpeiv, 100
pdprvs, 152
paXaipa, 69, 149, 150
p.e7aXw<nV>j, 31, 105
/ulXXowa (sc. 7ro'Xis), 169
pipspeaBai, 108
pepiapos, 44, 69

peaireieiv, 89
pealrns, 108, 120, 161
perdBeais, 162
pierdvoia, 80, 83
peranBivai, 90, 142
perixeiv, 51, 99
/ulroxos, 39, 56, 63, 78, 82
/•ejOK, 60> 63
/wjXwtj}, 150
pipnr^s, 87
piaBairoSoala, 43, 137
pvnpoveieiv, Iii
pvnaBrpiai, 131
pdaxos, 118
veto's, 80, 119, 122
vl0os, 152
vijttios, 78
vopoBere'iv, 98
vo'p.os, 100, 104
vw0po's, 78, 87
oyKos, 152
olKovpivn (sc. 77/), 36, 44
olKnppos, 134
SXoBpeieiv, 148
dXoKatfTwua, 129
bpoiorns, 71
bpoXoyla, 57, 70, 132
iveiSiapbs, 147, 167
ipiyeiv, 144
oplfriv, 66
opxos, 89
bpKupoala, 101
Ss, with subj. without dv, 106
So-ios, 103
do-tfnis, 97
ov (=dirov), 61
d^efXeiv, 53, 73
wdBvpa, 46, 49, 136
iraiSetJew, 155
iraiSia, 154
iraXaiovv, 110
iravifyvpis, 160
TravTeXr/s, 102
rrkvToBev, 113
7rapd, comparative use of, 33, 39,
45
irapdpaais, 43, 121

I»2

INDEX II.

irapapdX-q, 116, 145
irapaylyveaBai, 117
irapaSeiyparl^eiv, 85
irapaireiaBai, 159, 161
irapaKaXeiv, 63, 133
irapaKXtiais, 89, 154
irapaffoij, 43
¦KapairiKpalveiv, 64
irapairiKpaapubs, 61
irapairlirreiv, 83
TapairXwalus, 51
trapapeiv, 41
Tapep.poXrj, 169
irapeirlSypos, 144
wapiivai, 156
irapo^uapds, 132
irappyala, 60, 71, 131, 137
TraTpidpxns, 97
ireipdfeiv, 55, 148, 150
ireipaapas, 61
irepiaipeiv )( dipaipeiv, 130
irepiKeiaBai, 73
irepiaabs, 88
irepiaaoripus, 41
Tijyvivai, 105
ttijXIkos, 97
rrlveiv, 85
irXavav, 62, 73
rrXnBiveiv, 88
rrXvpotpopla, 87, 132
7n/eCp.a, 37, 40, 44, 60, 82, 119,
130
rroi/ciXos, 44
VoXtTTJS, 109
rroXXaKis, 124, 130
7roXv/iepus, 24
TroXvTpbirus, 25
iropa, 116
Trovr/pos, 62
irbpvn, 148
iropvos, 157, 165
irpiirei, constructions with, 48
rrpieiv, 150
vpopXirreiv, 151
TrpbSijXos )( KurdSnXos, 99
rrpodpopos, 90
Trpos, force of, 37, 38, 145, 155
irpoaayopeieiv, 77
irpbaKaipos, 147
irpoaKweiv, 36, 146

