Hebrews 13

Hebrews 13:1-99

1Let your brotherly love continue. 2Never forget to be hospitable, for by hospitality (διὰταύτης , as 12:15) some have entertained angels unawares. 3Remember prisoners as if you were in prison yourselves; remember those who are being ill-treated (11:37), since you too are in the body.

Neither φιλαδελφία nor φιλοξενία is a &LXX term, though the broader sense of the former begins in 4 Mac 13:23, 26, 14:1. Μενέτω (cp. 6:10, 10:24, 32f.), though its demands might be severe at times (cp. Romans 12:10, Romans 12:1 P 1:22; Clem. Romans 1:2; Herm. Mand. 8:10); the duty is laid as usual on members of the church, not specially on officials. In v. 2 a particular expression of this φιλαδελφία is called for. φιλοξενία was practically an article of religion in the ancient world. The primary reference here in τινες is to Abraham and Sara (Genesis 18:1f.), possibly to Manoah (Judges 13:3f.), and even to Tobit (Tob 12:15); but the point of the counsel would be caught readily by readers familiar with the Greek and Roman legends of divine visitants being entertained unawares by hospitable people, e.g.

Hom. Odyss. xvii. 485 f. (καίτεθεοὶξείνοισινἐοικότεςἀλλοδαποῖσι | παντοῖοιτελέθοντες , ἐπιστρωφῶσιπόληας , cp.

Plat. Soph. 216 B); Sil. Ital. vii. 173 f. , and the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, Met. viii. 626 f.) alluded to in Acts 14:11. In the Hellenic world the worship of Zeus Xenios fortified this kindly custom. According to Resh Lakish (Sota, 10a), Abraham planted the tree at Beersheba (Genesis 21:33) for the refreshment of wayfarers, and φιλοξενία was always honoured in Jewish tradition (e.g.

Sabbath, 127. 1, “ there are six things, the fruit of which a man eats in this world and by which his horn is raised in the world to come: they are, hospitality to strangers, the visiting of the sick,” etc.). But there were pressing local reasons for this kindly virtue in the primitive church.

Christians travelling abroad on business might be too poor to afford a local inn. Extortionate charges were frequent; indeed the bad repute which innkeepers enjoyed in the Greek world (cp. Plato’ s Laws, 918 D) was due partly to this and partly also to a “ general feeling against taking money for hospitality” (cp. Jebb’ s Theophrastus, p. 94). But, in addition, the moral repute of inns stood low (Theophrastus, Char. 6:5 δεινὸςδὲπανδοκεῦσαικαὶπορνοβοσκῆσαικτλ .); there is significance in the Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus (Ant. v. 1. 1) that Rahab ἡπόρνη (11:31) kept an inn. For a Christian to frequent such inns might be to endanger his character, and this consideration favoured the practice of hospitality on the part of the local church, apart altogether from the discomforts of an inn. (“ In the better parts of the empire and in the larger places of resort there were houses corresponding in some measure to the old coaching inns of the eighteenth century; in the East there were the well-known caravanserais; but for the most part the ancient hostelries must have afforded but undesirable quarters.

They were neither select nor clean,” T. G.

Tucker, Life in the Roman World, p. 20.) Some of these travellers would be itinerant evangelists (cp. 3 John 1:5-8).

According to Philo the three wayfarers seen by Abraham did not at first appear divine , though later on he suspected they were either prophets or angels when they had promised him the birth of a son in return for his splendid hospitality (Abrah. 22-23). “ In a wise man’ s house,” Philo observes, “ no one is slow to practise hospitality: women and men, slaves and freedmen alike, are most eager to do service to strangers” ; at the same time such hospitality was only an incident and instance of Abraham’ s larger virtue, i.e. of his piety. Josephus also (Ant. i. 11. 2) makes Abraham suppose the three visitors were human strangers, until at last they revealed themselves as divine angels (θεασάμενοςτρεῖςἀγγέλουςκαὶνομίσαςεἶναιξένουςἤσπασατότ ʼ ἀναστὰςκαὶπαρ ʼ αὐτῷκαταχθένταςπαρεκάλειξενίωνμεταλαβεῖν ). It was ignorance of the classical idiom in ἔλαθονξενίσαντες , which led to the corruptions of ἔλαθον in some Latin versions into “ latuerunt,” “ didicerunt,” and “ placuerunt.” Note the paronomasia ἐπιλανθάνεσθε … ἔλαθον , and-the emphatic position of ἀγγέλους . “ You never know whom you may be entertaining,” the writer means. “ Some humble visitor may turn out to be for you a very ἄγγελοςθεοῦ ” (cp. Galatians 4:14).

Μιμνήσκεσθε (bear in mind, and act on your thought of) τῶνδεσμίων . Strangers come within sight; prisoners (v. 3) have to be sought out or— if at a distance— borne in mind. Christian kindness to the latter, i.e. to fellow-Christians arrested for some reason or other, took the form either of personally visiting them to alleviate their sufferings by sympathy and gifts (cp. Matthew 25:36, 2 Timothy 1:16), or of subscribing money (to pay their debts or, in the case of prisoners of war, to purchase their release), or of praying for them (Colossians 4:18 and 4:3). All this formed a prominent feature of early Christian social ethics. The literature is full of tales about the general practice: e.g.

Aristid. Rev_15; Tertull. ad Mart. 1 f. and Apol. 39, with the vivid account of Lucian in the de Morte Peregr. 12, 13.

This subject is discussed by Harnack in the Expansion of Early Christianity (bk. 2Ch_3, section 5). Our author urges, “ remember the imprisoned” ὡςσυνδεδεμένοι . If ὡς is taken in the same sense as the following ὡς , the meaning is: (a) “ as prisoners yourselves,” i.e. in the literal sense, “ since you know what it means to be in prison” ; or (b) “ as imprisoned,” in the metaphorical sense of Diognet. 6, Χριστιανοὶκατέχονταιὡςἐνφρουρᾷτῷκόσμῳ . A third alternative sense is suggested by LXX of 1 S 18:1 , but the absence of a dative after συνδεδεμένοι and the parallel phrase ὡςἐνσώματι rule it out. Probably ὡς is no more than an equivalent for ὡσεί . Christians are to regard themselves as one with their imprisoned fellows, in the sense of 1 Corinthians 12:26 εἴτεπάσχειἓνμέλος , συμπάσχειπάντατὰμέλη .

This interpretation tallies with 10:34 above (cp. Nehemiah 1:3, Nehemiah 1:4).

It does not, however, imply that ἐνσώματι , in the next clause, means “ in the Body ; for ἐνσώματι refers to the physical condition of liability to similar ill-usage. See Orig. c. Cels. ii. 23, τῶντοῖςἐνσώμασισυμβαινόντων , and especially Philo’ s words describing some spectators of the cruelties inflicted by a revenue officer on his victims, as suffering acute pain, ὡςἐντοῖςἑτέρωνσώμασιναὐτοὶκακούμενοι (de Spec. Leg. iii. 30). So in de Confus. Ling. 35, καὶτῷσυμφορῶνἀνηνύτωντῶνκακουχομένων (i.e. by exile, famine, and plague; cp. Hebrews 11:37) οὐκἐνδεθεῖσαιχωρίῳ , σώματι .

Seneca (Ep. ix. 8) illustrates the disinterestedness of friendship by observing that the wise man does not make friends for the reason suggested by Epicurus, viz., to “ have someone who will sit beside him when he is ill, someone to assist him when he is thrown into chains or in poverty,” but “ that he may have someone beside whom, in sickness, he may himself sit, someone whom he may set free from captivity in the hands of the enemy.” The former kind of friendship he dismisses as inadequate: “ a man has made a friend who is to assist him in the event of bondage , but such a friend will forsake him as soon as the chains rattle .” In Ep. Arist. 241, 242, when the king asks what is the use of kinship, the Jew replies, ἐὰντοῖςσυμβαίνουσινομίζωμενἀτυχοῦσιμὲνἑλαττοῦσθαικαὶκακοπαθῶμενὡςαὐτοί , φαίνεταιτὸσυγγενὲςὅσονἰσχῦόνἐστι . Cicero specially praises generosity to prisoners, and charity in general, as being serviceable not only to individuals but to the State (de Offic. ii. 18, “ haec benignitas etiam rei publicae est utilis, redimi e servitute captos, locupletari tenuiores” ).

4Let marriage be held in honour by all, and keep the marriage-bed unstained. God will punish the vicious and adulterous.

5 Keep your life free from the love of money; be content with what you have, for He has said,

“ Never will I fail you, never will I forsake you.”

6So that we can say confidently,

“ The Lord is my helper (βοηθός , cp. 2:18, 4:16), I will not be afraid,

What can men do to me?”

As vv. 1, 2 echo 10:24, 32, 33, v. 4 drives home the πόρνος of 12:16, and vv. 5, 6 echo the reminder of 10:34. Evidently (v. 4), as among the Macedonian Christians (1 Thessalonians 4:3-9), φιλαδελφία could be taken for granted more readily than sexual purity. Τίμιος (sc. ἔστω as in v. 5, Romans 12:9, the asyndeton being forcible) ὁγάμοςἐνπᾶσιν , i.e. primarily by all who are married, as the following clause explains. There may be an inclusive reference to others who are warned against lax views of sexual morality, but there is no clear evidence that the writer means to protest against an ascetic disparagement of marriage. Κοίτη is, like the classical λέχος , a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse, here between the married; ἀμίαντος is used of incest, specially in Test. Reub. i:6, ἐμίανακοίτηντοῦπατρόςμου : Plutarch, de Fluviis, 18, μὴθέλωνμιαίνειντὴνκοίτηντοῦγεννήσαντος , etc.; but here in a general sense, as, e.g., in Wisdom:

μακαρίαἡστεῖραἡἀμίαντος ,

ἥτιςοὐκἔγνωκοίτηνἐνπαραπτώματι ,

ἕξεικαρπὸνἐνἐπισκοπῇψυχῶν (3:13),

and οὔτεβίουςοὔτεγάμουςκαθαροὺςἔτιφυλάσσουσιν ,

ἕτεροςδ ʼ ἕτερονἢλοχῶνἀναιρεῖἢνοθεύωνὀδυνᾷ (14:24).

