Hebrews 12

Hebrews 12:1-99

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

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

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

The general phraseology and idea of life as a strenuous ἀγών , in the Hellenic sense (see on 5:14), may be seen in many passages, e.g. Eurip. Orest. 846 f.:

πρὸςδ ʼ Ἀργεῖονοἴχεταιλεών ,

ψυχῆςἀγῶνατὸνπροκείμενονπέρι

δώσων , ἐνᾧζῆνἢθανεῖνὑμᾶςχρεών ,

Herod. viii. 102 and ix. 60 , and especially in 4 Mac 14:5 πάντες (the seven martyrs), ὥσπερἐπ ʼ ἀθανασίαςὁδὸντρέχοντες , ἐπὶτὸνδιὰτῶνβασάνωνθάνατονἔσπευδον , and Philo’ s de migrat. Abrah. 24, καὶγὰρἉβραὰμπιστεύσας “ ἐγγίζεινθεῷ ” (Genesis 18:23, cp. Hebrews 11:6) λέγεται . ἐανμέντοιπορευόμενοςμήτεκάμῃ (cp. Hebrews 12:3) μήτεῥᾳθυμήσῃ , ὡςπαρ ʼ ἑκάτεραἐκτραπόμενος (cp. Hebrews 12:13) πλανᾶσθαιτῆςμέσηςκαὶεὐθυτενοῦςδιαμαρτὼνὀδοῦ , μιμησάμενοςδὲτοὺςἀγαθοὺςδρομεῖςτὸστάδιονἀπταίστωςἀνύσῃτοῦβίου , στεφάνωνκαὶἄθλωνἐπαξίωντεύξεταιπρὸςτὸτέλοςἐλθών . The figure is elaborately worked out in 4 Mac 17:11-14 (ἀληθῶςγὰρἦνἀγὼνθεῖοςὁδι ʼ αὐτῶνγεγενημένος . ἠθλοθέτειγὰρτότεἀρετὴδι ʼ ὑπομονῆςδοκιμάζουσα · τὸνῖκοςἐνἀφθαρσίᾳἐνζωῇπολυχρονίῳ . Ἐλεαζὰρδὲπροηγωνίζετο · ἡδὲμήτηρτῶνἑπτὰπαίδωνὲνήθλει · οἰδὲἀδελφοὶἠγωνίζοντο · ὀτύραννοςἀντηγωνίζετο · ὁδὲκόσμοςκαὶὁτῶνἀνθρώπωνβίοςἐθεώρει ), where the Maccabean martyrs are athletes of the true Law; but the imagery is more rhetorical and detailed than in ΠρὸςἙβραίους , where the author, with a passing touch of metaphor, suggests more simply and suggestively the same idea.

Ἔχοντες … ἀποθέμενοι … ἀφορῶντες , three participles with the verb after the second, as in Jude 1:20, Jude 1:21; but here the first, not the second, denotes the motive. Τοσοῦτον 1 (thrown forward, for emphasis) ἔχοντεςπερικείμενονἡμῖννέφοςμαρτύρων . Μαρτύρες here, in the light of 11:2, 4, 5, 39, denotes those who have borne personal testimony to the faith. Heaven is now crowded with these (12:23), and the record of their evidence and its reward enters into our experience. Such πνεύματαδικαίωντετελειωμένων speak to us (11:4) still; we are, or ought to be, conscious of their record, which is an encouragement to us ἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶντούτων (1:2). It is what we see in them, not what they see in us, that is the writer’ s main point; περικείμενον suggests that the idea of them as witnesses of our struggle (see the quot. from 4 Mac, above) is not to be excluded, but this is merely suggested, not developed. Μάρτυς is already, as in Revelation 2:13 etc., beginning to shade off into the red sense of “ martyr” (cp. Kattenbusch in Zeitsch. fü r neutest. Wissenschaft, 1903, pp. 111 f.; G.

Krü ger, ibid., 1916, pp. 264 f.; Reitzenstein in Hermes, 1917, pp. 442 f., and H. Delehaye in Analecta Bollandiana, 1921, pp. 20 f.), though the writer uses the word with a special application here, not as usually of the Christian apostles nor of the prophets, but of the heroes and heroines of the People in pre-Christian ages. He does not even call Jesus Christ μάρτυς (as does the author of the Johannine apocalypse).

The meaning of “ witnesses of our ordeal” (i.e. spectators) is supported by passages like Epict. iv. 4. 31, οὐδεὶςἀγὼν 1 δίχαθορύβουγίνεται · πολλοὺςδεῖπρογυμναστὰςεἶναι , πολλοὺς [τοὺς ] ἐπικραυγάζοντας , πολλοὺςέπιστάτας , πολλοὺςθεατάς , and particularly Longinus, de sublim. xiv. 2, who, in arguing that many people catch their inspiration from others, notes: τῷγὰρὄντιμέγατὸἀγώνισμα , τοιοῦτονὑποτίθεσθαιτῶνἰδίωνλόγωνδικαστήριονκαὶθέατρον , καὶἐντηλικούτοιςἥρωσικριταῖςτεκαὶμάρτυσινὑπέχειντῶνγραφομένωνεὐθύναςπεπαῖχθαι . In Educational Aims and Methods (p. 28), Sir Joshua Fitch writes: “ There is a remarkable chapter in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which the writer unfolds to his countrymen what is in fact a National Portrait Gallery, as he enumerates, one by one, the heroes and saints of the Jewish history, and adds to his catalogue these inspiring words … [Hebrews 11:32-34]. And, finally, he draws this conclusion from his long retrospect … [Hebrews 12:1]. How much of the philosophy of history is condensed into that single sentence ! It is suggestive to us of the ethical purpose which should dominate all our historical teaching. To what end do we live in a country whose annals are enriched by the story of great talents, high endeavours and noble sacrifices, if we do not become more conscious of the possibilities of our own life, and more anxious to live worthily of the inheritance which has come down to us?”

Νέφος (never in this sense in LXX) has its usual Greek meaning of “ host” (Latin nimbus or nubes), as, e.g., in Herod. viii. 109, νέφοςτοσοῦτοἀνθρώπων . In ὄγκονἀποθέμενοιπάντακαὶτὴνεὐπερίστατονἁμαρτίαν , ὄγκον is thrown first for the sake of emphasis: “ any encumbrance that handicaps us.” The conjecture ὄκνον (P. Junius) is relevant, but superfluous; sloth is a hindrance, but the general sense of ὄγκος in this connexion is quite suitable. Compare Apul. Apologia, 19 (“ etenim in omnibus ad vitae munia utendis quicquid aptam moderationem supergreditur, oneri potius quam usui exuberat” ), and the evening prayer of the Therapeutae (Philo, vit. Contempl. 3) to have their souls lightened from τοῦτῶναἰσθήσεωνκαὶαἰσθητῶνὄγκου . Ὄγκος had acquired in Greek literature the sense of pride, both bad and good, and it has been taken here as an equivalent for pride in the sense of conceit (fastus), as, e.g., by Bengel and Seeberg.

But what the readers seem to have been in danger of was not arrogance so much as a tendency to grow disheartened. The metaphor is not “ reducing our weight,” though ὄγκος had sometimes this association with fleshiness; it refers to the weight of superfluous things, like clothes, which would hinder and handicap the runner.

Let us strip for the race, says the writer. Put unmetaphorically, the thought is that no high end like πίστις is possible apart from a steady, unflinching resolve to do without certain things. What these encumbrances are the writer does not say (cp. 11:15, 25, 26); he implies that if people will set themselves to the course of faith in this difficult world, they will soon discover what hampers them. In καὶτὴνεὐπερίστατονἁμαρτίαν , the article does not imply any specific sin like that of apostasy (v. 25); it is ἁμαρτία in general, any sin that might lead to apostasy (e.g. v. 16). The sense of εὐπερίστατος can only be inferred from the context and from the analogy of similar compounds, for it appears to have been a verbal adjective coined by the writer; at any rate no instance of its use in earlier writers or in the papyri has been as yet discovered. As the phrase goes with ἀποθέμενοι , the introductory καί linking τὴν … ἁμαρτίαν with ὄγκον , εὐπερίστατος probably denotes something like “ circumstans nos” (vg), from περιϊστάναι ( = cingere).

The εὐ is in any case intensive. Theophylact suggested “ endangering” , as though it were formed from περίστασις (distress or misery).

Taken passively, it might mean (a) “ popular,” or (b) “ easily avoided,” or (c) “ easily contracted.” (a) περίστατος may mean what people gather round to admire, as, e.g., in Isokrates, de Permut. 135 E, θαυματοπιΐαιςταῖς … ὑπὸτῶνἀνοήτωνπεριστάτοιςγενομέναις , and εὐπερίστατον would then = “ right popular.” This is at any rate more relevant and pointed than (b), from περιΐσταμαι , which Chrysostom once suggested (τὴνεὐκόλωςπεριισταμένηνἡμᾶςἢτὴνεὐκόλωςπερίστασινδυναμένηνπαθεῖν : μᾶλλονδὲτοῦτο , ῥᾴδιονγὰρεἂνθέλωμενπεριγενέσθαιτῆςἁμαρτίας ), though περίστατος does mean “ admired,” and ἀπερίστατος is sometimes, by way of contrast, “ unsupported.” On the other hand, ἀπερίστατος may mean “ unencumbered,” as in the contrast drawn by Maximus of Tyre (Diss. xx.) between the simple life and a life τῷοὐχἁπλῷἀλλ ʼ ἀναγκαίῳκαὶπεριστάσεωνγέμοντι . The former life he declares was that of the golden age, before men worried themselves with the encumbrances of civilization. In the light of this, εὐπερίστατος might mean “ which sorely hinders” (i.e. active), a sense not very different from (vg) “ circumstans nos,” or “ which at all times is prepared for us” (syr). (c) is suggested by Theodoret, who rightly takes ἡἁμαρτία as generic, and defines εὐπερίστατον as εὐκόλωςσυνισταμένηντεκαὶγινομένην . καὶγὰρὀφθαλμὸςδελεάζεται , ἀκοὴκαταθέλγεται , ἁφὴγαργαρίζεται , καὶγλῶσσαῥᾷσταδιολισθαίνει , καὶὁλογισμὸςπερὶτὸχεῖρονὀξύρῥοπος . But “ easily caught” is hardly tense enough for the context. Wetstein, harking back to περίστατος and περίστασις , connects the adjective with the idea of the heroic onlookers. “ Peccatum uestrum seu defectio a doctrina Christi non in occulto potest committi et latere; non magis quam lapsus cursoris, sed conspicietur ab omnibus. Cogitate iterum, spectatores adesse omnes illos heroas, quorum constantiam laudaui, quo animo uidebunt lapsum uestrum? qua fronte ante oculos ipsorum audebitis tale facinus committere?” But “ open” or “ conspicuous” is, again, too slight and light a sense.

If any conjecture had to be accepted, εὐπερίσταλτον would be the best. Cp. the schol. on Iliad, ii. 183 , χλαῖνατετράγωνοςχλαμὺςἡεἰςὀξὺλήγουσα · ἀπέβαλεδὲαὐτὴνδιὰτόεὐπερίσταλτον .

Hence Bentley’ s note: “ Lego τὴνὑπὲρἱκανὸνἀπαρτίαν … immo potius εὐπερίσταλτονἁπαρτίαν .” In Soph. Ajax, 821, the hero says of the sword on which he is about to fall, “ I have fixed it in the ground, εὖπεριστείλας , right carefully.” The verbal adjective would therefore mean, in this connexion, “ close-clinging,” while ἀπαρτίαν ( = burden) would be practically a synonym for ὄγκον .