irpoaoxBlfctv, 61, 64
irpbatparos, 131
irpoaipopd, 128, 131
7rpd<7xwis, 147
irpo<frfrrns, 26
irpuroTOKOs, 36
pd£5os, 38, 114
pavrlfreiv, 132
p^/ta, 31, 82, 141
aappanapis, 68
ffaXetJeiv, 161
(rdX7ri7l, 159
aapKmbs, 100
adpxtvos, 100
o-dp£, 75, 117
aypeiov, ii
arjpepov, 35, 63
ovcevos, 123
o-kt/vij, 105, 115, 122, 143, 169
ojad )( ei/c(6v, 127
aKXnpiveiv, 60, 63
airippa, 53, 144
C7ri7\aiov, 150
o-7rov8dfeo', 68
o-irovSr), 87
ardpvos, 114
o-rdo-is, 115
aravpbs, 153
arepeos, 78
areipavovv, 47
avpirdaxeiv, 71, 137
(ruvavTav, 93
o-uceCSr/o-is, 127, 170
aweTipaprvpeiv, ii
avvKepavivai, 65
irvvrlXeia, 124
avvreXeiv, 108
aurnpla, 40, 41, 43, 77, 86, 125
7-dfis, 74, 77, 90
TlXeios, 78
TeXeioTijs, 79
TeXeioCv, 49, 77, 101, 104, 136, 151,
160
TeXei&jrrJs, 153
reXeuTav, 146
ripas, ii
reaaepaKovra, 61

INDEX II.

183

rexvlrtis, 143
ttjXikoGtos, 43
npr), 47, 58, 73
npupta, 134
roiyapovv, 152
toiovtos )( roioaSe, 104
ropds, 69
rpdryos, 118, 122
rpdvefa, 112
rpaxnXlieiv, 69
rpipdXos, 85
rpoip-r], 78
Tvprravlfciv, 149
iiraKoiiei!', 77
inraKor}, 76
ftrapfis, 137
iirevavrlos, 134
inrep, force of, 48
iirbSeiypa, 123
V7royuovr;, 137, 153
ra-o7rdSto>', 40, 130
irroaTaais, 30, 63, 140
farwrAXeiv, 138
iTroaroXi}, 139

iirordaaeiv, ii, 46
vVcwttos, 122
iarepeiv, 65
ityijXds, 32, 103
vif/iaros, 92
(pavepoSv, 125
tpavrd^eiv, 159
(piXaSeX(pla, 163
(piXol-evla, 163
0Xdf, 37
(purlfav, 82, 136
XapaKrrjp, 30
X«Xos, 144, 170
Xeipo7ro£r;TOs, 117, 123
Xpeia, 78, 98
Xprip,aTl^eiv, 106, 142, 161
XP^"', 39
Xuplfciv, 103
X<op's )( aTep, 125
ipeiSeiv, 89
ijnika(pixi>, 159

QtumbtiBgz :
PRINTED BY C J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

THE PITT PRESS SERIES.
COMPLETE LIST.

1. GREEK.

Author
Work
Editor
Price
Aristophanes
Aves — Plutus — Ranae
Green
3/6" each
,,
Vespae
Graves
3/6
Euripides
Heracleidae
Beck & Headlam 3/6
»»
Hercules Furens
Gray & Hutchinson 2/-
>)
Hippolytus
Hadley
»/-
,,
Iphigeneia in Aulis
Headlam
2/6
n
Hecuba
Hadley
2/6
Alcestis
In the Press
. Orestes
Wedd
In the Press
Herodotus
Book V
Shuckburgh 3/-
J»
„ VI, VIII, IX
,,
4/- each
,, VIII i — 90, IX 1 — 89
,,
2/6 each
Homer
Odyssey IX, X
Edwards
2/6 each
D
xxi
n
2/-
Iliad vi, xxn, xxiii, xxiv
j>
2/- each
Luclan
Somnium, Charon, etc.
Heitland
3/6
>)
Menippus and Timon
Mackie
Hi
Plato
Apologia Socratis
Adam
3/6
»»
Crito
„
2/6
»>
Euthyphro
»i
2/6
»)
Protagoras
J. & A. M.
Adam 4/6
Plutarch
Demosthenes
Holden
4/6
,,
Gracchi
„
°7-
n
Nicias
>,
&
Sulla
t!
67-
Timoleon
,,
67-
Sophocles
Oedipus Tyrannus
Jebb
4/6
Thucydides
Book ill
Spratt
In the Press
Book vii
Holden
5/-
Xenophon
Agesilaus
Hailstone
2/6
Anabasis Vol. I. Text.
Pretor
il-
Vol. II. Notes.
, 1
4/6
'
,. J> 11
1,
4/-
,, I, III, IV, V
>>
2 ¦ each
2/6 each
*
„ II, VI, VII
n
j
Cyropaedeia 1, II (2 vols.)
Holden
61- 5/-
Ill, IV, V
t,
>
„ VI, VII, VIII
>>
5/-
THE PITT PRESS SERIES.

