We're making big changes. Please try out the beta site at beta.ccel.org and send us feedback. Thank you!
« Prev VIII. Next »


VIII. ¹Κεφάλαιον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις, τοιοῦτον

1 ἐπὶ τοῖς: ἐν τοῖς A.

IV. @The Fulfilment of Christ's Priestly Work@ (viii. i.—x. 18).

The description of the great features of Christ's Priesthood which has been given in the last division of the Epistle is naturally followed by a view of the fulfilment of His office. This includes the final answer to the disappointments and doubts of the Hebrews. It has been shewn that Christ possesses completely the characteristics of a High-priest for men (c. v. 1—10): that the full apprehension of the dignity of His Person and Work requires effort and patience (c. v. 11—vi.): that under the Levitical system there existed an impressive type of a higher order of Priesthood which He has satisfied (c. ii.). The writer therefore goes on to indicate how He discharges the duties of this supreme and absolute Priesthood, and how it involves of necessity the abrogation of the Mosaic ritual.

To this end he first marks the scene and the conditions of Christ's Priestly work, the New Sanctuary and the New Covenant, a Sanctuary of heaven and not of earth, a Covenant of grace and not of works (c. viii.).

He then compares the High-priestly service under the Old and New Covenants in its most august forms, the service of the Day of Atonement under the Levitical system, and the Passion and Ascension of Christ; while he significantly suggests that we are still waiting for the Return of Christ from the Presence of God to announce the completion of His Work (c. ix.).

In conclusion he brings forward the consideration which is at once the foundation and the crown of his argument. The Levitical sacrifices could not have any value in themselves. The sacrifice of loyal service is that which God requires of men. This has been rendered perfectly by the Incarnate Son of God; whose sacrifice of Himself in Life and Death avails for ever for that humanity which He has taken to Himself. Through His Work the Covenant of grace finds accomplishment (c. x. 1—18).

These three sections:

i. A general view of the scene and the conditions of Christ's High-priestly work (c. viii.),

ii. The Old Service and the New: the Atonement of the Law and the Atonement of Christ (c. ix.),

iii. The Old Sacrifices and the New: the abiding efficacy of Christ's one Sacrifice (c. x. 1—18), complete the argument of the Epistle; and shew that the Mosaic system, with its great memories and consoling institutions, has no value for the Christian.

i. A general view of the scene and the conditions of Christ's High-priestly work (viii. 1—13).

Before discussing in detail the High-priestly work of Christ, the writer gives a general view of its character in relation to (1) the new Sanctuary (viii. 1—6), and (2) the new Covenant (7—13).

(1) The new Sanctuary (1—6).

The eternal High-priest has a work to do corresponding with the spiritual dignity of His office in the heavenly sanctuary (1, 2). This work could not be fulfilled on earth, for there is already an earthly system of service (3, 4); but the earthly system is only a shadow of the divine archetype which is realised by Christ (5, 6).

The argument, it will be seen, meets indirectly difficulties which were felt as to the death of Christ (ἐζήτουν τινές, τίνος ἔνεκεν ἀπέθανεν ἱερεὺς ὥν; Chrys.); and as to the absence of Christ. The present work 212 of Christ is the application of the virtue of His one Sacrifice of Himself. He is our High-priest who has entered into the Divine Presence, and we wait patiently for His Return (ix. 28). It was necessary therefore that He should have 'somewhat to offer,' and that could be nothing less than Himself. It was necessary that He should be withdrawn from us that He might make atonement, and enter on His Royal Priesthood. His Death and His absence are consequently an essential part of the fulfilment of our hope.

¹Now in the things which we are saying the chief point is this: We have such a High-priest as sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, ²α minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. ³For every high-priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; whence it was necessary that this high-priest also should have something to offer. ⁴Now if he were still upon earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to law, ⁵such as serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly order, even as Moses is warned of God, when about to make the tabernacle, for See, saith he, thou shall make all things according to the pattern that was shewed thee in the mount. ⁶But, as it is, he hath obtained a ministry so much the more excellent, as also he is mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises.

(1), (2). A general statement of Christ's High-priestly work, as He is King at once and Minister.

(1). κεφαλαιον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγ.] Now in the things which we are saying the chief point is... Latt. capitulum autem super ea quæ dicuntur (dicimus). The word κεφάλαιον admits of two different interpretations, which have both been adopted by some ancient and modern interpreters:

(1) Summary, sum. Ὄταν τις ἐν ὀλίγῳ τὰ κυριώτερα παραλαβεῖν μέλλῃ ἐν κεφαλαίῳ φησὶν ποιεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον, Theophlct. Comp. Ecclus. xxxv. (xxxii.) 8 κεφαλαίωσον λόγον, ἐv ὀλίγοις πολλά.

(2) Chief point, main matter. Κεφάλαιον ἀεὶ τὸ μέγιστον λέγεται, Chrys. Comp. Thucyd. iv. 50 πολλῶν ἄλλων γεγραμμένων κεφάλαιον ἧν, vi. 6. Plat. Legg. i. p. 643 C κεφάλαιον δὲ παιδείας λέγομεν τὴν ὀρθὴν τροφήν.

It occurs again in Acts xxii. 28 for 'a sum of money'; and in the lxx. (caput, Hebrewfinn) in a similar sense 'the capital sum': Lev. v. 24; (vi. 5); Num. v. 7 (comp. Num. iv. 2; xxxi. 26, 49).

The second sense falls in best with the context. What follows is not so much a summary of the Apostle's teaching, as an indication of the central thought by which it is inspired. If this sense be taken the question still remains whether κεφάλαιον refers to any new subject, as that of the spiritual sanctuary in which Christ fulfils His office, or to the whole sentence τοιοῦτον...ἄνθρωπος, in which the idea of the sanctuary is only one element in many.

The general construction of the sentence favours the latter view. The thought of a High-priest who has taken His seat on the right hand of God, who is King as well as Priest, is clearly the prominent thought in the sentence. It has not found distinct expression before; and it is the main point in the whole discussion on Christ's High-priestly work, from which the conviction of the efficacy of His one sacrifice follows. His Session on the divine throne shews that He is sovereign of the Kingdom which He has established by His Death; and at the same time this fact explains what seems to men His delay in the Sanctuary (x. 13).

The use of κεφάλαιον without the article in such a construction is strictly correct. It stands in apposition with the statement which follows. Comp. Rom. viii. 3. 213 ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα, ὅς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης

ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις] in the case of, in the consideration of, the things which are now being said, in the argument which we are now conducting. The reference is to the whole subject of Christ's High-priesthood which is still under discussion, and not to what has been advanced before (τοῖς εἰρημένοις). For ἐπί compare Lk. v. 5; (c. xi. 4).

τοιοῦτον...ὅς ἐκάθισεν...) The pronoun (τοιοῦτος) may be taken either as retrospective ('we have such a High-priest as has been already described, and He sat down...'), or as prospective ('we have such a High-priest...as sat down...'). The parallel in vii. 26 f. is not decisive either way (see note). The context however seems to require that Christ's kingly dignity in the exercise of His priestly office should be specially emphasised, so that the second sense is to be preferred: 'We have a High-priest who fulfils His office in royal dignity, not as priests on earth; and the scene of His ministry is heaven.'

ὅς ἐκάθισεν...] Compare x. 12; xii. 2 (κεκάθικεν). The image is taken from Ps. cx. The writer of the Epistle is at length able to repeat, after gaining a full view of the significance of the statement, what he had said at the beginning c. i. 3 ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς (note).

Τοῦτο (the sitting down) οὐχὶ τοῦ ἱερέως ἀλλὰ τούτου ῷ ἱερᾶσθαι ἐκεῖνον χρή (Chrys.). θεὸν ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα. τὸ γὰρ καθῆσθαι οὐδενὸς ἄλλου ἥ θεοῦ (Theophlct).

The idea of 'taking the seat' (ἐκάθισεν) is distinct from that of 'sitting' (κάθηται). Compare c. i. 13 note.

In this connexion the full meaning of passages like Apoc. iii. 21 becomes clear. Christ makes His people also kings and priests. A striking illustration is quoted from Shemoth R. § 8 (Wünsche, p. 74). 'A king of flesh and blood does not set his crown on another, but God (Blessed be He) will set His crown on King Messiah: Cant v. 11; Ps. xxi. 3.'

ἐν δεξ. τοῦ θρ. τῆς μεγαλ.] Latt. in dextera sedis magnitudinis. Comp. c. i. 3 ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης and note. 'The power' (HebrewΠ^ΙΟ) was a common Rabbinic name for God in His Majesty: 'we heard it from the mouth of the Power.' Comp. Buxtorf, Lex. s. v.; and Mark xiv. 62 ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως.

The phrase 'the throne of the Divine Majesty' is chosen with reference to the Glory which rested on the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies: Lev. xvi. 2; comp. Ex. xxv. 22.

The patristic interpretation of 'the Majesty' is uncertain (ἥ ὅτι καὶ ὁ πατὴρ λεχθείν ἄν αὐτῷ (αὐτὸς) μεγαλωσύνη ἥ ὅτι ἁπλῶς οὑτω θρόνος μεγαλωσύνης ὁ μέγιστος θρόνος, Theophlct), but the Fathers carefully avoid all 'puerile' anthropomorphism in their treatment of 'the right hand of God,' as for example: plenitudinem majestatis summamque gloriam beatitudinis et prosperitatis debemus per dexteram intelligere in qua filius sedet (Primas.). This Session declares under a natural figure that the Son of man has entered on the full and permanent participation of the divine glory and power. Compare a remarkable passage of Philo (de Abr. § 24, ii. p. 19 Μ.) πατὴρ μὲντῶν ὅλων ὁ μέσος (the reference is to Gen. xviii. 1 ff.), ὅς...καλεῖται ὁ ὥν, αἱ δὲ παρ' ἑκάτερα πρεσβύταται καὶ ἐγγύταται τοῦ ὅντος δυνάμεις. ὧν ἡ μὲν ποιητικὴ ἡ δὲ αδ βασιλικὴ προσαγορεύεται. καὶ ἡ μὲν ποιητικὴ θεός δὶ βασιλικὴ κύριος...ἡ δὲ βασιλική κύριος.... And a little later (id. § 25) Philo speaks of 'the manifestation' (φαντασία) ἡ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ ἡ εὐεργέτις, ῇ θεὸς ὄνομα.... Pearson (On the Creed, pp. 277 f.) has given a good collection of illustrative quotations. Contrast Acts vii. 55 (ἑστῶτα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ). 214 ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ²τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργὸς καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς, ἐν ἐπηξεν ὁ κύριος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος.

2 οὐκ ἄνθρ. אBD₂*: + καὶ' οὐκ ἄνθρ. S (A) vg me syrr.

ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς] Compare c. ix. 24 note.

(2). τῶν ἁγίων λειτ.] a minister of the sanctuary, Latt. sanctorum minister. The phrase τῶν ἁγίων is unquestionably neuter: c. ix. 8, 12, &c. It describes 'the Sanctuary,' and specially what is elsewhere (c. ix. 3) called 'the Holy of Holies' (ἅγια ἁγίων).

The exact phrase occurs in Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. 46 (i. 114 Μ.), τοιοῦτος ὁ θεραπευτὴς καὶ λειτουργὸς τῶν ἁγίων said of Aaron).

Some of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, treat τῶν ἁγίων as masc. 'of the Saints.' Thus Primasius: sanctorum minister: quod duobus modis potest accipi. Veniens quippe dominus in mundum per incarnationis exhibitionem ministravit sanctis aliisque fidelibus...et aliter: sanctorum minister erit in futurum quando semetipsum ministrabit illis ut cognoscant eum cum patre et spiritu sancto sicuti est...Potest et altiori sensu intelligi ut tabernaculum vorum accipiantur animæ justorum quibus ipse filius Dei gaudia patriæ cælestis adminlstrat et in quibus ipse habitare dignatur. Compare Œcumenius: ἀρχιερεύς, φησίν, τῶν ἡγιασμένων παρ' αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώπων, and so 'τινές' quoted by Theophylact.