In πόρνουςγὰρκαὶμοιχούςκτλ ., the writer distinguishes between μοιχοί , i.e. married persons who have illicit relations with other married persons, and πόρνοι of the sexually vicious in general, i.e. married persons guilty of incest or sodomy as well as of fornication. In the former case the main reference is to the breach of another person’ s marriage; in the latter, the predominating idea is treachery to one’ s own marriage vows. The possibility of πορνεία in marriage is admitted in Tob 8:7 , i.e. of mere sexual gratification1 as distinct from the desire and duty of having children, which Jewish and strict Greek ethics held to be the paramount aim of marriage (along with mutual fellowship); but this is only one form of πορνεία . In the threat κρινεῖ (as in 10:30) ὁθεός , the emphasis is on ὁθεός . “ Longe plurima pars scortatorum et adulterorum est sine dubio, quae effugit notitiam iudicum mortalium … magna pars, etiamsi innotescat, tamen poenam civilem et disciplinam ecclesiasticam vel effugit vel leuissime persentiscit” (Bengel).

This is another social duty (cp. Philo, de Decalogo, 24). In view of the Epicurean rejection of marriage (e.g. Epict. iii. 7. 19), which is finely answered by Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. Florileg. lxvii. 25: ὁεὐγενὴςκαὶεὔψυχοςνέος … θεωρῶνδιότιτέλειοςοἷκοςκαὶβίοςοὑκἄλλωςδύναταιγενέσθαι , ἢμετὰ . γυναικὸςκαὶτέκνωνκτλ .), as well as of current ascetic tendencies (e.g., 1 Timothy 4:3), there may have been a need of vindicating marriage, but the words here simply maintain the duty of keeping marriage vows unbroken. The writer is urging chastity, not the right and duty of any Christian to marry.

Prejudices born of the later passion for celibacy led to the suppression of the inconvenient ἐνπᾶσι (om. 38. 460. 623. 1836. 1912* Didymus, Cyril Jerus., Eus., Athan, Epiphanius, Thdt.). The sense is hardly affected, whether γάρ (א A D* M P lat sah boh) or δέ (C Dc Ψ 6 syr arm eth Clem., Eus., Didymus, Chrys.) is read, although the latter would give better support to the interpretation of the previous clause as an antiascetic maxim.

A warning against greed of gain (vv. 5, 6) follows the warning against sexual impurity. There may be a link of thought between them. For the collocation of sensuality and the love of money, see Epict. iii. 7. 21, σοὶκαλὴνγυναῖκαφαίνεσθαιμηδεμίανἢτὴνσήν , καλὸνπαῖδαμηδένα , καλὸνἀργύρωμαμηθέν , χρύσωμαμηθέν : Test. Jude 1:18, φυλάξασθεἀπὸτῆςπορνείαςκαὶτῆςφιλαργυρίας … ὅτιταῦτα … οὐκἀφίειἄνδραἐλεῆσαιτὸνπλησίοναὐτοῦ , and Philo’ s (de Post. Caini, 34) remark, that all the worst quarrels, public and private, are due to greedy craving for ἢεὐμορφίασγυναικὸςἢχρημάτωνκτλ . In de Abrah. 26, he attributes the sensuality of Sodom to its material prosperity.

Lucian notes the same connexion in Nigrin. 16 (συνεισέρχεταιγὰρμοιχείακαὶφιλαργυρίακτλ ., the love of money having been already set as the source of such vices). In 1 Corinthians 5:10f. Paul brackets οἱπόρνοι with οἱπλεονέκται , and πλεονεξία (cp. 1 Thessalonians 4:6) as selfishness covers adultery as well as grasping covetousness. But the deeper tie between the two sins is that the love of luxury and the desire for wealth open up opportunities of sensual indulgence. In injuries to other people, Cicero observes (de Offic. i. 7. 24), “ latissime patet avaritia.” When Longinus describes the deteriorating effects of this passion or vice in character (de Sublim. 44), he begins by distinguishing it from mere love of pleasure; φιλαργυρίαμὲννόσημαμικροποιόν , φιληδονίαδ ʼ ἀγεννέστατον . Then he proceeds to analyse the working of φιλαργυρία in life, its issue in ὕβρις , παρανομία , and ἀναισχυντία .

Ἀφιλάργυρος (the rebel Appianus tells Marcus Aurelius, in OP xxxiii. 10, 11, that his father τὸμὲνπρῶτονἦνφιλόσοφος , τὸδεύτερονἀφιλάργυρος , τὸτρίτονφιλάγαθος ) ὁτρόπος . Ἀρκούμενοι is the plur. ptc. after a noun (as in 2 Corinthians 1:7, Romans 12:9), and with τοῖςπαροῦσιν reproduces a common Greek phrase for contentment, e.g. Teles, vii. 7, ἀλλ ʼ ἡμεῖςοὐδυνάμεθαἀρκεῖσθαιτοῖςπαροῦσιν , ὅτανκαὶτρυφῇπολὺδιδῶμεν , and xxviii. 31, καὶμὴἔχωνοὐκἐπιποθήσειςἀλλὰβιώσῃἀρκούμενοςτοῖςπαροῦσιν . The feature here is the religious motive adduced in αὐτὸςγὰρεἴρηκεν (of God as usual, e.g., 1:13), a phrase which recalls the Pythagorean αὐτὸςἔφα . The quotation οὐμήσεἀνῶοὐδ ʼ οὐμήσεἐγκαταλίπω is a popular paraphrase of Jos 1:5 or Genesis 28:15 (cp.

Deuteronomy 31:8, 1 Chronicles 28:20) which the writer owes to Philo (de Confus. Ling. 32), who quotes it exactly in this form as a λόγιοντοῦἵλεωθεοῦμεστὸνἡμερότητος , but simply as a promise that God will never leave the human soul to its own unrestrained passions. The combination of the aor. subj. with the first οὐμή and the reduplication of the negative (for οὐδ ʼ οὐμή , cp. Matthew 24:21) amount to a strong asseveration. Note that the writer does not appeal, as Josephus does, to the merits of the fathers (Antiq. xi. 5. 7, τὸνμὲνθεὸνἴστεμνήμῃτῶνπατέρωνἈβράμουκαὶἸσάκουκαὶἸακώβουπαραμένοντακαὶδιὰτῆςἐκείνωνδικαιοσύνηςοὐκἐγκαταλείποντατὴνὑπὲρἡμῶνπρόνοιαν ) in assuring his readers that they will not be left forlorn by God.

Ἐγκαταλείπω (so all the uncials except D) may be simply an orthographical variant of the true reading ἐγκαταλίπω (aorist subj.). In Deuteronomy 31:6 the A text runs οὐμήσεἀνῇοὐδ ʼ οὐσεἐγκαταλείπῃ , in Joshua 1:5 οὐκἐγκαταλείπωσεοὐδὲὑπερόψομαίσε , and in Genesis 28:15 οὐμήσεἐγκαταλείπω . The promise originally was of a martial character. But, as Keble puts it :

“ Not upon kings or priests alone

the power of that dear word is spent;

it chants to all in softest tone

the lowly lesson of content.”

Ὥστε (v. 6) θαρροῦντας (on the evidence for this form, which Plutarch prefers to the Ionic variant θαρσεῖν , cp. Crö nert’ s Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, 133:2) ἡμᾶς (om. M, accidentally) λέγειν . What God says to us moves us to say something to ourselves. This quotation from Psalms 118:6 is exact, except that the writer, for the sake of terseness, omits the καί ( = so) before οὐφοβηθήσομαι , which is reinserted by א c A D K L M syrhkl etc. For the phrase θαρροῦνταςλέγειν , see Proverbs 1:21 (Wisdom) ἐπὶδὲπύλαιςπόλεωςθαρροῦσαλέγει : and for βοηθός and θαρρεῖν in conjunction, see Xen.

Cyr. v. i. 25, 26, ἐπειδὴδ ʼ ἐκΠερσῶνβοηθὸςἡμῖνὡρμήθης … νῦνδ ʼ αὖοὕτωςἔχομενὡςσὺνμὲνσοὶὅμωςκαὶἐντῇπολεμίᾳὄντεςθαρροῦμεν . Epictetus tells a man who is tempted (ii. 18, 29), τοῦθεοῦμέμνησο , ἐκεῖνονἐπικαλοῦβοηθὸνκαὶπαραστάτην . This is the idea of the psalm-quotation here. Courage is described in Galen (de H. et Plat. decr. vii. 2) as the knowledge ὧνχρὴθαρῥεῖνἢμὴθαρῥεῖν , a genuinely Stoic definition; and Alkibiades tells, in the Symposium (221 A), how he came upon Sokrates and Laches retreating during the Athenian defeat at Delium καὶἰδὼνεὐθὺςπαρακελεύομαίτεαὐτοῖνθαρρεῖν , καὶἔλεγονὅτιοὐκἀπολείψωαὐτώ . In the touching prayer preserved in the Acta Pauli (xlii.), Thekla cries, ὁθεόςμουκαὶτοῦοἰκουτούτου , ΧριστὲἸησοῦὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ , ὁἐμοὶβοηθὸςἐνφυλακῇ , βοηθὸςἐπὶἡγεμόνων , βοηθὸςἐνπυρὶ , βοηθὸςἐνθηρίοις .