2. LATIN.

Author

Work

Editor Price

Beda

Eccl. History. Bks III, IV

Mayor & Lumby 7/6

Caesar

De Bello Gallico

Com. I, in, vi, vm
Peskett 1/6 each
»i
„ ii-iii, and vii
„ 2/- each
>i
„ i-m
il-
i*
„ IV-V
1/6
D
De Bello Civili. Com. I
il-
>»
„ ,, Com. Ill
„ In the Press
Cicero
Actio Prima in C. Verrem
Cowie 1/6
u
De Amicitia
Reid 3/6
De Senectute
'Div. in Q. Caec. et Actio
3/6
Prima in C. Verrem
Heitland & Cowie 3/-
>>
Philippica Secunda
Peskett 3/6
J*
Pro Archia Poeta
Reid 2/-
n
„ Balbo
1/6
»»
„ Milone
2/6
>!
,, Murena
Heitland 3/-
,,
„ Plancio
Holden 4/6
»*
„ Sulla
Reid 3/6
)>
Somnium Scipionis
Pearman 2/-
Cornelius Nepos Miltiades, Themistocles, Aris
tides, Pausanias, Cimon
Shuckburgh 1/6
>j
A Further Selection of the
Lives
„ In the Press
Horace
Epistles. Bk I
„ 2/6
jj
Odes and Epodes
Gow In the Press
Livy
Books iv, vi, ix, xxvn
Stephenson 2/6 each
»»
» v
Whibley 2/6
»I
„ XXI, XXII
Dimsdale 2/6 each
Lucan
Pharsalia. Bk I
Heitland & Haskins 1/6
>j
Pharsalia. Bk VII
Postgate In the Press
Lucretius
Book v
Duff 2/-
Ovid
Fasti. Book vi
Sidgwick 1/6
,,
Metamorphoses, Bk I.
Dowdall 1/6
Flautus
Epidicus
Gray 3/-
>»
Asinaria
3/6
,,
Stichus
Fennell 2/6
Quintus Curtius
¦ Alexander in India
Heitland & Raven 3/6
Tacitus
Agricola and Germania
Stephenson 3/-
,,
Hist. Bk I
Davies In the Press
Terence
Hautontimorumenos
Gray 3/-
Vergil
Aeneid i to xii
Sidgwick 1/6 each
»t
Bucolics
1/6
n
Georgics I, II, and III, IV
„ 2I- each
,,
Complete Works, Vol. I, Text ,, 3/6
9)
» .» Vol. 11, Notes „ 4/6
THE PITT PRESS SERIES.

3. FRENCH.

Author
Corneille ,,
De Bonnechose
Delavigne
D'HarlevUleSe Lamartine
De Vigny
Erckmann-Chatrian La Guerre

La Suite du Menteur
Polyeucte Lazare Hoche
Louis XI
Le Vieux Celibataire
Jeanne dArc
La Canne de Jonc

Guizot
Lemercier Mme de Stael
Merim^e Woliere

PironPonsard
Racine Sainte-BeuveSaintine

Discours sur 1'Histoire de la
Revolution d'Angleterre
Fredegonde et Brunehaut
Le Directoire
Dix Annees d'Exil
Colomba Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme
L'Ecole des Femmes
Les Precieuses ridicules
„ ( A bridged Edition)
Le Misanthrope
La Metromanie
Charlotte Corday
Les Plaideurs
,, (Abridged Edition)
M. Daru. (Causeries du
Lundi, Vol. IX)
Picciola