Τρέχωμεν … ἀφορῶντες , for the motive-power in life comes from inward convictions. What inspires Christians to hold out and to endure is their vision of the unseen (cp. Herodian, v. 6, 7, ὁδ ʼ Ἀντωνῖνοςἔθεε … ἔςτετὸνθεὸνἀποβλέπωνκαὶτοὺςχαλινοὺςἀντέχωντῶνἵππων · πᾶσάντετὴνὁδὸνἤνυετρέχωνἔμπαλινἑαυτοῦἀφορῶντεεἰςτὸπρόσθεντοῦθεοῦ ), as the writer has already shown (11:1f.). Τὸνπροκείμενονἡμῖνἀγῶνα is built on the regular (p. 193) phrase for a course being set or assigned; e.g. Lucian in de Mercede Conduct. 11, σοὶδὲὁὑπὲρτῆςψυχῆςἀγὼνκαὶὑπὲρἅπαντοςτοῦβίουτοτεπροκεῖσθαιδοκεῖ : Plato’ s Laches, 182a, οὗγὰρἀγῶνοςἀθληταίἐσμενκαὶἐνοἷςἡμῖνὁἀγὼνπρόκειταικτλ ., and Josephus, Ant. viii. 12, 3, οἳπροκειμένωναὐτοῖςἄθλων , ἐπὰνπερίτισπουδάσωσιν , οὐδιαλείπουσιπερὶτούτ ʼ ἐνεργοῦντες . For ἀφορῶντεςεἰς (v. 2), see Epictetus, ii. 19, where the philosopher says he wishes to make his disciples free and happy, εἰςτὸνθεὸνἀφορῶνταςἐνπαντὶκαὶμικρῷκαὶμεγάλῳ . An almost exact parallel occurs in the epitaph proposed by the author of 4 Mac (17:10) for the Maccabean martyrs, οἳκαὶἐξεδίκησαντὸἔθνοςεἰςθεὸνἀφορῶντεςκαὶμέχριθανάτουτὰςβασάνουςὑπομείναντες . Ἀφορᾶν implies the same concentrated1 attention as ἀποβλέπειν (see on 11:26): “ with no eyes for any one or anything except Jesus.” Ἰησοῦν comes at the end of the phrase, as in 2:9, and especially 3:1; the terms τὸντῆςπίστεωςἀρχηγὸνκαὶτελειωτήν describe him as the perfect exemplar of πίστις in his earthly life (cp. 2:13), as the supreme pioneer (ἀρχηγός as in 2:10, though here as the pioneer of personal faith, not as the author of our faith) and the perfect embodiment of faith (τελειωτής , a term apparently coined by the writer). He has realized faith to the full, from start to finish. Τελειωτής does not refer to τελειωθῶσιν in 11:40; it does not imply that Jesus “ perfects” our faith by fulfilling the divine promises.

In ὃςἀντὶτῆςπροκειμένηςαὐτῷχαρᾶς , the χαρά is the unselfish joy implied in 2:8, 9, “ that fruit of his self-sacrifice which must be presupposed in order that the self-sacrifice should be a reasonable transaction. Self-sacrificing love does not sacrifice itself but for an end of gain to its object; otherwise it would be folly. Does its esteeming as a reward that gain to those for whom it suffers, destroy its claim to being self-sacrifice? Nay, that which seals its character as self-sacrificing love is, that this to it is a satisfying reward” (M’ Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, p. 23). As Epictetus bluntly put it, εἂνμὴἐντῷαὐτῷᾖτὸεὐσεβὲςκαὶσυμφέρον , οὐδύναταισωθῆναιτὸεὐσεβὲςἔντινι (i. 27, 14). So, in the Odes of Solomon 31:8-12, Christ says:

“ They condemned me when I stood up …

But I endured and held my peace,

that I might not be moved by them.

But I stood unshaken like a firm rock,

that is beaten by the waves and endures.

And I bore their bitterness for humility’ s sake;

that I might redeem my people and inherit it.”

Hence ἀντί (as in v. 16 ἀντὶβρώσεως : cp. Plato’ s Menex. 237 A, ἄνδραςἀγαθοὺςἐπαινοῦντες , οἳ … τὴντελευτὴνἀντὶτῆςτῶνζώντωνσωτηρίαςἠλλάξαντο ) means, “ to secure.” The sense of προκειμένης (cp. v. 1) tells against the rendering of ἀντὶ … χαρᾶς as “ instead of the joy which had been set before him,” as though the idea were that of 11:25-26, either the renunciation of his preincarnate bliss (so Wetstein, von Soden, Windisch, Goodspeed, etc., recently), or the renunciation of joy in the incarnate life (so Chrysostom, Calvin), i.e. the natural pleasure of avoiding the way of the cross. This is a Pauline idea (2 Corinthians 8:9, Philippians 2:6, Philippians 2:7), which the writer might have entertained; but (p. l) he never hints at it elsewhere, and the other interpretation tallies with the idea of 2:8, 9. Inspired by this, Jesus ὑπέμεινε (+ τόν , p13 D*) σταυρόν — as we might say in English “ a cross.” Aristotle (Nik. Eth. ix. 1, 2) declares that courage is praiseworthy just because it involves pain, χαλεπώτερονγὰρτὰλυπηρὰὑπομένεινἢτὰἡδέωνἀπέχεσθαι : no doubt the end in view is pleasant (τὸκατὰτὴνἀνδρείαντέλοςἡδύ , cp. Hebrews 12:11), but the end is not always visible.

In αἰσχύνηςκαταφρονήσας it is not the horrible torture of the crucifixion, but its stinging indignity (cp. Galatians 3:13 for an even darker view), which is noted as a hard thing; it was a punishment for slaves and criminals, for men of whom the world felt it was well rid (cp. 11:38a).

But Jesus did not allow either the dread or the experience of this to daunt him. He rose above “ indignity and contumely, that is to say, all that would most touch that life which man has in the favour of man, and which strikes more deeply than physical infliction, because it goes deeper than the body— wounding the spirit” (M ’ Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, pp. 229, 230). Musonius (ed. Hense, x.) defined ὕβρις or αἰσχύνη as οἷονλοιδορηθῆναιἢπληγῆναιἥἐμπτυσθῆναι , ὧντὸχαλεπώτατονπληγαί . But the special αἰσχύνη here is that of crucifixion. This, says the writer, Jesus did not allow to stand between him and loyalty to the will of God.

It is one thing to be sensitive to disgrace and disparagement, another thing to let these hinder us from doing our duty. Jesus was sensitive to such emotions; he felt disgrace keenly.

But instead of allowing these feelings to cling to his mind, he rose above them. This is the force of καταφρονήσας here, as in the last clause of St. Philip of Neri’ s well-known maxim, “ Spernere mundum, spernere te ipsum, spernere te sperni.” It is the only place in the NT where καταφρονεῖν is used in a good sense (true and false shame are noted in Sir 4:20, 21 περὶτῆςψυχῆςσουμὴαἰσχυνθῇς · ἔστινγὰραἰσχύνηἐπάγουσαἁμαρτίαν , καὶἔστιναἰσχύνηδόξακαὶχάρις ). The climax is put in one of the writer’ s favourite quotations from the psalter; only this time he uses κεκάθικεν (perfect here alone for the more usual aorist, 1:3, 8:1, 10:12) = and so has entered on his χαρά .

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

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

The writer assumes, as in 5:7f., a close knowledge of the Passion story. Before proceeding to argue that suffering is a fruitful discipline, with which God honours them (v. 5f.), he reminds them that as yet they have not had to face the worst (v. 4). The metaphor of the race-course dies away into the general military metaphor of v. 4, where ἁμαρτία is half-personified as in 3:13, Ἀναλογίσασθε 1 (the γάρ is corroborative: “ yes, ἀναλογίσασθε ” κτλ .) is more than κατανοήσατε (3:1): “ consider him and compare his treatment at the hands of these sinners (ἁμαρτωλῶν as in Mark 14:41) with what you are called to suffer.” Τοιαύτην echoes σταυρόν and αἰσχύνης , and is explained by μέχριςαἵματος in the next verse, while ὑπομεμενηκότα is another aoristic perfect like κεκάθικεν .

Ἀντιλογίαν is used here of active opposition, as in Ps Sol 17:44 , where א ca R read ἀντιλογίας , and in the papyri . Like the verb (cp. John 19:12, Romans 10:21), the noun covers more than verbal opposition, as in Numbers 20:13 and Jude 1:11τῇἀντιλογίᾳτοῦΚορέ . The words εἰςαὐτόν (or ἑαυτόν , A P syrhkl etc.: in semetipsum, vg.) have no special emphasis; all the writer means to say is that Jesus himself, Jesus in his own person, had to encounter malevolent opposition.

This is one of the places at which textual corruption began early. The curious v. l. ἑαυτούς finds early support in א * D* (αὐτούς , p13 א c 33, 256, 1288, 1319*, 1739, 2127 Lat syrvg boh Orig.); p13 א * and D* go wrong here as in 11:35, D* and Lat as at 11:23 (insertion). It is extremely unlikely that the reading arose from a recollection of passages like Numbers 16:37 (Korah, Dathan, and Abiram) ἡγίασαντὰπυρεῖατῶνἁμαρτωλῶντούτωνἐν (i.e. at the cost of) ταῖςψυχαῖςαὐτῶν , or Proverbs 8:35 οἱδὲεἰςἐμὲἁμαρτάνοντεςἀσεβοῦσινεἰςτὰςἑαυτῶνψυχάς . The notion that an evil-doer really injured himself was a commonplace (e.g. M. Aurel. 9:4 ὁἁμαρτάνωνἐαυτῷἁμαρτάνει · ὁἀδικῶνἑαυτὸνἀδικεῖ , the remark of Chrysippus quoted by Plutarch in de Stoic. repugn. xvi., ἀδικεῖσθαιὑφ ʼ ἑαυτοῦτὸνἀδικοῦντακαὶαὐτὸνἀδικεῖν , ὅτανἄλλονἀδικῇ , Aristotle in Magn Moral. 1196a, ὁἄραταῦταμὴπράττωνἀδικεῖαὑτόν , and Xen.

Hellen. i. 7, 19, ἡμαρτηκόταςτὰμέγισταεἰςθεούςτεκαὶὑμᾶςαὐτούς ); Philo works it out in quod Deuteronomy 15:16. But there is no point in suggesting here, as this reading does, that the ἁμαρτωλοί were acting against their better selves, unconsciously injuring their own souls, as they maltreated Jesus.

The writer deals with sin in a more straightforward and direct way, and, in spite of all arguments to the contrary (e.g. by Westcott, von Soden, Seeberg, Peake, Wickham), this seems a far-fetched idea here. It is like the similar interpretation of ἑαυτούς in 10:34, a piece of irrelevant embroidery; it “ looks like the conceit which some reader wrote upon his margin” (A. B. Davidson). Theodoret took εἰςἑαυτούς with ἀναλογίσασθε = “ think to yourselves.” Which is not natural, though the Ethiopic version follows this interpretation. In some early versions (e. g. sah arm) neither εἰςἑαυτόν nor εἰςἑαυτούς seems to be implied.

In ἵνα … ἐκλυόμενοι , ἐκλυόμενοι (ἐκλελυμένοι p13 D*) might go with ταῖςψυχαῖςὑμῶν , as readily as κάμητε . Both verbs connect with it, to express the general sense of inward exhaustion and faint-heartedness; indeed, Aristotle uses both to describe runners relaxing and collapsing, once the goal has been passed: ἐπὶτοῖςκαμπτῆρσιν (at the goal of the race, not till then) ἐκπνέουσικαὶἐκλύονται · προορῶντεςγὰρτὸπέραςοὐκάμνουσιπρότερον (Rhet. iii. 9 2). In v. 4 οὔπω (γάρ is superfluously added by D L 440, 491, 823 arm sah boh) κτλ does not necessarily imply that they would be called upon to shed their blood in loyalty to their faith, as if martyrdom was the inevitable result of tenacity. Nor is the writer blaming them; he does not mean to suggest that if they had been truly decided for God against the world, they would by this time have suffered μέχριςαἵματος .