According to Pliny (Epp. ix. 30: “ primum est autem suo esse contentum, deinde, quos praecipue scias indigere sustentantem fouentemque orbe quodam societatis ambire” ) a man’ s first duty is to be content with what he has; his second, to go round and help all in his circle who are most in need. Epictetus quotes a saying of Musonius Rufus: οὐθέλειςμελετᾶνἀρκεῖσθαιτῷδεδομένῳ ; (i. 1. 27); but this refers to life in general, not to money or property in particular. The argument of our author is that instead of clinging to their possessions and setting their hearts on goods (10:34), which might still be taken from them by rapacious pagans, they must realize that having God they have enough. He will never allow them to be utterly stripped of the necessaries of life. Instead of trying to refund themselves for what they had lost, let them be content with what is left to them and rely on God to preserve their modest all; he will neither drop nor desert them.

Hitherto the community has been mainly (see on 12:14f.) addressed as a whole. Now the writer reminds them of the example of their founders, dead and gone, adding this to the previous list of memories (12:1f.).

7 Remember your leaders, the men who spoke the word of God to you; look back upon the close of their career, and copy their faith.

Μνημονεύετετῶνἡγουμένωνὑμῶνοἵτινες (since they were the men who) ἐλάλησανὑμῖντὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦ . The special function of these primitive apostles and prophets was to preach the gospel (cp. 1 Corinthians 1:17) with the supernatural powers of the Spirit. Then the writer adds a further title to remembrance, their consistent and heroic life; they had sealed their testimony with their (ὧνκτλ .) blood. Ἡγούμενος , like ἄρχων , was a substantival formation which had a wide range of meaning; here it is equivalent to “ president” or “ leader” (cp. Epp. Apollon. ii. 69, ἄνδραςτοὺςἡγουμένουςὑμων = your leading citizens, or prominent men, and Acts 15:22).1 It was they who had founded the church by their authoritative preaching; ἐλάλησανὑμῖντὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦ recalls the allusion to the σωτηρία which ὑπὸτῶνἀκουσάντων (i.e. Jesus) εἰςἡμᾶςἐβεβαιώθη (2:3).

The phrase denotes, in primitive Christianity (e.g. Did. 4:1 where the church-member is bidden remember with honour τοῦλαλοῦντοςσοιτὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦ ), the central function of the apostolic ministry as the declaration and interpretation of the divine λόγος . These men had died for their faith; ἔκβασις here, as in Wis 2:17 , is, like ἔξοδος , a metaphor for death as the close of life, evidently a death remarkable for its witness to faith. They had laid down their lives as martyrs. This proves that the allusion in 12:4 does not exclude some martyrdoms in the past history of the community, unless the reference here is supposed to mean no more than that they died as they had lived κατὰπίστιν (11:13), without giving up their faith.

In Egypt, during the Roman period, “ a liturgical college of πρεσβύτεροι or ἡγούμενοι was at the head of each temple” (GCP i. 127), the latter term being probably taken from its military sense of “ officers” .

Ἀναθεωροῦντες is “ scanning closely, looking back (ἀνα -) on” ; and ἀναστροφή is used in this sense even prior to Polybius; e.g. Magn 4635, 44 (iii b.c.) and Magn 165:5 (i a.d.) διὰτὴντοῦἤθουςκόσμιονἀναστροφήν . As for μιμεῖσθε , the verb never occurs in the LXX except as a v. l. (B*) for ἐμίσησας in Psalms 31:6, and there in a bad sense. The good sense begins in Wis 4:2 , so far as Hellenistic Judaism goes, and in 4 Mac 9:23 13:9 it is used of imitating a personal example, as here. In the de Congressu Erudit. 13, Philo argues that the learner listens to what his teacher says, whereas a man who acquires true wisdom by practice and meditation attends οὐτοῖςλεγομένοιςἀλλὰτοῖςλέγουσι , μιμούμενοςτὸνἐκείνωνβίονἐνταῖςκατὰμέροςἀνεπιλήπτοιςπράξεσι . He is referring to living examples of goodness, but, as in de Vita Mos. i. 28, he points out that Moses made his personal character a παράδειγματοῖςἐθέλουσιμιμεῖσθαι .

This stimulus of heroic memories belonging to one’ s own group is noted by Quintilian (Instit. Orat. xii. 2. 31) as essential to the true orator: “ quae sunt antiquitus dicta ac facta praeclare et nosse et animo semper agitare conveniet. Quae profecto nusquam plura maioraque quam in nostrae civitatis monumentis reperientur … Quantum enim Graeci praeceptis valent, tantum Romani, quod est maius, exemplis.” Marcus Aurelius recollects the same counsel: ἐντοῖςτῶνἘπικουρείωνγράμμασιπαράγγελμαἔκειτοσυνεχῶςὑπομιμνῄσκεσθαιτῶνπαλαιῶντινοςτῶνἀρετῇχρησαμένων (11:26).

Human leaders may pass away, but Jesus Christ, the supreme object and subject of their faithful preaching, remains, and remains the same; no novel additions to his truth are required, least of all innovations which mix up his spiritual religion with what is sensuous and material.

8 Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. 9 Never let yourselves be carried away with a variety of novel doctrines; for the right thing is to have one’ s heart strengthened by grace, not by the eating of food— that has never been any use to those who have had recourse to it. 10 Our (ἔχομεν as 4:15) altar is one of which the worshippers have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of the animals whose “ blood is taken into the holy Place” by the highpriest as a “ sin-offering, are burned outside the camp” ; 12 and so Jesus also suffered outside the gale, in order to sanctify the people (cp. 10:2f.) by his own blood (9:12). 13 Let us go to him “ outside the camp,” then, bearing his obloquy 14 (for we have no lasting city here below, we seek the City to come). 15 And by him “ let us” constantly “ offer praise to God” as our “ sacrifice,” that is, “ the fruit of lips” that celebrate his Name. 16 Do not forget (μὴἐπιλανθάνεσθε , as in v. 2) beneficence and charity either; these are the kind of sacrifices that are acceptable to God.

V. 8 connects with what precedes and introduces what follows. Ἐχθες 1 refers to his life on earth (2:3, 5:7) and includes the service of the original ἡγούμενοι ; it does not necessarily imply a long retrospect. Σήμερον as in 3:15, and ὁαὐτός as in 1:12. The finality of the revelation in Jesus, sounded at the opening of the homily (1:1f.), resounds again here. He is never to be superseded; he never needs to be supplemented. Hence (v. 9) the warning against some new theology about the media of forgiveness and fellowship, which, it is implied, infringes the all-sufficient efficacy of Jesus Christ. Διδαχαῖς (6:2) ποικίλαις (2:4 in good sense) καὶξέναιςμὴπαραφέρεσθε . Παραφέρεσθαι (cp. Jude 1:12) is never used in this metaphorical sense (swayed, swerved) in the LXX, where it is always literal, and the best illustration of ξέναις in the sense of “ foreign to” (the apostolic faith) is furnished by the author of the epistle to Diognetus (11:1), who protests, οὐξέναὁμιλῶ … ἀλλὰἀποστόλωνγενόμενοςμαθητὴςγίνομαιδιδάσκαλοςἐθνῶν . Such notions he curtly pronounces useless, ἐνοἷςοὐκὠφελήθησανοἱπεριπατοῦντες , where ἐνοἷς goes with περιπατοῦντες ; they have never been of any use in mediating fellowship with God for those who have had recourse to them. It is exactly the tone of Jesus in Mark 7:18.

Παραφέρεσθε was altered (under the influence of Eph 4:14) into περιφέρεσθε (K L Ψ 2, 5, 88, 330, 378, 440, 491, 547, 642, 919, 920, 1867, 1872, 1908, arm sah). Περιπατήσαντες (א c C Dc K L M P syrhkl arm Orig. Chrys. etc.) and περιπατοῦντες (א * A D* 1912 lat) are variants which are substantially the same in meaning, περιπατεῖνἐν being used in its common sense = living in the sphere of (Ephesians 2:10 etc.), having recourse to.

The positive position is affirmed in καλόνκτλ . (καλόν , as in 1 Corinthians 7:1, Romans 14:21 etc.). “ Καλός … denotes that kind of goodness which is at once seen to be good” (Hort on 1 P 2:12), i e. by those who have a right instinct. The really right and good course is χάριτιβεβαιοῦσθαιτὴνκαρδίαν , i.e. either to have one’ s heart strengthened, or to be strengthened in heart (καρδίαν , accus. of reference). Bread sustains our physical life (ἄρτοςκαρδίανἀνθρώπουστηρίζει , Psalms 104:15), but καρδία here means more than vitality; it is the inner life of the human soul, which God’ s χάρις alone can sustain, and God’ s χάρις in Jesus Christ is everything (2:9 etc.). But what does this contrast mean? The explanation is suggested in the next passage (vv. 10-16), which flows out of what has just been said. The various novel doctrines were connected in some way with βρώματα .

So much is clear. The difficulty is to infer what the βρώματα were.

There is a touch of scorn for such a motley, unheard of, set of διδαχαί . The writer does not trouble to characterize them, but his words imply that they were many-sided, and that their main characteristic was a preoccupation with βρώματα . There is no reference to the ancient regulations of the Hebrew ritual mentioned in 9:10; this would only be tenable on the hypothesis, for which there is no evidence, that the readers were Jewish Christians apt to be fascinated by the ritual of their ancestral faith, and, in any case, such notions could not naturally be described as ποικίλαικαὶξέναι . We must look in other directions for the meaning of this enigmatic reference. (a) The new διδαχαί may have included ascetic regulations about diet as aids to the higher life, like the ἐντάλματακαὶδιδασκαλίαιτῶνἀνθρώπων which disturbed the Christians at Colossê . Partly owing to Gnostic syncretism, prohibitions of certain foods (ἀπέχεσθαιβρωμάτων , 1 Timothy 4:3) were becoming common in some circles, in the supposed interests of spiritual religion. “ We may assume,” says Pfleiderer, one of the representatives of this view (pp. 278 f.), “ a similar Gnostic spiritualism, which placed the historical Saviour in an inferior position as compared with angels or spiritual powers who do not take upon them flesh and blood, and whose service consists in mystical purifications and ascetic abstinences.” (b) They may also have included such religious sacraments as were popularized in some of the mystery-cults, where worshippers ate the flesh of a sacrificial victim or consecrated elements which represented the deity. Participation in these festivals was not unknown among some ultra-liberal Christians of the age.