Editor
Masson
BraunholtzColbeck Eve
Masson
Clapin & Ropes
EveClapin Eve .
MassonMasson & Prothero
>>
Ropes
ClapinSaintsburyBraunholtz

Masson Ropes
Braunholtz

Scribe & Legouve^ Bataille de Dames

ScribeSedaineSouvestre

Thierry

VtllemainVoltaire

Xavier de
Maistre

Masson Clapin Bull
Colbeck Bull Eve Ropes

Le Verre d'Eau
Le Philosophe sans le savoir
Un Philosophe sous les Toits
Le Serf & Le Chevrier de Lorraine
Le Serf (With Vocabulary)
Lettres sur l'histoire de
France (xm — xxiv) Masson & Prothero
Recits des Temps Merovin-
giens, I — in Masson & Ropes
Lascaris ou les Grecs du xv° Siecle Masson
Histoire du Siecle de Louis
XIV, Pt I, Ch. I — xm Masson & Prothero
Pt n, Ch. xiv— xxiv „ „
Pt in, Ch. xxv — end „ „
La Jeune Siberienne Lej Masson
Lepreux de la Cited Aoste )

2/-2/-»/-
2/-»/"
i/6i/6 3/-
2/6 »/¦
2/-
2/6 »/- 'I-
2/6 2/- 2/-
2/" '/-
»/-»/-»/-
2/" 2/-
«/" 2/-
1/6
2/6 il-
»/-
2/62/62/6 i/6

THE PITT PRESS SERIES.

4. GERMAN.

Author

Work

Editor

Price

Ballads on German History
Wagner
2/-
Benedix
Dr Wespe
Breul
3/-
Freytag
Der Staat Friedrichs des
Grossen
Wagner
«/-
German Dactylic Poetry
„
il-
Goethe
Knabenjahre (1749 — 1761)
Wagner & Cartmell
2/-
,,
Hermann und Dorothea
11 11
3/6
Gutzkow
Zopf und Schwert
Wolstenholme
3/6
Hacklander
Der geheime Agent
E. L. Milner Barry
il-
HaufF
Das Bild des Kaisers
Breul
ih
n
Das Wirthshaus im Spessart
Schlottmann
& Cartmell
il-
,,
Die Karavane
Schlottmann
il-
Immermann
Der Oberhof
Wagner
ih
Elee
Die deutschen Heldensagen
Wolstenholme
ih
Kohlrausch
Das Jahr 181 3
)»
vi
Lessing
Minna von Barnhelm
Wolstenholme
In the Press
Lessing & Gellert Selected Fables
Breul
ii-
Mendelssohn
Selected Letters
Sime
ih
Raumer
Der erste Kreuzzug
Wagner
2/-
Riehl
Culturgeschichtliche
Novellen
Wolstenholme
3/6
»)
Die Ganerben & Die Ge-
rechtigkeit Gottes
»,
3/-
Schiller
Wilhelm Tell
Breul
2/6
»»
,, (Abridged Edition)
IS
1/6
»»
Geschichte des dreissigjah-
rigen Kriegs Book in.
JJ
ih
Maria Stuart
Wallenstein I. (Lager and
n
3/6
Piccolomini]
1 .,
3/6
»,
Wallenstein II. (Tod)
,, In the Press
Uhland
Ernst, Herzog von Schwaben
Wolstenholme
3/6
THE PITT PRESS SERIES.