He is shaming them, not blaming them. “ Your sufferings have been serious and sharp (10:32f.), but nothing to what others before you, and especially Jesus, have had to bear. Will you give way under a lesser strain than theirs?” The coming of the messiah was to be heralded by birth-pangs of trouble for his adherents on earth, and it might be supposed that the writer implies here: “ The Coming One (10:37) is near (12:26), as is evident from your woes; do not fail, but be ready for him.” But this line of thought is not worked out elsewhere by the writer, and is not necessary to his argument at this point. To fight μέχριςαἵματος is to resist to the death; cp. the cry of Judas Maccabaeus to his troops (2 Mac 13:14), ἀγωνίσασθαιμέχριθανάτου . Μέχριςαἵματος has the same meaning of a mortal combat, e.g. in Heliod. vii. 8, τῆςμέχριςαἵματοςστάσεως .

Note another case of rhetorical alliteration in αἵμ . ἀντικ … ἁμαρτ . ἀνταγωνιζόμενοι , and the use of ἀνταγωνιζέσθαι above (v. 1) in the quot. from 4 Mac.

The connexion of thought in vv. 5f, is: God has not yet asked from you the supreme sacrifice (v. 4), and, besides (vv. 5f.), any demand he makes upon your courage is in your highest interests.

5And have you forgotten the word of appeal that reasons with you as sons?—

“ My son, never make light of the Lord’ s discipline,

never faint under his reproofs;

6for the Lord disciplines the man he loves,

and scourges every son he receives.”

7It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for where is the son who is not disciplined by his father? 8Discipline is the portion (μέτοχοιγεγόνασι , as 3:14) of all; if you get no discipline, then you are not sons, but bastards. 9Why, we had fathers of our flesh to discipline us, and we yielded to them! Shall we not far more submit to the Father of our spirits, and so live? 10For while their discipline was only for a time, and inflicted at their pleasure, he disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his own holiness. 11 Discipline always seems for the time to be a thing of pain, not of joy; but those who are trained by it reap the fruit of it afterwards in the peace of an upright life.

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

υἱέ , μὴὀλιγώρειπαιδείαςΚυρίου ,

μηδὲἐκλύουὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦἐλεγχόμενος :

ὃνγὰρἀγαπᾷΚύριοςπαιδεύει

μαστιγοῖδὲπάνταυἱὸνὃνπαραδέχεται .

After υἱέ , μου is added (except by D* 31 Old Latin, Clem.), but otherwise the citation is word for word. Philo (De Congressu. Erud. 31) quotes the same passage to prove that discipline and hardship are profitable for the soul (οὕτωςἄραἡἐπίπληξιςκαὶνουθεσίακαλὸννενόμισται , ὥστεδι ʼ αὐτῆςἡπρὸςθεὸνὁμολογίασυγγένειαγίνεται . τίγὰροἰκειότερονυἱῷπατρὸςἢυἱοῦπατρί ;). The LXX contains a double mistranslation. (a) It is at least doubtful if the Hebrew text of the second line means “ be not weary of” ; the alternative is a parallel to the first line, “ scorn not.” (b) It is certain that the second line of v. 6; originally ran, “ he afflicts the man in whom he delights,” or “ and delights in him as a father in his son.” Our writer, following the free LXX version, notes the twofold attitude of men under hardship. They may determine to get through it and get over it, as if it had no relation to God, seeing nothing of him in it. Stronger natures take this line; they summon up a stoical courage, which dares the world to do its worst to them.

This is ὀλιγωρεῖνπαιδείαςκυρίου . It ignores any divine meaning in the rough experience. Other natures collapse weakly ; they see God in the trial, but he seems too hard upon them, and they break down in self-pity, as if they were victims of an unkind providence. Ἐλεγχόμενος … παιδεύει is used, as in Revelation 3:19 , of pointing out and correcting faults; μαστιγοῖ , as in Judith 8:27 and often elsewhere; παραδέχεται , in the sense of Luk 15:2. In fact, the temper inculcated in this passage resembles that of Ps.-Sol 16:11f., where the writer prays:

γογγυσμὸνκαὶὀλιγοψυχίανἐνθλίψειμάκρυνονἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦ ,

εἀνἁμαρτήσωἐντῷσεπαιδεύεινεἰςἐπιστροφήν …

ἐντῷἐλέγχεσθαιψυχὴνἐνχειρὶσαπρίαςαὐτῆς …

ἐντῷὑπομεῖναιδίκαιονἐντούτοιςἐλεηθήσεταιὑπὸκυρίου .

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

A mood of bitter scepticism about the discipline of providence recurs in some contemporary Roman writers; both Lucan (Pharsalia, iv. 807 f., “ Felix Roma quidem, civesque habitura beatos, | si libertatis superis tam cura placeret | quam uindicta placet” ) and Tacitus (Hist. I.3, “ nec enim umquam atrocioribus populi Romani cladibus magisve iustis indiciis adprobatum est non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem” ) speak as if the gods showed an unpaternal vindictiveness. But the idea of a fatherly providence was far-spread, both within and without Judaism. When our author argues: “ You think that if God were fatherly, he would spare you these hardships? On the contrary, they are the proof of his wise affection” — he is not far from Seneca’ s position (in the de Providentia, iv. 7): “ hos itaque deus quos probat, quos amat, indurat recognoscit, exercet.” And in 2 Mac 6:12 the author bids his readers remember τὰςτιμωρίαςμὴπρὸςὄλεθρον , ἀλλὰπρὸςπαιδίαντοῦγένουςἡμῶνεἶναι . According to Sanhedr. 101a (cp.

Sifre, Deu_32), Rabbi Akiba comforted R. Eliezer on his sick-bed by explaining to him that “ chastisements are precious,” whereas the other three rabbis who accompanied him had only praised the sick man for his piety.

There is a fine passage in Philo’ s quad deter. potiori insid. soleat, 39-40, where he argues that discipline at God’ s hands is better than being left to oneself in sin and folly; εὐτυχέστεροιδὲκαὶκρείττουςτῶνἀνεπιτροπεύτωννέωνοἱμάλισταμὲνἐπιστασίαςκαὶἀρχῆςἀξιωθέντεςφυσικῆς , ἣνοἱγεννήσαντεςἐπὶτέκνοιςκεκλήρωνται … ἱκετεύωμενοὖντὸνθεὸνοἱσυνειδήσειτῶνοἰκείωνἀδικημάτωνἐλεγχόμενοι , κολάσαιἡμᾶςμᾶλλονἢπαρεῖναι . Similarly, in de sacrificantibus, 11, he writes of parental care, human and divine, apropos of Deu 14:1 δηλονότιπρονοίαςκαὶκηδεμονίαςἀξιωθησόμενοιτῆςὡςἐκπατρός · ἡδὲἐπιμέλειατοσοῦτονδιοίσειτῆςἀπ ʼ ἀνθρώπωνὅσονπερ , οἶμαι , καὶὁἐπιμελούμενοςδιαφέρει . Compare M. Aur. i. 17, τὸἄρχοντικαὶπατρὶὑποταχθῆναι , ὃςἔμελλεπάντατὸντῦφονἀφαιρήσεινμου (cp. 5:31). When the king asks, in the Epist. Arist. 248, what is the supreme instance of neglect , the Jew answers, εἰτέκνωνἄφροντίςτιςεἴη , καὶμὴκατὰπάντατρόπονἀγαγεῖνσπεύδοι … τὸδὲἐπιδεῖσθαιπαιδείανσωφροσύνηςμετασχεῖν , θεοῦδυνάμειτοῦτογίνεται .

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

“ happy that I can

Be crossed and thwarted as a man,

Not left in God’ s contempt apart,

With ghastly smooth life.”

In v. 8 πάντες recalls πάνταυἱόν (v. 6). Νόθοι are children born out of wedlock, who are left to themselves; the father is not sufficiently interested in them to inflict on them the discipline that fits his legitimate children for their place in the home. Νόθος (not a LXX term) seems to mean born of mixed marriages, in Wis 4:3 . So Philo compares polytheists and lovers of material pleasure to τῶνἐκπόρνηςἀποκυηθέντων (de Confus. ling. 28), as distinguished from the sons of God. The double ἔστε makes the sentence more vivid; the writer supposes an actual case. In vv. 9, 10 the writer simply develops this idea of παιδεία , comparing the human and the divine methods. Hence εἶτα cannot mean here “ further” (deinde); it is “ besides,” in the sense that it brings out another element in the conception.

Εῖτα might be taken interrogatively ( = itane or siccine), to introduce an animated question (as often in Plato, e.g. Leges, 964b, Theat. 207d, Sophist. 222b), though we should expect a δέ in the second clause here or a καί before οὐπολὺμᾶλλον . Kypke suggests that εἶτα = εἰδέ (quodsi) as, e.g., in Jos. B.J. iii. 8, 5, εἶτ ʼ ἂνμὲνἀφανίσῃτιςἀνθρώπουπαρακαταθήκην , ἢδιάθηταικακῶς .

Παιδευτής only occurs once in the LXX, and there as a description of God ; in 4 Mac 9:6 it is applied to a man, as in Romans 2:20. Καὶἐνετρεπόμεθα (“ reverebamur,” vg), we submitted respectfully to them , as in Matthew 21:37, not, we amended our ways (as in LXX, e.g. 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Philo’ s quaest. in Gen. iv. 9 τὸμὴἁμαρτάνεινμηδὲντὸπαραμέγιστονἀγαθόν · τὸἁμαρτάνονταἐντραπῆναισυγγένεςἐκείνου ). In οὐπολὺμᾶλλον , the more common πολλῷ is read by Dc K L, and after πολύ a few authorities (p13 א c D* 1739 Origen) supply the δέ which is strictly required after the preceding μέν . The description of God as τῷπατρὶτῶνπνευμάτων is unexpected. In the vocabulary of Hellenistic Judaism God is called ὁτῶνπνευμάτωνκαὶπάσηςἐξουσίαςδυνάστης (2 Mac 3:24), and “ Lord of spirits” is a favourite Enochic title; but “ spirits” here cannot mean angels (cp. Numbers 16:22). The contrast between τοὺςτῆςσαρκὸςπατέρας and τῷπατρὶτῶνπνευμάτων denotes God as the author of man’ s spiritual being; the expression is quite intelligible as a statement of practical religion, and is only rendered ambiguous when we read into it later ideas about traducianism and creationism, which were not in the writer’ s mind.

Shall we not submit to Him, the writer asks, καὶζήσομεν “ Monemur hoc verbo nihil esse nobis magis exitiale quam si nos in Dei obsequium tradere recusemus” (Calvin). In v. 10 the assumption that the readers were mature men (εἴχομεν , v. 9) is made explicit by πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας (till we became men). Πρός here, as in Wis 16:6 etc., means duration; it is not final, as if the parental discipline were with a view to the short, earthly life alone. Κατὰτὸδοκοῦναὐτοῖς (as they chose) refers to the arbitrariness of the patria potestas. “ Parents may err, but he is wise,” as the Scottish metrical paraphrase puts it.

The writer has in mind the familiar patria potestas of the Romans, as in Terence’ s Heauton Timoroumenos (100: “ vi et via pervolgata patrum” ; 204-207: “ parentum iniuriae unius modi sunt ferme … atque haec sunt tamen ad virtutem omnia” ), where one father is confessing to another how he had mishandled his boy (99 f.: “ ubi rem rescivi, coepi non humanitus neque ut animum decuit aegrotum adulescentuli tractare” ). Compare the remark of the Persian officer in Xenophon’ s Cyropaedia (ii. 2, 14), who argued that a man who set himself to make people laugh did less for them than a man who made them weep, and instanced fathers— κλαύμασιμένγεκαὶπατέρεςυἱοῖςσωφροσύνηνμηχανῶνται . This is wholesome correction. But it was not always so. “ Qur postremo filio suscenseam, patres ut faciunt ceteri?” old Demaenetus asks, in the Asinaria (49) of Plautus. Ovid’ s “ durus pater” (Amores, i. 15, 17) was more than a tradition of literature. Pliny tells us, for example, that he had once to remonstrate with a man who was thrashing his son for wasting money on horses and dogs (Epp. ix. 2): “ haec tibi admonitus immodicae seueritatis exemplo pro amore mutuo scripsi, ne quando tu quoque filium tuum acerbius duriusque tractares.” There is also the story told by Aelian (Var.