It is denounced by Paul in 1Co_10, and may underlie what the writer has already said in 10:25. Why our author did not speak outright of εἰδωλόθυτα , we cannot tell; but some such reference is more suitable to the context than (a), since it is sacrificial meals which are in question.

He is primarily drawing a contrast between the various cult-feasts of paganism, which the readers feel they might indulge in, not only with immunity, but even with spiritual profit, and the Christian religion, which dispensed with any such participation. (c) Is there also a reference to the Lord’ s supper, or to the realistic sense in which it was being interpreted, as though participation in it implied an actual eating of the sacrificial body of the Lord? This reference is urged by some critics, especially by F. Spitta (Zur Geschichte u. Litteratur des Urchristentums, i. pp. 325 f.) and O. Holtzmann (in Zeitschrift fü r die neutest. Wissenschaft, x. pp. 251-260).

Spitta goes wrong by misinterpreting v. 10 as though the σῶμα of Christ implied a sacrificial meal from which Jewish priests were excluded. Holtzmann rightly sees that the contrast between χάρις and βρώματα implies, for the latter, the only βρῶμα possible for Christians, viz. the Lord’ s body as a food.

What the writer protests against is the rising conception of the Lord’ s supper as a φαγεῖντὸσῶματοῦΧριστοῦ . On the day of Atonement in the OT ritual, to which he refers, there was no participation in the flesh of the sacrificial victim; there could not be, in the nature of the case (v. 11). So, he argues, the σῶμαΧριστοῦ of our sacrifice cannot be literally eaten, as these neo-sacramentarians allege; any such notion is, to him, a relapse upon the sensuous, which as a spiritual idealist he despises as “ a vain thing, fondly invented.” A true insight into the significance of Jesus, such as he has been trying to bring out in what he has written, such as their earlier leaders themselves had conveyed in their own way, would reveal the superfluousness and irrelevance of these διδαχαί . As the writer is alluding to what is familiar, he does not enter into details, so that we have to guess at his references. But the trend of thought in vv. 10f. is plain. In real Christian worship there is no sacrificial meal; the Christian sacrifice is not one of which the worshippers partake by eating.

This is the point of v. 10. The writer characteristically illustrates it from the OT ritual of atonementday, by showing how the very death of Jesus outside the city of Jerusalem fulfilled the proviso in that ritual (vv. 11, 12) that the sacrifice must not be eaten.

Then he finds in this fact about the death of Jesus a further illustration of the need for unworldliness (vv. 13, 14). Finally, in reply to the question, “ Then have Christians no sacrifices to offer at all?” he mentions the two standing sacrifices of thanksgiving and charity (vv. 15, 16), both owing their efficacy to Christ. Inwardness is the dominating thought of the entire paragraph. God’ s grace in Jesus Christ works upon the soul; no external medium like food is required to bring us into fellowship with him; it is vain to imagine that by eating anything one can enjoy communion with God. Our Lord stands wholly outside the material world of sense, outside things touched and tasted; in relationship to him and him alone, we can worship God. The writer has a mystical or idealistic bent, to which the sacramental idea is foreign.

He never alludes to the eucharist; the one sacrament he notices is baptism. A ritual meal as the means of strengthening communion with God through Christ does not appeal to him in the slightest degree.

It is not thus that God’ s χάρις is experienced.

The clue to v. 10 lies in the obvious fact that the θυσιαστήριον and the σκηνή belong to the same figurative order. In our spiritual or heavenly σκηνή , the real σκηνή of the soul, there is indeed a θυσιαστήριονἐξοὗ (partitive; cp. τὰεἰςτοῦἱεροῦἐσθίουσιν , 1 Corinthians 9:13) φαγεῖν (emphatic by position) οὐκἔχουσινἐξουσίαν 1 (1 Corinthians 9:4) οἱτῇσκηνῇλατρεύοντες (λατρεύειν with dative as in 8:5). It makes no difference to the sense whether οἱ … λατρεύοντες means worshippers (9:9, 10:2) or priests (8:5), and the writer does not allegorize θυσιαστήριον as Philo does (e.g. in de Leg. Alleg. i. 15, τῆςκαθαρᾶςκαὶἀμιάντουφύσεωςτῆςἀναφερούσηςτὰἄμωματῷθεῷ , αὕτηδὲἐστιτὸθυσιαστήριον ). His point is simply this, that the Christian sacrifice, on which all our relationship to God depends, is not one that involves or allows any connexion with a meal. To prove how impossible such a notion is, he (v. 11) cites the ritual regulation in Leviticus 16:27 for the disposal of the carcases of the two animals sacrificed περὶτῆςἁμαρτίας (ὧντὸαἷμαεἰσηνέχθηἐξιλάσασθαιἐντῷἁγίῳἐξοίσουσιναὐτὰἔξωτῆςπαρεμβολῆςκαὶκατακαύσουσιναὐτὰἐνπυρί ).

For a moment the writer recalls his main argument in chs. 7-10; in v. 10 Christ is regarded as the victim or sacrifice (cp. προσενεχθείς in 9:28), but here the necessities of the case involve the activity of the Victim. ΔιὸκαὶἸησοῦςκτλ . (v. 12). The parallel breaks down at one point, of course; his body was not burned up.2 But the real comparison lies in ἔξωτῆςπύλης (sc. τῆςπαρεμβολῆς , as Exodus 32:26, Exodus 32:27).

The Peshitto and 436 make the reference explicit by reading πόλεως , which seems to have been known to Tertullian . The fact that Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem influenced the synoptic transcripts of the parable in Mark 12:8 = Matthew 21:39 = Luke 20:15. Mark’ s version, ἀπέκτειναναὐτὸνκαὶἐξέβαλοναὐτὸνἔξωτοῦἀμπελῶνος , was altered into ἐκβαλόντεςαὐτὸνἔξωτοῦἀμπελῶνοςἀπέκτειναν . Crucifixion, like other capital punishments, in the ancient world was inflicted outside a city. To the writer this fact seems intensely significant, rich in symbolism.

So much so that his mind hurries on to use it, no longer as a mere confirmation of the negative in v. 10, but as a positive, fresh call to unworldliness. All such sensuous ideas as those implied in sacrificial meals mix up our religion with the very world from which we ought, after Jesus, to be withdrawing.

We meet Jesus outside all this, not inside it. In highly figurative language (v. 13), he therefore makes a broad appeal for an unworldly religious fellowship, such as is alone in keeping with the χάρις of God in Jesus our Lord.

Τοίνυν (beginning a sentence as in Luke 20:28 τοίνυνἀπόδοτεκτλ ., instead of coming second in its classical position), let us join Jesus ἔξωτῆςπαρεμβολῆς , for he is living. The thought of the metaphor is that of Paul’ s admonition μὴσυνσχηματίζεσθετῷαἰῶνιτούτῳ (Romans 12:2), and the words τὸνὀνειδισμὸναὐτοῦφέροντες recall the warnings against false shame (11:26, 12:2), just as the following (v. 14) reason, οὐγὰρἔχομενὧδε (in the present outward order of things) μένουσαν 1 πόλινἀλλὰτὴνμέλλουσανἐπιζητοῦμεν recalls the ideas of 11:10, 14-16. The appeal echoes that of 4:11 σπουδάσωμενοὖνεἰσελθεῖνεἰςἐκείνηντὴνκατάπαυσιν . It is through the experiences of an unsettled and insulted life that Christians must pass, if they are to be loyal to their Lord. That is, the writer interprets ἔξωτῆςπαρεμβολῆς figuratively (“ Egrediamur et nos a commercio mundi huius,” Erasmus). Philo had already done so (cp. specially quod. det. pot. 44), in a mystical sense: μακρὰνδιοικίζειτοῦσωματικοῦστρατυπέδου , μόνωςἂνοὕτωςἐλπίσαςἱκέτηςκαὶθεραπευτὴςἔσεσθαιτέλειοςθεοῦ .

Similarly in de Ebrietate, 25, commenting on Exodus 33:7, he explains that by ἐντῷστρατοπέδῳ Moses meant allegorically ἐντῷμετὰσώματοςβίῳ , the material interests of the worldly life which must be forsaken if the soul is to enjoy the inward vision of God. Such is the renunciation which the writer here has in view. It is the thought in 2 Clem. 5:1 (ὅθεν , ἀδελφοί , καταλείψαντεςτὴνπαροικίαντοῦκόσμουτούτουποιήσωμεντὸθέληματοῦκαλέσαντοςἡμᾶς , καὶμὴφοβηθῶμενἐξελθεῖνἐκτοῦκόσμουτούτου ) and 6:5 . Only, our author weaves in the characteristic idea of the shame which has to be endured in such an unworldly renunciation.