There is a significant contrast between the Session of Christ and His 'serving': πῶς δὲ οἷόν τε αὐτὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ συνεδρεύειν καὶ λειτουργεὶν; εἰ μή τις ἅρα λειτουργεῖν εἴποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὴν σωτηρίαν ἥν δεσποτικῶς πραγματεύεται (Theodt). The two words in fact present the two complementary aspects of Christ's Person and Work, His divine Majesty and His infinite love. Christ serves though He reigns and reigns in serving. All that the High-priest did in figure He does absolutely. He makes atonement for men with God: He makes God known to men; and thus in both ways He fulfils their destiny. For λειτουργός and cognate words see Additional Note.

τῆς σκ. τ. ἀλ....οὐκ ἄνθρ.] Comp. c. ix. 11 note. The action of Christ's Priesthood extends to all parts of the divine Dwelling. Thus the more general word σκηνή is added to τὰ ἅγια, but no local distinction can be pressed in regard to the heavenly antitype (archetype). Comp. Apoc. xv. 5; (xiii. 6). The general thought is that of the immediate Presence of God (τὰ ἅγια), and the scene of His manifestation to His worshippers (ἡ σκηνή). Christ in the High-priesthood of His glorified humanity represents man to God, and in His divine Nature represents God to man.

This 'Tabernacle' which Christ serves and through which God is made known to men, is the ideal 'Tabernacle' (ἡ σκ. ἡ ἀληθινή) of which the earthly Tabernacle was a symbol. For ἀληθινός compare c. ix. 24; x. 22 note (not ix. 14). The word is common in St John's writings (John i. 9; iv. 23 note). Elsewhere in the Ν. T. it occurs only in Luke xvi. 11; 1 Thess. i. 9. For the idea of the Tabernacle see Additional Note on v. 5. Compare Wisd. ix. 8.

ἥν ἕπηξεν] The verb is habitually used by classical writers in this connexion (πηγνύναι σκηνήν). So it is used of the heavens: Is. xlii. 5; (Ps. civ. 3). Comp. Num. xxiv. 6 (lxx.).

ὁ κύριος] Comp. v. 11 (Jer. xxxi. 34 lxx.). Elsewhere in the Epistle 'the Lord' (Jehovah) is always represented by Kύριος (eleven times) while ὁ κύριος is used of Christ: c. ii. 3 note. But see Luke i. 6, 9, 28, 46; James iv. 15; v. 15 &c. 215 ³πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας καθίσταται ὅθεν ἀναγκαῖον ἔχειν τι καὶ τοῦτον ὅ προσεωέγκῃ. ⁴εἰ μὲν οὖν ἧν ἐπὶ γῆς, οὐδ' ἄν ἧν ἱερεύς,

3 τι καί: om. καὶ א* ? 4 οὐν אABD₂* vg me: γάρ S syr hl.

oὐκ ἄνθρωπος] Compare c. ix. 11, 24 (oὐ χειροποίητα).

(3), (4). The fact and the scene of Christ's High-priestly work.

(3). πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχ.] Compare c. v. 1. The fact that the Lord is High-priest—a minister of the sanctuary—involves of necessity and rests upon His performance of High-priestly functions; for every High-priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. He must therefore have both an offering and a place of approach to God: an offering that in the virtue of the blood He might find entrance to the Presence of God, as the Aaronic High-priest on the Day of Atonement; a place of approach fulfilling the type of the Holy of Holies, not on earth (v. 4) and consequently in heaven.

εἰς τὸ προσφ. δ. καὶ θ.] Comp. c. v. 1 (ἵνα προσφέρῃ) note.

ὅτεν...ὁ προσενέγκῃ] whence it was necessary that this High-priest also should have something to offer, Vulg. unde necesse est et hunc habere aliquid quod offerat. This offering is described as made once for all (προσενέγκῃ contrasted with προσφέρῃ ix. 25; comp. c. vii. 27). The one sufficient offering was made by Christ as the condition of entrance into the sanctuary through His own blood (c. ix. 12). On this His intercession is based. That intercession knows no end or interruption; and therefore no second offering is required, as in the case of the Levitical High-priest, who made a fresh offering every year in order that he might again enter and repeat the intercession which had been made before.

The necessary condition of the entrance of our High-priest into the Presence of God throws light upon the difficulty which the Hebrews felt as to His death. Through no less an offering than that of Himself could He come before God for His people.

It has been debated whether ἧν or ἐστίν should be supplied with αναγκαίον. If the reference is to the offering on the Cross, as seems to be required by the type and the context, then ἧν must be supplied.

ἔχειν τι] that is 'Himself' (vii. 27 ἀναφέρειν; ix. 14, 25 προσφέρειν) or His 'Body' (x. 10 προσφορά). It seems necessary to supply that object which is elsewhere used with προσφέρειν in the same connexion. Many have interpreted the τι of 'the Blood.' But the Blood was not properly 'offered' in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (yet see c. ix. 7). It was used as the means of entrance and purification. Even so Christ entered into the Divine Presence 'through (διά) His own Blood' (c. ix. 12), and by that purifies 'the heavenly things' (ix. 23) and the people (c. xiii. 12); but we do not read that He 'offered' it. The indefinite pronoun, as contrasted with δῶρα καὶ θυσίας, indicates the mysteriousness of the offering.

ὅ προσενέγκῃ] For the construction, which is rare in classical prose, see Acts xxi. 16.

(4). εἰ μὲν οὖν...ἱερεύς...] Now if He were still upon earth, He would not be a priest at all, and therefore still less High-priest...The argument is directed to shew that, since Christ as High-priest must do characteristic service, the scene of His service must be heaven and not earth. The wish therefore which many entertained for some priestly work of Christ on earth 216 ὅντων τῶν προσφερόντων κατά νόμον τὰ δῶρα. ⁵(οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ λατρεύουσιν τῶν ἐπουρανίων, καθὼς

ὅντων אABD₂* vg me: + τῶν ἱερέων S syrr. νόμον א* ΑΒ: + τὸν' ν. S א* D₂. τὰ δ. κ. ν. syr vg me.

was really fatal to their noblest faith. It is assumed that there cannot be two divinely appointed orders of earthly priests. The actual existence and service of one order therefore excludes the possibility of the coexistence of another. The apodosis is in v. 6 νῦν δέ. For εἰ ἧν...οὐδ' ἄν ἧν... see c. iv. 8 Additional Note.

Theodoret (on v. 5) has an interesting note on the service of Christian priests: τί δήποτε τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης οἱ ἱερεῖς τὴν μυστικὴν λειτουργίαν ἐπιτελοῦσιν; ἀλλὰ δῆλον τοῖς τὰ θεῖα πεπαιδευμένοις ὡς οὐκ ἄλλην τινὰ θυσίαν προσφέρομεν ἀλλὰ τῆς μιᾶς ἐκείνης καὶ σωτηρίου τὴν μνήμην ἀπιτελοῦμεν. τοῦτο γὰρ ἡμῖν αὐτὸς ὁ δεσπότης προσέταξε 'τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν 'μὴν ἀνάμνησιν.' ἵνα τῇ θεωρίᾳ τὸν τύπον τῶν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γεγενημένων ἀναμιμνησκώμεθα παθημάτων καὶ τὴν περὶ τὸν εὐεργέτην ἀγάπην πυρσεύωμεν καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν προσμένωμεν τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν.

ὅντων τ. προσφ.] seeing there are... Vulg. cum essent qui offerrent, V. L. aliis offerentibus. The tense of the principal verb (λατρύουσι) fixes the translation of the participle to the present. This offering is made κατὰ νόμον, 'according to law,' not 'according to the Law.' The idea is that of the authoritative character of the institution generally, and not of the specific form of the institution. Comp. c. x. 8 (κατὰ νόμον) note.

τὰ δῶρα] not 'gifts' in the abstract, but 'the gifts' which God requires. The simple term is here used to include offerings of all kinds (c. xi. 4; Matt. v. 23 f.; xxiii. 18 f.).

(5), (6). The earthly Levitical service points to that which corresponds with a better covenant.

(5). οἵτινες...] The qualitative relative (comp. c. ii. 3 note; v 6 ἥτις) emphasises the character of the Levitical priesthood: priests such as serve that which is a copy and shadow... Latt. qui exemplari et umbræ (serviunt) deserviunt.* The Mosaic system was not complete in itself, original and independent: it was a copy of an archetype. It had no spiritual substance: it was only a shadow. Comp. John i. 17.

Like our word 'copy' the word ὑπόδειγμα expresses not only the image which is made by imitation (as here and c. ix. 23) but also the model which is offered for imitation. (John xiii. 15; James v. 10; 2 Pet. ii. 6; comp. 2 Macc. vi. 28, 31; Ecclus. xliv. 16. Comp. c. iv. 11 note.)

For σκιᾷ compare c. x. 1 note; Col. ii. 17 (contrasted with σῶμα). The word λατρεύουσι is not to be taken absolutely ('serve God in, after, a copy...'). The priest can rightly be said to serve the system. Comp. c. xiii. 10 οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες. Ezek. xiv. 5 (οἴκῳ). Clem. R. i. 32. For λατρεύειν see Additional Note on v. 2.

τῶν ἀπουρανίων] of the heavenly order. The Tabernacle presented in figures the ideas of the Divine Presence and the realities of heaven.

The phrase is to be taken generally and not to be defined by the addition of ἁγίων or the like.

The range of the occurrence of τὰ ἐπουράνια in the Ν. T. is limited. It is found in St John: iii. 12; in the Ep. to Ephesians: i. 3, 20; ii. 6; iii. 10; vi. 12; and in this Epistle, here and in ix. 23.

The general idea of the phrase is that of 'the heavenly order,' the scene of the spiritual life with the realities which belong to it. The abstract term is used here and in ix. 23 to guard (as it seems) against the danger 217 κεχρημάτισται Μωυσῆς μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνήν, Ορα γάρ, φησίν, ποιήσεις πάντα κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δειχθέντα σοι

5 ποιήσεις אABD₂: ποιήσῃς S.

of transferring to another world the local conditions which belong to the earthly tabernacle.

The phrase is not found in the lxx. For ἐπουράνιος generally see c. iii. 1 note. In one sense, as Theophylact, following Chrysostom, points out, τὰ ἐπουράνια are realised on earth by faith: τὰ ἡμέτερα ἐπουράνια. ὅταν γὰρ μηδὲν ἐπίγειον ἀλλὰ πάντα πνευματικὰ ἐν τοῖς μυστηρίοις τελούμενα, ἔνθα ὕμνοι ἀγγελικοὶ ἔνθα κλεῖδες τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ αδ πάλιν δεσμά, ὅταν ἡμῶν τὸ πολίτευμα ἐv οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει, πῶς οὐκ ἐπουράνια τὰ καθ' ἡμᾶς; So Primasius (on ix. 23): cælestia, i.e. spiritualia quæ in veritate modo in ecclesia celebrantur.

καθὼς κεχρημάτισται Μ.] even as Moses is warned of God...Latt. sicut responsum est Moysi... The verb χρηματίζειν is used in the active of giving a formal answer to an inquirer (as by an oracle), and then of giving an authoritative (divine) direction generally: Jer. xxvi. (xxxiii.) 2; c. xii. 25; so χρηματισμός Rom. xi. 4. Hence the passive is used of the person who receives such a direction: Matt. ii. 12, 22; Luke ii. 26 (D) κεχρηματισμένος ἥv; Acts x. 22; c. xi. 7. This use of the pass. is very rare elsewhere: Jos. Antt. iii. 8, 8 (a different usage is found Acts xi. 26).

The direction is regarded as still present in Scripture (comp. Gal. iv. 23 γεγέννηται). Comp. c. vii. 6 note.

μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖv] when he is about (as destined by the divine counsel: c. xi. 8) to put into execution, to make (rather than to complete)... Vulg. cum consummaret (O. L. consummat). For ἐπιτελεῖν see c. ix. 6; 2 Cor. vii. 1; 1 Pet. v. 9.

ὅρα γάρ, φησίν, ποιήσεις...] for See, saith he (i.e. God), thou shalt make...Vulg. Vide, inquit, omnia facito...Ex. xxv. 40 (comp. xxv. 9; xxvii. 8). The quotation differs from the lxx. by the addition of πάντα (which is not found in the original) and the substitution of δειχθέντα for δεδειγμένον. The former word really sums up the specific directions given in regard to the different objects in Ex. xxv. All had a prescribed character and (it is implied) a divine meaning.

The construction of ποιήσεις is uncertain. It may either go closely with Ὅρα: 'See that thou make...'; or it may be a distinct command: 'See, regard attentively, the pattern which is shown; thou shalt make'... as appears to be the sense of the original. The γάρ belongs to the argument and not to the quotation.

κατὰ τὸν τύπον] Latt. secundum exemplar. Compare Acts vii. 44. It is not to be supposed that even Moses saw 'the heavenly things' as they are. He saw them as he had power to see them, i.e. according to human apprehension. So St Paul heard the divine voice in 'Hebrew.' The heavenly things on which Moses was allowed to look took for him a shape, under the divine guidance, which could be reproduced on earth.

The command is applied to Solomon in Wisd. ix. 8.

Philo dwells upon the subordinate position of Bezaleel in regard to Moses and finds in the interpretation of his name ἐν σκιᾷ θεοῦ (בְּצַלְ אֵל) an indication of the position which his work occupied: Leg. Alleg. iii. § 31 (i. p. 106 M.); De Somn. i. § 35 (i. 652 M.) τὸν τούτου τοῦ πλέγματος δημιουργὸν ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος Βεσελεὴλ ἐκάλεσεν, ὅς ἑρμηνευθείς ἐστιν, ἐν σκιᾷ θεοῦ. τὰ γὰρ μιμήματα αὐτος, τὰ δὲ παραδείγματα ἀρχιτεκτονεῖ Μωϋσῆς ὅνομα. De 218 ἐν τῷ ὅρει.) ⁶νῦν δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας, οσφύ και κρείττονα ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ

6 νυνὶ

6 νῦν BD₂*: νυνὶ SאΑ. τέτυχεν א* AD₂* : τέτευχεν א* Β. καὶ κρ.: om. καὶ D₂*. om. ἐστιν...κρειττο א*.

Plant. Noæ § 6 (i. 333 Μ.), See Additional Note.

(6). νῦν δὲ διαφ....] But now, as it is, as the case really stands, he hath obtained (ἱερουργῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶνν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μεσιτείαν, Euth. Zig.)....For vῦv δἐ see c. xi. 16: so νυνὶ δέ c. ix. 26. The form τέτυχεν occurs, though rarely, in late writers.

διαφορωτέρας...κρείττονος...] Latt. melius...melioris... The two words are used again together in close juxtaposition in c. i. 4. Perhaps κρείττων has regard to intrinsic superiority and διαφορώτερος to a superiority which is manifested directly. Moreover διαφ. recognises an exceptional excellence in that which is surpassed. The 'name' of angels and the ministry of the Levitical priests were both 'excellent'

The word λειτουργίας goes back to v. 2 λειτουργός.

διαφ. ὅσῳ καὶ κρ....] Compare c. vii. 20 ff. for the converse argument.

διαθ. μεσίτης] Latt. testamenti mediator. For διαθ. μεσίτης see c. ix. 15; xii. 24.

Elsewhere in Ν. Τ. μεσίτης is used with the genitive of the person: Gal. iii. 19 f. ὁ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, 1 Tim. ii. 5 μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων. Comp. μεσιτεύω c. vi. 17. The word, which belongs to late Greek, answering to the Attic μεσέγγυος, is found once in the lxx., Job ix. 33; and it is found in Philo and Josephus.

A covenant generally, and obviously a covenant between God and man, requires a mediator, one who standing between the contracting parties shall bring them duly into fellowship. Mεσίτης describes the action of Christ at the establishment of the New Covenant, as ἔγγυος (c. vii. 22) describes the position which He holds towards men by assuring them of its validity.

The use of the term suggests a point of superiority in Christ over the Aaronic High-priests. Moses was the 'mediator' of the Law (Gal. iii. 19; Philo de vit. Mos. iii. § 19; ii. 160 M.), but Christ who is the High-priest is also the Mediator of the new 'Law.' He combines the offices of Moses and Aaron. Comp. c. iii. 1.

The limited office of 'the Mediator of a Covenant' suggests the thought of the wider work of a Mediator, which occupied the minds of early speculators on the relation of God to Creation. Philo, for example, gives a noble picture of the Word standing between the creature and the Father of all, the messenger of divine order and the inspirer of human hope: Qui rer. div. hær. § 42 (i. 502 Μ.) ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς ἱκέτης μέν ἐστι τοῦ θνητοῦ κηραίνοντος ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄφθαρτον. πρεσβευτὴς δὲ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος πρὸς τὸ ὑπήκοεν. ἀγάλλεται δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ δωρεᾷ καὶ σεμνυνόμενος αὐτὴν ἐκδιητεῖται φάσκων 'καὶ ἐγὼ εἰστήκειν ἀνὰ μέσον κυρίου καὶ ὑμῶν' (comp. Num. xvi. 48)...Perhaps there is no finer view of the relation of the world to its Maker possible apart from the Incarnation.

ἥτις...νενομοθέτηται] The superiority of the New Covenant is shown by the superiority of the promises on which its conditions are founded (ἥτις, 'such that it is,' 'seeing that it is,' v. 5 note). A Covenant necessarily imposes conditions. And a Covenant (διαθήκη) made by God is 'enacted.' Thus the Gospel itself, though in one sense opposed to the Law, was not only the fulfilment of the Law; but in itself the 'perfect Law' (James i. 25). Freedom is the absolute consummation of Law. 219 κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται. ⁷εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη ἧν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἄν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος

7 δευτέρας: ἑτέρας B*.

ἐπὶ κρείττ. ἐπαγγ.] upon better promises, such as are contained in the divine description which follows of the spirituality and efficacy of the new relation of man to God, based upon complete forgiveness. For the use of ἐπὶ with dat. to express the conditions (accompaniments) see 2 Cor. ix. 6; 1 Thess. iv. 7; Phil. iii. 9; (Luke xxiv. 47).

(2) The new Covenant (7—13).

The Levitical system corresponded with a Covenant which was recognised by the prophets as imperfect and transitory, for they spoke of the divine purpose to establish 'a new Covenant.' The section consists of a brief introduction (7, 8a), the prophetic word (8b—12). a general conclusion (13).

For if that first covenant had been faultless, a place would not have been sought for a second. ⁸For finding fault with them he saith

Behold the days come, saith the Lord,

That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,

In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt;

¹⁰Because they continued not in my covenant,

And I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Because this is the covenant that I will covenant with the house of Israel

After those days, saith the Lord,

Even putting my laws into their mind,

And upon their heart will I write them:

And I will be to them a God,

And they shall be to me a people;

¹¹And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen,

And every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord:

Because all shall know me,

From the least to the greatest of them.

¹²Became I will be merciful to their iniquities,

And their sins will I remember no more.

¹³In that he saith A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which becometh old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.

(7). The teaching of the prophets bears witness to the superiority of the New order over the Old which has been affirmed in the last verse, for if the first Covenant had completely fulfilled the purpose to which a Covenant between God and man is directed, then there would have been no room for another. The argument is parallel to that in c. vii. 11 ff.

εἰ γὰρ...ἧν ἄμεμπτος] For if that first covenant had been faultless, Latt. nam si... culpa vacasset, fulfilling perfectly the purpose to which it pointed. Comp. vii. 18.

The Law itself is not blamed: the fault lay with those who received it (v. 8). None the less the Covenant did fail, so far as it brought no consummation of man's true destiny.

The Covenant is called first in contrast with δευτέρα by common Greek usage. Comp. c. ix. 6 f.; x. 9; Acts i. 1. The addition of the pronoun (ἐκείνη) presents the Old Covenant as occupying the mind of the readers. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8; Matt. xviii. 32.

σὐκ ἄν δευτ. ἐζητ. τόπος] a place would not have been sought for a second, Vulg. non utique secundi locus inquireretur. God made known 220μεμφόμενος γὰρ αὐτοὺς λέγει

8 αὐτοῖς

8 αὐτούς א* AD₂*. vg: αὐτοῖς א*B.

His purpose to establish a second Covenant; but for this, in the order of His Providence, fitting conditions were required. Hence it was not the Covenant itself for which men sought, but the place for it, the circumstances under which it could be realised. The feeling of dissatisfaction, want, prompted to a diligent inquiry; and to this the words addressed to Jeremiah—the prophet of the national overthrow and exile—bear witness.

For the phrase ζητεῖν τόπον compare τόπον εὑρεῖν c. xii. 17; τ. διδόναι Rom. xii. 19; τ. λαβεῖν Acts xxv. 16.

The two imperfects εἰ ἧν...οὐκ ἄν ἐζητεῖτο mark a continuous state. While the first Covenant remained in force, there was yet searching for something more. This thought is expressed by: 'If the first had been...a place would not have been sought': and not by 'If the first were...would not be sought' Comp. c. xi. 15; and Additional Note on iv. 8.

(8a). μεμφόμενος γὰρ αὐτοῦς] The existence of failure—fault—is established by the language of the Lord to Jeremiah: for finding fault with them, he saith...(Latt. vituperans enim: si prius culpa cucasset above). The people were not yet prepared to receive the revelation which God designed to give. The Law had not had its perfect work with them. They had not lived up to that which they had received.

The reference in them (i.e. the Israelites) is supplied from a knowledge of the circumstances. Comp. iv. 8; xi. 28. So Theophylact: τουτέστι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις (reading αὐτοῖς) τοῖς μὴ δυναμένοις τελειωθῆναι διὰ τῶν νομικῶν προσταγμάτων. If αὐτοῖς is read the translation finding fault with it he saith to them is possible, but it appears to be very unlikely.

λέγει] Jer. xxxi. (xxxviii.) 31—34. The speaker is the Lord Himself, not the prophet. The quotation (8b—12) is taken, with some variations, from the lxx., which, in the main, agrees with the Hebrew. See Additional Note. Carpsov has pointed out that Philo in a remarkable passage places Jeremiah in connexion with Moses, γνοὺς ὅτι οὐ μόνον μύστησ ἐστὶν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱεροφάντης ἱκανός (De Cher. § 14; i. 148 M.).

The context of the quotation gives it a special force. Jeremiah at the crisis of national calamity pictures the final result of the discipline of the exile into which Judah was now going. The united people 'Israel and Judah' are to return to their land (xxx. 3). Ephraim is again recognised as firstborn (xxxi. 9). The sorrows of Rachel are consoled (xxxi. 15 ff.). The counsel of divine love finds certain accomplishment (xxxi. 37). This issue is summed up in the establishment of a New Covenant, by which the fulfilment of the whole of God's purpose is assured, when trial has done its work. Under this Covenant, grace not law is the foundation of fellowship. God comes to man as giving and not as requiring.

The whole situation is Messianic no less than the special words. The time of national humiliation is the time of ardent hope. The fall of the Kingdom, which was of man's will, is the occasion of a greater promise. And nowhere else in the Ο. T. is the contrast between the Law and the Gospel so definitely traced back to its essential principle.

The promises of the New Covenant are developed in due order.

(1). The wide range of the Covenant:

it includes all the Old Covenant people: Israel and Judah (8).