Hist. 9:33) about the youth who, when asked by his father what he had learned from Zeno, was thrashed for failing to show anything definite, and then calmly replied that he had learned stoically to put up with a father’ s bad temper . Son, says Dio Chrysostom (xv. 240 M), τρέφονταιπάντεςὑπὸτῶνπατέρωνκαὶπαίονταιπόλλακιςὑπ ʼ αὐτῶν . The general point of view is put by Epictetus (Enchiridion, 30, πατήρἐστιν · ὑπαγορεύεταιἐπιμελεῖσθαι , παραχωρεῖνἁπάντων , ἀνέχεσθαιλοιδοροῦντος , παίοντος ), and the connexion of “ life” with παιδεία in Proverbs 4:13 ἐπιλαβοῦἐμῆςπαιδείας , μὴἀφῆς , ἀλλὰφύλαξοναὐτὴνσεαυτῷεἰςζωήνσου : Proverbs 6:23 λύχνοςἐντολήνόμουκαὶφῶς , καὶὁδὸςζωῆςκαὶἔλεγχοςκαὶπαιδεία , and Sir 4:17f.

Now for the contrast. Ὁδὲἐπὶτὸσυμφέρον , which is explained in εἰςτὸμεταλαβεῖν (cp. 6:7) τῆςἁγιότητοςαὐτοῦ . Ἁγιότης is a rare term, which begins to appear late in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 15:2 τοῦπάνταἐφορῶντοςμεθ ʼ ἁγίοτητος : Test. Leviticus 3:4 ὑπεράνωπάσηςἁγιότητος ), and, except as a v.l. in 2 Corinthians 1:12, occurs nowhere else in the NT. Here it denotes the divine life, to share in which is the outcome of ὁἁγιασμὸςοὗχωρὶςοὐδεὶςὄψεται (i.e. have a direct experience of) τὸνκύριον (v. 14). The writer, in this contrast, is simply arguing that the divine education, which involves some suffering, as all παιδεία does, is more worthy of obedience from mature people than even the parental discipline to which, for all its faults of temper, they submitted during childhood. The sayings of Isokrates, that while the roots of παιδεία were bitter, its fruits were sweet, was a commonplace of ancient morals; the writer is going to develop it in a moment. Meantime he alludes to the equally well-known truth that παιδεία might involve severe physical treatment.

Two examples may be added of this doctrine that education involves a discipline which sometimes requires the infliction of pain. Maximus of Tyre (Diss. iv. 7), in arguing that the desire to give pleasure is by no means an invariable proof of true affection, asks: φιλοῦσινδὲπουκαὶπαῖδαςπατέρεςκαὶδιδάσκαλοιμαθητάς · καὶτὶἃνεἴηἀνιαρότερονἢπαιδὶπατὴρκαὶμαθητῇδιδάσκαλος ; so Philo argues in de Migrat. Abrah. 20, σωφρονιστῶνὡςἔοικετοῦτόἐστιτὸἔθος , παιδαγωγῶν , διδασκάλων , γονέων , πρεσβυτέρων , ἀρχόντων , νόμων · ὀνειδίζοντεςγὰρ , ἔστιδ ʼ ὅπουκαὶκολάζοντεςἕκαστοιτούτωνἀμείνουςτὰςψυχὰςἀπεργάζονταιτῶνπαιδενομένων . καὶἐχθρὸςμὲνοὐδεὶςοὐδενί , φίλοιδὲπᾶσιπάντες . In de parent. Col_4, he explains, διὰτοῦτ ʼ ἔξεστιτοῖςπατράσικαὶκατηγορεῖνπρὸςτοὺςπαῖδαςκαὶἐμβριθέστεροννουθετεῖνκαὶ , εἰμὴταῖςδι ʼ ἀκοῶνἀπειλαῖςὑπείκουσι , τύπτεινκαὶπροπηλακίζεινκαὶκαταδεῖν .

In v. 11 the writer sums up what he has been saying since v. 5. Discipline or παιδείαπρὸςτὸπαρόν (a classical Greek phrase = for the moment, e.g. Thuc. ii. 22, ὁρῶναὐτοὺςπρὸςτὸπαρὸνχαλεπαίνοντας ) οὐ (πᾶς … οὐ = absolute negative, not any) δοκεῖ (to human feelings and judgment) χαρᾶςεἶναιἀλλὰλύπης (to be a matter of, εἶναι with gen. as in 10:39).

Πᾶσαμέν (א * P 33, 93) and πᾶσαδέ (p13 א c A Dc H K L Ψ 6, 326, 929. 1288, 1836 vg syr boh Chrys. etc.) practically mean the same thing, for the μέν is concessive and δέ is metabatic. But probably it was the awkwardness of the double μέν that led to the alteration of this one. The other readings, πᾶσαγάρ (Cosm (221 C) Jer. Aug.) and πᾶσα (D* 104 460 917 arm eth Orig. Cosm (376 D)) are obviously inferior attempts to clear up the passage.

῞υστερονδέ (cp. Proverbs 5:3, Proverbs 5:4 (of the harlot) ἣπρὸςκαιρὸνλιπαίνεισονφάρυγγα · ὕστερονμέντοιπικρότερονχολῆςεὑρήσεις ), but later on discipline yields fruit; it is not a stone flung down arbitrarily on human life, but a seed. By καρπὸνεἰρηνικὸνδικαιοσύνης the writer means fruit (καρπός as often = result or outcome), which consists in (genit. of apposition) δικαιοσύνη (as in 11:7 a generic term for the good life as a religious relationship to God). But why εἰρηνικόν Possibly in contrast to the restiveness and pain of the period of discipline, when people are being trained ; when the discipline does its perfect work, there is no friction between the soul and God. But there is also the suggestion of “ saving” or “ blissful.” Philo quotes Proverbs 3:11, Proverbs 3:12 (see above on v. 5) as a saying of Solomon the peaceful ; the significance of this he finds in the thought that subjection and obedience are really a wholesome state for people who are inclined to be self-assertive, uncontrolled, and quarrel-some.

He thinks that Noah is rightly called by a name denoting rest, since μετίασινἠρεμαῖονδὲκαὶἡσυχάζοντακαὶσταθερὸνἔτιδὲκαὶεἰρηνικὸνβίονοἱκαλοκἀγαθίαντετιμηκότες (Abrah. 5). To take εἰρηνικόν in some such sense (salutaris) would yield a good interpretation; and this is confirmed by the similar use of εἰρήνη in v. 14 and of the adjective in 3 Mac 6:32, where the Jews, in the ecstasy of their relief, χοροὺςσυνίσταντοεὐφροσύνηςεἰρηνικῆςσημεῖον . Those who stand their training reap a safe, sound life at last. In its social aspect, εἰρηνικόν could only refer to the brotherly love of the community; the writer might be throwing out a hint to his readers, that suffering was apt to render people irritable, impatient with one another’ s faults. The later record even of the martyrs, for example, shows that the very prospect of death did not always prevent Christians from quarrelling in prison. This may be the meaning of εἰρηνικόν in James 3:18, but it is out of keeping with the present context.

A close parallel to v. 11 is the saying of Aristotle (see above, for the similar remark of Isokrates), quoted by Diog. Laertius (v. 1, 18): τῆςπαιδείαςἔφητὰςμὲνῥίζαςεἶναιπικρὰς , γλυκεῖςδὲτοὺςκαρπούς . In Epist. Arist. 232, τοὺςγὰρἀπ ʼ αὐτῆςἀλυπίανκατασκευάζειν , though the ἀλυπία here is freedom from misfortune. Clem. Alex. (Strom. vii. 10. 56), after speaking of the time when we are delivered from the chastisements and punishments ἂςἐκτῶνἁμαρτημάτωνεἰςπαιδείανὑπομένομενσωτήριον [Hebrews 12:7], adds: μεθ ʼ ἢνἀπολύτρωσιντὸγέραςκαὶαἱτιμαὶτελειωθεῖσινἀποδίδονται … καὶθεοὶτὴνπροσηγορίανκέκληνταιοἱσύνθρονοιτῶνἄλλωνθεῶν , τῶνὑπὸτῷσωτῆριπρώτωντετάγμενων , γενησόμενοι .

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

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

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

“ Ye move through the ranks, recall

The stragglers, refresh the out-worn …

Ye fill up the gaps in our files,

Strengthen the wavering line,

Stablish, continue our march,

On, to the bound of the waste,

On, to the City of God.”

He begins in v. 12 by using scriptural language borrowed freely from Isaiah 35:3 , but in a form already current in Sir 25:32 , and also from Proverbs 4:26 . This metaphorical language for collapsing in listless despair is common, e.g., in Sir 2:12 where χεῖρεςπαρειμέναι is bracketed with “ cowardly hearts,” in Philo’ s description of the Israelites who longed to return to Egypt, οἱμὲνγὰρπροκαμόντεςἀνέπεσον , βαρὺνἀντίπαλονἡγησάμενοιτὸνπόνον , καὶτὰςχεῖραςὑπ ʼ ἀσθενείαςὥσπερἀπειρηκότεςἀθληταὶκαθῆκαν (de Congressu Erud. 29, cp. Hebrews 11:15), and especially in the description of moral encouragement in Job 4:3, Job 4:4 εἰγὰρσὺἐνουθέτησαςπολλοὺς , καὶχεῖραςἀσθενοῦςπαρεκάλεσας , ἀσθενοῦντάςτεἐξανέστησαςῥήμασιν , γόνασίντεἀδυνατοῦσινθάρσοςπεριέθηκας . In Deuteronomy 32:36 παραλελυμένους is parallel to παρειμένους , and in Zephaniah 3:16 the appeal is θάρσει … μὴπαρείσθωσαναἱχεῖρέςσου .1 Ἀνορθώσατε (literally = straighten, renew) goes with γόνατα better than with χεῖρας , but the sense is plain. In v. 13, if ποιήσατε is read in the first clause, καὶτροχιὰςὀρθὰςποιήσατετοῖςποσὶνὑμῶν is a hexameter (p. lvii). By τὸχωλόν the writer means “ those who are lame,” these crippled souls in your company.

Probably the ποιεῖτε of א * P 33, 917, 1831 (Orig.) has been conformed, in ποιήσατε (א c A D H K L, etc., Chrys.), to the preceding ἀνορθώσατε (so, e.g., B. Weiss, in Texte u. Untersuch. xiv. 3, 4, 9, who declares that the older codices never yield any case of an original aor. being changed into a present), though some edd. (e.g. von Soden) regard ποιήσατε as the original text and ποιεῖτε as having been conformed to LXX (cp. Matthew 3:3).

As ἰαθῇδὲμᾶλλον shows, ἐκτραπῇ here has its medical sense , not the common sense of being “ turned aside” (as, e.g., in Philo, Quaest. in Exodus 23:20 οἱἀφυλάκτωςὁδοιποροῦντεςδιαμαρτάναυσιντῆςὀρθῆςκαὶλεωφόρουὡςπολλάκιςεἰςἀνοδίαςκαὶδυσβάτουςκαὶτραχείαςἀτραποὺςἐκτρέπεσθαι · τὸπαραπλήσιόνἐστινὅτεκαὶαἱψυχαὶτῶννεῶνπαιδείαςἀμοιροῦσιν , and in M. Aurel. 1:7, καὶτὸμὴἐκτραπῆναιεἰςζῆλονσοφιστικόν ). In Od. Sol 6:14f. the ministers of the divine grace are praised in similar terms for their service to weaker Christians:

“ They have assuaged the dry lips,

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

And limbs that had fallen

They have straightened and set up.”

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

ἀγαθύνατετὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶνἐνώπιονΚυρίου

καὶεὐθύνατετὰςὁδοὺςὑμῶνἐνώπιοντῶνἀνθρώπων

καὶἔσεσθεεὑρίσκοντεςχάρινἐνώπιονΚυρίουκαὶἀνθρώπων .