The next exhortation in v. 15 catches up ἐξερχώμεθα , as δι ʼ αὐτοῦ carries on πρὸςαὐτόν . For once applying sacrificial language to the Christian life, he reminds his readers again of the sacrifice of thanksgiving. The phrase καρπὸνχειλέων explains the sense in which θυσίααἰνέσεως is to be taken; it is from the LXX; mistranslation of Hos 14:3 where the true text has פ ּ ָ ר ִ י ם (bullocks) instead of פ ּ ְ ר ִ י (fruit). In ὁμολογούντωντῷὀνόματιαὐτοῦ , ὁμολογεῖν is used in the sense of ἐξομολογεῖσθαι by an unusual2 turn of expression. The ὄνομα means, as usual, the revealed personality. Probably there is an unconscious recollection of Ps 54:8 ; θυσίααἰνέσεως 3 is also from the psalter (e.g. 50:14, 23). Ἀναφέρειν elsewhere in the NT is only used of spiritual sacrifices in the parallel passage 1 P 2:5 ἀνενέγκαιπνευματικὰςθυσίαςεὐπροσδέκτουςθεῷδιὰἸησοῦΧριστοῦ .

We have no sacrificial meals, the writer implies; we do not need them. Nor have we any sacrifices— except spiritual ones. (The οὖν after δι ʼ αὐτοῦ , which א c A C Dc M vg syrhkl boh arm eth Orig.

Chrys. etc. retain, is omitted by א * D* P Ψ vt syrvg; but א * D* om. οὖν also 1 Corinthians 6:7, as D in Romans 7:25). The thought of 12:28 is thus expanded, with the additional touch that thankfulness to God is inspired by our experience of Jesus ; the phrase is a counterpart of διὰτοῦἀρχιερέως in v. 11. This thank-offering is to be made διὰπαντὸς , instead of at stated times, for, whatever befalls us, we owe God thanks and praise (cp. 1 Thessalonians 5:16). The Mishna (cp. Berachoth 5:4) declares that he must be silenced who only calls upon God’ s name with thankfulness in the enjoyment of good (Berachoth 5:3 ה ָ א ו ֹ מ ֵ ר . . . ע ַ ל ט ו ֹ ב י ִ ז ּ ָ כ ֵ ר ש ׁ ְ מ ֶ ך ָ מ ו ֹ ד ִ י ם מ ו ֹ ד ִ י ם מ ְ ש ׁ ַ ת ּ ְ ק ִ י ן א ו ֹ ת ו ֹ ).

The religious idea of thanksgiving was prominent in several quarters. According to Fronto (Loeb ed. i. p. 22) thank-offerings were more acceptable to the gods than sin-offerings, as being more disinterested: μάντεωνδὲπαῖδέςφασινκαὶτοῖςθεοῖςἡδίουςεἶναιθυσιῶντὰςχαριστηρίουςἢτὰςμειλιχίους . Philo had taught (de Plant. 30) that εὐχαριστία is exceptionally sacred, and that towards God it must be an inward sacrifice: θεῷδὲοὐκἔνεστιγνησίωςεὐχαριστῆσαιδι ʼ ὧννομίζουσινοἱπολλοὶκατασκευῶνἀναθημάτωνθυσιῶν — οὐδὲγὰρσύμπαςὁκόσμοςἱερὸνἀξιόχρεωνἂνγένοιτοπρὸςτὴντούτουτιμήν — ἀλλὰδι ʼ ἐπαίνωνκαὶὕμνων , οὐχοὓςἡγεγωνὸςᾄσεταιφωνὴ , ἀλλὰοὓςὁἀειδὴςκαὶκαθαρώτατοςνοῦςἐπηχήσεικαὶἀναμέλψει . He proceeds (ibid. 33) to dwell on the meaning of the name Judah, ὃςἑρμηνεύεταικυρίῳἐξομολόγησις . Judah was the last (Genesis 29:35) son of Leah, for nothing could be added to praise of God, nothing excels ὁεὐλογῶντὸνθεὸννοῦς . This tallies with the well-known rabbinic saying, quoted in Tanchuma, 55. 2: “ in the time of messiah all sacrifices will cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving will not cease; all prayers will cease, but praises will not cease” (on basis of Jer 33:1 and Psalms 56:13). The praise of God as the real sacrifice of the pious is frequently noted in the later Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 10:7).

In v. 16 the writer notes the second Christian sacrifice of charity. Εὐποιία , though not a LXX term, is common in Hellenistic Greek, especially in Epictetus, e.g. Fragm. 15 (ed. Schenk), ἐπὶχρηστότητικαὶεὐποιίᾳ ; Fragm. 45, οὐδὲνκρεῖσσον … εὐποιίας . Κοινωνία in the sense of charity or contributions had been already used by Paul (2 Corinthians 9:13 etc.). To share with others, to impart to them what we possess, is one way of worshipping God. The three great definitions of worship or religious service in the NT (here, Romans 12:1, Romans 12:2 and James 1:27) are all inward and ethical; what lies behind this one is the fact that part of the food used in ancient OT sacrifices went to the support of the priests, and part was used to provide meals for the poor. Charitable relief was bound up with the sacrificial system, for such parts of the animals as were not burnt were devoted to these beneficent purposes.

An equivalent must be provided in our spiritual religion, the writer suggests; if we have no longer any animal sacrifices, we must carry on at any rate the charitable element in that ritual. This is the force of μὴἐπιλανθάνεσθε .

Contributions, e.g., for the support of ἡγούμενοι , who were not priests, were unknown in the ancient world, and had to be explicitly urged as a duty (cp. 1 Corinthians 9:6-14). Similarly the needs of the poor had to be met by voluntary sacrifices, by which alone, in a spiritual religion, God could be satisfied— τοιαύταιςθυσίαιςεὐαρεστεῖται (cp. 11:5, 6; 12:28) ὁθεός . This counsel agrees with some rabbinic opinions .

The special duty of supporting the priesthood is urged in Sir 7:30f., but our author shows no trace of the theory that almsgiving in general was not only superior to sacrifices but possessed atoning merit before God (Sir 3:14 ἐλεημοσύνηγὰρπατρὸςοὐκἐπιλησθήσεται , καὶἀντὶἁμαρτιῶνπροσανοικοδομηθήσεταίσοι ). In the later rabbinic theology, prayer, penitence, the study of the Torah, hospitality, charity, and the like were regarded as sacrifices equivalent to those which had been offered when the temple was standing.

Thus Rabbi Jochanan b. Zakkai (cp. Schlatter’ s Jochanan ben Zakkai, pp. 39 f.) consoled himself and his friends with the thought, derived from Hosea 6:6, that in the practice of charity they still possessed a valid sacrifice for sins; he voiced the conviction also (e.g. b. baba bathra 10 b) that charity won forgiveness for pagans as the sin-offering did for Israel. In the Ep. Barnabas (2:7f.) the writer quotes Jeremiah 7:22, Jeremiah 7:23 (Zechariah 8:17) as a warning to Christians against Jewish sacrifices (αἰσθάνεσθαιοὖνὀφείλομεντὴνγνώμηντῆςἀγαθωσύνηςτοῦπατρὸςἡμῶνὄτ ʼ ἡμῖνλέγει , θέλωνἡμᾶςμὴὁμοίωςπλανωμένουςἐκείνοιςζητεῖν , πῶςπροσάγωμεναὐτῷ ), but he quotes Psalms 51:19 as the description of the ideal sacrifice.

The tendency in some circles of the later Judaism to spiritualize sacrifice in general and to insist on its motive and spirit is voiced in a passage like Jth 16:15f.:

ὄρηγὰρἐκθεμελίωνσὺνὕδασινσαλευθήσεται ,

πέτραιδ ʼ ἀπὸπροσώπουσουὡςκηρὸςτακήσονται :

ἔτιδὲτοῖςφοβουμένοιςσεσὺεὐιλατεύειςαὐτοῖς :

ὅτιμικρὸνπᾶσαθυσίαεἰςὀσμὴνεὐωδίας ,

καὶἐλάχιστονπᾶνστέαρεἰςὀλοκαύτωμάσοι ·

ὁδὲφοβούμενοςτὸνκύριονμέγαςδιὰπαντός .

Also in a number of statements from various sources, of which that in Ep. Arist. 234 (τὶμέγιστόνἐστιδόξησ ; ὁδὲεἶπε · τὸτιμᾶντὸνθεόν · τοῦτοδ ʼ ἐστὶνοὐδώροιςοὐδὲθυσίαις , ἀλλὰψυχῆςκαθαρότητικαὶδιαλήψεωςὁσίας ) may be cited as a fair specimen. The congruous idea of bloodless sacrifices was common in subsequent Christianity. Thus the martyr Apollonius (Acta Apollonii, 44; Conybeare’ s Monuments of Early Christianity, pp. 47-48) tells the magistrate, “ I expected … that thy heart would bear fruit, and that thou wouldst worship God, the Creator of all, and unto Him continually offer thy prayers by means of compassion; for compassion shown to men by men is a bloodless sacrifice and holy unto God.” So Jerome’ s comment runs on Psalms 15:4 οὐμὴσυναγάγωτὰςσυναγωγὰςαὐτῶνἐξαἱμάτων . Συνάγων , φησὶν , συναγωγὰςἐκτῶνἑθνῶν , οὐδι ʼ αἱμάτωνταύταςσυνάξω · τοῦτ ʼ ἔστιν , οὐπαρασκευάσωδιὰτῆςνομικῆςμοιπροσέρχεσθαιλατρείας , δι ʼ αἰνέσεωςδὲμᾶλλονκαὶτῆςἀναμάκτουθυσίας (Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3, 123). Both in the Didache (14:1 κλάσατεἄρτονκαὶεὐχαριστήσατεπροσεξομολογησάμενοιτὰπαραπτώματαὑμῶν , ὅπωςκαθαρὰἡθυσίαὑμῶνᾖ ) and in Justin Martyr (Dial. 117, πάνταςοὖνοἳδιὰτοῦόνόματοςτούτουθυσίας , ἀςπαρέδωκενἸησοῦςὀΧριστὸςγίνεσθαι , τουτέστινἐπὶτῇεὐχαριστίᾳτοῦἄρτουκαὶτοῦποτηρίου , τὰςἐνπαντὶτόπῳτῆςγῆςγινομέναςὑπὸτῶνΧριστιανῶν , προλαβὼνὁθεὸςμαρτυρεῖεὐαρέστουςὑπάρχειναὐτῷ ), the very prayers at the eucharist are called θυσίαι , but this belongs to a later stage, when the eucharist or love-feast became the rite round which collections for the poor, the sick, prisoners, and travelling visitors (vv. 1f.) gathered, and into which sacrificial language began to be poured (cp. Justin’ s Apol. i. 66, 67). In ΠρὸςἙβραίους we find a simpler and different line of practical Christianity.

