Hebrews 2

Hebrews 2:1-99

But the transition is worked out in a practical warning (2:1-4) to the readers, which not only explains the underlying interest of the preceding biblical proofs, but leads up effectively to the next aspect of truth which he has in mind:

1 We must therefore (διὰτοῦτο , in view of this pre-eminent authority of the Son) pay closer attention to what we have heard, in case we drift away. 2 For if the divine word spoken by angels held good (ἐγένετοβέβαιος , proved valid), if transgression and disobedience met with due (ἔνδικον = adequate, not arbitrary) punishment in every case,3 how shall we (ἡμεῖς , emphatic) escape the penalty1 for neglecting (ἀμελήσαντες , if we ignore: Matthew 22:5) a salvation which (ἥτις , inasmuch as it) was originally proclaimed by the Lord himself (not by mere angels) and guaranteed to us by those who heard him, 4 while God corroborated their testimony with signs and wonders and a variety of miraculous powers, distributing the holy Spirit as it pleased him (αὐτοῦ emphatic as in Romans 3:25).

Apart from the accidental omission of v. 1 by M 1739, Origen, and of τε (M P) in v. 4, with the variant παραρρυῶμεν (Bc Dc) for παραρυῶμεν ,2 the only textual item of any moment, and it is a minor one, is the substitution of ὑπό for διά in v. 3 by some cursives (69, 623, 1066, 1845), due either to the following ὑπό , or to the dogmatic desire of emphasizing the initiative of ὁκύριος . But διά here as in δι ʼ ἀγγέλων , meaning “ by,” is used to preserve the idea that in λαλεῖν the subject is God (1:1). The order of words (v. 1) δεῖπερισσοτερῶςπροσέχεινἡμᾶς has been spoiled in א vg and K L P .

As elsewhere in Hellenistic Greek (e.g. Jos. Apion. i. 1, ἐπεὶδὲσυχνοὺςὁρῶταῖςὑπὸδυσμενείαςὑπὸτινωνεἰρημέναιςπροσέχονταςβλασφημίαιςκαὶτοῖςπερὶτὴνἈρχαιολογίανὑπ ʼ ἐμοῦγεγραμμένοιςἀπιστοῦνταςκτλ .; Strabo, ii. I. 7, τοῖςμὲνἀπιστεῖν … ἐκείνῃδὲπροσέχειν ), προσέχειν is the opposite of ἀπιστεῖν : to “ attend” is to believe and act upon what is heard. This is implied even in Acts 8:6 and 16:14 where it is the attention of one who hears the gospel for the first time; here it is attention to a familiar message. Περισσοτέρως is almost in its elative sense of “ with extreme care” ; “ all the more” would bring out its force here as in 13:19. Certainly there is no idea of demanding a closer attention to the gospel than to the Law. Ἡμᾶς = we Christians (ἡμῖν , 1:1), you and I, as in v. 3.

The τὰἀκουσθέντα is the revelation of the εὐαγγέλιον (a term never used by our author), i.e. what ὁθεὸςἐλάλησενἡμῖνἐνυἱῷ , 1:1, and this is further defined (in vv. 3, 4) as consisting in the initial revelation made by Jesus on earth and the transmission of this by divinely accredited envoys to the writer and his readers . In the Ep. Aristeas, 127, oral teaching is preferred to reading (τὸγὰρκαλῶςζῇνἐντῷτὰνόμιμασυντηρεῖνεἶναι · τοῦτοδὲἐπιτελεῖσθαιδιὰτῆςἀκροάσεωςπολλῷμᾶλλονἢδιὰτῆςἀναγνώσεως ), and the evangelists of v. 4 include οἴτινεςἐλάλησανὑμῖντὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦ (13:7); but while the news was oral, there is no particular emphasis as that here. The author simply appeals for attentive obedience, μήποτεπαραρυῶμεν (2 aor. subj.), i.e. drift away from (literally, “ be carried past” and so lose) the σωτηρία which we have heard. Παραρέω in this sense goes back to Proverbs 3:21 υἱέ , μὴπαραρυῇς , τήρησονδὲἐμὴνβουλὴνκαὶἔννοιαν (see Clem. Paed. III. xi. 58, διὸκαὶσυστέλλεινχρὴτὰςγυναῖκαςκοσμίωςκαὶπερισφίγγειναἰδοῖσώφρονι , μὴπαραρρυῶσιτῆςἀληθείας ); indeed the writer may have had the line of Proverbs in mind, as Chrys. suggested.

The verb may have lost its figurative meaning, and may have been simply an equivalent for “ going wrong,” like “ labi” in Latin . Anyhow προσέχειν must not be taken in a nautical sense ( = moor), in order to round off the “ drift away” of παραρέω , a term which carries a sombre significance here ( = παραπίπτειν , 6:8); μήποτεπαραρυῶμεν , τουτέστιμὴἀπολώμεθα , μὴἐκπέσωμεν (Chrysostom).

In vv. 2f. we have a characteristic (e.g. 10:28-31) argument a minori ad maius; if, as we know from our bible (the bible being the Greek OT), every infringement of the Sinaitic legislation was strictly punished— a legislation enacted by means of angels— how much more serious will be the consequences of disregarding such a σωτηρία as that originally proclaimed by the Lord himself! The τηλικαύτη is defined as (a) “ directly inaugurated by the Κύριος himself,” and (b) transmitted to us unimpaired by witnesses who had a rich, supernatural endowment; it is as if the writer said, “ Do not imagine that the revelation has been weakened, or that your distance from the life of Jesus puts you in any inferior position; the full power of God’ s Spirit has been at work in the apostolic preaching to which we owe our faith.”

The reference in λόγος is to the Mosaic code, not, as Schoettgen thought, to such specific orders of angels as the admonitions to Lot and his wife.

Λόγος is used, not νόμος , in keeping with the emphasis upon the divine λαλεῖν in the context, and, instead of νόμοςΜωσέως (10:28), ὁδι ʼ ἀγγέλωνλαληθεὶςλόγος is chosen for argumentative reasons. Here as in Galatians 3:19 and Acts 7:38, Acts 7:53 the function of angels in the revelation of the Law at Sinai is assumed, but without any disparaging tone such as is overheard in Paul’ s reference. The writer and his readers shared the belief, which first appeared in Hellenistic Judaism, that God employed angels at Sinai. Josephus (Ant. xv. 136, ἡμῶνδὲτὰκάλλιστατῶνδογμάτωνκαὶτὰὁσιώτατατῶνἐντοῖςνόμοιςδι ʼ ἀγγέλωνπαρὰτοῦθεοῦμαθόντων )1 repeats this tradition, but it went back to the LXX which altered Deuteronomy 33:2 into a definite proof of angelic co-operation and brought this out in Psalms 68:18. Rabbinic tradition elaborated the idea. The writer, however, would not have claimed, like Philo (de vita Mosis, 2:3), that the Mosaic legislation was βέβαια , ἀσάλευτα , valid and supreme as long as the world endured.

Παράβασιςκαὶπαρακοή form one idea (see on 1:1); as παρακοή (which is not a LXX term) denotes a disregard of orders or of appeals (cp. Clem. Hom. x. 13, εἰἐπὶπαρακοῇλόγωνκρίσιςγίνεται , and the use of the verb in Matthew 18:17 ἐὰνδὲπαρακούσῃαὐτῶνκτλ ., or in LXX of Isa 65:12 ἐλάλησεκαὶπαρηκούσατε ), it represents the negative aspect, παράβασις the positive. Μισθαποδοσία is a sonorous synonym for μισθός or for the classical μισθοδοσία . Some of the facts which the writer has in mind are mentioned in 3:17 and 10:28. The Law proved no dead letter in the history of God’ s people; it enforced pains and penalties for disobedience.

In v. 3 ἀρχὴνλαβοῦσα is a familiar Hellenistic phrase; cp. e.g. Philo in Quaest. in Exodus 12:2 , and de vita Mosis, 1:14 . The writer felt, as Plutarch did about Rome, τὰῬωμαίωνπράγματαοὐκἂνἐνταῦθαπρούβηδυνάμεως , μὴθείαντινὰἀρχὴνλαβόντακαὶμηδὲνμέγαμήδεπαράδοξονἔχουσαν . The modern mind wonders how the writer could assume that the σωτηρία , as he conceives it, was actually preached by Jesus on earth. But he was unconscious of any such difference. The Christian revelation was made through the Jesus who had lived and suffered and ascended, and the reference is not specifically to his teaching, but to his personality and career, in which God’ s saving purpose came to full expression. οἱἀκούσαντες means those who heard Jesus himself, the αὐτόπται of Luke 1:1-4 (cp. the shorter conclusion to Mark’ s gospel: μετὰδὲταῦτακαὶαὐτὸςὁἸησοῦς … ἐξαπέστειλενδι ʼ αὐτῶντὸἱερὸνκαὶἄφθαρτονκήρυγματῆςαἰωνίουσωτηρίας ).