φυλάξασθεοὖνἀπὸτῆςπορνείας ,

ὅτιἡπορνείαμήτηρἐστὶτῶνκακῶν ,

χωρίζουσαἀπὸτοῦθεοῦκαὶπροσεγγιζοῦσατῷΒελίαρ .

The author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους knows that the difficulties in the way of faith are more than mere despair. In 12:1-11 he has been dealing with the need of cheerful courage under the strain of life; this leads to the appeal of v. 12. But while there is nothing so infectious as cowardice or despair, he rapidly passes on, in vv. 13f. (καίκτλ .), to warn his readers against some specific temptations in the moral life. He continues, in a third imperative (v. 14), εἰρήνηνδιώκετε (an OT phrase, 1 p 3:11) μετὰπάντων . Here μετά goes with διώκετε in the sense of “ along with” , and πάντων means “ all the (other) ἅγιοι ” (as in 13:24). The call is to make common cause with all the rest of the Christians in the quest for God’ s εἰρήνη , i.e. (see above on v. 11) the bliss and security of a life under God’ s control.

It is εἰρήνη in a sense corresponding to the older sense of felicity and prosperity on the ground of some (messianic) victory of God, practically as in Luke 1:79, Luke 19:38 the Christian salvation; only this comprehensive sense does justice to the term here and in 13:20. Hence the following καί is almost = “ even.”

Εἰρήνη in a similar sense occurs repeatedly in the context of the passage already quoted from Proverbs: e.g. 3:1, 2 υἱέ , ἐμῶννομίμωνμὴἐπιλανθάνου , τὰδὲῥήματαμουτηρείτωσὴκαρδία · μῆκοςγὰρβίουκαὶἔτηζωῆςκαὶεἰρήνηνπροσθήσουσίνσοι … 3:9 ἀπάρχουαὐτῷἀπὸσῶνκαρπῶνδικαιοσύνης … 3:16, 17 ἐκτοῦστόματοςαὐτῆςἐκπορεύεταιδικαιοσύνηκαὶπάντεςοἱτρίβοιαὐτῆςἐνεἰράνῃ … 3:28 ἵναπορεύῃπεποιθὼςἐνεἰρήνῃπάσαςτὰςὁδούςσου . After Proverbs 4:26 (as quoted above) there follows the promise, αὐτὸςδὲτὰςὀρθὰςποιήσειτὰςτροχίαςσου , τὰςδὲπορείαςσουἐνεἰρηνῃπροάξει .

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

What εἰρήνη specially involved is shown in καὶτὸνἁγιασμόνκτλ . Here ἁγιασμός is not to be identified with σωφροσύνη in the special sense of 13:4; it is the larger “ consecration” to God which all ἅγιοι must maintain. In fact, διώκετετὸνἁγιασμόνκτλ . is simply another description of the experience called “ sharing in God’ s ἁγιότης ” (v. 10) Χωρίς generally precedes, here it follows, the word it governs , either for the sake of the rhythm or to avoid a hiatus . “ To see the Lord,” is an expression common in Philo for that vision of the Divine being which is the rare reward of those who can purify themselves from the sensuous (cp. H. A. A.

Kennedy’ s Philo’ s Contribution to Religion, pp. 192 f.). Κύριος is God in vv. 5 and 6; here, in view of 9:28, it might be Jesus (as 2:3), though “ to see God” as a term for intimate personal fellowship is more adequate to the context. People must be on the alert against tendencies to infringe this ἁγιασμός (v. 15); ἐπισκοποῦντες , one form and function of παρακαλοῦντες (10:25), introduces three clauses, beginning each with μήτις , though it is not clear whether the third (v. 16) is intended as an example of μιανθῶσιν or as a further definition of the second μήτις (ῥίζακτλ .). The first clause, μήτιςὑστερῶνἀπὸτῆςχάριτοςτοῦθεοῦ , shows ὑστερεῖν (4:1) with ἀπό as in Ecclesiastes 6:2 ὑστερῶν … ἀπὸπάντοςοὗἐπιθυμήσει (Sir 7:34 μὴὑστέρειἀπὸκλαιόντων has a different sense). In writing ἀπὸτῆςχάριτοςτοῦθεοῦ the writer may have had already in mind the words of Deu 29:18 , which he is about to quote in the next clause.

The rhetorical tone comes out in the two iambic trimeters οὗχωρὶςοὐδεὶςὄψεταιτὸνκύριον and ἐπισκοποῦντεςμήτιςὑστερῶνἀπό .

The next clause, μήτιςῥίζαπικρίαςἄνωφύουσαἐνοχλῇ , is a reminiscence of the warning against idolatry and apostasy in Deuteronomy 29:18, which A (as well as F*) preserves in this form, μήτίςἐστινἐνὑμῖνῥίζαπικρίαςἄνωφύουσαἐνοχλῇ (so B*: ἐνχολῇ B) καὶπικρίᾳ (B*: καὶπικρία B). The form is ungrammatical, for ἐστιν is superfluous, as is καὶπικρίᾳ . On the other hand, the text of B yields no good sense, for a root can hardly be said to grow up ἐνχολῇ , and καὶπικρία is left stranded; the alteration of πικρίᾳ in B* does not help matters, for it is not preceded by ἐνχολῇ . Plainly the writer found something like the words of A in his text of the LXX; he may have omitted ἐστιν and καὶπικρίᾳ . The confusion between -οχλη and χολη is intelligible, as ὄχλος and χόλος are confused elsewhere (Blass reads ἐνχολῇ here, which requires ᾖ or ἐστιν to be supplied). Ἐνοχλῇ is the present subjunctive of ἐνοχλεῖν , which is used in 1 Est 2:19 and 2:24 of rebellion disturbing and troubling the realm. As a general term for “ troubling” or “ vexing,” it is common both in classical Greek and in the papyri, either absolutely or with an accusative, as, e.g., Polystr.

Epicur. (ed. C.

Wilke) 8b. 4, οὐδ ʼ ὑφ ʼ ἑνὸςτούτωνἐνοχλησαμένουςἡμᾶς , the edict of M. Sempronius Liberalis (Aug. 29, 154 a.d.): ἐντῇοἰκείᾳτῇγεω [ργ ]ίᾳπροσκαρτεροῦσιμὴἐνοχλεῖν (BGU ii. 372), and Aristoph. Frogs, 709 f., οὐπολὺνοὐδ ʼ ὁπίθηκοςοὗτοςὁνῦνἐνοχλῶν . As for ῥίζα (of a person, as, e.g., in 1 Mal 1:10 καὶἐξῆλθενἐξαὐτῶνῥίζαἁμαρτωλὸςἈντίοχοςἘπιφανής ) πικρίας (genitive of quality), the meaning is a poisonous character and influence (cp. Acts 8:23). The warning in Deuteronomy is against any pernicious creature in the community, who by cool insolence and infidelity draws down the divine sentence of extermination upon himself and his fellows.

Here the writer thinks of people who consider that immediate gratification of their wishes is worth more than any higher end in life; they value their spiritual position as sons (vv. 5f.) so little, that they let it go in order to relapse on some material relief at the moment. Such a nature is essentially βέβηλος , devoid of any appreciation of God’ s privileges, and regarding these as of no more importance than sensuous pleasures of the hour.

Under the bad influence of this (διὰταύτης , א D K L Ψ 326 etc., as in 13:2: διὰαὐτῆς , A H P 33, 424* syrhkl boh Clem. etc., as in 11:4, 12:11), all the rest (οἱπολλοί , after one has been mentioned, as in Romans 5:15 etc.) may be tainted , and so (cp. on 10:22) rendered incapable of ὄψεσθαιτὸνΚύριον .

The third clause (v. 16) is μήτιςπόρνοςἣβέβηλος (for the collocation see Philo, de Sacerdot. 8, πόρνῃκαὶβεβήλῳσῶμακαὶψυχήν , and for this transferred sense of β . ( = Lat. profanus) see Jebb-Pearson’ s Fragments of Soph. ii. 208); βέβηλος is only once applied to a person in the LXX, viz. in Ezekiel 21:25 σὺβέβηλεἄνομε , then to people like Antiochus (3 Mal 2:2, Malachi 2:14) or recreant Jews. In adding ὡςἨσαῦκτλ . the writer chooses the story of Esau, in Genesis 25:28-34, Genesis 27:1-39, to illustrate the disastrous results of yielding to the ἁμαρτία of which he had spoken in v. 1. There can be no ὑπομονή , he implies, without a resolute determination to resist the immediate pleasures and passions of the hour. As Cicero puts it in the De Finibus, i. 14, “ plerique, quod tenere atque servare id quod ipsi statuerunt non possunt, victi et debilitati objecta specie voluptatis tradunt se libidinibus constringendos nec quid eventurum sit provident, ob eamque causam propter voluptatem et parvam et non necessariam et quae vel aliter pararetur et qua etiam carere possent sine dolore, tum in morbos graves, tum in damna, tum in dedecora incurrunt.” But why choose Esau? Probably owing to rabbinic tradition, in which Esau is the typical instance of the godless who grow up among good people (Isaac and Rebekah) and yet do not follow their deeds, as Obadiah is of the good who grow up among the wicked (Ahab and Jezebel) and do not follow their deeds (Sifre 133 on Numbers 27:1). The rabbinic tradition1 that Esau was sensual, is voiced as early as Philo, in the de Nobilitate, 4 (ὁδὲμείζωνἀπειθὴςἐκτῶνγαστρὸςκαὶτῶνμετὰγαστέραἡδονῶνἀκρατῶςἔχων , ὑφ ʼ ὧνἀνεπείσθηκαὶπρεσβείωνἐξίστασθαιτῷμετ ʼ αὐτοῦκαὶμετανοεῖνεὐθὺςἐφ ʼ οἷςἐξέστηκαὶφονᾶνκατὰτοῦἀδελφοῦκαὶμηδὲνἕτερονἢδι ʼ ὧνλυπήσειτοὺςγονεῖςπραγματεύεσθαι ), where Philo interprets the μετάνοια of Esau as simply regret for a bad bargain.

Our author may have considered Esau a πόρνος literally— and in any case the word is to be taken literally (as in 13:4), not in its OT metaphorical sense,2 of “ unfaithful” — but the weight of the warning falls on βέβηλος , as is clear from the phrase ἀντὶβρώσεωςμιᾶς . T. H. Green (Prolegomena to Ethics, § 96) points out that hunger was not the motive. “ If the action were determined directly by the hunger, it would have no moral character, any more than have actions done in sleep, or strictly under compulsion, or from accident, or (so far as we know) the action of animals. Since, however, it is not the hunger as a natural force, but his own conception of himself, as finding for the time his greatest good in the satisfaction of hunger, that determines the act, Esau recognizes himself as the author of the act. … If evil follows from it, whether in the shape of punishment inflicted by a superior, or of calamity ensuing in the course of nature to himself or those in whom he is interested, he is aware that he himself has brought it on himself.” The μιᾶς is emphatic: “ id culpam auget, non misericordiam meretur” (Bengel).

In the quotation from Genesis 25:33 , ἀπέδετο (A C 623), as if from a form ἀποδίδω (cp. Helbing, 105), is preferred by Lachmann, B. Weiss, WH.

The warning is now (v. 17) driven home. Ἴστε , indicative here (a literary Atticism, though Blass insists that it is chosen for the sake of the rhythm, to assimilate ἴστεγὰρὅτικαὶμε to the closing words of the preceding sentence), recalls to the readers the scripture story with which they were so familiar. Ἴστεὅτικαὶ (another item in his story) μετέπειταθέλωνκληρονομῆσαι (1 P 3:9) τὴνεὐλογίαν ( = πρωτοτόκια as in 1 Chronicles 5:1, 1 Chronicles 5:2) ἀπεδοκιμάσθη . Ἀποδοκιμάζεσθαι is common in the Greek orators for officials being disqualified, but the rejection here is an act of God; Esau is a tragic instance of those who cannot get a second chance of μετάνοια (6:6). The writer has again the sombre, serious outlook which characterizes a passage like 6:4-8. The very metaphor of plant-growth occurs here as there, and ἀπεδοκιμάσθη recalls ἀδόκιμος . Μετάνοια is impossible for certain wilful sins; certain acts of deliberate choice are irrevocable and fatal. Why this was so, in Esau’ s case, is now explained; μετανοίαςγὰρτόπονοὐχεὗρε (εὑρίσκω = obtain, with ἐκζητεῖν as often in LXX, e.g. Deuteronomy 4:29), καίπερμετὰδακρύων (emphatic by position) ἐκζητήσαςαὐτήν (i.e. μετανοίαν . “ Μετανοίαςτόπος is, in fact, μετάνοια . … When μετ . τόπον is taken up again, the mere secondary τόπος disappears, and it is αὐτήν , not αὐτόν , agreeing with the great thing really sought,” Alford).