Now for a word on the living ἡγούμενοι of the community (v. 17), including himself (vv. 18, 19).

17 Obey your leaders, submit to them; for they are alive to the interests of your souls, as men who will have to account for their trust. Let their work be a joy to them and not a grief— which would be a loss to yourselves.

18 Pray for me, for I am sure I have a clean conscience; my desire is in every way to lead an honest life. 19 I urge you to this (i.e. to prayer) all the more, that I may get back to you the sooner.

The connexion of vv. 17f. is not only with v. 7, but with vv. 8-16. It would be indeed a grief to your true leaders if you gave way to these ποικίλαικαὶξέναι doctrines, instead of following men who are really concerned for your highest interests. Πείθεσθε (cp. Epict. Fragm. 27, τὸνπροσομιλοῦντα … διασκοποῦ … εἰμὲνἀμείνονα , ἀκούεινχρὴκαὶπείθεσθαιαὐτῷ ) καὶὑπείκετε (ὑπείκω is not a LXX term); strong words but justified, for the λόγοςτοῦθεοῦ which Christian leaders preached meant authoritative standards of life for the community (cp. 1 Corinthians 4:17, 1 Corinthians 4:21, 1 Corinthians 4:14:37 etc.), inspired by the Spirit. Insubordination was the temptation at one pole, an overbearing temper (1 P 5:3) the temptation at the other. Our author knows that, in the case of his friends, the former alone is to be feared.

He does not threaten penalties for disobedience, however, as Josephus does (c. Apionem, ii. 194) for insubordination on the part of the Jewish laity towards a priest: ὁδέγετούτῳμὴπειθόμενοςὑφέξειδίκηνὡςεἰςτὸνθεὸναὐτὸνἀσεβῶν .

Rather, he singles out the highminded devotion of these leaders as an inducement to the rank and file to be submissive. Αὐτοὶγὰρἀγρυπνοῦσινὑπὲρτῶνψυχῶνὑμῶν , almost as Epictetus says of the true Cynic who zealously concerns himself with the moral welfare of men, ὑπερηγρύπνηκενὑπὲρἀνθρώπων (iii. 22, 95; he uses the verb once in its literal sense of a soldier having to keep watch through the night, iii. 24, 32). The force of the phrase is flattened by the transference of ὑπὲρτῶνψυχῶνὑμῶν to a position after ὡςλόγονἀποδώσοντες (as A vg). The latter expression, ὡς (conscious that) λόγονἀποδώσοντες (ὡς with fut. ptc. here only in NT), is used by Chrysostom, de Sacerdotio, iii. 18 (cp. vi. 1), to enforce a sense of ministerial responsibility (εἰγὰρτῶνοἰκείωνπλημμελημάτωνεὐθύναςὑπέχοντεςφρίττομεν , ὡςοὐδυνησόμενοιτὸπῦρἐκφυγεῖνἐκεῖνο , τίχρὴπείσεσθαιπροσδοκᾶντὸνὑπὲρτοσούτωνἀπολογεῖσθαιμέλλοντα ;), but in ΠρὸςἙβραίους the writer assumes that the ἡγούμενοι are doing and will do their duty. Any sadness which they may feel is due, not to a sense of their own shortcomings, but to their experience of wilfulness and error among their charges. Λόγονἀποδιδόναι is more common in the NT than the equivalent λόγονδιδόναι , which recurs often in Greek literature, e.g. in Plato’ s Sympos. 189b, πρόσεχετὸννοῦνκαὶοὕτωςλέγεὡςδώσωνλόγον , or in the complaint of the Fayyum peasants (A.D. 207), who petition the local centurion that the disturbers of their work may be called to account: ἀξιοῦντες , ἐάνσοιδόξῃ , κελεῦσαιαὐτοὺςἀχθῆναιἐπὶσελόγονἀποδώσονταςπερὶτούτου (GCP i. 354:25, 26). In Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, John says to the captain of the robbers, ἐγὼΧριστῷλόγονδώσωὑπὲρσοῦ .

The ἲνα clause goes back to πείθεσθε … ὑπείκετε . The members have it in their power to thwart and disappoint their ἡγούμενοι . Τοῦτοπ . refers to ἀγρυπνοῦσιν , and the best comment on καὶμὴστενάζοντες is in Denny’ s hymn:

“ O give us hearts to love like Thee,

Like Thee, O Lord, to grieve

Far more for others’ sins than all

The wrongs that we receive.”

The last four words, ἀλυσιτελὲςγὰρὑμῖντοῦτο , form a rhetorical litotes, as when Pindar (Olymp. i. 53) remarks, ἀκέρδειαλέλογχενθαμινὰκακαγόρος . It would be a “ sore loss” to them if their lives failed to answer the hopes and efforts of their ἡγούμενοι , hopes like those implied in 6:9 and 10:39. Ἀλυσιτελές is probably used after λόγονἀποδώσοντες with its sense of “ reckoning.” Compare the use of the adverb in Theophrastus, viii. 11 , and the dry remark of Philo (in Flaccum, 6), speaking about the attempt of the Alexandrian anti-Semites to erect images in Jewish places of worship, when he says that Flaccus might have known ὡςοὐλυσιτελὲςἔθηπάτριακινεῖν ! The term lent itself to such effective under-statements, as in Philo’ s aphorism (Fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris, p. 70) τὸἐπιορκεῖνἀνόσιονκαὶἀλυσιτελέστατον .

The next word (v. 18) is about himself. Προσεύχεσθε (continue praying) περὶἡμῶν (plural of authorship), πειθόμεθαγὰρὅτικαλὴνσυνείδησινἔχομεν . He is conscious of a keen desire (θέλοντες as in 12:17) to act in a straightforward, honest way; hence he can ask their prayers. Hence also they may feel confident and eager about praying for him. The writer chooses καλήν (cp. on v. 9) instead of ἀγαθήν as his adjective for συνείδησιν , probably for the sake of assonance with the following καλῶς , perhaps also to avoid the hiatus after ὅτι . When he adds, ἐνπᾶσιν (here neuter) καλῶςθέλοντεςἀναστρέφεσθαι (a phrase which occurs in the Pergamos inscript. 459:5 καλῶςκαὶἐνδόξωςἀναστραφῆναι , in the 1st century b.c. inscription (Priene, 115:5) ἀναστρεφόμενοςἐνπᾶσινφιλ [ανθρώπως ], and in Epict. iv. 40, 46, ἑορτὴνἄγεινδύνασαικαθ ʼ ἡμέραν , ὅτικαλῶςἀνεστράφηςἐντῷδετῷἔργω , etc.), the language recalls that of 2 Corinthians 1:11, 2 Corinthians 1:12 where Paul appeals for the help of his readers’ prayers and pleads his honesty of conscience (τὸμαρτύριοντῆςσυνειδήσεωςἡμῶν , ὅτι … ἀνεστράφημενκτλ .). Perhaps the writer is conscious that his readers have been blaming him, attributing (say) his absence from them to unworthy motives, as in the case of Paul (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 2:18, 2 Corinthians 1:17f.). This may be the feeling which prompts the protest here and the assurances in vv. 19, 23. “ I am still deeply interested in you; my absence is involuntary; believe that.”

Καί is inserted before περί by D vt Chrys. (possibly as a reminiscence of 1 Thessalonians 5:25), i.e. pray as well as obey (“ et orate pro nobis,” d); this would emphasize the fact that the writer belonged to the ἡγούμενοι . But the plural in v. 18 is not used to show that the writer is one of the ἡγούμενοι mentioned in v. 17, for whom the prayers of the community are asked. He was one of them; ἡμῶν here is the literary plural already used in 5:11, 6:9, 11. There are apt parallels in Cicero’ s de Officiis, ii. 24 (“ Quem nos … e Graeco in Latinum convertimus. Sed toto hoc de genere, de quaerenda, de collocanda pecunia vellens etiam de utenda” ), and OP x. 1296 (the letter of a boy to his father), ποιῶ … φιλοπονοῦμενκαὶἀναψυχόμεν . Πειθόμεθα (πείθομαι 256, 1319, 2127) has been changed into πεποίθαμεν by א c Cc D Ψ W 6, 104, 263, 326 (Blass), probably because the latter is stronger than πείθομεθα , which (cp. Acts 26:26) only amounts to “ we believe” .

Retaining πειθόμεθα , A. Bischoff (Zeits. fü r aie neut. Wiss. ix, 171 f.) evades the difficulty by altering the order of the words: προσεύχ . περὶἡμῶν · καλὴνγὰρσυν . ἔχομεν , ὅτιπείθομεθαἐνπᾶσινκ . θ . ἀναστρέφεσθαι , i.e. taking ὅτι as “ because.”

As in Philemon 1:22, the writer’ s return is dependent on his friends’ prayers (v. 19); specially (see p. 17) let them intercede with God for his speedy restoration to them, ἵνατάχιονἀποκατασταθῶὑμῖν (cp. OP i .81 (a.d. 49-50) ἀποκατεστάθημοιὁυἱός ). Τάχιον may mean “ the sooner” (i.e. than if you did not pray) or simply “ soon” (as in v. 23, where, as in Hellenistic Greek, it has lost its comparative meaning). What detained the writer, we cannot tell. Apparently (v. 23) it was not imprisonment.