If the Sinaitic Law ἐγένετοβέβαιος , the Christian revelation was also confirmed or guaranteed to us— εἰςἡμᾶς (1 P 1:25 τὸῥῆματὸεὐαγγελισθὲνεἰςὑμᾶς : Acts 2:22 Ἰησοῦν … ἄνδραἀπὸτοῦθεοῦἀποδεδειγμένονεἰςὑμᾶς ) ἐβεβαιώθη . It reached us, accurate and trustworthy. No wonder, when we realize the channel along which it flowed. It was authenticated by the double testimony of men1 who had actually heard Jesus, and of God who attested and inspired them in their mission. Συνεπιμαρτυρεῖν means “ assent” in Ep. Aristeas, 191, and “ corroborate” in the de Mundo, 400a , as usual, but is here a sonorous religious term for συμμαρτυρεῖν (Romans 8:16). “ Coniunctio σύν … hunc habet sensum, nos in fide euangelii confirmari symphonia quadam Dei et hominum” (Calvin).

σημ ., τερ ., δυν . in the reverse order describe the miracles of Jesus in Acts 2:22; here they denote the miracles of the primitive evangelists as in 2 Corinthians 12:12. Philo, speaking of the wonderful feats of Moses before the Pharaoh, declares that signs and wonders are a plainer proof of what God commands than any verbal injunction (ἅτεδὴτοῦθεοῦτρανοτέραιςχρησμῶνἀποδείξεσιταῖςδιάσημείωνκαὶτεράτωντὸβούλημαδεδηλωκότος , vit, Mos. i. 16).

As “ God” is the subject of the clause, αὐτοῦ refers to him, and πνεύματοςἁγίου is the genitive of the object after μερισμοῖς (cp. 6:4). What is distributed is the Spirit, in a variety of endowments. To take αὐτοῦ with πνεύματος and make the latter the genitive of the subject, would tally with Paul’ s description of the Spirit διαιροῦνἰδίᾳἐκάστῳκαθὼβούλεται (1 Corinthians 12:11), but would fail to explain what was distributed and would naturally require τῷμερισμῷ . A fair parallel lies in Galatians 3:5 ὁἐπιχορηγῶνὑμῖντὸπνεῦμακαὶἐνεργῶνδυνάμειςἐνὑμῖν , where δυνάμεις also means “ miraculous powers” or “ mighty deeds” . In κατὰτὴναὐτοῦθέλησιν , as perhaps even in 7:18 (cp. Blass, 284, 3; Abbott’ s Johannine Grammar, 2558), the possessive αὐτός is emphatic. θέλησιν is read by א ca R for δέησιν in Psalms 21:3 .

It is not merely a vulgarism for θέλημα . “ Θέλημα n’ est pas θέλησις , volonté ; θέλημα dé signe le vouloir concentré sur un moment, sur un acte, l’ ordre, le commandment” (Psichari, Essai sur le grec de la Septante, 1908, p. 171 n.). The writer is fond of such forms . Naturally the phrase has a very different meaning from the similar remark in Lucian, who makes Hesiod (Disputatio cum Hesiode, 4) apologize for certain omissions in his poetry, by pleading that the Muses who inspired him gave their gifts as they pleased— αἱθεαὶδὲτὰςἑαυτῶνδωρεὰςοἷςτεἂνἐθέλωσι .

The vital significance of the Son as the ἀρχηγός of this “ salvation” 1 by means of his sufferings on earth, is now developed (vv. 5-18). This unique element in the Son has been already hinted (1:3), but the writer now proceeds to explain it as the core of Christ’ s pre-eminence. The argument starts from the antithesis between the Son and angels (v. 5); presently it passes beyond this, and angels are merely mentioned casually in a parenthesis (v. 16). The writer is now coming to the heart of his theme, how and why the Son or Lord, of whom he has been speaking, suffered, died, and rose. Vv. 5-9 are the prelude to vv. 10-18. The idea underlying the whole passage is this: λαλεῖσθαιδιὰτοῦκυρίου meant much more than λαλεῖσθαιδι ʼ ἀγγέλων , for the Christian revelation of σωτηρία had involved a tragic and painful experience for the Son on earth as he purged sins away.

His present superiority to angels had been preceded by a period of mortal experience on earth ἐνταῖςἡμέραιςτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ . But this sojourn was only for a time; it was the vital presupposition of his triumph; it enabled him to die a death which invested him with supreme power on behalf of his fellow-men; and it taught him sympathy (cp. Zimmer, in Studien und Kritiken, 1882, pp. 413 f., on 2:1-5, and in NTlichen Studien, i. pp. 20-129, on 2:6-18).

5 For the world to come, of which I (ἡμεῖς of authorship) am speaking, was not put under the control of angels (whatever may be the case with the present world). 6 One writer, as we know, has affirmed,

“ What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

or the son of man, that thou carest for him?

7 For a little while thou hast put him lower than the angels,

crowning him with glory and honour,

8 putting all things under his feet.”

Now by1 “ putting all things under him” 2 the writer meant to leave nothing out of his control. But, as it is, we do not yet see ” all things controlled” by man; 9 what we do see is Jesus “ who was put lower than the angels for a little while” to suffer death, and who has been “ crowned with glory and honour,” that by God’ s grace he might taste death for everyone.

Οὐγὰρἀγγέλοις (γάρ , as in Greek idiom, opening a new question; almost equivalent to “ now” : οὐγάρ = non certe, Valckenaer) ὑπέταξε (i.e. ὁθεός , as C vg add)— the writer is already thinking of ὑπέταξας in the quotation which he is about to make. In the light of subsequent allusions to μέλλονταἀγαθά (9:11, 10:1) and ἡμέλλουσαπόλις (13:14), we see that τὴνοἰκουμένηντὴνμέλλουσαν means the new order of things in which the σωτηρία of 1:14, 2:2, 3 is to be realized (see 9:28), and from which already influences are pouring down into the life of Christians. The latter allusion is the pivot of the transition. The powers and spiritual experiences just mentioned (in v. 4) imply this higher, future order of things , from which rays stream down into the present. How the ministry of angels is connected with them, we do not learn. But the author had already urged that this service of angels was rendered to the divine authority, and that it served to benefit Christians (1:14).

This idea starts him afresh. Who reigns in the new order? Not angels but the Son, and the Son who has come down for a time into human nature and suffered death. He begins by quoting a stanza from a psalm which seems irrelevant, because it compares men and angels. In reality this is not what occupies his mind; otherwise he might have put his argument differently and used, for example, the belief that Christians would hold sway over angels in the next world (1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 6:3).

Philo argues that man is not inferior in position because he was created last in order; but this refers to man in relation to other creatures, not in relation to angels, as here.

The quotation (vv. 6-8a) from the 8th psalm runs:

τίἐστινἄνθρωποςὅτιμιμνήσκῃ 1 αὐτοῦ ,

ἢυἱὸςἀνθρώπουὅτιἐπισκέπτῃαὐτόν ;

ἠλάττωσαςαὐτὸνβραχύτιπαρ ʼ ἀγγέλους ,

δόξῃκαὶτιμῇἐστεφάνωσαςαὐτόν .

πάνταὑπέταξαςὑποκάτωτῶνποδῶναὐτοῦ .

The LXX tr. א ל ה י ם not incorrectly by ἀγγέλους , since the elohim of the original probably included angels. This was the point of the quotation, for the author of Hebrews. The text of the quotation offers only a couple of items. (a) τί is changed into τίς (LXX A) by C* P 104, 917, 1288, 1319, 1891, 2127 vt boh, either in conformity to the preceding τις or owing to the feeling that the more common τίς (in questions, e.g. 12:7, John 12:34) suited the reference to Christ better (Bleek, Zimmer). (b) The quotation omits καὶκατέστησαςαὐτὸνἐπὶτὰἔργατῶνχειρῶνσου before πάντα : it is inserted by א A C* M P syr lat boh arm eth Euth. Theodt. Sedul. to complete the quotation. It is the one line in the sentence on which the writer does not comment; probably he left it out as incompatible with 1:10 , although he frequently quotes more of an OT passage than is absolutely required for his particular purpose.

In διεμαρτύρατοδέπούτις (v. 6), even if the δέ is adversative, it need not be expressed in English idiom. διαμαρτυρεῖσθαι in Greek inscriptions “ means primarily to address an assembly or a king” (Hicks, in Classical Review, i. 45). Here, the only place where it introduces an OT quotation, it = attest or affirm. Πούτις in such a formula is a literary mannerism familiar in Philo , and που later on (4:4) recurs in a similar formula, as often in Philo. The τις implies no modification of the Alexandrian theory of inspiration; his words are God’ s words (v. 8). The psalm intends no contrast between ἠλάττωσαςκτλ . and δόξῇ … ἐστεφάνωσαςαὐτόν . The proof that this wonderful being has been created in a position only slightly inferior to that of the divine host lies in the fact that he is crowned king of nature, invested with a divine authority over creation. The psalm is a panegyric on man, like Hamlet’ s (“ What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel!” etc.), but with a religious note of wonder and gratitude to God.