If the writer used his usual A text of the LXX, he would not have found any allusion to the tears of Esau in Genesis 27:38, but the tears were retained, from the Hebrew, in Jub 26:33, in other texts of the LXX, and in Josephus (Ant. i. 18. 7, πένθοςἦγενἐπὶτῇδιαμαρτίᾳ . Καὶαὐτοῦτοῖςδάκρυσινἀχθόμενοςὁπατήρκτλ .).1 “ Those tears of Esau, the sensuous, wild, impulsive man, almost like the cry of some ‘ trapped creature,’ are among the most pathetic in the Bible” (A. B.

Davidson). Αὐτήν refers to μετανοίας , not to εὐλογίας (which would require μετανοίας … εὗρεν to be taken as a parenthesis, a construction which is wrecked on the antithesis between εὗρεν and ἐκζητήσας ). The μετάνοια is not a change in the mind of Isaac, which would require some additional words like τοῦπατρός . Besides, Esau does not beseech Isaac to alter his mind. Nor can it refer to a change in God’ s mind. It is “ a change of mind” on Esau’ s part, “ undoing the effects of a former state of mind” (A. B.

Davidson). Bitterly as Esau regretted his hasty action, he was denied any chance of having its consequences reversed by a subsequent μετάνοια ; this is the writer’ s meaning. Ἀδύνατονπάλινἀνακαινίζεινεἰςμετάνοιαν is the law of God for such wilful offenders, and to try for a second μετάνοια is vain.

Such is the warning that our author deduces from the tale of Esau.

This inexorable view agrees with Philo’ s idea (Leg. Alleg. iii. 75, πολλαῖςγὰρψυχαῖςμετανοίᾳχρῆσθαιβουληθείσαιςοὐκἐπέτρεψενὀθεός ) that some, like Cain1 , are too bad to repent, though Philo illustrates it here not from Esau, but from Lot’ s wife. In de Spec. Leg. ii. 5 he declares that luxurious spendthrifts are δυσκάθαρτοικαὶδυσίατοι , ὡςμηδὲθεῷτῷτὴνφύσινἵλεῳσυγγνώμηςἀξιοῦσθαι . In Jub 35:14 Isaac tells Rebekah that “ neither Esau nor his seed is to be saved.” But the idea of ΠρὸςἙβραίους is made still more clear by the use of μετανοίαςτόπον as an expression for opportunity or chance to repent. This is a contemporary Jewish phrase; cp.

Apoc. Bar 85:12 (“ For when the Most High will bring to pass all these things, there will not then be an opportunity for returning … nor place of repentance” ), 4 Esther 9:12 , which goes back to Wis 12:10 κρίνωνδὲκατὰβραχὺἐδίδουςτόπονμετανοίας (of God punishing the Canaanites).

It is linguistically a Latinism,2 which recurs in Clem. Romans 7:5 (ἐνγενεᾷκαὶγενεᾷμετανοίαςτόπονἔδωκενὁδεσπότηςτοῖςβουλομένοιςἐπιστραφῆναιἐπ ʼ αὐτόν ) and Tatian . But a special significance attaches to it in 4 Esdras, for example, where the writer (e.g. in 7:102f.) rules out any intercession of the saints for the ungodly after death, in his desire to show that “ the eternal destiny of the soul is fixed by the course of the earthly life” (G. H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse, pp. 154, 155). Here, as in the Slavonic Enoch (53:1), which also repudiates such intercession, “ we may detect the influence of Alexandrine theology, which tended to lay all stress upon the present life as determining the eternal fate of every man.” The author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους shared this belief (cp. 9:27); for him the present life of man contains possibilities which are tragic and decisive.

He ignores deliberately any intercession of saints or angels for the living or for the dead. But he goes still further, with Philo and others, in holding that, for some, certain actions fix their fate beyond any remedy.

He regards their case as hopeless; characters like Esau, by an act of profane contempt for God, are rejected for ever, a second μετάνοια being beyond their reach.

The connexion between the finale (vv. 18-29) and what precedes lies in the thought that the higher the privilege, the higher the responsibility. In Leg. Alleg. iii 1, Philo quotes Genesis 25:27 to prove that virtue’ s divine city is not meant for human passions; οὐγὰρπέφυκενἡτῶνπαθῶνθηρευτικὴκακίατὴνἀρετῆςπόλιν , wickedness banishing men from the presence and sight of God. But this line of thought is not in the writer’ s mind. It is more relevant to recall that Esau typifies exclusion from God in Jub 15:30 (“ Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and Esau, the Lord did not cause to approach Him” ); yet even this is not needful to explain the turn of thought. The writer is continuing his grave warning.

As vv. 14-17 recall the first warning of 6:4-8, so he now proceeds to reiterate the second warning of 10:26-31, reminding his readers that they stand in a critical position, in which any indifferences or disobedience to God will prove fatal. This is the note of vv. 25-29 in particular. But he leads up to the appeal by describing in a vivid passage the actual position of his readers before God (vv. 18-24); their new status and environment appeals even more powerfully and searchingly for an unworldly obedience to God than the old status of the People.

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

The passage moves through two phases (vv. 18-21 and 22-24), contrasting the revelation at mount Sinai (2:2, 10:28) with the new διαθήκη , the one sensuous, the other spiritual; the one striking terror with its outward circumstances of physical horror, the other charged with grace and welcome as well as with awe. The meditation and appeal are woven on material drawn from the LXX descriptions of the plague of darkness on Egypt and the theophany at Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:11 προσήλθετεκαὶἔστητεὑπὸτὸὄρος · καὶτὸὄροςἐκαίετοπυρὶἕωςτοῦοὐρανοῦ , σκότος , γνόφος , θύελλα , φωνὴμεγάλη , and Exodus 19:12f. προσέχετεἑαυτοῖςτοῦἀναβῆναιεἰςτὸὅροςκαὶθιγεῖντιαὐτοῦ · πᾶςὁἁψάμενοςτοῦὅρουςθανάτῳτελευτήσει … ἐνλίθοιςλιθοβοληθήσεταιἢβολίδικατατοξευθήσεται · ἐάντεκτῆνοςἐάντεἄνθρωπος , οὐζήσεται … καὶἐγίνοντοφωναὶκαὶἀστραπαὶκαὶνεφέληγνοφώδηςἐπ ʼ ὄρουςΣεινά , φωνὴτῆςσάλπιγγοςἤχειμέγα · καὶἐπτοήθηπᾶςὁλαὸςὁἐντῇπαρεμβολῇ ). In v. 18 the text is difficult and perhaps corrupt. ψηλαφωμένῳὄρει , would be equivalent to ψηλαφητῷὄρει , a tangible, material mountain; but as ὄρει is a gloss (added, from v. 22, by D K L 255 syrhkl arm Athan Cosm etc., either before or after ψηλ .), though a correct gloss, ψ . may be taken (a) either with πυρί , (b) or independently. In the former case, (a) two constructions are possible. (i) One, as in vg , renders “ to a fire that was material (or palpable) and ablaze” ; (ii) “ to what was palpable and ablaze with fire” (πυρί in an ablative sense). (i) is a daring expression, and the implied contrast (with v. 29) is too remote. The objection to (ii) is that πυρί here, as in the OT, goes with the following datives. It is on the whole preferable (b) to take ψηλαφωμένῳ by itself .

The mountain could not be touched indeed (v. 20), but it was a tangible object which appealed to the senses. This is the point of contrast between it and the Σιὼνὄρος , the present participle being equivalent to the verbal adjective ψηλαφητός . Kypke connects ψ . with πυρί in the sense of “ touched by lightning” , comparing the Latin phrase “ fulmine tactum.” But the Greek term is θίγγανειν , and in any case this interpretation really requires ὄρει , the mountain “ sundering” under the lightning touch of God (Psalms 144:5 etc.).

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

In the rest of the description, ζόφῳ is a poetical word , which the writer prefers to σκότος . Καὶθυέλλῃ — θύελλη , a hurricane, is defined by Hesychius as ἀνέμουσυστροφὴκαὶὁρμὴ , ἢκαταιγίς (cp. Hom. Obadiah 1:5. 317), and in de Mundo, 395a, as πνεῦμαβίαιονκαὶἄφνωπροσαλλόμενον . In v. 19 ἤχῳ (ἤχηἈττικοί · ἦχοςἝλληνες , Moeris) is a synonym for the LXX φωνῇ , which the writer intends to use immediately. Philo had already used ἦχος in de Decalogo, 11: πάνταδ ʼ ὡςεἰκὸςτὰπερὶτὸντόπονἐθαυματουργεῖτο , κτύποιςβροντῶνμειζόνωνἢὥστεχωρεῖνἀκοάς , ἀστραπῶνλάμψεσιναὐγοειδεστάταις , ἀοράτουσάλπιγγοςἠχῇπρὸςμήκιστονἀποτεινούσῃ … πυρὸςοὐρανίουφορᾷκαπνῷβαθεῖτὰἐνκύκλῳσυσκιάζοντος . In de Spec.

Leg. ii. 22 he explains that the φωνὴσάλπιγγος announced to all the world the significance of the event. Finally, καὶφωνῇῥημἀτων (the decalogue in Deuteronomy 4:12), ἧςοἱἀκούσαντεςπαρῃτήσαντομὴ (pleonastic negative as in Galatians 5:7; hence omitted by א * P 467) προστεθῆναι (the active προσθεῖναι , in A, is less apt) αὐτοῖς (i.e. the hearers) λόγον (accus. and infinitive construction after μή , cp.

Blass, § 429). The reference in v. 20 is to the scene described in Deuteronomy 5:28f., where it is the leaders of the nation who appeal in terror to Moses to take God’ s messages and orders for them: καὶνῦνμὴἀποθάνωμεν , ὅτιἐξαναλώσειἡμᾶςτὸπῦρτὸμέγατοῦτο , ἐὰνπροσθώμεθαἡμεῖςἀκοῦσαιτὴνφωνὴνΚυρίουτοῦθεοῦἡμῶνἔτι , καὶἀποθανούμεθα . But in Exodus 20:19 it is the people, as here, who appeal to Moses, μὴλαλείτωπρὸςἡμᾶςὁθεός , μὴἀποθάνωμεν . Τὸδιαστελλόμενον (in Exodus 19:13, see above) is passive. Διαστέλλομαι is said by Anz (Subsidia, 326 f.) not to occur earlier than Plato; here, as in Jth 11:12 , of a divine injunction. In v. 21 φανταζόμενον is not a LXX term (for the sense, cp. Zechariah 10:1 κύριοςἐποίησενφαντασίας , of natural phenomena like rain); it is used here for the sake of alliteration (φοβ . φαντ .). To prove that even Moses was affected by the terrors of Sinai, the writer quotes from Deuteronomy 9:19 ἔκφοβόςεἰμι , adding rhetorically καὶἔντρομος .

He forgets that Moses uttered this cry of horror, not over the fearful spectacle of Sinai but at a later stage, over the worship of the golden calf. For ἔντρομος , cp. 1 Mac 13:2 ἔντρομοςκαὶἔκφοβος .

The phrase ἔντρομοςγενόμενος is applied by Luke to the terror of Moses at the φωνὴΚυρίου out of the burning bush (Acts 7:32).