[continue]Ἱδου ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, λέγει Κύριος, καὶ συντελέσω ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὶλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰούδα διαθήκην καινήν, ⁹οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην ἥν ἐποίησα τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν

ἐπὶ τόν (2): om. ἐπὶ D₂*.

(2). Its character:

(a) Negatively: Not after the type of that on which the people was first established (9).

(b) Positively: Internal (10). Uniformly efficacious (11). Resting on complete forgiveness (12).

(8b). ἰδοὺ ἡμ. ἔρχ.] Behold days come...The phrase (הנה ימים באים) is singularly frequent in Jeremiah. Jer. vii. 32; ix. 25; xvi. 14; xix. 6; xxiii. 5, 7; xxx. 3; xxxi. 27; xlviii. (xxxi.) 12; xlix. (xxx.) 2; li. 47.

Comp. Amos viii. 11; ix. 13; Is. xxxix. 6.

So Philo, as has been already noticed, dwells with special emphasis on the prophetic gifts of Jeremiah.

These 'last days' mark a period of trial and judgment. At the close of them the Divine Covenant is established in its glory.

For the construction ἡμ. ἔρχ....καὶ συντελέσω see Luke xix. 43.

συντελέσω] Vulg. consummabo, O. L. disponam (confirmabo). So lxx. Jer. xxxiv. 8, 15 (כרת...ברית).

Perhaps, as Augustine suggests (de spir. et lit. 19 Quid est Consummabo nisi Implebo?), this rendering is chosen to emphasise the efficacy of the Covenant.

ἐπὶ τ. οἶ. ἱσρ. καὶ ἐπὶ τ. ο. Ἰού.] Οnce again the divided and exiled people shall be brought together (comp. v. 10). The schism which had brought ruin on the kingdom is to have no existence under the new order.

To this issue the other great prophets point: Is. xliii. ff.; Ezek. xvi. 60 ff.

διαθ. κ.] Latt. testamentum novum. The epithet (καινήν) is quoted specially in v. 13.

The phrase διαθήκη καινή occurs 1 Cor. xi. 25; 2 Cor. iii. 6; c. ix. 15.

The reading in Lk. xxii. 20 is very doubtful; and the phrase is not found in the true text of Matt. xxvi. 28 and Mk. xiv. 24 (τὸ αἷμά μου, τὸ τῆς διαθήκης).

In c. xii. 24 we read διαθήκη vέα. The distinction between καινός and vέoς is clearly marked in the Ν. T. usage. Καινός expresses that which is new in regard to what has preceded, as novel in character, or unused: vέος that which is new in regard to its own being, as having been in existence but a short time.

The words occur in close connexion in Matt. ix. 17 βάλλουσιν οἶνον vέov (which has been lately made) εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς (which have not been used before). Contrast Matt. xxvi. 29 ὅταv αὐτὸ πίνω μεθ' ὑμῶν καινόν (such as has not been before).

See also Col. iii. 10 (τὸν vέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον) compared with Eph. iv. 24 (ii. 15) (τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα).

Hence καινός is used of the renovation of Creation: Apoc. xxi. 5; 2 Cor. v. 17 τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονεν καινά.

The direct antithesis to καινός is ἀρχαῖος (that which has been from tho beginning: 2 Cor. v. 17); but παλαιός (that which has been for a long time) forms a true opposite both to vέος and to καινός (Matt. ix. 17; 1 John ii. 7; Matt. xiii. 52; Mk. ii. 21; Lk. v. 39).

(9). οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθ.] The Lord having fixed the breadth of His New Covenant, as embracing the whole 222 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺ ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, ὅτι αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ μου, κἀγὼ ἡμέλησα αὐτῶν, λέγει Κύριος. ¹⁰ὅτι αὐτη ἡ διαθήκη ἥν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἶκῳ Ἰσραήλ

9 ἡμέρᾳ: ἡμέραις Β. ἐκ γῆς: ἐκ τῆς D₂. 10 ἡ διαθήκη אB vg me syrr: + μου AD₂.

people, goes on to describe its character, and first negatively (v. 9). It is not according to, after, the pattern of that which was made at the Exodus. The Covenant was to be not only a second one, but one of a different type. For the use of κατά compare 1 Pet. i. 15; Eph. iv. 24.

ἥν ἐποίησα τοῖς πατρ.] The original phrase is the same as that rendered just above συντελέσω ἐπί...(comp. v. 10 διαθήσομαι τῷ οἵ.). These different renderings bring out clearly the conception that the Covenant is a manifestation of the divine purpose of love. He, of His Goodness fixes the terms. The Covenant is a διαθήκη and not a συνθήκη.

ἐv ἡμ. ἐπιλαβομένου μου...] This is an unusual rendering of the form HebrewD T? WBO rtf. Comp. Barn. ii. 28 ἐv ἡμέρᾳ ἐνταιλαβένου σου αὐτῷ γράψαι τὸν νόμον.

The 'day' expresses vividly the period which marked the fitting season for the action of God. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 2 (lxx.); Jud. xviii. 30.

For ἐπιλαβομένου compare c. ii. 16 note.

More mulierum loquitur sermo divinus, quæ apprehendere solent parvulorum manus et plerumque ad se conducoro, plerumque otiam huc illuoque sustentando no labantur, utpote firmos gressus non habentes adhuc (Primas.).

ἐξαγ. ἐκ γῆς Αἰγ.] The Old Covenant is connected with the first formation of the nation and with that sovereign display of God's power by which he separated externally a people from the world. This outward deliverance and establishment of the chosen nation stands in natural connexion with the idea of the institution of a universal Church. Compare Is. xi. 16; Hos. xii. 9; xiii. 4.

The Covenant with Abraham still remained (c. ii. 16 note). The Law was a first step towards its fulfilment.

ὅτι αὐτοί...] because they...and I... Both pronouns are emphatic. ὁρᾷς πρῶτον παρ' ἡμπων ἀρχόμενα τὰ κακά;...τὰ μέντοι ἀγαθὰ καὶ αἱ εὐεργεσίαι παρ' αὐτοῦ ἄρχονται (Theophlct).

It is remarkable that ὅτι causal is not found in the Epistle except in the quotations in this Chapter. It occurs in all the other writers of the Ν. T.

οὐκ ἐνέμαιναν ἐν] Hebr. VTBD. The same original word is used of the Lord annulling His Covenant: Jer. xiv. 21. The lxx. rendering expresses forcibly the idea of the constraining, disciplining, power of the Law: Deut. xxvii. 26 (Gal. iii. 10).

κἀγὼ ἡμέλησα αὐτῶν] Hebr. $%) D? ^0?. See Ges. Thes. s. v. Hebrewi»f, and Additional Note.

10—12. The positive characteristics of the New Covenant, 'the better promises' on which it rests, are to be found in (1) its spirituality (v. 10), (2) its universal efficacy (v. 11), (3) its assurance of free forgiveness (v. 12).

(10). ὅτι αὔτη...ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς] Because this is the covenant that I will covenant with the house of Israel...even putting my laws...and upon their heart will I write them. Under the Mosaic system the law was fixed and external; the new laws enter into the understanding as active principles to be realised and embodied by progressive thought. The old law 223 μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος, διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν

10 καρδίαν

καρδίας αὐτῶν א* AD₂ (plur. me syrr) (καρδιαεαυτων Β): καρδίαν αὐτῶν א*. ἐπιγράψω: γράψω B.

was written on tables of stone: the new laws are written on the heart and become, so to speak, part of the personality of the believer. The image is universal. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 3.

Philo speaks of the revelation of God Himself as being the highest form of Divine Covenant: δείξας ἑαυτὸν ὡς ἐνῆν δειχθῆναι τὸν ἄδεικτον διὰ τοῦ φάναι 'καὶ ἐγώ' (Gen. xvii. 4), *ἐπιλέγει 'ἰδοὺ ἡ διαθήκη μου,' ἡ πασῶν χαρίτων ἀρχή τε καὶ πηγὴ αὐτός εἰμι ἐγώ (De mut. nom. § 8; i. 587 M.).

The use of the simple dative (διαθ. τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσρ.) here as in v. 9 (ἐποίησα τοῖς π.) presents God as the disposer, framer, of the Covenant.

The people of God is now again called by its one name 'the house of Israel.' The division of Israel and Judah (v. 8) has ceased to be. Compare Acts ii. 36; Rom. xi. 26; Gal. vi. 16; c. iv. 9; xiii. 12 note.

μετὰ τὰς ἡμ. ἐκ.] 'Those days' from the point of view of the prophet correspond with what the writer of the Epistle has spoken of as 'the end of these days' (i. 2). The phrase is used peculiarly to mark the period of conflict which immediately precedes the final triumph of Messiah. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 19.

διδούς...αὐτῶν] The participle διδούς may go with διαθήσομαι: I will make a covenant even by putting (Latt. dando)...and I will...'; or it may be taken with καὶ ἐπιγράψω: 'I will make a covenant even thus, putting my laws...I will also write them....' On the whole the former construction is the more natural. For the transition from the participle to the finite verb compare Moulton-Winer p. 717.

The rendering of HebrewtrfkFrn$ by the plural νόμους is remarkable. It may have been chosen to dissociate the general idea of the divine 'instruction' from the special Mosaic code with which it had been identified.

The plural occurs again in the same quotation c. x. 16, but not elsewhere in the Ν. T.; nor does the plural appear to be found in any other place of the lxx. as a translation of Hebrewnita. It is found for the (Hebr.) plural in Dan. ix. 10. Conversely ὁ νόμος is used to express the plural; Ex. xviii. 20; Lev. xxvi. 46 (Hebrewirnnrj).

The construction διδούς...εἰς... is found in classical writers, e.g. Xen. Cyr. viii. 2, 20. Comp. Apoc. xvii. 17 (the usage in Acts xix. 31 is strange).

The result of διδόναι εἰς is marked in the phrase διδόναι ἐν... 2 Cor. i. 22; viii. 16. Compare John iii. 35 with John xiii. 3.

τὴν διάνοιαν...καρδίας] διάνοια expresses the discursive faculty of thought, while καρδία is the seat of man's personal life, the moral character• Comp. Addit. Note on c. iv. 12.

Comp. Lk. i. 51 διανοίᾳ καρδίας. 1 Chron. xxix. 18. See also Eph. i. 18 (v. l.); 1 Pet. i. 13; Eph. iv. 18 (διάνοια, voῦς); 1 John v. 20.

Καρδίας may be gen. sing. or acc. pl. (Vulg. in corde. O. L. in cordibus). Both constructions are good. The corresponding word in the original is singular, and so probably is καρδία here: Prov. vii. 3. 224 ¹¹*καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν ἔκαστος τὸν πολίτην αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, λίγων Γηῶθι τὸν κύριον, ὅτι πόντες εἰδήσουσίν με ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἔως μεγάλου αὐτῶν. ¹²ὅτι ἴλευς ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν,

11 πολίτην אAB (πολείτην) D₂ me syr vg syr hl txt: πλήσιον S vg syr hl mg. αὐτοῦ (1): ἑαυτοῦ D₂*. αὐτοῦ (2): om. D₂*. εἰδήσουσιν: εἰδουσιν B*. ἀπὸ μικροῦ: + αὐτῶν S me syrr.

καὶ ἔσομαι...λαόν] The end of the new Covenant is the same as that of the old. In both cases the purpose of God was to form a people truly His own: Ex. vi. 7.

This end was accomplished externally and typically by the separation and training of the Jewish people; but more than this was required. The type had to find its fulfilment. To this fulfilment the prophets looked; and the apostles proclaimed it: Apoc. xxi. 3 (λαοί v. λαός); 2 Cor. vi. 16.

Nothing is said directly in the prophets or in the Epistle of the admission of the Gentiles into 'the Commonwealth of Israel.' This fact is included in the recognition of the essential spirituality of the new Covenant. Compare Hos. i. 9; ii. 1; Is. lxi. 9; Zech. xiii. 9; c. ii. 17 (τοῦ λαοῦ); xiii. 12 notes.