In applying the psalm, however, our writer takes βραχύτι in the sense of “ temporarily” rather than “ slightly,” and so has to make the “ inferiority” and “ exaltation” two successive phases, in applying the description to the career of Jesus. He does not take this verse as part of a messianic ode; neither here nor elsewhere does he use the term “ Son of Man.” He points out, first of all (v. 8) that, as things are (νῦνδὲοὔπω : οὔπω = οὔπως might be read, i.e. “ in no wise,” and νῦν taken logically instead of temporally; but this is less natural and pointed), the last words are still unfulfilled; οὔπωὅρωμεναὐτῷ (i.e. man) τὰ “ πάντα ” i.e. ἡοἰκουμένηἡμέλλουσα ) ὑποτεταγμένα .

Human nature is not “ crowned with glory and honour” at present. How can it be, when the terror of death and the devil (v. 15) enslaves it? What is to be said, then? This, that although we do not see man triumphant, there is something that we do see: βλέπομενἸησοῦν dealing triumphantly with death on man’ s behalf (v. 9). The Ἰησοῦν comes in with emphasis, as in 3:1 and 12:2, at the end of a preliminary definition τὸν … ἠλαττωμένον .

It is less natural to take the messianic interpretation which involves the reference of αὐτῷ already to him. On this view, the writer frankly allows that the closing part of the prophecy is still unfulfilled. “ We do not yet see τὰπάντα under the sway of Jesus Christ, for the world to come has not yet come; it has only been inaugurated by the sacrifice of Christ . Though the Son is crowned (1:8, 9) and enthroned , his foes are still to be subdued , and we must be content to wait for our full σωτηρία (9:28) at his second coming; under the οὔπωὁρῶμενκτλ . of experience there is a deeper experience of faith.” The writer rather turns back in v. 9 to the language of v. 7; this at least has been fulfilled. Jesus has been put lower than the angels and he has been crowned. How and why? The writer answers the second question first.

Or rather, in answering the second he suggests the answer to the first. At this point, and not till then, the messianic interpretation becomes quite natural and indeed inevitable. It is the earlier introduction of it which is unlikely. The application to the messiah of words like those quoted in v. 6 is forced, and “ Hebrews” has no room for the notion of Christ as the ideal or representative Man, as is implied in the messianic interpretation of αὐτῷ in v. 8. That interpretation yields a true idea— the thought expressed, e.g., in T. E.

Brown’ s poem, “ Sad! Sad!” —

“ One thing appears to me—

The work is not complete;

One world I know, and see

It is not at His feet—

Not, not! Is this the sum?”

No, our author hastens to add, it is not the sum; our outlook is not one of mere pathos; we do see Jesus enthroned, with the full prospect of ultimate triumph. But the idea of the issues of Christ’ s triumph being still incomplete is not true here. What is relevant, and what is alone relevant, is the decisive character of his sacrifice. The argument of v. 8, 9, therefore, is that, however inapplicable to man the rhapsody of the psalm is, at present, the words of the psalm are true, notwithstanding. For we see the Jesus who was “ put lower than the angels for a little while” to suffer death (διὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτου must refer to the death of Jesus himself,1 not to the general experience of death as the occasion for his incarnation), now “ crowned with glory and honour.” When διὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτου is connected with what follows , it gives the reason for the exaltation, not the object of the incarnation . But διά … θανάτου is elucidated in a moment by ὅπως … θανάτου .

V. 9 answers the question why Jesus was lowered and exalted— it was for the sake of mankind. In v. 10 the writer proceeds to explain how he was “ lowered” — it was by suffering that culminated in death.

Then he recurs naturally to the “ why.” The mixture of quotation and comment in v. 9 leaves the meaning open to some dubiety, although the drift is plain. “ But one Being referred to in the psalm we do see— it is Jesus, and Jesus as ἠλαττωμένον for the purpose of suffering death, and δόξῃκαὶτιμῇἐστεφανωμένον . Why did he die? Why was he thus humiliated and honoured ? For the sake of every man; his death was ὑπὲρπαντός , part of the divine purpose of redemption.” Thus ὅπως … θανάτου explains and expounds the idea of διὰτὸπάθημα (which consists in) τοῦθανάτου , gathering up the full object and purpose of the experience which has just been predicated of Jesus. This implies a pause after ἐστεφανωμένον , or, as Bleek suggests, the supplying of an idea like ὃἔπαθεν before ὅπωςκτλ ., if γεύσηται is to be taken, as it must be, as = “ he might taste.” How a ὅπως clause follows and elucidates διάκτλ . may be seen in Ep. Arist. 106 .

As for v. 8a, Paul makes a similar comment (1 Corinthians 15:27), but excludes God from the τὰπάντα . The curiously explicit language here is intended to reiterate what is possibly hinted at in v. 5, viz., that the next world has no room for the angelic control which characterizes the present. (The τὰπάντα includes even angels!) This belief was familiar to readers of the Greek bible, where Deuteronomy 32:8 voices a conception of guardian-angels over the non-Jewish nations which became current in some circles of the later Judaism. Non-Jewish Christians, like the readers of our epistle, would be likely to appreciate the point of an argument which dealt with this. Note that ἀνυπότακτον occurs in a similar antithesis in Epictetus, ii. 10, 1, ταύτῃτὰἅλλαὑποτεταγμένα , αὐτὴνδ ʼ ἀδούλευτονκαὶἀνυπότακτον . Our author’ s language reads almost like a tacit repudiation of Philo’ s remark on Genesis 1:26 in de opificio Mundi (28), that God put man over all things with the exception of the heavenly beings— ὅσαγὰρθνητὰἐντοῖςτρισὶστοιχείοιςγῇὑδάτιἀέριπάνταὑπέταττεναὐτῷ , τὰκατ ʼ οὐρανὸνὑπεξελόμενοςἅτεδειότεραςμοίραςἐπίλαχόντα .

The closing clause of v. 9 , therefore, resumes and completes the idea of διὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτου . Each follows a phrase from the psalm; but ὅπως … θανάτου does not follow ἐστεφανωμένον logically. The only possible method of thus taking ὅπωςκτλ . would be by applying δοξῇκαὶτιμῇἐστεφανωμένον to Christ’ s life prior to death, either (a) to his pre-incarnate existence, when “ in the counsels of heaven” he was, as it were, “ crowned for death” (so Rendall, who makes γεύσασθαιθανάτου cover the “ inward dying” of daily self-denial and suffering which led up to Calvary), or (b) to his incarnate life (so, e.g., Hofmann, Milligan, Bruce), as if his readiness to sacrifice himself already threw a halo round him, or (c) specifically to God’ s recognition and approval of him at the baptism and transfiguration (Dods). But the use of δόξα in v. 10 tells against such theories; it is from another angle altogether that Jesus is said in 2 P 1:17 to have received τιμὴνκαὶδόξαν from God at the transfiguration. The most natural interpretation, therefore, is to regard δόξῃ … ἐστεφανωμένον as almost parenthetical, rounding off the quotation from the psalm. It is unnecessary to fall back on such suggestions as (i) to assume a break in the text after ἐστεφανωμένον , some words lost which led up to ὅπως … θανάτου (Windisch), or (ii) to translate ὅπως by “ how,” as in Luke 24:20, i.e. “ we see how Jesus tasted death” , or by “ after that” or “ when” (Moses Stuart), as in Soph.

Oed. Col. 1638 (where, however, it takes the indicative as usual), etc.

In ὑπὲρπαντός , παντός was at an early stage taken as neuter, practically =the universe. This was a popular idea in Egyptian Christianity. “ You know,” says the risen Christ to his disciples, in a Bohairic narrative of the death of Joseph (Texts and Studies, iv. 2. 130), “ that many times now I have told you that I must needs be crucified and taste death for the universe.” The interpretation occurs first in Origen, who (in Joan. i. 35) writes: “ He is a ‘ great highpriest’ [referring to Hebrews 4:15], having offered himself up in sacrifice once not for human beings alone, but for the rest of rational creatures as well . ‘ For without God he tasted death for everyone’ . In some copies of the epistle to the Hebrews this passage runs: ‘ for by the grace of God’ . Well, if ‘ without God he tasted death for everyone,’ he did not die simply for human beings, but for the rest of rational creatures as well; and if ‘ by the grace of God he tasted the death for everyone,’ 1 he died for all except for God — for ‘ by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone.’ It would indeed be preposterous to say that he tasted death for human sins and not also for any other being besides man who has fallen into sin— e.g. for the stars. Even the stars are by no means pure before God, as we read in the book of Job: ‘ The stars are not pure before him,’ unless this is said hyperbolically. For this reason he is a ‘ great highpriest,’ because he restores all things to his Father’ s kingdom, ordering it so that what is lacking in any part of creation is completed for the fulness of the Father’ s glory .” The Greek fathers adhered steadily to this interpretation of παντός as equivalent to the entire universe, including especially angels. But the neuter is always expressed in “ Hebrews” by the plural, with or without the article, and, as v. 16 shows, the entire interest is in human beings.