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

The true position of Christians is now sketched (vv. 22-24). ἈλλὰπροσεληλύθατεΣιὼνὄρεικαὶπόλει (11:10, 16) θεοῦζῶντος , the author adding Ἰερουσαλὴμἐπουρανίῳ (11:16) in apposition to πόλει , and using thus the archaic metaphors of Isa 18:7, Amos 1:2, Micah 4:1f. etc., in his picture of the true fellowship. Paul had contrasted mount Sinai ( = the present Jerusalem) with ἡἄνωἹερουσαλήμ . Our author’ s contrast is between mount Sion and mount Sinai, though he does not name the latter. From the πόλις he now passes to the πολῖται .

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

The second object of προσεληλύθατε is καὶμυριάσιν (so. En 40:1: “ I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand before the Lord of spirits” ) ἀγγέλων , with which πανηγύρει must be taken, leaving the following καί to introduce the third object (v. 23). The conception of the angels as μυριάδες goes back to traditions like those voiced in Psalms 68:17 and Daniel 7:10 . Πανήγυρις was a term charged with Greek religious associations (cp. R. van der Loeff, De Ludis Eleusiniis, pp. 85 f.), but it had already been adopted by Greek Jews like the translators of the LXX and Josephus for religious festivals. Πανηγύρει describes the angelic hosts thronging with glad worship round the living God. Their relation to God is noted here, as in 1:14 their relation to human beings. Ἔνθαπανήγυριςἐκεῖχαρά , as Theophylact observes (ἱλαρᾶςεὐθυμίας , ἣνπανήγυριςἐπιζητεῖ , Philo, in Flacc. 14); but the joy of Luk 15:10 is not specially mentioned. Chrysostom’ s suggestion is that the writer ἐνταῦθατὴνχαρὰνδείκνυσικαὶτὴνεὐφροσύνηνἀντὶτοῦγνόφουκαὶτοῦσκότουςκαὶτῆςθυέλλης .

Augustine (Quaest. i. 168: “ accessistis ad montem Sion et ad ciuitatem dei Hierusalem et ad milia angelorum exultantium” ) seems to imply not only that πανηγύρει goes with ἀγγέλων , but that he knew a text with some word like πανηγυριζόντων (Blass), as is further proved by boh , Origlat (laetantium, collaudantium), and Ambrose. There is a hint of this in Clem. Alex. Protrept. ix. 6, 7, αὕτηγὰρἡπρωτότοκοςἐκκλησίαἡἐκπολλῶνἀγαθῶνσυγκειμένηπαιδίων · ταῦτ ʼ ἔστιτὰπρωτότοκατὰἐναπογεγραμμέναἐνοὐρανοῖςκαὶτοσαύταιςμυριάσινἀγγέλωνσυμπανηγυρίζοντα .

The human πολῖται are next (v. 23) described as ἐκκλησίᾳπρωτοτόκωνἀπογεγραμμένωνἐνοὐρανοῖς . (For the collocation of angels and men, see En 39:5 “ Mine eyes saw their [i.e. the saints’ ] dwellings with His righteous angels, and their resting-places with the holy” ; the Enoch apocalypse proceeding to the intercession of the angels which the Christian writer deliberately omits.) The phrase describes what the author elsewhere calls ὁλαός , but in two archaic expressions, chosen to emphasize what Paul would have called their election. They are πρωτότοκοι (as Israel had been πρωτότοκος , Exodus 4:22 etc.), with a title to God’ s blessing . The choice of the plural instead of the collective singular was due to the previous plural in μυριάσινἀγγέλων . In ἀπογεγραμμένωνἐνοὐρανοῖς there is a passing allusion to the idea of the celestial archives or register— a favourite poetical figure in which the Oriental expressed his assurance of salvation.1 As in Luke 10:20 so here, the phrase refers to men on earth, to the church militant, not to the church triumphant; otherwise ἐνοὐρανοῖς would be meaningless.

This interpretation, which groups πανηγύρει with what precedes, is current in nearly all the early versions and Greek fathers, who generally assume it without question. The real alternative is to take μυριάσιν as further defined by ἀγγέλωνπανηγύρεικαὶἐκκλησίᾳπρωτοτόκωνἀπογεγραμμένωνἐνοὐρανοῖς . This introduces and leaves μυριάσιν rather abruptly, and implies that angels alone are referred to (so recently Dods, von Soden, Peake, Seeberg), called πρωτοτόκοι as created before men. But, while a later writer like Hermas (Vis. iii. 4) could speak of angels as οἱπρῶτοικτισθέντες , ἀπογεγραμμένων cannot naturally be applied to them. Hermas himself (Vis. i. 3) applies that term to men .

A fresh sweep of thought now begins (23b-24). The writer is composing a lyrical sketch, not a law-paper; he reiterates the idea of the fellowship by speaking of God, men, and him by whom this tie between God and men has been welded, the allusion to Jesus being thrown to the end, as it is to form the starting-point for his next appeal (vv. 25f.). In καὶκριτῇθεῷπάντων it is not possible, in view of 9:27 and of the punitive sense of κρίνω in 10:30, to understand κριτής as defender or vindicator (so, e.g., Hofmann, Delitzsch, Riggenbach). The words mean “ to the God of all (angels and men, the living and the dead, Acts 10:42), and to him as κριτής , to whom you must account for your life.” It is implied that he is no easy-going God. The contrast is not between the mere terrors of Sinai and the gracious relationship of Sion, but between the outward, sensuous terror of the former and the inward intimacy of the latter— an intimacy which still involves awe. In the next phrase, πνεύματαδικαίων means the departed who have in this life been δίκαιοι in the sense of 10:38f.; τετελειωμένων is added, not in the mere sense of “ departed” , but to suggest the work of Christ which includes the δίκαιοι , who had to await the sacrifice of Christ before they were “ perfected” (11:40).

If this involves the idea of a descent of Christ to the under-world, as Loofs (e.g. in ERE iv. 662) argues, it implies the group of ideas mentioned in 2:14, which may have lain in the background of the writer’ s thought. At any rate the “ perfecting” of these δίκαιοι , their τελείωσις , was due to Jesus; hence (v. 24) the writer adds, καὶδιαθήκηςνέαςμεσίτῃἸησοῦ (again at the end, for emphasis), where νέας is simply a synonym for καινῆς (8:8 etc.). The classical distinction between the two terms was being dropped in the κοινή . ΤῆςνέαςἹερουσαλήμ occurs in Test. Daniel 5:12, and the two words are synonymous, e.g., in Test. Leviticus 8:14 . Indeed Blass thinks that the unexampled διαθήκηςνεάς was due to a sense of rhythm; the author felt a desire to reproduce the ̱̮̮̱̱̮̮̱ of the preceding ωντετελειωμένων .

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

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

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

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

The divine revelation in the sacrifice of Jesus suggests the start of the next appeal and warning. From the celestial order, just sketched, the divine revelation is made to us; instead of rejecting it, which would be tragic, let us hold to it. The argument is: God’ s revelation (v. 25) implies a lasting relationship to himself (v. 28); and although the present order of things in the universe is doomed to a speedy fall (v. 26), this catastrophe will only bring out the unchanging realm in which God and we stand together (v. 27). The abruptness of the asyndeton in (v. 25) βλέπετεμήκτλ . adds to its force. Παραιτήσησθε … παραιτησάμενοι are only a verbal echo of παρῃτήσαντοκτλ . in v. 19; for the refusal of the people to hear God except through Moses is not blamed but praised by God (Deuteronomy 5:28). The writer, of course, may have ignored this, and read an ominous significance into the instinctive terror of the people, as if their refusal meant a radical rejection of God. But this is unlikely.

By παραιτησάμενοιτὸνχρηματίζοντα he means any obstinate rejection of what Moses laid down for them as the will of God. Εἰ … οὐκ (as was the fact) ἐξέφυγον (referring to the doom mentioned in 2:2, 3:7f. 10:29). As in 2:3 , ἐκφεὐγω is used absolutely; the weaker ἔφυγον is read only by א c D K L M Ψ 104, etc.

In the following words there are three possible readings. The original text ran: (a) ἐπὶγῆςπαραιτησάμενοιτὸνχρηματίζοντα (א * A C D M d boh Cyr.), ἐπὶγῆς being as often thrown to the front for the sake of emphasis. But the hyperbaton seemed awkward. Hence (b) τὸνἐπὶγῆςπαραιτησάμενοιχ . (א c K L P Chrys. Thdt. etc.) and (c) παραιτησάμενοιτὸνἐπὶγῆςχ . (69, 256, 263, 436, 462, 467, 1837, 2005 vg) are attempts to make it clear that ἐπὶγῆς goes with τὸνχρηματἰζοντα , not with παραιτησάμενοι . The latter interpretation misses the point of the contrast, which is not between a rejection on earth and a rejection in heaven (!), but between a human oracle of God and the divine Voice ἀπ ʼ οὐρανῶν to us.

The allusion in τὸνχρηματίζοντα 1 is to Moses, as Chrysostom was the first to see. To refuse to listen to him is what has been already called ἀθετεῖννόμονΜωϋσέως (10:28).

As the Sinai-revelation is carefully described in 2:2 as ὁδι ʼ ἀγγέλωνλαληθεῖςλόγος , so here Moses is ὁχρηματίζων , or, as Luke puts it, ὃςἐδέξατολόγιαζῶνταδοῦναι (Acts 7:38); he was the divine instructor of the λαός on earth. It is repeatedly said (Exodus 20:22, Deuteronomy 4:36) that God spoke to the people at Sinai ἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦ , so that to take τὸνχρηματίζοντα here as God, would be out of keeping with ἐπὶτῆςγῆς . The writer uses the verb in a wider sense than in that of 8:5 and 11:7; it means “ the man who had divine authority to issue orders,” just as in Jeremiah 26:2 , etc. He deliberately writes τὸνχρηματίζοντα of Moses, keeping τὸνλαλοῦντα as usual for God. Then, he concludes, πολὺ (altered, as in v. 9, to πολλῷ by Dc K L M P Ψ 226, or to πόσῳ , as in 9:14, by 255) μᾶλλονἡμεῖςοἱτὸνἀπ ʼ οὐρανῶνἀποστρεφό · μενοι (with accus. as 3 Mac 3:23 ἀπεστρέψαντοτὴνἀτίμητονπολιτείαν , and 2 Timothy 1:15 ἀπεστράφησάνμεπάντες ).

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

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

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

In v. 27 the Haggai prediction is made to mean the removal (μετάθεσιν , stronger sense than even in 7:12) τῶνσαλευομένων . There is a divine purpose in the cosmic catastrophe, however; it is ἵναμείνῃτὰμὴσαλευόμενα , i.e. the βασιλείαἀσάλευτος of the Christian order. For ἀσάλευτος , compare Philo, de vit. Mosis, ii. 3, τὰδὲτούτουμόνουβέβαια , ἀσάλευτα , ἀκράδαντα … μένειπαγίωςἀφ ʼ ἧςἡμέραςἐγράφημέχρινῦνκαὶπρὸςτὸνἔπειταπάνταδιαμενεῖνἐλπὶςαὐτὰαἰῶναὥσπερἀθάνατα . Σείω and σαλεύω are cognate terms (cp. e.g. Sir 16:18, 19 ὁοὐρανος … καὶγὴσαλευθήσονται … ἅματὰὄρηκαὶτὰθεμέλιατῆςγῆςσυσσείονται ). Here σείσω is changed into σείω by D K L P d arm and some cursives, probably to conform with the form of the promise in Haggai 2:21 .

The hint is more reticent, and therefore more impressive than the elaborate prediction of the Jewish apocalyptist in Apoc. Bar 59:3f.: “ but also the heavens were shaken at that time from their place, and those who were under the throne of the Mighty One were perturbed, when He was taking Moses unto Himself. For He showed him … the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of which was to be made the sanctuary of the present time” (cp. Hebrews 8:5). There is a premonition of the last judgment in En 60:1, as a convulsion which shook not only heaven, but the nerves of the myriads of angels.