For the construction εἶναι εἰς see c. i. 5 note.

(11). A second characteristic of the new Covenant follows directly from the first. The people are brought into true fellowship with God, and this involves an immediate knowledge of Him. No privileged class is interposed between the mass of men and God. All are true scribes (John vi. 45) in virtue of the teaching within them (1 John ii. 20, 27). All have immediate access to tho divine Presence.

The description marks the absolute relation, but does not define how the universal privilege will be in fact realised.

οὺ μὴ διδάξωσιν] v. 12; xiii. 5; x. 17 (fut.). See Moulton-Winer, p. 636.

τὸν πολ....τὸν ἀδ.] The more general and the more special relations have their respective obligations. Πολίτης occurs a few times in the lxx. as a rendering of Hebrewtfl e.g. Prov. xxiv. 43 (28); Jer. xxxvi. (xxix.) 23. Comp. xi. 10 Additional Note.

γνῶθι...εἰδήσουσιν...] Latt. cognosce ...scient.... The Lord will not be a strauger to be first recognised: all will have an absolute, inborn, acquaintance with Him from the least to the greatest (Latt. a minore usque ad majorem eorum). There will be no distinction of age or station or endowments in respect of this fundamental knowledge.

This end was gained by the Incarnation (John i. 18; xvii. 6): τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ διατρίψαντος καὶ τὴν φύσιν ἡμῶν τῇ προσλήψει θεώσαντος, ἔλαμψεν ἐν ταῖς πάντων ψυχαῖς τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς θεογνωσίας φῶς, καὶ οἷόν τις ἐπιτηδειότης ἐνετέθη τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει ὑπὸ τῆς χάριτος πρὸς τὸ τὸν ὅντως εἰδέναι θεόν (Theophlct).

(12). The third characteristic of the New Covenant is that which contains the pledge of its efficacy. It rests upon forgiveness on the part of God, not on performance on the part of man. Its foundation is grace and not works (John i. 17). In this lies the assurance against such failure as the Old Covenant brought to light. Comp. Is. lix. 2.

ὅτι ἵλεως ἔσομαι] Vulg. quia propitius ero. The New Covenant will be efficacious, for God Himself says I will be merciful. The phrase ἵλεως ἔσομαι (γενήσομαι) is found 225 καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ἔτι. ¹³ἐν τῷ λέγειν Καινήν πεπαλαίωκεν τὴν πρώτην, τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ.

12 τῶν ἁμ. αὐτῶν א* Β vg me syr vg: + καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν א* (A)D₂ syr hl (see x. 17). 13 τὸ δέ: δό τε D₂*.

elsewhere in the lxx. as a rendering of Π?φ in reference to God's forgiveness of sin: 1 K. viii. 34 ff.; and of men: Num. xiv. 20; Jer. v. 1, 7.

In the N.T. ἵλεως occurs again only in the phrase ἵλεώς σοι Κύριε (Matt. xvi. 22 absit α te domine), a form which is found in the lxx. (for HebrewΠ^Π): 2 Sam. xx. 20; xxiii. 17; 1 Chron. xi. 19 ἵλεώς μοι ὁ θεός.

For the sense and usage of the cognate words see note on 1 John ii. 2; c. ii. 17 note.

ταῖς ἀδικίαις] The plural is found here only in N.T, though it occurs often in the lxx., and in combination with ἑξιλάσασθαι Dan. ix. 24; comp. Ps. lxiv. 4; Ecclus. iii. 30; c. ii. 17.

In connexion with this promise of forgiveness the prophetic disparagement of sacrifices and ritual as spiritually inefficacious must be noticed. The development of this inward religion begins with 1 Sam. xi. 22 f.; compare Psalm i. 8 ff.; li. 15 ff.; Hos. vi. 4 ff.; Amos v. 21 ff.; Micah vi. 6 ff.; Is. i. 11 ff.

In the writings of Jeremiah, on the eve of the long exile, when the sacrificial ritual became impossible, it was natural in the order of divine Providence that the realities symbolised by sacrifices should be brought into prominence. Comp. Jer. vil. 21 ff.

Sacrifice, however, had its place in restored Israel: Jer. xxxiii. 11. Compare Is. lvi. 7; lxvi. 20 ff.; Mal. i. 10 f.; Hebr. xiii. 15 note. See Oehler, Theol. of O.T., § 201.

(13). The conclusion goes beyond that which the prophetic passage was quoted to establish. The New Covenant is not only better, and founded upon better promises than the Old; but, yet more, it supersedes the Old. The characteristics of the New Covenant, and the very name which it bears, point to the abrogation of that which has now become 'the old.'

ἐν τῷ λέγειν] In that he saith (Latt. dicendo). Comp. c. ii. 8; iii. 15.

πεπαλαίωκεν] Latt. veteravit. By the use of the term 'new' in reference to another Covenant God has necessarily placed the other Covenant in the position of 'old' relatively. Even in the days of Jeremiah this sentence stands already written (perf.). Comp. v. 5 κεχρημάτισται.

The active use of παλαιόω, which is generally found in the middle form (i. 11 note) in the sense of 'growing old,' is rare. It occurs in the lxx.: Lam. iii. 4 ἐπαλαίωσε σάρκα. Is. lxv. 22 τὰ ἔργα παλαιώσουσι (Hebrewί?3) i.e. continue long, use to the full); comp. Job xxi. 13; Job ix. 5 ὁ παλαιῶν ὅρη; xxxii. 15 ἐπαλαίωσαν λόγους (they spoke no more).

τὸ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηρ.] Vulg. quod autem antiquatur (O.L. veteratur) et senescit.* The use of the present as distinguished from πεπαλαιωμένον and παλαιωθέν is significant. The divine words spoken to the prophet were accomplished slowly on the scene of life. The addition of γηράσκον adds a new thought. When that which is temporal has existed a long time it draws to its natural end. So Theophylact: οὐκ ἀκαίρως κατέπαυσεν ἡ νέα τὴν παλαιὰν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ γῆρας...

ἐγγ. ἀφανισμοῦ] nigh unto vanishing 226 away, Latt. props interitum. The word ἀφανισμός is singularly frequent in the lxx of Jeremiah as the representative of Heb word and Heb word. It is used, for example, of Babylon li. (xxviii.) 26 ff. The verb ἀφανίζειν occurs in several interesting connexions: Matt. vi. 16, 19 f.; James iv. 14; Acts xiii. 41 (lxx). For ἐγγύς see c. vi. 8.

For a time the continuance of the Temple services gave to the Order an outward semblance of enduring reality even after it was essentially abrogated by fulfilment.


*Additional Note on* viii. 1. *Christ the High-priest and the Highpriest-King*.

The student will find it of deep interest to trace through the Epistle the gradual unfolding of the thought of Christ's two offices, concentrated in one Person, and to consider the view which is given of the twofold relation in which He is shewn to stand to His people as High-priest and as King. Compare Additional Note on ii. 17. The double thought is indicated plainly in the Introduction: i. 3 καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑφηλοῖς: the completed Atonement is followed by the assumption of the Royal throne. The idea of priesthood and high-priesthood is then developed; and in vii. 1 ff. the type of Melchizedek is brought forward to make it clear that God had designed for man something beyond that which was realised in Abraham, and still more beyond that which was realised in the Levitical order.

This type of Melchizedek is declared to be fulfilled in the ascended Christ, viii. 1 τοιοῦτον ἕχομεν ἀρχιερέα, δε ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν τοῖς αὐρανοῖς (comp. vii. 16 f.; 27).

And Christ as King, having offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, waits upon His throne for the complete establishment of the sovereignty which He has finally won (comp. John xvi. 33 νενίκηκα): x. 11—14.

In these passages the two offices are placed in the closest connexion; and the Session of Christ on the right hand of God is, with one exception (i. 13), always connected with the fulfilment of priestly work (i. 3; viii. 1; x. 12; xii. 2).

Thus it is plainly shewn that as High-priest Christ fulfilled two types; and we must therefore distinguish two aspects of His High-priestly work: (1) as the fulfilment of the Levitical High-priesthood; and (2) as the fulfilment of the royal High-priesthood of Melchizedek, the first before His Session (as High-priest), and the second after His Session (as Highpriest-King).

As High-priest before His Session, fulfilling the type of Aaron, Christ (1) 'offered Himself' (vii. 27 ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας; viii. 3; ix. 14 ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν; ix. 26 διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ; x. 10—12 διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος 'I. Χ....μίαν προσενέγκας θυσίαν); and (2) He entered into the Presence of God [iv. 14 διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς; vi. 20 ὅπου (εἶς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος)...εἶσῆλθεν...; viii. 12, 16; ix. 12, 24 εἶσῆλθεν εἶς τὰ ἅγια...]; ix. 23 f.

The whole discipline of earthly life was the preparation for the final High-priestly service. When the word Τετέλεσται (John xix. 30) had declared the fulfilment of every condition, the Lord made the offering of Himself, and so entered into the Presence of God through His own Blood. Thus He fulfilled the type of the Aaronic High-priesthood (comp. Addit. Note on ix. 7, s. f.).


The passages which deal with Christ's offering of Himself bring before us successively the fact of His sacrifice (vii. 27); its necessity (viii. 3); its possibility (ix. 14); its absolute efficacy (ix. 25, 26, 28); its fulness (x. 10); and its continuous personal validity (x. 12-14).

So again the passages which deal with Christ's entrance into the Presence of God declare the fact (iv. 14); the purpose for man (vi. 20); the corresponding work (viii. 1, 2, 6); the single entrance made once for all (ix. 12); and the purification of the Sanctuary of redeemed humanity (ix. 23 f.).

The 'offering' and the 'entrance' together present the accomplishment of the work typified in the Aaronic priesthood. This was gathered up into the service of the great Day of Atonement, which was marked by two chief acts, the double sacrifice, and the restoration of the covenant fellowship between the people and God by the application of the blood (the life) of the sacrifice to the chosen place of God's Presence. So Christ offered Himself upon the Cross and humanity in Himself and entering before God, through His own blood, realised the abiding fellowship of man and God in His glorified humanity, openly seen before the face of God (ix. 24). By this appearance the ascended Lord perfectly fulfilled that which was typified by the bringing of the blood of the victim as a hallowing power to the Mercy-seat, the crowning service of the Aaronic priest. In Him, Priest at once and people, the Life which was offered was present in a nobler and eternal form.

Thereupon the Lord entered on the fulness of His work as Highpriest-King; and the ideas connected with His Session gain their full interpretation in its connexion with His one Divine-human Person (i. 3): His twofold office (viii. 1 f.); the gathering the fruits of His victory (x. 12; i. 13); the efficacy of His present help (xii. 2).

After His Session—if we may use words of time of that which is beyond time—He still fulfils his work as 'High-priest after the order of Melchizedek,' which we regard under two aspects, as the work of our King and the work of our High-priest: see xiii. 15 and Additional Notes on vv. 1, 2; xi. 10.

The aspect under which the writer of the Epistle thus regards the work of the Risen Christ explains his silence as to the fact of the Resurrection. The fact underlies all his argument. He assumes the permanence of Christ's perfect humanity through death of which the Resurrection is the pledge; and dwells on the continued activity of Christ in His glorified humanity; but he refers to the Resurrection directly only once: xiii. 20. He thinks, so to speak, as St John in his Epistles, not so much of Christ's victory as of His triumph.

Yet more, this treatment was necessarily suggested by the comparison of Christ's priestly work with the typical service of the High-priest. Christ occupied the place both of the victim and of the priest, in regard both to the people and to God; and in that symbolic service the death of the victim was subordinated to the unbroken ministry of the priest; and there was nothing in the type which answered to the Resurrection.


*Additional Note on* viii. 1, 2. *The present work of Christ as High-priest*.