Γεύσηται after ὑπὲρπαντός has also been misinterpreted. Γεύειν in LXX, as a rendering of מ ָ ע ַ ם , takes either genitive (1 S 14:24, cp. 2 Mac 6:20) or accusative (1 S 14:29, Job 34:3), but γεύεσθαιθανάτου never occurs; it is the counterpart of the rabbinic phrase ט ע ם מ י ת ה , and elsewhere in the NT (Mark 9:1 = Matthew 16:28 = Luke 9:27, John 8:50) is used not of Jesus but of men. It means to experience ( = ἰδεῖνθάνατον , 11:5). Here it is a bitter experience, not a rapid sip, as if Jesus simply “ tasted” death (Chrysostom, Theophyl., Oecumenius: οὐγὰρἐνέμεινεντῷθανάτωἀλλὰμόνοναὐτὸντρόποντινὰἀπεγεύσατο ) quickly, or merely sipped it like a doctor sipping a drug to encourage a patient. The truer comment would be: “ When I think of our Lord as tasting death it seems to me as if He alone ever truly tasted death” (M ’ Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, p. 259); γεύσηται does not echo βραχύτι , as though all that Jesus experienced of death was slight or short.

The hardest knot of the hard passage lies in χάριτιθεοῦ . In the second century two forms of the text were current, χωριςθεογ and χαριτιθεογ . This is plain from Origen’ s comment (see above); he himself is unwilling to rule out the latter reading, but prefers the former, which he apparently found to be the ordinary text. Theodoret assumed it to be original, as Ambrose did in the West. Jerome knew both (on Galatians 3:10), and the eighth century Anastasius Abbas read χωρίς , i.e., in the sense already suggested by Fulgentius and Vigilius, that Christ’ s divine nature did not die. On the other hand, writers like Eusebius, Athanasius, and Chrysostom never mention any other reading than χάριτι .

Of all the supporters of χωρίς , the most emphatic is Theodore of Mopsuestia, who protests that it is most absurd to substitute χάριτιθεοῦ , for χωρὶςθεοῦ , arguing from passages like 1 Corinthians 15:10 and Ephesians 2:8, Ephesians 2:9 that Paul’ s custom is not to use the former phrase ἁπλῶς , ἀλλὰπάντωςἀπότινοςἀκολουθίαςλόγου . The reading suited the Nestorian view of the person of Christ, and probably the fact of its popularity among the Nestorians tended to compromise χωρίς in the eyes of the later church; it survives only in M 424 **, though there is a trace of it (a Nestorian gloss?) in three codices of the Peshitto.

But Oecumenius and Theophylact are wrong in holding that it originated among the Nestorians. This is dogmatic prejudice; χωρίς was read in good manuscripts, if not in the best, by Origen’ s time, and the problem is to determine whether it or χάριτι was original. The one may be a transcriptional error for the other. In this case, the textual canon “ potior lectio difficillima” would favour χωρίς . But the canon does not apply rigidly to every such case, and the final decision depends upon the internal probabilities. Long associations render it difficult for a modern to do justice to χωρὶςθεοῦ .

Yet χωρίς is elsewhere used by our author in a remarkable way, e.g. in 9:28 χωρὶςἁμαρτίαςὀφθήσεται , and the question is whether χωρὶςθεοῦ here cannot be understood in an apt, although daring, sense. It may be (i) “ forsaken by God,” an allusion to the “ dereliction” of Mark 15:34 (B.

Weiss, Zimmer), though this would rather be put as ἄτερθεοῦ . (ii) “ Apart from his divinity” (see above), i.e. when Christ died, his divine nature survived. But this would require a term like τῆςθεότητος . (iii) Taken with παντός , “ die for everyone (everything?) except God” (Origen’ s view, adopted recently by moderns like Ewald and Ebrard). Of these (i) and (iii) are alone tenable. Even if (iii) be rejected, it furnishes a clue to the problem of the origin of the reading. Thus Bengel and others modify it by taking ὑπὲρπαντός = to master everything, χωρὶςθεοῦ being added to explain that “ everything” does not include God. It is possible, of course, that in the Latin rendering (ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem) gratia is an original nominative, not an ablative, and represents χάρις (Christ = the Grace of God),1 which came to be altered into χωρίς and χάριτι .

But, if χωρὶςθεοῦ is regarded as secondary, its origin probably lies in the dogmatic scruple of some primitive scribe who wrote the words on the margin as a gloss upon παντός , or even on the margin of v. 8 opposite οὐδὲνἀφῆκεναὐτῷἀνυπότακτον , whence it slipped lower down into the text. Upon the whole, it seems fairest to assume that at some very early stage there must have been a corruption of the text, which cannot be explained upon the available data.

But at any rate χάριτι fits in well with ἔπρεπει , which immediately follows, and this is one point in its favour. It was χάριτιθεοῦ that Jesus died for everyone, and this was consonant with God’ s character . The nearest Latin equivalent for πρέπον , as Cicero (de Officiis, i. 26) said, was “ decorum” (dulce et decorum est pro patria mori), and in this high sense the divine χάρις (4:16), shown in the wide range and object of the death of Jesus, comes out in the process and method.

The writer now explains (vv. 10-18) why Jesus had to suffer and to die. Only thus could he save his brother men who lay (whether by nature or as a punishment, we are not told) under the tyranny of death. To die for everyone meant that Jesus had to enter human life and identify himself with men; suffering is the badge and lot of the race, and a Saviour must be a sufferer, if he is to carry out God’ s saving purpose. The sufferings of Jesus were neither an arbitrary nor a degrading experience, but natural, in view of what he was to God and men alike. For the first time, the conception of suffering occurs, and the situation which gave rise to the author’ s handling of the subject arose out of what he felt to be his readers’ attitude. “ We are suffering hardships on account of our religion.” But so did Jesus, the writer replies. “ Well, but was it necessary for him any more than for us? And if so, how does that consideration help us in our plight?” To this there is a twofold answer. (a) Suffering made Jesus a real Saviour; it enabled him to offer his perfect sacrifice, on which fellowship with God depends. (b) He suffered not only for you but like you, undergoing the same temptations to faith and loyalty as you have to meet. The threefold inference is: (i) do not give way, but realize all you have in his sacrifice, and what a perfect help and sympathy you can enjoy. (ii) Remember, this is a warning as well as an encouragement; it will be a fearful thing to disparage a religious tie of such privilege. (iii) Also, let his example nerve you.

10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was befitting that He for whom and by whom the universe exists, should perfect the Pioneer of their salvation by suffering . 11For sanctifier and sanctified have all one origin (ἐξἕνος , sc. γενοῦς : neuter as Acts 17:26). That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying,

“ I will proclaim thy name to my brothers,

in the midst of the church I will sing of thee” ;

13 and again,

“ I will put my trust in him” ;

and again,

“ Here am I and the children God has given me.”

14 Since the children then (οὖν , resuming the thought of v. 11a) share blood and flesh,1 he himself participated in their nature,2 so that by dying he might crush him who wields the power of death (that is to say, the devil), 15 and release from thraldom those who lay under a life-long fear of death. 16 (For of course it is not angels that “ he succours,” it is “ the offspring of Abraham” ). 17 He had to resemble his brothers in every respect, in order to prove a merciful and faithful high priest in things divine, to expiate the sins of the People. 18 It is as he suffered by his temptations that he is able to help the tempted.

It is remarkable (cp. Introd. p. xvi) that the writer does not connect the sufferings of Jesus with OT prophecy, either generally (as, e.g., Luke 24:26 οὐχὶταῦταἔδεὶ 1 παθεῖντὸνΧριστόνκτλ .), or with a specific reference to Isa_53. He explains them on the ground of moral congruity. Here they are viewed from God’ s standpoint, as in 12:2 from that of Jesus himself. God’ s purpose of grace made it befitting and indeed inevitable that Jesus should suffer and die in fulfilling his function as a Saviour (v. 10); then (vv. 11f.) it is shown how he made common cause with those whom he was to rescue.

Ἔπρεπενγάρκτλ . (v. 10). Πρέπειν or πρέπον , in the sense of “ seemly,” is not applied to God in the LXX, but is not uncommon in later Greek, e.g. Lucian’ s Prometheus, 8 , and the de Mundo, 397b, 398a (ὃκαὶπρέπονἐστὶκαὶθεῷμάλισταἁρμόζον — of a theory about the universe, however). The writer was familiar with it in Philo, who has several things to say about what it behoved God to do,2 though never this thing; Philo has the phrase, not the idea. According to Aristotle , what is “ befitting” relates to the person himself, to the particular occasion, and to the object. Here, we might say, the idea is that it would not have done for God to save men by a method which stopped short of suffering and actual death. “ Quand il est question des actes de Dieu, ce qui est convenable est toujours né cessaire au point de vue mé taphysique” (Reuss).

In the description of God (for αὐτῷ cannot be applied to Jesus in any natural sense) δι ʼ ὃντὰπάντακαὶδι ʼ οὗτὰπάντα , the writer differs sharply from Philo. The Alexandrian Jew objects to Eve (Genesis 4:1) and Joseph (Genesis 40:18) using the phrase διὰτοῦθεοῦ (Cherubim, 35), on the ground that it makes God merely instrumental; whereas, ὁθεὸςαἴτιον , οὐκὄργανον .