“ There have been two notable transitions of life,” says Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. v. 25), in the history of the world, i.e. the two covenants, “ which are also called earthquakes on account of their arresting character” ; the first from idols to the Law, the second from the Law to the gospel. We bring the good news of yet a third earthquake, the transition from the present order to the future .2Changes and crises may only serve to render a state or an individual more stable. Thus Plutarch says of Rome, in the disturbed days of Numa, καθάπερτὰκαταπηγνύμενατῷσείεσθαιμᾶλλονἑδράζεται , ῥώννυσθαιδοκοῦσαδιὰτῶνκινδύνων (Vit. Num_8). But the writer`s point in v. 27 is that there is an ἀσάλευτοςβασιλεία 1 already present, in the fellowship of the new διαθήκη , and that the result of the cosmic catastrophe will simply be to leave this unimpaired, to let it stand out in its supreme reality and permanence. The passage is a counterpart to 1:10-12, where skies and earth vanish, though they are God’ s own ἔργα .

So here, the writer puts in, by way of parenthesis, ὡςπεποιημένων . Kypke took πεποιημένων , “ pro πεποιημένην , sc. μετάθεσιν ,” comparing Matthew 5:19 where he regarded ἐλαχίστων as similarly equivalent to ἐλαχίστην .

The word would then be a genitive absolute, connecting with what follows: “ all this being done so that,” etc. Even when πεποιημένων is taken in its ordinary sense, it is sometimes connected with ἵνακτλ . (so, e.g., Bengel and Delitzsch); the aim of creation was to replace the provisional by the permanent, the temporal by the eternal. A far-fetched interpretation. Even the conjecture (Valckenaer) πεπονήμενων (labouring with decay) is needless, though ingenious. In vv. 28, 29 the final word upon this prospect and its responsibilities is said. Διό (as in v. 12), in view of this outlook (in v. 27), βασιλείανἀσάλευτονπαραλαμβάνοντες (cp. 2 Mac 10:11 and Epist.

Arist. 36, καὶἡμεῖςδὲπαραλαβόντεςτὴνβασιλείανκτλ ., for this common phrase) ἔχωμενχάριν (διό with pres. subjunctive as in 6:1). The unique and sudden reference to the primitive idea of βασιλεία (see Introd., p. xxxiii) may be a reminiscence of the scripture from which he has just quoted; the prediction about the shaking of heaven and earth is followed, in Haggai 2:22, by the further assertion, καὶκαταστρέψωθρόνουςβασιλέων , καὶἐξολεθρεύσωδύναμινβασιλέωντῶνἐθνῶν .

Possibly our author regarded the prediction in Daniel 7:18 as fulfilled already in the Christian church, though he does not mean by βασιλείανπαραλαμβάνοντες that Christians enter on their reign.

Why thankfulness (for this common phrase, see Epict. i. 2. 23, ἔχωχάριν , ὅτιμουφείδῃ , and OP 1381:78 (2nd century) διὰθυσιῶντῷσώσαντιἀπεδίδομενχάριτας ) should be the standing order for them, the writer explains in δι ʼ ἧςκτλ .; it is the one acceptable λατρεύειν (9:14), or, as he puts it afterwards (13:15), the real sacrifice of Christians. Δι ʼ ἧςλατρευῶμεν (subj. cohortative in relative clause, like στῆτε in 1 P 5:12) εὐαρεστῶς (not in LXX; an adverb from the verb in the sense of 11:5, 6) τῷθεῷ . The v.l. ἔχομεν (א K P Lat syrhkl eth etc.) is the usual (see Romans 5:1) phonetic blunder, though λατρεύομεν (א M P syrhkl arm) would yield as fair a sense as λατρεύωμεν (A C D L 33. 104 Lat sah etc.). In μετὰ … δέους he puts in a characteristic warning against presumption. There are three readings. (a) εὐλαβείαςκαὶδέους , א * A C D 256, 263, 436, 1912 sah boh syrvg arm. (b) εὐλαβείαςκαὶαἰδοῦς , א c M P Ψ 6. 104. 326. 1739 lat Orig. (c) αἰδοῦςκαὶεὐλαβείας , K L 462 syrhkl Chrys. Thdt. The accidental doubling of αι led to (b), especially as αἰδοῦς and εὐλαβεία were often bracketed together, and as δεός was a rare word (first popularized in Hellenistic Judaism by 2 Maccabees). Εὐλαβεία here as in 5:7 (cp. 11:7) of reverent awe. Καὶγὰρὁθεὸςἡμῶνπῦρκαταναλίσκον (v. 29).

Not “ for our God too is a πῦρἀν .,” for the writer believed that the same God was God of the old διαθήκη and of the new; besides, this rendering would require καὶγὰρἡμῶνὁεός . The phrase is from Deuteronomy 4:24 (Moses at Sinai to the Israelites) ὅτιΚύριοςὁθεόςσουπῦρκαταναλίσκονἐστίν , θεὸςζηλωτής (cp. 9:3), referring to his intense resentment of anything like idolatry, which meant a neglect of the διαθήκη . There is no allusion to fire as purifying; the author of Wisdom (16:16) describes the Egyptians as πυρὶκαταναλισκόμενοι , and it is this punitive aspect of God which is emphasized here, the divine ζῆλος (see p. xxxvi).

This is one of Tertullian`s points (adv. Marc. i. 26-27) against the Marcionite conception of a God who is good-natured and nothing more: “ tacite permissum est, quod sine ultione prohibetur … nihil Deo tam indignum quam non exsequi quod noluit et prohibuit admitti … malo parcere Deum indignius sit quam animadvertere. … Plane nec pater tuus est, in quem competat et amor propter pietatem, et timor propter potestatem? nec legitimus dominus, ut diligas propter humanitatem et timeas propter disciplinam.” In ΠρὸςἙβραίους there is no softening of the conception, as in Philo’ s argument (de Sacrificantibus, 8) that God’ s requirement is simply ἀγαπᾶναὐτὸνὡςεὐεργέτην , εἰδὲμὴ , φοβεῖσθαιγοῦνὡςἄρχοντακαὶκύριον , καὶδιὰπασῶνἰέναιτῶνεἰςἀρέσκειανὁδῶνκαὶλατρεύειναὐτῷμὴπαρέργωςἀλλὰὅλῃτῇψυχῇπεπληρωμένῃγνώμης · φιλοθέουκαὶτῶνἐντολῶναὐτοῦπεριέχεσθαικαὶτὰδίκαιατιμᾶν . In de Decalogo, 11, he spiritualizes the fire at Sinai thus: τοῦπυρὸςτὸμὲνφωτίζειντὸδὲκαίεινπέφυκεν (those who obey the divine laws being inwardly enlightened, those who disobey being inflamed and consumed by their vices), and closes the treatise (33) by enunciating his favourite doctrine that God never punishes directly but only indirectly (here by Δίκη , whose appropriate task is to punish those who disobey her liege Lord). Indeed he allegorizes the OT comparison of God to a flame (Quaest. in Exodus 24:17 ὤσπερδὲἡφλὸξπᾶσαντὴνπαραβληθεῖσανὅληνἀναλίσκει , οὕτως , ὅτανἐπιφοιτήσῃεἰλικρινὴςτοῦθεοῦἔννοιατῇψυχῇπάνταςτοὺςἑτεροδόξουςἀσεβείαςλογισμοὺςδιαφθείρει , καθοσιοῦσατὴνὅληνδιάνοιαν ). The closest parallel to our passage lies in Ps.-Sol 15:5f. where the author declares that praise to God is the one security for man. Ψαλμὸνκαὶαἶνονμετ ʼ ᾠδῆςἐνεὐφροσύνῃκαρδιάς , καρπὸνχειλέων … ἀπαρχὴνχειλέωνἀπὸκαρδίαςὁσίαςκαὶδικαίας , ὁποιῶνταῦταοὐσαλευθήσεταιεἰςτὸναἰῶναἀπὸκακοῦ , φλὸξπυρὸςκαὶὄργὴἀδίκωνοὐχἄψεταιαὐτοῦ , ὄτανἐξέλθῃἐπὶἁμαρτωλοὺςἀπόπροσώπουκυρίου .

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

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

1 Τηλικούτον , א * W

442 [O 18]

1 The broader conception of the moral life as an athletic contest recurs in Epict. iii. 25, 1-3, σκέψαι , ὧνπροέθουἀρχόμενος , τίνωνμὲνἐκράτησας , τίνωνδ ʼ οὔ … οὐγὰρἀποκνητέοντὸνἀγῶνατὸνμέγιστονἀγωνιζομένοις , ἀλλὰκαὶπληγὰςληπτέον · οὐγὰρὐπὲρπάληςκαὶπαγκρατίουὁἀγὼνπρόκειται … ἀλλ ʼ ὐπὲραὐτῆςεὐτυχίαςκαὶεὐδαιμονίας .

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

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

c (Codex Colbertinus: saec. xii.)

vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.

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

1 Epictetus, in his praise of Herakles (iii. 24), declares that his hero lived and worked with a firm faith in Zeus the Father. “ He considered that Zeus was his own father; he called Zeus father, and did everything with his eyes fixed on Zeus .”

A [02: δ 4].

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

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

1 Ἀναλογίζομαι , though not a LXX term, begins to be used in Hellenistic Judaism in a religious sense.

א Ԡ [01: δ 2).

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

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

33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17

256 [α 216]

1288 [α 162]

1319 [δ 180]

1739 [α 78]

2127 [δ 202]

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

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

L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.

440 [δ 260]

491 [δ 152]

823 [δ 368]

31 [α 103]

5 [δ 453]

35 [δ 309]

203 [α 203]

226 [δ 156]

241 [δ 507]

242 [δ 206]

257 [α 466]

337 [α 205]

378 [α 258]

383 [α 353] cont. 1:1-13:7

487 [α 171]

506 [δ 101]

547 [δ 157]

623 [α 173]

794 [δ 454]

917 [α 264]

1831 [α 472]

1891 [α 62]

1898 [α 70]

2143 [α 184]

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

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

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

104 [α 103]

d (Latin version of D)

K [018:1:1].

93 [α 51]

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

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

6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25

326 [α 257]

1836 [α 65]

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

460 [α 397]

1 Clem. Hom. xii. 18, αἱχεῖρεςὑπὸδηγμάτωνπαρείθησαν .

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

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

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

2 χωρίς

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

424 [O 12] Hort’ s 67

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

2 Πορνεία has this sense, and so has the verb .

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

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

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

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

1 There is a striking parallel in De Mercede Conductis, 42, where Lucian describes an old man being met by ἡμετάνοιαδακρύουσαἐςοὐδὲνὄφελος .

1 Philo read μείζωνἡαἰτίαμουτοῦἀφεθῆναι in Genesis 4:13.

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

255 [α 174]

Athan Athanasius

N [0122: α 1030] cont. 5:8-6:10.

429 [α 398]

489 [δ 459] Hort’ s 102

Thdt. Theodoret

1 Clem. Hom. ix. 22, τὰὀνόματαἐνοὐρανῷὡςἀεὶζώντωνἀναγραφἦναι .

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

1 τὸἌβελ (genitive) was actually read by L and is still preferred by Blass.

69 [δ 505]

263 [δ 372]

436 [α 172]

462 [α 502]

1837 [α 192]

2005 [α 1436] cont. 1:1-7:2

1 Cp. Jos. Ant. III. 8. 8, Μωϋσης … ἐχρηματίζετοπερὶὧνὲδεῖτοπαρὰτοῦθεοῦ .

216 [α 469]

642 [α 552] cont. 1:1-7:18 9:13-13:25

920 [α 55]

1518 [α 116]

1872 [α 209]

1 i.e. while Haggai predicts “ it will be very soon,” the LXX says “ once again.”

2 Probably a reference to Hebrews 12:26.

1 Cp. Wis 5:15, 16 δίκαιοιδὲεἰςτὸναἱῶναζῶσιν … λήμψονταιτὸβασιλειοντῆςεὺπρεπείας … ἐκχειρὸςΚυρίου , ὅτιτῇδεξιᾷσκεπάσειαὐτούς .

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

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

1912 [α 1066]