The present work of the Glorified and Ascended Son of man for men is indicated to us in the Epistle, in accordance with what has been already said, under two aspects, as the work of a High-priest and as the work of a King. As High-priest He represents man to God: as King He represents Christ God to man. In the latter relation He is even now the Sovereign of the new Commonwealth, hereafter to be realised in its completeness (compare Additional Note on xi. 10). But in the present passage the thought is mainly of His High-priestly work. To understand this we must recall the type. The sacrifices on the Day of Atonement provided the means of entrance to the Divine Presence. The application of the blood removed every impurity which hindered the approach to God of him in whom the people were summed up. So cleansed the representative of Israel was able to sustain that awful fellowship for which man was made. And simply standing before the Lord he fulfilled his work. No words were spoken: no uttered intercession was made. It was enough that man was there according to divine appointment, to witness in the most emphatic manner to the continued preservation of the established relation of man to God. Comp. Philo, de Monarch. ii. 6 (ii. 227 M.); de vit. Mos. iii. § 14.

Thus we read in a figure the High-priestly Work of Christ By His offering of Himself He has made purification of sins (i. 3); He has applied the virtue of His Blood, to speak in earthly language, to the scene of the worship of redeemed humanity (ix. 23); He has taken His seat upon the throne, entering in His humanity upon the full enjoyment of every privilege won by His perfect fulfilment of the will of God. Henceforth He applies for the benefit of men the fruits of the Atonement which He has completed.

This work is shewn to us in the Epistle in three distinct forms, and we have no authority to go beyond its teaching.

i. Christ intercedes for men as their present representative before God: vii. 25, 27; ix. 24.

ii. Christ brings the prayers and praises of His people to God, embodying their true spiritual desires, so that at each moment they become articulate through His Spirit and are brought through Him to the Throne: xiii. 15.

iii. Christ secures access for His people in their present state to 'the holy place,' where He Himself is, in His Blood—the virtue of His earthly life lived and offered: iv. 16; x. 19—22.

These three forms of Christ's work shew under the conditions of human experience what He does for humanity eternally. Our fellowship with God will grow closer, more perfect, more conscious, but still our approach to God, our worship, our spiritual harmony, must always be 'in Him' In Whom we have been incorporated.


The modern conception of Christ pleading in heaven His Passion, 'offering His blood,' on behalf of men, has no foundation in this Epistle. His glorified humanity is the eternal pledge of the absolute efficacy of His accomplished work. He pleads, as older writers truly expressed the thought, by His Presence on the Father's Throne.

Meanwhile men on earth in union with Him enjoy continually through His Blood what was before the privilege of one man on one day in the year.

So far the thought of the priestly work of the Ascended Christ is expressed under the images of the Levitical covenant, as He works for 'the people' (ἡ ἐκκλησία); but He has yet another work, as 'priest after the order of Melchizedek,' for humanity. He does not lay aside this wider relation in completely fulfilling the narrower. Rather it is through the fulfilment of His work for the Church—the firstfruits—that He moves towards the fulfilment of His work for the world. We have no power to pursue the development of the truth, but it is necessary to remember it.

In illustration of this conception of an universal priesthood it is interesting to compare Philo's conception of the priesthood of the righteous man: Leg. Alleg. iii. 87 (i. 135 M.); de post. Cain. 54 (i. 261 M.); de Monarch. i. 8 (ii. 220 M.).

Additional Note on viii. 2. On the words λειτουργεῖν, λατρεύειν &c.

The groups of words connected with λειτουργεῖν and λατρεύειν are naturally of frequent occurrence in this Epistle. Thus we find λειτουργός i. 7; λειτουργεῖν x. 11; λειτουργία νiii. 6; ix. 21; λειτουργ;ow i. 14; and λατρεία ix. 1, 6; λατρεύειν viii. 5; ix. 9, 14; x. 2; xii. 28; xiii. 10. The former group of words is found elsewhere in the Ν. T. only in the writings of St Luke and St Paul: the latter group is found also in St Matthew (lxx.) and St John (Gosp. Apoc). The ideas which they express require to be distinguished.

(1). The group λειτουργός, λειτουργεῖν, λειτουργία, is of common occurrence in the lxx. Λειτουργός in every place represents Hebrewni?9, which is less often rendered by διάκονος and θεράμων. Λειτουργεῖν is the general translation of HebrewΓΠΚ? (more than sixty times), and in a very limited range it is used also for HebrewIty. Λειτουργία is nearly always a rendering of Hebrewn"]hj{. The words are used habitually of the service of priests (Ex. xxviii. 31, 39) and Levites (1 Chron. xvi. 4, 6). But they have also a wider application, of the service of Samuel to God (1 Sam. ii. 18; iii. 1); of service to the people (Ezek. xliv. 11 f.); of service to men (Num. iii. 6; xviii. 2; 1 Kings i. 4, 15; Ecclus. x. 25).

There is however one common feature in the different applications of the words. The λειτουργία is the fulfilment of an office: it has a definite representative character, and corresponds with a function to be discharged. This appears to be true even when the office is most personal. The classical usage of the term accentuated this thought of public service which lies in the word by its derivation (*λαός, λήῖτος, λεῖτος). The Athenian 'Liturgies' 231 (Dict of Ant s. v.) expressed vividly the idea of a necessary service rendered to the state by a citizen who had the means of rendering it. And the usage of the word in the N.T. reflects something of the colour thus given to it.

The words λειτουργός, -εῖv, -ία, are used in the apostolic writings of services rendered to God and to man, and that in the widest relations of social life.

(a) Thus the officers of civil government are spoken of as λειτουργοὶ θεοῦ (Rom. xiii. 6). St Paul describes himself as λειτουργὸς Χρίστοῦ 'Ιησοῦ εἶς τὰ ἔθνη (Rom. xv. 16) in the discharge of his debt to mankind in virtue of his commission to proclaim the Gospel (Rom. i. 5, 14). The priestly office of Zachariah was a λειτουργία (Lk. i. 23). 'Prophets and teachers' performed a public service for the Church to the Lord (λειτουργούντων αύτῶν τῷ κυρίῳ Acts xiii. 211   The words find a remarkable parallel in Doctr. Apost. § 15 χειροτονήσατε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους...ὑμῖν γὰρ λειτουργοῦσε καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων. The ministry to the Lord is also a ministry to His people.). In the widest sense the whole life of a Christian society becomes a sacrifice and ministry of faith (εἶ καὶ σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν Phil. ii. 17), to which the lifeblood of their teacher is as the accompanying libation. And in a narrower sense the vessels of the Tabernacle were 'vessels of the ministry' (τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας Hebr. ix. 21). The Levitical priests serve (λειτουργεῖν absol. Hebr. x. 11). And Christ Himself 'has obtained a more excellent ministry' (διαφορωτέρας τέτυχε λειτουργέας Hebr. viii. 6), being 'a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle' (τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργὸς καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς Hebr. viii. 2).

The ministry to God is in a most true sense a ministry to men and for men. This λειτουργία is the accomplishment of an office necessary for human well-being.

(b) The λειτουργία directly rendered to men has an equally broad character. It is a service which answers to deep relations of social life. The wealthy have a ministry to fulfil towards the poor which belongs to the health of the body (ἀφείλουσιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς σαρκικοῖς λειτουργῆσαι αὐτοῖς Rom. xν. 27); the due accomplishment of which brings wider blessings to the society (ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτουργίας ταύτης...ἐστί... περισσεύουσα διὰ πολλῶν εὐχαριστιῶν τῷ θεῷ 2 Cor. ix. 12). In the closer relations of the Christian life a corresponding ministry has its place which cannot be disregarded Without loss (λειτουργὸν τῆς χρείας μου Phil. ii. 25; ἵνα ἀναπλήρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς πρός με λειτουργίας id. v. 30).

In Ecclesiastical usage the word λειτουργία was used specially of the stated services of public worship, of 'the evening service' (ἡ ἑσπερινὴ λειτουργία), of 'the service of Baptism' (ἡ τοῦ θείου βαπτίσματος λειτ.), and specially of the service of Holy Communion (ἡ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων λειτ. and simply ἡ λειτουργία22   There is an interesting discussion of the use of the word in this connexion by Melanchthon in the Apology for the Augsburg Confession (0. xii. §§ 8ο ff.) in answer to the assertion that 'Λειτουργία signifies sacrifice.'). See exx. in Sophocles Lex. s. v.

The words are common in Clement: 1 Cor. 8, 9, 20, 32, 34, 40, 41, 43 f. 232 They are found also in Hermas: Mand. v. 1, 2, 3: Sim. v. 3, 3, 8; vii. 6; ix. 27, 3: but they are not noted from Ignatius, Polycarp or Barnabas. Comp. Test. Lev. 2, 3, 4.

(2). The usage of λατρεύειν and λατρεία is more limited. The verb λατρεύειν is common in the lxx. and is almost always a rendering of Hebrew13f (Pent. Josh. Jud.: twice of HebrewI1T#). The noun λατρεία is rare and in each case represents HebrewITjhlJ. The words always describe a divine service, a service to God or to gods. This idea appears to spring from the conception of complete devotion of powers to a master which lies in the root of the word (λάτρις, λατρο, a hired servant). In classical writers the word λατρεία is used of an absolute service, personal (Aesch. P. V. 966), or moral (Plut. Consol. ad Apoll. 107 c and Wyttenbach's note), or religious (Plat. Apol. § 9 p. 23 @b@).

The usage of the N.T. agrees with that of the lxx. Λατρεύειν and λατρεία uniformly express a divine service. This sense Augustine gives very well: ad societatem [civitatis caelestis] pietas vera perducit, quae non exhibet servitutem relligionis, quam λατρείαν Graeci vocant, nisi vero Deo. The noun λατρεία is rare. It describes the whole religious ritual of the Law: ἡ λατρεία (Vulg. obsequium) καὶ aἱ ἐπαγγελίαι* (Rom. ix. 4); δικαιώματα λατρείας (Hebr. ix. 1); and also the spiritual antitype in the Christian order: τὴν λογικὴν λατρεία (Rom. xii. 1). The plural, αἰ λατρεῖαι (Hebr. ix. 6), marks the different elements of service. In John xvi. 2 the spiritual blindness of the persecutors of the Faith is shewn in its most extreme form where it is said that he who kills Christians will think λατρείαν προσφέρειν τῷ θεῷ, that in that sacrifice he offers the service of complete devotion to God. The verb λατρεύειν is much more frequent. It is commonly used with an object (e.g. τῷ θεῷ); but it is used also absolutely (Lk. ii. 37; Acts xxvi. 7; Phil. iii. 3 oἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρ.; Hebr. ix. 9; x. 2).

The words (λατρεύειν, λατρεία) occur in the same sense in Clement (1 Cor. 45), Ignatius (Smyrn*. 9 τῶ διαβόλῳ λατρεύει) Mart. Ign. 2 εἰ μὴ τὴν τῶν δαιμόνων ἕλοιτο λατρείαν. Doctr. Apost. 6 ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰδωλοθύτου λίαν πρόσεχε λατρεία γάρ ἐστι θεῶν νεκρῶν. The word λατρεία is also applied to the Service of Holy Communion (Const. Apost. viii. 15 ἡ μυστικὴ λατρεία, and Cotelier's note).

As far as the actual position is concerned λατρεύειν is closely akin to δουλεύειν, but the position is accepted voluntarily by the λατρις (λατρεύει ἐλεύθερος ὧν δοθλεύες Hesych.), while it belongs to the state of the δοῦλος. Λειτουργεῖν and λατρεύειν occur together Ecclus. iv. 14.

(3). Both groups of words are clearly distinguished from διακοηεῖν, which describe definite acts of service rendered to another, and that specially in obedience to express direction. So the Christian becomes a διάκονος of God and Christ (John xii. 26; Rom. xiii. 4; Col. i. 7; 1 Tim. iv. 6 &c.), waiting for the least expression of the divine will that he may obey it in deed. The word διακόνεῖν is not found in the lxx. and διάκονος occurs only in Esther (three times; διακονία in 1 Macc. xi. 58). See Hebr. i. 14; vi. 10. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 12.