On the contrary, we call God the creative cause of the universe, ὄργανονδὲλόγονθεοῦδι ʼ οὗκατεσκευάσθη . He then quotes Exodus 14:13 to prove, by the use of παρά , that οὐδιὰ 3 τοῦθεοῦἀλλὰπαρ ʼ αὐτοῦὡςαἰτίουτὸσῴζεσθαι . But our author has no such scruples about διά , any more than Aeschylus had . Like Paul (Romans 11:36) he can say δι ʼ οὗτὰπάντα of God, adding, for the sake of paronomasia, δι ʼ ὅν to cover what Paul meant by ἐξαὐτοῦκαὶεἰςαὐτόν . Or rather, starting with δι ʼ ὃντὰπάντα he prefers another διά with a genitive, for the sake of assonance, to the more usual equivalent ἐξοὗ or ὑφ ʼ οὗ . To preserve the assonance, Zimmer proposes to render: “ um dessentwillen das All, und durch dessen Willen das All.”

The ultimate origin of the phrase probably lies in the mystery-cults; Aristides (ΕἰςτὸνΣάραπιν , 51: ed. Dindorf, i. p. 87), in an invocation of Serapis, writes to this effect, πάνταγὰρπανταχοῦδιὰσοῦτεκαὶδιὰσεἡμῖνγίγνεται . But Greek thought in Stoicism had long ago played upon the use of διά in this connexion Possibly διά with the accusative was the primitive and regular expression, as Norden contends.1 We call Zeus “ ΖῆνακαὶΔία ” ὡςἄνεἰλέγοιμενδι ʼ ὃνζῶμεν , says the author of de Mundo (401a), like the older Stoics (see Arnim’ s Stoicorum veterum Fragmenta, ii. pp. 305, 312), and διά with the accusative might have the same causal sense here,2 i.e. “ through,” in which case the two phrases δι ʼ ὅν and δι ʼ οὗ would practically be a poetical reduplication of the same idea, or at least = “ by whom and through whom.” But the dominant, though not exclusive, idea of δι ʼ ὅν here is final, “ for whom” ; the end of the universe, of all history and creation, lies with Him by whom it came into being and exists; He who redeems is He who has all creation at His command and under His control.

The point in adding δι ʼ ὅν … τὰπάντα to αὐτῷ is that the sufferings and death of Jesus are not accidental; they form part of the eternal world-purpose of God. Philo had explained that Moses was called up to Mount Sinai on the seventh day, because God wished to make the choice of Israel parallel to the creation of the world (Quaest. in Exodus 24:16 βουλόμενοςἐπιδεῖξαιὅτιαὐτὸςκαὶτὸνκόσμονἐδημιούργησεκαὶτὸγένοςεἵλετο . Ἡδὲἀνάκλησιςτοῦπροφήτουδεύτεραγένεσίςἐστιτῆςπροτέραςἀμείνων ). But our author goes deeper; redemption, he reiterates (for this had been hinted at in 1:1-4), is not outside the order of creation. The distinction between the redeeming grace of God and the created universe was drawn afterwards by gnosticism. There is no conscious repudiation of such a view here, only a definite assertion that behind the redeeming purpose lay the full force of God the creator, that God’ s providence included the mysterious sufferings of Jesus His Son, and that these were in line with His will.

In πολλοὺςυἱούς the πολλοί is in antithesis to the one and only ἀρχηγός , as in Romans 8:29, Mark 14:24. For the first time the writer calls Christians God’ s sons. His confidence towards the Father is in sharp contrast to Philo’ s touch of hesitation in De Confus. Ling. 28 (κἂνμηδέπωμέντοιτυγχάνῃτιςἀξιόχρεωςὤνυἱὸςθεοῦπροσαγορεύεσθαι … καὶγὰρεἰμήπωἱκανοὶθεοῦπαῖδεςνομίζεσθαιγεγόναμεν ). Ἀγαγόντα is devoid of any reference to past time. The aorist participle is used adverbially, as often, to denote “ an action evidently in a general way coincident in time with the action of the verb, yet not identical with it. The choice of the aorist participle rather than the present in such cases is due to the fact that the action is thought of, not as in progress, but as a simple event or fact” (Burton, Moods and Tenses, 149).

It is accusative instead of dative, agreeing with an implied αὐτόν instead of αὐτῷ , by a common Greek assimilation (cp. e.g. Acts 11:12, Acts 15:22, Acts 22:17, Acts 25:27). The accusative and infinitive construction prompted ἀγαγόντα instead of ἀγαγόντι . Had ἀγαγόντα been intended to qualify ἀρχηγόν , πολλούς would have been preceded by τόν . The thought is: thus do men attain the δόξα which had been their destiny (v. 7), but only through a Jesus who had won it for them by suffering.

The mistaken idea that ἀγαγόντα must refer to some action previous to τελειῶσαι , which gave rise to the Latin rendering “ qui adduxerat” (vg) or “ multis filiis adductis” (vt), is responsible for the ingenious suggestion of Zimmer that δόξα denotes an intermediate state of bliss, where the δίκαιοι of the older age await the full inheritance of the messianic bliss. It is possible (see below on 11:40, 12:23) to reconstruct such an idea in the mind of the writer, but not to introduce it here.

The general idea in ἀρχηγόν is that of originator or personal source; τουτέστι , τὸναἴτιοντῆςσωτηρίας (Chrysostom). It is doubtful how far the writer was determined, in choosing the term, by its varied associations, but the context, like that of 12:2, suggests that the “ pioneer” meaning was present to his mind; Jesus was ἀρχηγὸςτῆςσωτηρίαςαὐτῶν in the sense that he led the way, broke open the road for those who followed him. This meaning, common in the LXX, recurs in Acts 5:31 , and suits ἀγαγόντα better than the alternative sense of the head or progenitor— as of a Greek clan or colony. In this sense ἀρχηγός is applied to heroes, and is even a divine title of Apollo as the head of the Seleucidae (OGIS 212:13, 219:26), as well as a term for the founder (= conditor) or head of a philosophical school . But the other rendering is more relevant. Compare the confession (in the Acts of Maximilianus) of the soldier who was put to death in 295 a.d. (Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, pp. 340 f.): “ huic omnes Christiani servimus, hunc sequimur vitae principem, salutis auctorem.” The sufferings of Jesus as ἀρχηγὸςσωτηρίας had, of course, a specific value in the eyes of the writer.

He did not die simply in order to show mortals how to die; he experienced death ὑπὲρπαντός , and by this unique suffering made it possible for “ many sons” of God to enter the bliss which he had first won for them. Hence, to “ perfect” the ἀρχηγὸςσωτηρίας is to make him adequate, completely effective. What this involved for him we are not yet told; later on (5:9, 7:28) the writer touches the relation between the perfect ability of Christ and his ethical development through suffering (see below, v. 14), but meantime he uses this general term. God had to “ perfect” Jesus by means of suffering, that he might be equal to his task as ἀρχηγός or ἀρχιερεύς (v. 17); the addition of αὐτῶν to σωτηρίας implies (see 7:26) that he himself had not to be saved from sin as they had. The underlying idea of the whole sentence is that by thus “ perfecting” Jesus through suffering, God carries out his purpose of bringing “ many sons” to bliss.

The verb had already acquired a tragic significance in connexion with martyrdom; in 4 Mac 7:15 it is used of Eleazar’ s heroic death, and this reappeared in the Christian vocabulary, as, e.g., in the title of the Passio S. Perpetuae . But, although Philo had popularized the idea of τελευτᾶν = τελεῖσθαι , this is not present to our writer’ s mind; he is thinking of God’ s purpose to realize a complete experience of forgiveness and fellowship through the Son, and this includes and involves (as we shall see) a process of moral development for the Son.

The writer now (v. 11) works out the idea suggested by πολλοὺςυἱούς . Since Jesus and Christians have the same spiritual origin, since they too in their own way are “ sons” of God, he is proud to call them brothers and to share their lot (vv. 11-13). The leader and his company are a unit, members of the one family of God. It is implied, though the writer does not explain the matter further, that Christ’ s common tie with mankind goes back to the pre-incarnate period; there was a close bond between them, even before he was born into the world; indeed the incarnation was the consequence of this solidarity or vital tie . Ὁἁγιάζων and οἱἀγιαζόμενοι are participles used as substantives, devoid of reference to time. Here, as at 13:12, Jesus is assigned the divine prerogative of ἁγιάζειν (cp.

Ezekiel 20:12 ἐγὼκύριοςὁἁγιάζωναὐτούς , 2 Mac 1:25, etc.), i.e. of making God’ s People His very own, by bringing them into vital relationship with Himself. It is another sacerdotal metaphor; the thought of 1:3 is touched again, but the full meaning of ἁγιάζειν is not developed till 9:13f., where we see that to be “ sanctified” is to be brought into the presence of God through the self-sacrifice of Christ; in other words, ἁγιάζεσθαι = προσέρχεσθαι or ἐγγίζειντῷθεῷ , as in Numbers 16:5 where the ἅγιοι are those whom God προσηγάγετοπρὸςἑαυτόν .