5. ENGLISH.
Author Work
Mayor A Sketch of Ancient Philoso
phy from Thales to Cicero
Wallace Outlines of the Philosophy of
Bacon History of the Reign of
King Henry VII
Cowley Essays
Gray Poems
More History of King Richard III
„ Utopia
Milton Arcades and Comus
„ Ode on the Nativity, L'Alle-)
gro, II Penseroso & Lycidas j
„ Samson Agonistes
,, Paradise Lost, Bks I, II
Bks in, iv
Bks v, vi
Bks vii, vm
Bks ix, x
Bks XI, xii
Pope Essay on Criticism
Scott Marmion
,, Lady of the Lake
,, Lay of the last Minstrel
,, Legend of Montrose
Shakespeare A Midsummer-Night's Dream
„ Twelfth Night
„ Julius Caesar
Shakespeare & Fletcher Two Noble Kinsmen
Sidney An Apologie for Poetrie

Editor

Aristotle

Lumby

Price 3/64/6 il-
4/"

Tovey In Preparation
Lumby 3/63/6
Venty 3/-
2/6»/6
.. */- 2/-2/-
,, In Preparation *l-
West In the Press
Masterman 2/6
,, In the Press
Flather In the Press
Simpson In the Press

Verity SkeatShuckburgh

1/6 i/61/6
3/6 3/-

West Elements of English Grammar
,, English Grammar for Beginners
Carlos Short History of British India
Mill Elementary Commercial Geography
Bartholomew Atlas of Commercial Geography

2/6 i/- '/-
1/6 hi-

Robinson

Church Catechism Explained

2/-

THE PITT PRESS SERIES.

6. EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE.

Author
Colbeck

Comenius

Eve Sidgwlck
AbbottFarrarFoole
Locke MiltonSidgwlckTuring

Work

Editor

i Vol.

Lectures on the Teaching of Modern
Languages
Life and Educational Works Laurie
Three Lectures on the Practice of
Education
I. On Marking
II. On Stimulus
III. On the teaching of Latin
Verse Composition
General Aims of the Teacher)
Form Management j
Thoughts on Education
Tractate on Education
On Stimulus
Theory and Practice of Teaching

¦}

Vol.

Quick
Browning

Price «/-
3/6

2/-

i/6
3/6 2/- >/-
4/6

BallEuclid

7. MATHEMATICS.
Elementary Algebra
Elements of Geometry, Bks T, n

Taylor

.. hi, rv
.. >, „ v, vi „
.. ,, ii i— iv „
,, ,, » i— VI „
„ ,, „ XI, & xii „ Nearly
Solutions to Bks I — iv W. W. Taylor
Hobson&Jessop Elementary Plane Trigonometry
Loney Elements of Statics and Dynamics
Part I. Elements of Statics
„ II. Elements of Dynamics
„ Solutions of Examples, Statics and Dynamics
„ Mechanics and Hydrostatics
Smith, C. Arithmetic for Schools, with or without answers
,, Part I. Chapters I — vm. Elementary, with
or without answers
,, Part n. Chapters IX — xx, with or without
answers
Hale, G. Key to Smith's Arithmetic

4/6 i/6i/6i/6 il-
4/-
ready 61-
4/6 7/6
4/6
3/6 7/6
4/6 3/6 «/- 2/-
7/6

London: C. J. CLAY and SOfrS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
GLASGOW : 263, Argyle Street.
6

&1)e OTamfctttrge iStfile for gcfjools
antJ Colleges.
General Editors :
J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D., Bishop of Worcester,
A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew.