Speaking generally then λειτουργία marks the fulfilment of function in regard to the claims of a larger life: λατρεία, the service of perfect subjection 233 to a sovereign power: διακονία, the ministry of appointed action. Or, to express the thought in another form, he who fulfils a λειτουργία acts for the body, of which he is a part: he who renders a λετρεία recognises a supreme claim in rendering it: he who offers a διακονία looks to the discharge of a personal service.

Additional Note on viii. 5. The general significance of the Tabernacle.

It is characteristic of the Epistle that all the arguments from the divine worship of Judaism which it contains are drawn from the institutions of the Tabernacle. These, which are treated as the direct embodiment of the heavenly archetype, are supposed to be still preserved in the later forms and to give force to them. They were never superseded even when they were practically modified. The Temple indeed no less than the Kingdom, with which it corresponded, was the sign of a spiritual declension. Both were endeavours to give a fixed and permanent shape, according to the conditions of earthly life, to ideas which in their essential nature led the thoughts of men forward to the future and the unseen. God was pleased to use, in this as in other cases, the changes which were brought about by the exigences of national life for the fulfilment of His own counsel, but the divine interpreter of the Old Testament necessarily looked, beyond the splendours of the sacred buildings (Matt xxiv. 1 ff.), and the triumphs of the monarchy of David, to the sacred tent of the pilgrim people and the heavenly sovereignty11   It does not in any way belong to the present subject to discuss critical questions as to the account of the Tabernacle in the Pentateuch. That narrative unquestionably expressed and fashioned the faith of the Jews from the Return to the Apostolic Age, and it is with that faith that we are concerned. Yet it must be added that it seems to be an incredible inversion of history to suppose that the Tabernacle was an imaginary ideal constructed either from the Temple of the Monarchy or from the Temple of the Return..

The usage of the Epistle in this respect (viii. 2, 5: ix. 11) is felt to be more significant when we take account of the usage of the other Books of the New Testament. The only other references to the Tabernacle (earthly or heavenly) are in Acts vii. 44 (ἡ σκηνὴ μαρτυρίου), and in the Apocalypse (xiii. 6 βλασφημῆσας τὸ ὅνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ, τοὺς ἐν τῷ οὖρανῷ σκηνοῦντας, xv. 5 ὁ ναὸς τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου, xxi. 3 ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων). In the passage of the Acts St Stephen appears to draw a contrast between the 'tent' and the 'house' (vv. 47 ff.); and the language of the Apocalypse illustrates in several points the wider views of the Tabernacle which are opened In the Epistle. The term τὸ ἱερόν (the Temple with its courts and subordinate buildings) is found outside the Gospels and Acts only in 1 Cor. ix. 13, where the reference to the Jewish Temple is fixed by θυσιαστήριον (c. x. 18). Nαός (the Sanctuary) is used in a spiritual sense in John ii. 21; 1 Cor. iii. 16 f.; vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 21 (comp. Apoc. xxi. 22), and again literally in 2 Thess. ii. 4. The word οἶκος is used of the material building in the Gospels and Acts, 234 and of the human antitype in 1 Pet iv. 17; 1 Tim. iii. 15, as in Hebr. iii. 2 ff.; x. 21 (from Num. xii. 7 lxx.). Thus the actual reference to the Mosaic Tabernacle as a lesson in the divine revelation is peculiar to the Epistle. What then was its general teaching?

The names of the Tabernacle offer an instructive answer to the question.

(a) The commonest single name is that which expresses generally 'a habitation,' Hebrew|#p. The root Hebrew|9? is used of 'settling,' 'rotting,' 'dwelling,' and that both of man and beasts (so of the glory of God—the Shekinah in later language — Ex. xxiv. 16 &c.). The word Hebrew|?φφ suggests then nothing more than 'dwelling-place' (of men, Num. xvi. 24, 27; Ps. lxxxvii. 2, &c.; of the Temple in the pl., Ps. xliii. 3; xlvi. 5, &c.), and, as it is expressed definitely, 'the dwelling-place of Jehovah' (p |9^P): Lev. xvii. 4; Num. xvi. 9; xvii. 13 (28); xix. 13; xxxi. 30, 47 [Josh. xxii. 19; 1 Chron. xxi. 29] (lxx. ἡ σκηνὴ Κυρίου, Vulg. tabernaculum Domini). Comp. Ex. xxix. 45 f. It is generally rendered in the lxx. by σκηνή (106 times [Trommius]) and less frequently by σκήνωμα (17 times); and in the Vulg. by tabernaculum. A second name 'tent,' Hebrew7tyk, is more definite, and describes the characteristic dwelling of the wilderness, though it was used also in later times (Ps. xv. 1; xxvii. 4). This name is used sometimes alone (Ex. xxvi. 9, 11 ff., 36; xxxiii. 7 ff.; xxxvi. 18 f., 37; xxxix. 33, 38; Num. ix. 17; xviii. 3; Deut. xxxi. 15), but more frequently in combination with other words ('the tent of meeting,' 'the tent of the witness' [testimony]). The 'habitation' ('dwelling') and the 'tent' are clearly distinguished (Ex. xxvi. 7; xxxv. 11; xxxvi. 14; Num. ix. 15). The 'tent' was over the 'dwelling,' as its 'covering' (Num. iii. 25), so that we find the phrase 'the tabernacle (dwelling) of the tent of meeting' (Ex. xxxix. 32; xl. 2, 6, 29 HebrewIjpto ^nfe pfP: comp. Αροc. xv. 5 ὁ ναὸς τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου). Unhappily the lxx. rendered Hebrew?nfc in the same way as HebrewJ9jAp (σκηρή nearly 140 times, and by σκήνωμα 44 times); and in this it was followed by the Vulgate which gives for the most part tabernaculum for both. The word tentorium, which is elsewhere used for 'tent,' and not unfrequently for the tents of the people in the narrative of the Exodus (Num. i. 53; ii. 3, 27, &c.), is used in the Vulgate in connexion with the Tabernacle for the 'curtains' (Ex. xxvi. 2), for the 'screen' at the entrance of the Tent (Ex. xxvi. 36 f.; xxxv. 15; xxxvi. 37; xxxix. 38, &c.), for the 'hangings' and the 'screen' of the court (Ex. xxvii. 9 ff., 16; xxxv. 17; xxxviii. 9 ff.; xxxix. 39 £, &c.). Once only it is used for the sacred Hebrew7pfc (Ex. xxxiii. 8), and once for the sacred Hebrew|$ΦΡ (Num. ix. 15). The name 'palace' (Hebrew9'ft) belongs to a later time (1 Sam. i. 9; iii. 3); but 'house' (HebrewΠ?3) is used of the Tabernacle (Ex. xxiii. 19), as it is used of the tents of the patriarchs (Gen. xxvii. 15; xxxiii. 17; Hebrew0ϊ6$ΓΙ Π'3 1 Chron. vi. 33).

More commonly, however, the Tabernacle is described by a compound title. The simple terms 'habitation' and 'tent' are defined by the addition of some other word as 'witness' (testimony) or 'meeting'; and these two designations express two distinct aspects of the Tabernacle.


(b) The title 'the tent of witness', Hebrewnnjjn ^nfc, is rare. It occurs Num. ix. 15 (lxx. τὸν οἶκον τοῦ μαρτυρίου); xvii. 7 f. (22 f.) (ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτ.); xviii. 2 (n σκ. τ. μ.). We find also 'the habitation (tabernacle) of witness,' HebrewTXVtf) }3^p, Ex. xxxviii. 21; Num. i. 50, 53; x. 11 (ἡ σκ. τ. μ.). The Vulgate rendering of both phrases, except in the last place (which has tabernaculum foederis), is tabern. testimonii. The sense of the titles is fixed by the use of HebrewΓΝΊ# in other connexions; 'the ark of the witness' (HebrewΓΜΊΰΠ ρΗ) Ex. xxv. 22; xxvi. 33 f.; xxx. 6, 26 (lxx. ή κιβωτὸς τοῦ μαρτυρίου, Vulg. arca testimonii [testamenti xxx. 26]); the 'tables of the witness' (HebrewΠη#Π T\rb) Ex. xxxi. 18; xxxiv. 29 (lxx. al πλάκα [του μαρτυρίου], Vulg. tabulae testimonii); and 'the veil of the witness' (HebrewΠ?"ΊΒ nipn) Lev. xxiv. 3 (Vulg. velum testimonii). The 'witness' was the revelation which God had made of His will expressed in 'the ten words' (Ex. xxv. 16, 21). Comp. Ex. xvi. 34; xxvii. 21; xl. 20; Lev. xvi. 13; Num. xvii. 4—10. This 'witness' was the solemn declaration of the claims and nature of God, who took up His dwelling in the midst of Israel (Lev. xix. 2). The Tent under which He dwelt had this enshrined in it to determine its character. So it was that this Tabernacle was specially called a 'holy place,' a 'sanctuary' (HebrewBJi?P lxx. άγιασμα, τό άγιαστήριορ, το ήγιασμί»ον, τα άγια, Vulg. sanctuarium. Ex. xxv. 8; Lev. xii. 4; xxi. 12; Num. x. 21; xviii. 1).

(c) But the usual name of the Tabernacle is 'the tent of meeting,' HebrewIJflD ^nfc. This title occurs constantly in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers (from Ex. xxvii. 21 onwards), but once only in Deuteronomy (xxxi. 14). It is translated in the lxx. by the same phrase as 'the tent of witness,' ή σκηνή του μαρτυρίου, and in the Vulg. (following the Old Latin) by tabernaculum testimonii (Ex. xxvii. 21; xxxv. 31 &c.; Num. ii. 17; iii. 7; xvii. 7, 10), and, habitually in Numbers, by tabern. foederis (Ex. xxxi. 7; xxxiii. 7; Lev. xxiv. 3; Num. i. 1 &c.). Two interpretations have been given of it: 'the tent of the congregation,' the place where the congregation of Israel was gathered together (A. V. the tabernacle of the congregation), and 'the tent of meeting,' the place where God revealed Himself to His people (so R. V.). Both senses are defensible on linguistic grounds; but the second is clearly required by the narrative itself. The Tabernacle was the place where God made Himself known (Ex. xxv. 8, 22), speaking to the representatives of the nation (Ex. xxix. 42 f.; Num. xvii. 4 [19]); and it could not truly be said that the people were assembled in 'the tent' (yet see Matt, xxiii. 38). The 'tent of meeting' was so completely identified with the revealed Presence of the Lord that it is said to 'dwell with the people in the midst of their uncleannesses' (Lev. xvi. 16).

Taking then these three general titles of the Tabernacle we see that the structure was held to represent provisionally in a sensible form three truths, (a) the Presence of God with men, (b) His righteousness, (c) His 'conversableness11   I venture to use this most significant word of Howe. 'Such a sort of Deity as should shut up itself and be reclused from all converse with men, would leave us as disfurnished of an object of religion, and would render a temple on earth as vain a thing, as if there were none at all... We might, with as rational design, worship for a God what were scarce worthy to be called a shadow of a man, as dedicate will temples to a wholly unconversable Deity....For that measure and latitude of sense must be allowed unto the expression 'conversableness with men,' as that it signify both capacity and propension to such converse; that is both by His nature capable of it and hath a gracious inclination of thereunto (The Living Temple, i, ch. vi. § 1)..' It is scarcely necessary to add that the idea of a 236 'dwelling' of the Lord in no way tended to confine His Presence to one spot: it simply gave a distinct reality to the fact of His Presence. So again the conditions of the 'witness' and the 'meeting' were not absolute. They emphasised the truths that God Himself determines the terms and mode under which He offers Himself to men conformably to His own Nature.