According to (Akiba?) Mechilta, 71b (on Exodus 20:18), God said to the angels at Sinai, “ Go down and help your brothers” ; yet it was not merely the angels, but God himself, who helped them (the proof-text being Son 2:6!).

Δι ʼ ἣναἰτίαν — a phrase only used elsewhere in the NT by the author of the Pastoral epistles— οὐκἐπαισχύνεταικτλ . Ἐπαισχύνεσθαι implies that he was of higher rank, being somehow υἱὸςθεοῦ as they were not. The verb only occurs three times in LXX, twice of human shame (Psalms 119:6, Isaiah 1:29), and once perhaps of God in Job 34:19. In Test. Joshua 2:5 it is used passively . In the gospels, besides Mark 3:34f. and Matthew 25:40, there are slight traditions of the risen Jesus calling the disciples his ἀδελφοί (Matthew 28:10, John 20:17); but the writer either did not know of them or preferred, as usual, to lead biblical proofs. He quotes three passages (vv. 12, 13), the first from the 22nd psalm (v. 23) taken as a messianic cry, the only change made in the LXX text being the alteration of διηγήσομαι into ἀπαγγελῶ (a synonym, see Psalms 55:18). The Son associates himself with his ἀδελφοί in the praise of God offered by their community (a thought which is echoed in 12:28, 13:15).

According to Justin Martyr (Dial. 106), Psalms 22:22, Psalms 22:23 foretells how the risen Jesus stood ἐνμέσῳτῶνἀδελφῶναὐτοῦ , τῶνἀποστόλων … καὶμετ ʼ αὐτῶνδιάγωνὕμνησετὸνθεόν , ὡςκαὶἑντοῖςἀπομνημονεύμασιντῶνἀποστόλωνδηλοῦταιγεγενημένον , and in the Acta Joannis (11) Jesus, before going out to Gethsemane, says, Let us sing a hymn to the Father . The couplet is quoted here for the sake of the first line; the second fills it out. Our author only uses ἐκκλησία (12:23) of the heavenly host, never in its ordinary sense of the “ church.”

The second quotation (v. 13a) is from Isaiah 8:17 ἔσομαιπεποιθὼς (a periphrastic future) ἐπ ʼ αὐτῷ , but the writer prefixes ἐγώ to ἔσομαι for emphasis. The insertion of ἐρεῖ by the LXX at the beginning of Isa 8:17 helped to suggest that the words were not spoken by the prophet himself. The fact that Jesus required to put faith in God proves that he was a human being like ourselves (see 12:2).

In Philo trustful hope towards God is the essential mark of humanity; e.g. quod det. pot. 38 (on Genesis 4:26), τοῦδὲκατὰΜωυσῆνἀνθρώπουδιάθεσιςψυχῆςἐπὶτὸνὄντωςὄνταθεὸνἐλπιζούσης .

The third quotation (v. 13b) is from the words which immediately follow in Isaiah 8:18, where the LXX breaks the Hebrew sentence into two, the first of which is quoted for his own purposes by the writer. The παιδία are God’ s children, the fellow υἱοί of Christ. It is too subtle to treat, with Zimmer, the three quotations as (a) a resolve to proclaim God, as a man to men; (b) a resolve to trust God amid the sufferings incurred in his mission, and (c) an anticipation of the reward of that mission. On the other hand, to omit the second καὶπάλιν as a scribal gloss (Bentley) would certainly improve the sense and avoid the necessity of splitting up an Isaianic quotation into two, the first of which is not strictly apposite. But καὶπάλιν is similarly1 used in 10:30; it is more easy to understand why such words should be omitted than inserted; and the deliberate addition of ἐγώ in the first points to an intentional use of the sentence as indirectly a confession of fellow-feeling with men on the part of the Son.

The same words of the 22nd psalm are played upon by the Od. Sol 31:4: “ and he (i.e. messiah or Truth) lifted up his voice to the most High, and offered to Him the sons that were with him (or, in his hands).”

In v. 14 κεκοινώνηκεν (here alone in the NT) takes the classical genitive, as in the LXX. An apt classical parallel occurs in the military writer Polyaenus (Strateg. iii.11. 1), where Chabrias tells his troops to think of their foes merely as ἀνθρώποιςαἷμακαὶσάρκαἔχουσι , καὶτῆςαὐτῆςφύσεωςἡμῖνκεκοινωνηκόσιν . The following phrase παραπλησίως (= “ similarly,” i.e. almost “ equally” or “ also,” as, e.g., in Maxim. Tyr. vii. 2, καὶἐστὶνκαὶὁἄρχωνπόλεωςμέρος , καὶοἱἀρχόμενοιπαραπλησίως ) μετέσχεν … ἵνακτλ , answers to the thought of ἠλαττωμένον … διὰτὸπάθημακτλ . above. The verb is simply a synonym for κοινωνεῖν ; in the papyri and the inscriptions μετέχειν is rather more common, but there is no distinction of meaning between the two.

This idea (ἵνακτλ .) of crushing the devil as the wielder of death is not worked out by the writer. He alludes to it in passing as a belief current in his circle, and it must have had some context in his mind; but what this scheme of thought was, we can only guess. Evidently the devil was regarded as having a hold upon men somehow, a claim and control which meant death for them. One clue to the meaning is to be found in the religious ideas popularized by the Wisdom of Solomon, in which it is pretty clear that man was regarded as originally immortal (1:13, 14), that death did not form part of God’ s scheme at the beginning, and that the devil was responsible for the introduction of death into the world (2:23, 24); those who side with the devil encounter death , which they bring upon themselves as a result of their sins. Robertson Smith (Expositor2, iii. pp. 76 f.) suggests another explanation, viz., that Jesus removes the fear of death by acting as our Highpriest, since (cp. Numbers 18:5) the OT priests were responsible for averting death from the people, “ the fear of death” being “ specially connected with the approach of an impure worshipper before God.” This certainly paves the way for v. 17, but it does not explain the allusion to the devil, for the illustration of Zec 3:5f. is too remote.

Corroborations of this idea are to be found in more quarters than one. (a) There is the rabbinic notion that the angel of death has the power of inflicting death, according to Pes. Kahana, 32. 189b; Mechilta, 72a on Exodus 20:20 (where Psalms 82:6 is applied to Israel at Sinai, since obedience to the Torah would have exempted them from the power of the angel of death), the angel of death being identified with the devil. (b) There is also the apocalyptic hope that messiah at the end would crush the power of the devil, a hope expressed in the second-century conclusion (Freer-Codex) to Mark, where the risen Christ declares that “ the limit of years for Satan’ s power has now expired.” (c) Possibly the author assumed and expanded Paul’ s view of death as the divine punishment for sin executed by the devil, and of Christ’ s death as a satisfaction which, by removing this curse of the law, did away with the devil’ s hold on sinful mortals. Theodoret’ s explanation (Dial. iii.) is that the sinlessness of Christ’ s human nature freed human nature from sin, which the devil had employed to enslave men: ἐπειδὴγὰρτιμωρίατῶνἁμαρτηκότωνὁθάνατοςἦν , τὸδὲσῶματὸΚυριακὸνοὐκἔχονἁμαρτίαςκηλῖδαὂπαρὰτὸνθεῖοννόμονὁθάνατοςἀδίκωςέξήρπασεν , ἀνέστησεμὲνπρῶτοντὸπαρανόμωςκατασχεθέν · ἔπειταδὲκαὶτοῖςἐνδίκωςκαθειργμένοιςὑπέσχετοτὴνἀπαλλαγήν .

The force of the paradox in διὰτοῦθανάτου is explained by Chrysostom: δι ʼ οὗἐκράτησενὁδιάβολος , διὰτούτουἡττήθη . As the essence of σωτηρία is life, its negative aspect naturally involves emancipation from death. Ἔχειντὸκράτοςτοῦθανάτου means to wield the power of death, i.e. to have control of death. ἔχειντὸκράτος with the genitive in Greek denoting lordship in a certain sphere, e.g. Eurip. Helena, 68 . Ἀπαλλάξῃ goes with δουλείας (as in Joseph. Ant. 13. 13 (363), τῆςὑπὸτοῖςἐχθροῖςαὐτοὺςδουλείας … ἀπολλάττειν , etc.), which is thrown to the end of the sentence or emphasis, after ὅσοι … ἦσαν which qualifies τούτους . Ἔνοχοι is a passive adjective, equivalent to ἐνεχόμενοι , “ bound by” (as in Demosthenes, 1229), and goes with φόβῳθανάτου , which is not a causal dative. Ὅσοι in Hellenistic Greek is no more than the ordinary relative οἵ . Διὰπαντὸςτοῦζῆν , not simply in old age, as Musonius (ed. Hense, xvii.) thinks: καὶτόγεἀθλιώτατονποιοῦντὸνβίοντοῖςγέρουσιναὐτὸἐστὶν , ὁτοῦθανάτουφόβος .