Extra Fcap. 8vo. cloth, with Maps when required.
Book of Joshua. Rev. G. F. Maolear, D.D. 2s. Gd.
Book of Judges. Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3s. Gd.
First Book of Samuel. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D. 3s. Gd.
Second Book of Samuel. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D. 3s. 6(7.
First & Second Books of Kings. Prof.LuMBT, D.D. 3s. (id. each.
Books of Ezra & Nehemiah. Prof. Ryle, D.D. 4s. Gd.
Book of Job. Prof. Davidson, D.D. ts.
Psalms. Book I. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D. 3s. Gd.
Psalms. Books II and III. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D. 3s. Gd.
Book of Ecclesiastes. Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. 5s.
Book of Jeremiah. Rev. A. W. Streane, D.D. 4s. Gd.
Book of Ezekiel. Prof. Davidson, D.D. 5s.
Book of Hosea. Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D. 3s.
Books of Obadiah and Jonah. Arch. Perowne. 2s. Gd.
Book of Micah. Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D. Is. Gd.
Books of Haggai, Zechariah Se Malachi. Arch. Perowne. 3s . Gd.
Book of Malachi. Archdeacon Perowne. Is.
Gospel according to St Matthew. Rev. A. Carr, M.A. 2s. Gd.
Gospel according to St Mark. Rev.G.F.MACLEAR.D.D. 2s. Gd.
Gospel ace. to St Luke. Very Rev. F. W. Farrar, D.D. 4s. Gd.
Gospel according to St John. Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 4s. Gd.
Acts of the Apostles. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 4s. Gd.
Epistle to the Romans. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 3s. Gd.
First and Second Corinthians. Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 2s. each.
Epistle to the Galatians. Rev. E. H. Perowne, D.D. Is. Gd.
Epistle to the Ephesians. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 2s. Gd.
Epistle to the Philippians. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 2s. Gd.
Colossians and Philemon. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 2s.
EpisUes to the Thessalonians. Rev. G. G. Findlay, B.A. 2s.
Epistle to the Hebrews. Very Rev. F. W. Farrar, D.D. 3s.6<i.
Epistle of St James. Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. Is. Gd.
St Peter and St Jude. VeryRev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. 2s. Gd.
Epistles of St John. Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 3s. Gd.
Book of Revelation. The late Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A. 3s.
Nearly ready.
EpisUes to Timothy and Titus. Rev. A. E. Humphreys, M.A.
3s. Other Volumes Preparing.
LONDON : 0. J. CLAY and SONS
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.

€f)t Smaller
Camftifljge Bible for g>tf)oote.

Now Beady. With Maps. Price Is. each volume.
Book of Joshua. J. S. Black, M.A.
Book of Judges. J. S. Black, M.A.
First Book of Samuel. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D.
Second Book of Samuel. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D.
First Book of Kings. Prof. Lumby, D.D.
Second Book of Kings. Prof. Lumby, D.D.
Gospel according to St Matthew. Rev. A. Carr, M.A.
Gospel according to St Mark. Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D.
Gospel according to St Luke. Very Rev. F. W. Farrar, D.D.
Gospel according to St John. Rev. A. Plummer, D.D.
Acts of the AposUes. Prof. Lumby, D.D.

€f)t Cambridge <&mk Cesftament
for Spools ana Colleges
General Editor: J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D.

Gospel according to St Matthew. Rev. A. Carr, M.A.
With i Maps. 4s. Gd.
Gospel according to St Mark. Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D.
With 3 Maps. 4s. Gd.
Gospel according to St Luke. Very Rev. F. W. Farrar.
With 4 Maps. 6s.
Gospel according to St John. Rev. A. Plummer, D.D.
With i Maps. 6s.
Acts of the AposUes. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 4 Maps. 6s.
First Epistle to the Corinthians. Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3s.
Second EpisUe to the Corinthians. Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3s.
EpisUe to the Hebrews. Very Rev.F. W. Farrar, D.D. 3s. Gd.
EpisUes of St John. Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 4s.
General Editor: Prof. J. A. ROBINSON, B.D.
EpisUe to the Philippians. Rev. H. C G. Moule, D.D.
[In the Press.
Epistle of St James. Rev. A. Carr, M.A. [In the Press.
Pastoral EpisUes. Rev. J. H. Bernard. [In Preparation.
Book of Revelation. The late Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A. 5s.

tlonuon: 0. J. CLAY and SONS,
CAMBRIDGE WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE.
®luBS0fo: 263, ARGYLE STREET.
ILeipjis: P. A. BROCKHAUS.
jjkfo loift: MACMILLAN AND CO.
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. & C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

2165

''•"¦"/'"'./