A closing prayer and doxology, such as was not uncommon in epistles of the primitive church (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, 1 Thessalonians 5:1 P 5:11), now follows. Having asked his readers to pray for him, he now prays for them.

20 May the God of peace “ who brought up” from the dead our Lord (7:14) Jesus (see p. lxiii), “ the” great “ Shepherd of the sheep, with the blood of the eternal covenant,” 21 furnish you with everything that is good for the doing of his will, creating in your lives by Jesus Christ what is acceptable in his own sight! To him (i.e. God) be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Ὁθεὸςτῆςεἰρήνης means the God of saving bliss (see on 12:11), εἰρήνη being taken in a sense like the full OT sense of the secure prosperity won by the messianic triumph over the hostile powers of evil (cp. 2:14, 7:2). There is no special allusion here, as in Paul’ s use of the phrase (Romans 15:33, 2 Corinthians 13:11 etc.), to friction in the community; the conflict is one in which God secures εἰρήνη for his People, a conflict with evil, not strife between members of the church. The method of this triumph is described in some OT phrases, which the writer uses quite apart from their original setting. The first quotation is from Isaiah 63:11 ποῦὁἀναβιβάσαςἐκτῆςγῆςτὸνποιμένατῶνπροβάτων , which the writer applies to Jesus— his only reference to the resurrection (cp. on vv. 11, 12). But there is no need (with Blass) to follow Chrysostom in reading τῆςγῆς here for νεκρῶν . With ἀναγεῖν in this sense, ἐκνεκρῶν (so Romans 10:7) or some equivalent (ἐξᾅδου , Psalms 30:4, Wis 16:13, Joseph.

Ant. 6. 14. 2) is much more natural. In τὸνποιμένατῶνπροβάτωντὸνμέγαν , ὁμέγας is applied to him as in 4:14, 10:21.

The figure of the ποιμήν , which never occurs in Paul, plays no rô le in our author’ s argument as it does in 1 Peter (2:25, 5:4); he prefers ἱερεύς or ἀρχηγός , and even here he at once passes to the more congenial idea of the διαθήκη . Jesus is the great Shepherd, as he has made himself responsible for the People, identifying himself with them at all costs, and sacrificing his life in order to save them for God. But as death never occurs in the OT description of the divine shepherd, not even in the 23rd Psalm, the writer blends with his quotation from Isaiah another— ἐναἵματιδιαθήκηςαἰωνίου , a LXX phrase from Zechariah 9:11 , Isaiah 55:3 , etc. Ἐναἵματιδιαθήκηςαἰωνίου goes with ἀναγαγών , not with τὸνποιμένα , in which case τόν would need to be prefixed to the phrase. Jesus was raised to present his blood as the atoning sacrifice which mediated the διαθήκη (9:11, 24f.). To the resurrection (cp. on v. 12) is thus ascribed what elsewhere in the epistle is ascribed to the εἰσελθεῖνεἰςτὰἅγια . But as the stress falls on αἰωνίου , then more is implied than that apart from the αἷμα no διαθήκη could have been instituted.

In reality the thought resembles that of 9:14 (ὃςδιὰπνεύματοςαἰωνίουἑαυτὸνπροσήνεγκεν … καθαριεῖτὴνσυνείδησινἡμῶν … εἰςτὸλατρεύεινθεῷζῶντι ), where εἰςτὸλατρεύεινθεῷ corresponds to εἰςτὸποιῆσαιτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ below; ἔνκτλ . is “ equipped with,” not “ in virtue of.” This interpretation is in line with the author’ s argument in chs. 7-10. “ Videtur mihi apostolus hoc belle, Christum ita resurrexisse a mortuis, ut mors tamen eius non sit abolita, sed aeternum vigorem retineat, ac si dixisset: Deus filium suum excitavit, sed ita ut sanguis, quem semel in morte fudit, ad sanctionem foederis aeterni post resurrectionem vigeat fructumque suum proferat perinde ac si semper flueret” (Calvin). In καταρτίσαι (the aor. optative)1 κτλ ., there is a parallel to the thought of Php 2:13. Εἰςτὸποιῆσαιτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ recalls the language of 10:36, and διὰἸησοῦχριστοῦ goes with ποιῶν : the power of God in our lives as for our lives (v. 20) works through the person of Jesus Christ.

To take διὰἸ . Χ . with τὸεὐάρεστονἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ yields an unobjectionable sense, corresponding to the thought of v. 15. But τὸ … αὐτοῦ stands quite well by itself (cf. 1 John 3:22).

The writer makes no such use of the shepherd and flock metaphor as, e.g., Philo had done. The Jewish thinker (Vit. Mos. i. 11) argues that the calling of a shepherd is the best preparation for anyone who is to rule over men; hence “ kings are called shepherds of their people” as a title of honour. He also interprets the sheep as the symbol of a nature which is capable of improvement . The classical habit of describing kings as shepherds of their people would help to make the metaphor quite intelligible to readers of non-Jewish origin. Compare, e.g., the saying of Cyrus (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, viii. 2. 14), that a good shepherd resembled a good king, τὸντεγάρνομέαχρῆναιἔφηεὐδαίμονατὰκτήνηποιοῦνταχρῆσθαιαὐτοῖς , ἣδὴπροβάτωνεὐδαιμονία , τόντεβασιλέαὡσαύτωςεὐδαίμοναςπόλειςκαὶἀνθρώπουςποιοῦνταχρῆσθαιαὐτοῖς .

Παντί was soon furnished with the homiletic addition of ἔργῳ (C K M P syr sah arm eth Chrys. Thdt. etc.), or even ἔργῳκαὶλόγῳ (A, from 2 Thessalonians 2:17). Ποιῶν has either αὐτῷ (א * A C* 33 * 1288 boh) or ἑαυτῷ (Greg. Nyss.) or αὐτός (d 1912) prefixed. Hort, admitting that “ it is impossible to make sense of αὐτῷ ” , maintains that αὐτός is original. It is a homiletic insertion, out of which αὐτῷ arose by corruption. Ἡμῖν (א D M Ψ 33, 104, 181, 326, 1917, 927, 1288, 1739, 1912, etc. syrvg sah boh arm) is merely an error for ὑμῖν , due to the preceding ἡμῶν .

A personal postscript (vv. 22-24) is now added, as 1 P 5:12-14 after 5:10, 11.

22 I appeal to you, brothers (3:1, 12, 10:19), to bear with this appeal of mine. It is but a short letter.

23 You must understand that our brother Timotheus is now free. If he comes soon, he and I will see you together.

24 Salute all your leaders and all the saints. The Italians salute you.

25 Grace be with you all. Amen.

The Timotheus referred to (in v. 23) is probably the Timotheus who had been a colleague of Paul. The other allusions have nothing to correspond with them in the data of the NT. But there is no ground for supposing that vv. 22-25 were added, either by the writer himself (Wrede) or by those who drew up the canon, in order to give a Pauline appearance to the document (see Introd., pp. xxviii f.). Seeberg’ s reasons for regarding vv. 22-25 as a fragment of some other note by the same writer are that 23b implies not a church but a small group of Christians, and that vv. 18, 23 presuppose different situations; neither reason is valid. The style and contents are equally unfavourable to Perdelwitz’ s theory, that vv. 22-25 were added brevi manu by some one who wrote out a copy of the original λόγοςπαρακλήσεως and forwarded it to an Italian church.

In v. 22 ἀνέχεσθε , for which ἀντέχεσθε (J. Pricaeus apud Titus 1:9) is a needless conjecture, takes a genitive (as in 2 Timothy 4:3 τῆςὑγιαινούσηςδιδασκαλίαςοὐκἀνέξονται , and in Philo, quod omnis probus, 6 καὶπῶςπατρὸςμὲνἢμητρὸςἐπιταγμάτωνπαῖδεςἀνέχονται , γνώριμοιδὲὧνἃνὑφηγηταὶδιακελεύωνται ). It has been flattened into ἀνέχεσθαι (infinitive as in 1 P 2:11) by D* Ψ vg arm 181, 436, 1288, 1311, 1873, etc. (Blass). A written homily may be like a speech (Acts 13:15), a λόγοςτῆςπαρακλήσεως (cp. on 12:5); παράκλησις echoes παρακαλέω He is not the only early Christian writer who mildly suggested that he had not written at undue length (cp. e.g. 1 P 5:12 δι ʼ ὀλίγωνἔγραψα , παρακαλῶνκτλ .; Barn 1:5, 1:8) Καὶγὰρ (“ etenim” as 4:2) διὰβραχέωνἐπέστειλα 1 (epistolary aorist) ὑμῖν . Διὰβραχέων was a common phrase in this connexion; e.g. Lucian’ s Toxaris, 56 (πειστέονκαὶταῦτάσοινομοθετοῦντικαὶδιὰβραχέωνλεκτέον , μὴκαὶκάμῃςἡμῖντῇἀκοῇσυμπερινοστῶν ). ΠρὸςἙβραίους may be read aloud easily in one hour. The writer has had a good deal to say (πολύς , 5:11), and he has now said it.

Not I hope, he adds pleasantly, at too great length! As for the δυσερμήνευτοςλέγειν , that is another question which he does not raise here.