Aristeas (130, 141, 168) uses δι ʼ ὅλουτοῦζῆν , but διὰπαντὸςτοῦζῆν is an unparalleled (in NT Greek) instance of an attribute in the same case being added to the infinitive with a preposition. There is a classical parallel in the Platonic διὰπαντὸςτοῦεἶναι (Parmenides, 152 E); but τὸζῆν had already come to be equivalent to ὁβίος .

The enslaving power of fear in general is described by Xenophon in the Cyropaedia, iii. 1. 23 f.: οἴειοὖντιμᾶλλονκαταδουλοῦσθαιἀνθρώπουςτοῦἰσχυροῦφόβου ; … οὕτωπάντωντῶνδεινῶνὁφόβοςμάλιστακαταπλήττειτὰςψυχάς . Here it is the fear of death, or rather of what comes after death, which is described. The Greek protest against the fear of death (cp. Epict. iii. 36. 28), as unworthy of the wise and good, is echoed by Philo (quod omnis probus liber, 3, ἐπαινεῖταιπαράτισινὁτρίμετρονἐκεῖνοποιήσας · “ τίςἐστιδοῦλος , τοῦθανεῖνἄφροντιςὤν ;’ ὡςμάλασυνιδὼντὸἀκόλουθον . Ὑπέλαβεγάρ , ὅτιοὐδὲνοὕτωδουλοῦσθαιπέφυκεδιάνοιαν , ὡςτὸἐπὶθανάτῳδέος , ἕνεκατοῦπρὸςτὸζῆνἱμέρου ). But the fear persisted, as we see from writers like Seneca (“ optanda mors est sine metu mortis mori,” Troades, 869) and Cicero; the latter deals with the fear of death in De Finibus, v. 11, as an almost universal emotion . Lucretius as a rationalist had denounced it magnificently in the De Rerum Natura, which “ is from end to end a passionate argument against the fear of death and the superstition of which it was the basis.

The fear which he combated was not the fear of annihilation, but one with which the writer of this Epistle could sympathize, the fear of what might come after death; ‘ aeternas quoniam poenas in morte timendum est’ (i. 111)” (Wickham). The fear of death as death (cp.

Harnack’ s History of Dogma, iii:180) has been felt even by strong Christians like Dr. Johnson. But our author has more in view. Seneca’ s epistles, for example, are thickly strewn with counsels against the fear of death; he remonstrates with Lucilius on the absurdity of it, discusses the legitimacy of suicide, if things come to the worst, points out that children and lunatics have no such fear (Ep. xxxvi. 12), and anticipates most of the modern arguments against this terror. Nevertheless, he admits that it controls human life to a remarkable extent, even though it is the thought of death, not death itself, that we dread (Ep. xxx. 17); he confesses that if you take anyone, young, middle-aged, or elderly, “ you will find them equally afraid of death” (22:14). And his deepest consolation is that death cannot be a very serious evil, because it is the last evil of all (“ quod extremum est,” Ep. iv. 3).

Now the author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους sees more beyond death than Seneca. “ After death, the judgment.” The terror which he notes in men is inspired by the fact that death is not the final crisis (9:27). “ Ultra (i.e. post mortem) neque curae neque gaudio locum esse,” said Sallust. It was because a primitive Christian did see something “ ultra mortem,” that he was in fear, till his hope reassured him (9:28).

It is noteworthy that here (vv. 14, 15) and elsewhere our author, not unlike the other διδάσκαλος who wrote the epistle of James, ignores entirely the idea of the devil as the source of temptation; he does not even imply the conception of the devil, as 1 Peter does, as the instigator of persecution.

In one of his terse parentheses the writer now (v. 16) adds, οὐγὰρδήπουἀγγέλωνἐπιλαμβάνεται . Δήπου is the classical term for “ it need hardly be said” or “ of course,” and ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι means “ to succour” . If it meant “ seize” or “ grip,” θάνατος (i.e. either death, or the angel of death, cp. v. 14) might be taken as the nominative, the verse being still a parenthesis. This idea, favoured by some moderns, seems to lie behind the Syriac version (cp. A. Bonus, Expository Times, xxxiii. pp. 234-236); but ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι here corresponds to βοηθῆσαι in v. 18, and is used in the same good sense as in the other quotation in 8:9. The words ἀλλὰσπέρματοςἈβραὰμἐπιλαμβάνεται may be a reminiscence of Isa 41:8, Isaiah 41:9 where God reassures Israel: σπέρμαἈβραὰμ … οὗἀντελαβόμην .

The archaic phrase was perhaps chosen, instead of a term like ἀνθρώπων ,1 on account of Abraham’ s position as the father of the faithful (see 11:8f.). Paul had already claimed it as a title for all Christians, irrespective of their birth: οὐκἔνιἸουδαῖοςοὐδὲἝλλην … εἰδὲὑμεῖςΧριστοῦ , ἆρατοῦἈβραὰμσπέρμαἐστέ (Galatians 3:28, Galatians 3:29), and our author likes these archaic, biblical periphrases. He repeats ἐπιλαμβάνεται after Ἀβραάμ to make a rhetorical antistrophe (see Introd. p. lvii).

It is a warning against the habit of taking the Greek fathers as absolute authorities for the Greek of ΠρὸςἙβραίους , that they never suspected the real sense of ἐπιλαμβάνεται here. To them it meant “ appropriates” (the nature of). When Castellio (Chatillon), the sixteenth century scholar, first pointed out the true meaning, Beza pleasantly called his opinion a piece of cursed impudence (“ execranda Castellionis audacia qui ἐπιλαμβάνεται convertit ‘ opitulatur,’ non modo falsa sed etiam inepta interpretatione” ). The mere fact that the Greek fathers and the versions missed the point of the word is a consideration which bears, e.g., upon the interpretation of a word like ὑπόστασις in 3:14 and 11:1.

The thought of vv. 14, 15 is now resumed in v. 17; ὅθεν (a particle never used by Paul) ὤφειλενκατὰπάντα (emphatic by position) τοῖςἀδελφοῖςὁμοιωθῆναι — resembling them in reality, as one brother resembles another . In what follows, ἐλεήμων 2 is put first for emphasis (as the writer is about to speak of this first), and goes like πιστός with ἀρχιερεύς . “ Quae verba sic interpretor: ut misericors esset, ideoque fidelis,” Calvin argues. But this sequence of thought is not natural; loyalty to God’ s purpose no doubt involved compassion for men, but Christ was πίστος as he endured stedfastly the temptations incurred in his τελείωσις as ἀρχηγός . He suffered, but he never swerved in his vocation. Nor can πιστός here mean “ reliable” (Seeberg, Der Tod Christi, 17), i.e. reliable because merciful; the idea of his sympathy as an encouragement to faith is otherwise put (cp. 4:14f. 12:1f.).

The idea of τελειῶσαι in v. 10 is being explicitly stated; the sufferings of Christ on earth had a reflex influence upon himself as Saviour, fitting him for the proper discharge of his vocation. But the vocation is described from a new angle of vision; instead of ἀρχηγός or ὁἁγιάζων , Jesus is suddenly (see Introd. p. xxv) called ἀρχιερεύς , evidently a term familiar to the readers (ἀρχιερέατῆςὁμολογίαςἡμῶν , 3:2).

The prestige of the highpriest in the later Judaism is plain in rabbinic (e.g. Berachoth, Joma) tradition and also in apocalyptic. The Maccabean highpriests assumed the title of ἱερεὺςτοῦθεοῦτοῦὑψίστου (Ass. Mosis, 6:1; Jubilees, 32:1), and the ritual of the day of atonement, when he officiated on behalf of the people, was invested with a special halo. This is the point of the allusion here, to the ἀρχιερεύς expiating the sins of the people. Philo had already used the metaphor to exalt the functions of his Logos as a mediator: ὁδ ʼ αὐτὸςἱκέτηςμένἐστιτοῦθνητοῦκηραίνοντοςἀεὶπρὸςτὸἄφθαρτον , πρεσβευτὴςδὲτοῦἡγεμόνοςπρὸςτὸὑπήκοον (quis rerum div. heres, 42).

But, while the term ἱκέτης does imply some idea of intercession, this is not prominent in Philo’ s cosmological and metaphysical scheme, as it is in our epistle, which carefully avoids the Philonic idea that men can propitiate God (βούλεταιγὰραὐτὸνὁνόμοςμείζονοςμεμοιρᾶσθαιφύσεωςἢκατ ʼ ἄνθρωπον , ἐγγυτέρωπροσιόντατῆςθεῖας , μεθόριον , εἰδεῖτἀληθὲςλέγειν , ἀμφοῖν , ἵναδιὰμέσουτινὸςἄνθρωποιμὲνἱλασκῶνταιθεὸν , θεὸςδὲτὰςχάριταςἀνθρώποιςὑποδιακόνῳτινὶχρώμενοςὀρέγῃκαὶχορηγῇ , De Spec. Leg. i. 12).

Again, Philo explains (de sacerdot. 12) that the highpriest was forbidden to mourn, when a relative died, ἵνα … κρείττωνοἴκτουγενόμενος , ἄλυποςεἰςἀεὶδιατελῇ . This freedom from the ordinary affections of humanity was part of his nearer approximation to the life of God (ἐγγυτέρωπροσιόντατῆςθείας [φύσεως ]). But our author looks at the function of Christ as ἀρχιερεύς differently; the first word to be used about him in this connexion is ἐλεήμων , and, before passing on to develop the idea of πιστός , the writer adds (v. 18) another word upon the practical sympathy of Christ. In resembling his ἀδελφοὶκατὰπαντά Christ πέπονθενπειρασθείς . His death had achieved for them an emancipation from the dread of death (v. 14); by entering into glory he had expiated the sins of God’ s People, thereby securing for them a free and intimate access to God. But the process by means of which he had thus triumphed was also of value to men; it gave him the experience which enabled him by sympathy to enter into the position of those who are tempted as he was, and to furnish them with effective help.

The connexion between v. 18 and v. 17 does not rest upon the idea of Christ as ἐλεήμωνκαὶπιστὸςἀρχιερεύς , as though the effective help received from Christ were a constant proof that he expiates sins, i.e. maintains us in the favour and fellowship of God (Seeberg). It rests on the special idea suggested by ἐλεήμων . “ His compassion is not mere pity for men racked … by pain in itself, however arising; it is compassion for men tempted by sufferings towards sin or unbelief” (A.

B. Davidson). What the writer has specially in mind is the agony in Gethsemane (cp. 5:7f.) as the culminating experience of sorrow caused by the temptation to avoid the fear of death or the cross.

The adverbial accusative τὰπρὸςτὸνθεόν here, as in 5:1, is a fairly common LXX phrase (e.g. Exodus 4:16 (of Moses), σὺδὲαὐτῳἔσῃτὰπρὸςτὸνθεόν ). Ἱλάσκεσθαιτὰςἁμαρτίας is also a LXX phrase, an expression for pardon or expiation, as in Psalms 65:4 , which never occurs again in the NT. When the verb (middle voice) is used of God`s dealings with men, it generally takes the person of the sinner as its object in the dative or else sins in the dative (ταῖςἁμαρτίαις is actually read here by A 5. 33. 623. 913. Athan. Chrys. Bentley, etc.).

This removal of sins as an obstacle to fellowship with God comes under the function of ὁἁγιάζων . The thought reappears in 7:25 and in 1 John 2:2 .

ὁλαός is the writer`s favourite biblical expression for the church, from the beginning to the end; he never distinguishes Jews and Gentiles.

The introduction of the πειρασμοί of Jesus (v. 18) is as abrupt as the introduction of the ἀρχιερεύς idea, but is thrown out by way of anticipation. Ἐνᾧγάρ = ἐντούτῳἐνᾧ (causal) or ὅτι , explaining not the sphere, but the reason of his “ help,” πέπονθεναὐτὸςπειρασθείς — the participle defining the πάσχειν (a term never applied to Jesus by Paul): he suffered by his temptations, the temptations specially in view being temptations to avoid the suffering that led to the cross. This is the situation of the readers. They are in danger of slipping into apostasy, of giving up their faith on account of the hardships which it involved. Οἱπειραζόμενοι are people tempted to flinch and falter under the pressure of suffering. Life is hard for them, and faith as hard if not harder. Courage, the writer cries, Jesus understands; he has been through it all, he knows how hard it is to bear suffering without being deflected from the will of God. Grammatically, the words might also read: “ For he himself, having been tempted by what he suffered, is able to help those who are tempted.” The sense is really not very different, for the particular temptations in view are those which arise out of the painful experience of having God`s will cross the natural inclination to avoid pain.

But the πειρασμοί of Jesus were not simply due to what he suffered. He was strongly tempted by experiences which were not painful at all— e.g. by the remonstrance of Simon Peter at Caesarea Philippi.

As Ritschl puts it, “ Christ was exposed to temptation simply because a temptation is always bound up with an inclination which is at the outset morally legitimate or permissible. It was the impulse, in itself lawful, of self-preservation which led to Christ`s desire to be spared the suffering of death. And this gave rise to a temptation to sin, because the wish collided with his duty in his vocation. Christ, however, did not consent to this temptation. He renounced his self-preservation, because he assented to the Divine disposal of the end of his life as a consequence of his vocation” (Rechtfertigung u. Versö hnung, iii. 507; Eng. tr. p. 573). On the suffering that such temptation involved, see below on 5:8.

Βοηθεῖν and ἱλάσκεσθαιταῖςἁμαρτίαις occur side by side in the prayer of Psa 79:9 (LXX). Are they synonymous here? Is the meaning of τὸἱλάσκεσθαιτὰςἁμαρτίαςτοῦλαοῦ that Christ constantly enables us to overcome the temptations that would keep us at a distance from God or hinder us from being at peace with God? (so, e.g., Kurtz and M`Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, pp. 172-174). The meaning is deeper. The help conveyed by the sympathy of Jesus reaches back to a sacrificial relationship, upon which everything turns. Hence the ideas of ἐλεήμων and πιστός are now developed, the latter in 3:1-6a, the former in 4:14f., 3:6b-4:13 being a practical application of what is urged in 3:1-6a. But the writer does not work out the thought of Christ as πιστός in connexion with his function as ἀρχιερεύς , even though he mentions the latter term at the outset of his appeal, in which the stress falls on the expiatory work of Christ.

Expositor The Expositor. Small superior numbers indicate the series.

1 ἐκφευξόμεθα , without an object (κρίματοῦθεοῦ , Romans 2:3) as 12:25, Sir 16:15, 1 Thessalonians 5:3.

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

1739 [α 78]

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

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

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.

2 Arm apparently read ὑστερήσωμεν , and P. Junius needlessly conjectured παρασυρῶμεν .

69 [δ 505]

623 [α 173]

1845 [α 64]

א Ԡ [01: δ 2).

vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.

K [018:1:1].

L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.

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

1 This is from a speech of Herod inciting the Jews to fight bravely. “ In such a speech,” as Robertson Smith observed, “ one does not introduce doubtful points of theology.” The tenet was firmly held.

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

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

1 In ὑπὸτῶνἀκουσάντων , ὑπό is used, as invariably throughout ΠρὸςἙβραίους , of persons, which is a proof of good Greek. “ There is no more certain test of the accuracy of individual Greek writers than their use of the passives (or equivalent forms) with ὑπό and a genitive. In the best writers this genitive almost invariably denotes personal, or at least living objects” (W. J. Hickie, on Andocides, De Mysteriis, § 14).

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 In A א ca of Isa 9:6 the messiah is called πατὴρτοῦμέλλοντοςαἰῶνος .

1 ἐντῶ (sc. λέγειν , as 8:13).

2 The omission of this αὐτῷ by B d e arm does not alter the sense.

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

1 μιμνήσκῃ means mindfulness shown in act, and ἐπισκέπτῃ , as always in the NT, denotes personal care.

A [02: δ 4].

2127 [δ 202]

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

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

Euth. Euthalius

Sedul. Sedulius Scotus

1 But not, as the Greek fathers, etc., supposed, as if it was the fact of his death (and stay in the underworld) that lowered him (διά = on account of).

1 Reading τοῦ before ὑπέρ .

424 [O 12] Hort’ s 67

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).

1 It was so taken by some Latin fathers like Primasius and by later theologians of the Western church like Thomas of Aquinum and Sedulius Scotus, who depended on the Vulgate version.

1 αἵματοςκαὶσαρκός (Ephesians 6:12) is altered into the more conventional σαρκὸςκαὶαἵματος by, e.g., K L f vg syr pesh eth boh Theodoret, Aug. Jerome.

2 αὐτῶν , i.e. αἵματοςκαὶσαρκός , not παθημάτων , which is wrongly added by D* d syrpal Eus. Jerome, Theodoret.

1 The ὤφειλεν of v. 17 is not the same as this ἔδει .

2 Thus: πρέπειτῷθεῷφυτεύεινκαὶοἰκοδομεῖνἐνψυχῇτὰςἀρετάς (Leg. alleg. i. 15)

3 When he does use διά (de opificio, 24) it is δι ʼ αὑτοῦμόνου , of creation.

1 Agnostos Theos, 347 f. (“ Das ist die applikation der logisch-grammatischen Theorie ü ber den Kasus, der in ä ltester Terminologie, ἡκατ ʼ αἰτίανπτῶσις ,heisst, auf die Physik: die Welt ist das Objekt der durch die hö chste αἰτία ausgeü bten Tä tigkeit” ).

2 As in Revelation 4:11 and Epist. Aristeas, 16: δι ʼ ὃνζωοποιοῦνταιτὰπάντακαὶγίνεται .

OGIS Dittenberger’ s Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905).

c (Codex Colbertinus: saec. xii.)

1 It is a literary device of Philo in making quotations (cp. quis rer. div. 1).

1 Cosmas Indicopleustes correctly interpreted the phrase: τουτεστισώματοςκαὶψυχῆςλογικῆς (372 B).

2 The seer in Enoch 40:1-10 has a vision of the four angels who intercede for Israel before God; the first is “ Michael, the merciful and longsuffering.”

5 [δ 453]

33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17

913 [α 470]

Athan Athanasius