He is not pleading for a patient reading, because he has had to compress his argument into a short space, which makes it hard to follow, owing to its highly condensed character. What he does appear to anticipate is the possibility of his readers resenting the length at which he has written. When the younger Pliny returned a book to Tacitus, with some criticisms upon its style and matter, he said he was not afraid to do so, since it was those most deserving praise who accepted criticism patiently (“ neque enim ulli patientius reprehunduntur quam qui maxime laudari merentur,” Epp. vii. 20). The author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους might have taken this line, for he has done justice to the good qualities of his friends (e.g. 6:9f. 10:39, 13:1f.), even in reproving them for backwardness and slowness. But he prefers to plead that his words have not been long; his readers surely cannot complain of being wearied by the length of his remarks. Not long before, Seneca had made the same kind of observation to Lucilius (Ep. xxxviii. 1) about short letters being more effective than lengthy discussions. “ Merito exigis ut hoc inter nos epistularum commercium frequentemus, plurimum proficit sermo, quia minutatim inrepit animo … aliquando utendum est et illis, ut ita dicam, concionibus, ubi qui dubitat inpellendus est: ubi vero non hoc agendum est ut velit discere sed ut discat, ad haec submissiora uerba ueniendum est. facilius intrant et haerent: nec enim multis opus est, sed efficacibus.” But Seneca’ s practice was not always up to his theory in this respect.

His Stoic contemporary Musonius Rufus gave examples as well as precepts of brevity, which were more telling (e.g. ὅστιςδὲπανταχοῦδεῖταιἀποδείξεωςκαὶὅπουσαφῆτὰπράγματάἐστιν , ἣδιὰπολλῶνἀποδείκνυσθαιβούλεταιαὑτῷτὰδι ʼ ὀλίγωνδυνάμενα , παντάπασινἄτοποςκαὶδυσμαθής , ed. Hense, Philippians 1:2).

The literary critic Demetrius considered that the length of a letter should be carefully regulated (τὸδὲμέγεθοςσυνεστάλθωτῆςἐπιστολῆς , De Elocut. 228); letters that were too long and stilted in expression became mere treatises, συγγράμματα , as in the case of many of Plato’ s, whereas the true ἐπιστολή , according to Demetrius (ibid. 231), should be φιλοφρόνησις in a brief compass . Which would apply to ΠρὸςἙβραίους . Erasmus comments: “ Scripsi paucis, ut ipse vos brevi visurus.” He may have, but he does not say so.

In v. 23 γινώσκετε is imperative; he is conveying a piece of information. See, e.g., TebtP 37:2 (73 b.c.) γίνωσκεΚεφαλᾶν … προσεληλυθέναιΔημητρίῳ : ibid. 12:2 (118 b.c.) 36:2 56:5. The construction with the participle is common (e.g. Luke 8:46); you must understand τὸνἀδελφὸνἡμῶν (omitted by א c Db.c. K P Ψ 6 Chrys. etc.) Τιμόθεονἀπολελυμένον , i.e. “ is (set) free,” not necessarily from prison. The general sense, ranging from “ is free” to “ has started,” may be illustrated, e.g., from the application of a woman to leave Alexandria via Pharos , or from B G U. i. 27:12-15 (καθ ʼ ἡμέρανπροσδεχόμ [ε ]θαδιμισσωρίανὥστεἕωςσήμερονμηδένανἀπολελύσθαιτῶνμετὰσίτου ), where ἀ . = “ has set out,” as in Acts 28:25 .

The interpretation of the next words μεθ ʼ οὗἐὰντάχιονἔρχηταιὄψομαιὑμᾶς depends upon whether Timotheus is supposed to join the writer or to journey straight to the community addressed. In the latter case, the writer, who hopes to be coming soon (v. 19) himself, looks forward to meeting him there.

In the former case, they will travel together. It is natural to assume that when the writer sent this message, Timotheus was somewhere else, and that he was expected ere long to reach the writer. For ὄψομαι = visit, see 3 John 1:14 ἐλπίζωδὲεὐθέωςἰδεῖνσε , etc. Ἐὰντάχιονἔρχηται may mean either, “ as soon as he comes,” or “ if he comes soon.” The latter suits the situation implied in v. 19 better. The writer (in v. 19) asks the prayers of his readers, that some obstacle to his speedy return may be removed. If this obstacle were the hindrance that kept Timotheus from joining him on a journey which they had already planned to the church (Riggenbach), he would have said, “ Pray for Timotheus, I cannot leave for you till he rejoins me.” But the idea is: as the writer is rejoining his friends soon (he hopes), he will be accompanied by Timotheus, should the latter arrive before he has to start. Written advice is all very well, but he hopes soon to follow up this λόγοςπαρακλήσεως with personal intercourse, like Seneca in Ep. vi. 5 (“ plus tamen tibi et uiua vox et convictus quam oratio proderit. in rem praesentem uenias oportet, primum quia homines amplius oculis quam auribus credunt, deinde quia longum iter est per praecepta, breue et efficax per exempla” ).

The greeting comes as usual last (v. 24). Ἀσπάσασθεκτλ . is an unusual turn, however; the homily was evidently sent to the community, who are told to greet all their ἡγούμενοι . This finds its nearest parallel in Paul’ s similar injunction (Romans 16:3f.) to the Ephesian Christians to salute this and that eminent member of their circle. Still, no other NT church is bidden to salute its leaders; and though the writer plainly wishes to reinforce his counsel in v. 17, the πάντας suggests that the persons addressed were “ part of the whole church of a large city … a congregation attached to some household” (Zahn); they are to convey the writer’ s greetings to all the leaders of the larger local church— and to all their fellow-members (καὶπάνταςτοὺςἁγίους being more intelligible, in the light of a passage like Philippians 4:21 ἀσπάσασθεπάνταἅγιον ). To his personal greetings he now adds greetings from some Italians. In οἱἀπὸτῆςἸταλίας , ἀπό may have its usual sense of “ domiciled at” , as, e.g., in OP i. 81 (a.d. 49-50), where τῶνἀπ ʼ Ὀξυρύγχων means “ the inhabitants of Oxyrhynchus,” or in Πλήνι … ἀπὸΦμαῦ , i.e. at Phmau (ostracon of a.d. 192, quoted in Deissmann’ s Light from the East, p. 186). If it thus means residents in Italy, the writer is in Italy himself.

But οἱἀπὸτῆςἸταλίας , on the analogy of Act 21:27 , might equally well mean Italians resident for the time being outside Italy; in this case the writer, who is also abroad, is addressing some Italian community, to which their countrymen forward greetings. Grammatically, either rendering is possible, and there is no tradition to decide the question. Perhaps οἱἀπὸτῆςἸταλίας is more natural, however, as a description of some Italian Christians abroad who chanced to be in the same locality as the writer and who take this opportunity of sending their greetings by him to an Italian community. If the writer was in Italy, we should have expected πάντεςοἱἀπὸτῆςἸταλίας , considering the size of Italy and the scattered Christian communities there at this period.

The final benediction, ἡΧάριςμετὰπάντωνὑμῶν (Titus 3:15, 2 Timothy 4:22) has a liturgical ἀμήν , which is omitted by א * W fuld sah 33; the homily was, of course, intended to be read aloud at worship.

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

216 [α 469]

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

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

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

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

1 μὴἐνπάθειἐπιθυμίας , as Paul would say (1 Thessalonians 4:5).

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

38 [δ 355]

460 [α 397]

623 [α 173]

1836 [α 65]

1912 [α 1066]

Athan Athanasius

Thdt. Theodoret

א Ԡ [01: δ 2).

A [02: δ 4].

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

K [018:1:1].

L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.

1 In Ep. Arist. 310, of the headmen of the Jewish community at Alexandria.

GCP Grundzü ge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, von L. Mitteis und U. Wilcken (1912), I. Band.

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

1 The forms vary; but this, the Attic spelling, has the best repute upon the whole (see W. G. Rutherford’ s New Phrynichus, pp. 370 f.), and strong support here in א A C* D* M

2 [α 253]

5 [δ 453]

88 [α 200]

330 [δ 259]

378 [α 258]

440 [δ 260]

491 [δ 152]

547 [δ 157]

642 [α 552] cont. 1:1-7:18 9:13-13:25

919 [α 113]

920 [α 55]

1867 [α 154]

1872 [α 209]

1908 [O π 103]

Pfleiderer Primitive Christianity, vol. iii. (1910) pp. 272-299.

1 The omission of ἐξουσίαν by D* M and the Old Latin does not affect the sense; ἔχειν then has the same meaning as in 6:13.

2 The blood, not the body, of the victim mattered in the atonement ritual. Hence, in our writer’ s scheme of thought, as Peake observes, “ while he fully recognises the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, he can assign it no place in his argument or attach to it any theological significance.”

436 [α 172]

1 In the sense of Aeneas . Note the assonance μένουσαν … μέλλουσαν .

Erasmus Adnotationes (1516), In epist. Pauli apostoli ad Hebraeos paraphrasis (1521).

2 But ὁμολογεῖντινι occurs in 3 Es 4:60 Esther 4:5:58 (A).

3 In the LXX ἐξομολόγησις is generally preferred to αἴνεσις as an equivalent for ת ו ד ה .

vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.

vt vt Old Latin, saec. ii. (?)-iv.

256 [α 216]

1319 [δ 180]

2127 [δ 202]

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]

263 [δ 372]

326 [α 257]

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

1 This lonely occurrence of the optative points to its tendency after the LXX to disappear; thus, apart from μὴγενοίτο , it only occurs once in a writer like Epictetus (iii. 5. 11).

33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17

1288 [α 162]

d (Latin version of D)

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).

181 [α 101]

927 [δ 251]

1739 [α 78]

1311 [α 170]

1873 [α 252]

1 For ἐπέστειλα (here as in Acts 15:20, Acts 15:21:25; Theophr. 24:13 ἐπιστέλλωνμὴγράφεινκτλ . = “ write,” “ send a letter” ), see Laqueur’ s Quaest. Epigraph. et Papyr. Selectae, 16 f. (ἐπιστέλλειν = “ communicare aliquid cum aliquo sive per hominem sive per epistolam” ).

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

Zahn Theodor Zahn’ s Einleitung in das NT, § § 45-47.