If now we consider the account of the building and arrangement of the Tabernacle we shall recognise that it was fitted to convey most impressively the three lessons which it embodied. It was held to be wholly of divine design. No part was originated by human invention. It was reared after the pattern in which God prescribed the details of the way in which He should be approached (Ex. xxv. 9, 40; Hebr. viii. 5). So the people confessed that if God is to be known, He must reveal Himself.

Again: it was framed substantially out of free-will offerings (Ex. xxv. 2). There was indeed ransom-money, equal in amount for every one, which was used in the structure (Ex. xxxviii. 25 ff.), but this was employed for definite purposes; and the narrative emphasises the willingness with which the people contributed to 'the work of the tent, and all the service thereof' (Ex. xxxv. 20 ff.; xxxvi. 5 ff.). A revelation comes from God only, but it is for man to embrace it from the heart and give form to it.

The general plan of the Tabernacle suggested, even to the simplest worshipper, the Majesty of God, Who hides Himself even when He comes among men. The three divisions of the whole fabric, the sacred inclosure (Hebrewptfljp, lxx. ἡ αὐλή, Vulg. atrium, Ex. xxvii. 12 ff.; xxxv. 17 f. &c.) and the twofold Tabernacle, 'the Holy Place,' and 'the Holy of Holies' (HebrewB^D, lxx. τὁ ἅγιον, Vulg. sanctuarium; and HebrewD^gj] &$, τὸ ἅγιον [τὰ ἅγια] τῶν ἁγίων, sanctuarium sanctuarii [sanctum, -ta, sanctorum] Ex. xxvi. 33 f.; Num. iv. 4, 19; but the simple term Hebrew£Π|Π is also used of the innermost sanctuary, Lev. xvi. 3, and perhaps HebrewDV"Jgfl &p of the whole sanctuary, Num. xviii. 10), marked stages in human approach to Him; and the increasing richness of the material in the successive parts suggested thoughts of His immeasurable dignity. The chamber—the perfect cube (comp. Apoc. xxi. 16)—which expressed His most immediate manifestation, was in itself wholly dark. For man perfect darkness and perfect light (1 Tim. vi. 16) are in effect the same. We, in our weakness, can see objects only when the two are mixed. Comp. Ps. xviii. 11; xcvii. 2; 1 K. viii. 12. So also the limitations in the right of entrance to each part shewed that as yet God could not be fully known by men even with the 237 knowledge to which they could attain. The way to His presence was not yet open (Hebr. ix. 8). None but the members of the chosen race could enter the Court: none but the members of the representative tribe could enter the Holy Place: none but the one representative of the priestly body could enter, and that only on one day in the year, to the innermost sanctuary where God shewed His glory.

The furniture of the different parts still further illustrated by intelligible symbols the conditions and the limits of the approach to God. The Court contained two objects which could not fail to speak to the hearts of the worshippers, the Laver, and the Altar of burnt-offering. The first requirements for drawing near to God were seen to be purity and sacrifice. In the Holy Place there was fuller teaching. The Table of the Shewbread and the Seven-branched Candlestick exhibited human service in a higher form, as the light of men, and the food of God. The Altar of Incense, placed against the inner veil, so as to be in face of the Ark and in closest connexion with the Holy of Holies, expressed yet another thought, the thought of human aspiration, prayer and not action.

So far the vessels of the Tabernacle represented the relations of man to God. The vessels of the most Holy Place represented the relations of God to man, His holiness, His grace, His sovereignty. The Law — the 'witness' — was set as the foundation of all. Over that was spread the Mercy seat; out of which rose the two Cherubim — the representatives of creation bending over it, as if eager to look into the mysteries of redeeming love, while between and above them was the sign of the Divine Presence on which man could look only through the atmosphere of adoring aspiration (Lev. xvi. 13)11   The general view of the Tabernacle and its Furniture is given admirably by Hengstenberg, Beiträge sur Einl. ins A. T. iii. 628 ff..

But when all was thus ordered according to the heavenly pattern, by men in whom God put His Spirit, and out of materials which were gifts of devotion, the structure was not yet complete. It was as a fair body not quickened by life. So when everything was ready, the Tabernacle itself with all its furniture was solemnly anointed, like the High-priest, or the King, or the Prophet; and then at last it was fit for the fulfilment of its office (Ex. xl. 9 ff.; Num. vii. 1 ff.).

So far, it appears, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the symbolism of the Tabernacle. It conveyed of necessity deep religious thoughts to those who reverently worshipped in it. It was however a natural, and indeed a justifiable belief, that the spiritual teaching of the fabric was not confined to its ruling features but extended also to every detail. There are correspondences between all the works of God which deeper knowledge and reflection make clear. The significance attached to the numbers which continually recur in the relations of the several parts cannot be questioned. Many therefore in all times have endeavoured to read the meaning of the parts, either as symbols of a divine order in creation, or as types of the divine counsel fulfilled by the coming of Christ. Into these ingenious speculations we cannot enter at length; but the Jewish opinion current in 238 the apostolic age must be noticed, if only to place the originality of the Epistle in a true light.

Both Josephus and Philo, representing at no great interval of time the complementary teaching of Jerusalem and Alexandria, agree in regarding the Tabernacle as being in some sense a symbol of the universe. There is a characteristic difference in their treatment of the subject. Josephus is definite and literal in his interpretation: Philo plays, as it were, with many thoughts, and is not always consistent in the meanings which he indicates. But both alike follow a naturalistic symbolism. The Tabernacle is not for either of them the sign of another order.

The interpretation of Josephus is contained in a single chapter which may be quoted entire as illustrating a dominant type of thought at the time when the Epistle was written. After describing the Tabernacle and its furniture, he continues; 'One might marvel at the hatred which men persistently shew towards us as though we made light of the Divinity (θεῖον) which they are minded to worship. For if any one will consider the structure of the Tabernacle, and regard the dress of the priest and the vessels which we use in the divine service, he will find that the lawgiver was a godlike (θεῖον) man and that we are visited with evil reproaches by the world without any good ground. For he will find that the several parts have been framed to imitate and represent the universe (τὰ ὅλα), if he takes the trouble to observe them with impartiality and intelligence. The Tabernacle for example, which was thirty cubits long, the Lawgiver divided into three parts1: two of these he left open to all the priests, as an ordinary and common place, and so indicated the earth and the sea, for these are accessible to all: the third portion he confined to God alone, because the heaven is also inaccessible to men. Again by setting the twelve loaves upon the Table he indicated the year, divided into so many months. By making the Candlestick a combination of seventy members he expressed darkly the influences of the planets exercised over definite portions of the zodiac, each of ten degrees22   τὰς τῶν πλανητῶν δεκαμοιρίας ᾐνιξατο. The allusion is not to the number seventy, but to the combination of *seven with ten (10 x 7), the number of the planets with the number which measured the extent of their active influence. The thirty degrees of the whole circle of the heavens (360ᵒ) which was occupied by each sign of the Zodiac, was divided into three parts of ten degrees each (δeκαμοιρίαι). Each part was assigned to a particular planet, which thus 'exercised its dominion and power over spaces of ten degrees. The planet which so presided over the space was called 'de canus' a ruler of ten; and each sign had three 'decani.' Jul. Firmious Maternus, Astron. ii. 4., and by setting seven lamps upon it, be shews the course of the planets, for they are so many in number. The veils being woven of four fabrics signify the nature of the elements: that is to say, the fine linen seems to indicate the earth because flax springs from the earth; and the purple the sea, from the fact that it is dyed with the blood of fish; the blue is designed to signify the air, and the scarlet is a natural emblem of fire. Further the High-priest's robe being 239 of linen indicates the earth, and the blue, the sky, having a resemblance to lightning given by the pomegranates and to thunder by the sound of the bells. The Ephod [he wished to represent] the nature of the world which it was the pleasure of God should be formed of four elements, inwoven with gold, I fancy, to suggest the splendour which attaches to all things. And he set the Breastplate in the middle of the Ephod to serve as the earth, for the earth occupies the midmost place. Yet more by investing the High-priest with a Girdle, he indicates the ocean, for this embraces the world. Furthermore the two sardonyx-stones by which he fastened the dress of the High-priest signify severally the sun and the moon; and whether we please to understand by the twelve jewels the twelve months or the twelve groups of stars which Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not go far from the meaning which they convey. The mitre again seems to me to be emblematic of heaven, since it is made of blue, for otherwise the name of God would not have been placed upon it, set conspicuously upon the fillet, and that a fillet of gold, for the sake of its splendour in which the Divinity especially delights11   Antt. III. 7, 7. Comp. Bell. Jud. v. 5, 4-7. Weber (Altsynag. Theol. s. 191) has some interesting references to the Rabbinic ideas on the relation of the Tabernacle to creation. See particularly Bammidbar R. § xii. (Wünsche, 195). Compare also Bähr, Symb. i. 109 f..'

Philo's earlier exposition is much more elaborate. He supposes that the Court represented the objects of sense (τὰ αἰσθητά), the Sanctuary, the objects of thought (τὰ νοητά). On this view the five pillars of the porch indicate the senses, which have relations both outwards and inwards. The fourfold fabric of the veil he interprets exactly as Josephus of the four elements, and so also the seven lamps of the Candlestick, of the planets, with the Sun in the midst. He sees in the High-priest's robes a clear image of the world, but he differs in many parts from Josephus in his explanation of the parts. The words with which he closes his account of the dress exhibit favourably his general method: 'Thus is the High-priest arrayed when he undertakes his sacred service, in order that when he enters the Sanctuary, to make the prayers and sacrifices of our fathers, all the world may enter with him, through the symbols which he wears; for the long robe is a symbol of the air, the pomegranate, of water, the flower-border, of earth, the scarlet, of fire, the Ephod, of heaven; and, more particularly, the round emeralds on his shoulders, on which severally are six carvings representing six signs of the Zodiac, are symbols of the two hemispheres; and the twelve stones upon his breast in four rows of three, the 'Rational' (Logeion), as it is called (τὸ λόεγιον), is the symbol of the Logos who holds together and administers the whole. For it was necessary that he who performs priestly service to the Father of the world should use as Advocate (παράκλητον) a Son most perfect in virtue, both to secure oblivion of sins and a supply of most bounteous blessings22   Philo Vit. Mos. iii. § 14 (ii. 155 M.). Comp. De epist. § 34 (i. 378 M.). This naturalistic, symbolic form of interpretation found acceptance among some of the early Greek Fathers, and it has found considerable support in recent times (Bähr, Symb. d. Mos. Cult. 1837—9). See Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 6, §§ 32 ff.: Theod. Mops. and Theodoret on Hebr. ix. 1. Origen (Hom. in Ex. ix.) interpreted the Tabernacle in a religious and moral sense. Different schemes of interpretation are discussed briefly by Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, ii. 253 ff. Abundant references to modern works are given in the various Dictionaries of the Bible..

There are several mediaeval discussions of the Tabernacle which deal chiefly with its moral and religious, as distinguished from its cosmical, import; Bede, De Tabernaculo...(Migne, P. L. xci. 393 ff.); Adamus Scotus († 1180), De tripartito Tabernaculo (P. L. cxcviii. 609 ff.); Petrus Callensis († 1187), Tab. Mos. mystica et moralis expositio (P.L. ccii. 1047 ff.).


If now we turn from these material and intellectual analogies to the teaching of the Epistle, it will be evident that we have passed into another region. The Tabernacle is indeed regarded by the writer as formed after a heavenly pattern (c. viii. 5; comp. Wisd. ix. 8): it has its divine correlative (c. viii. 2, 5; ix. 11): it served as a figure (c. ix. 9) up to the time when Christ's apostles were able to declare the fulfilment of its signs; and its furniture was charged with a meaning which he could not discuss from due regard to proportion (ix. 2 — 5). But it was not simply an epitome of that which is presented on a larger scale in the world of finite being: the archetype to which it answered belonged to another order: the lessons which it conveyed were given in the fulness of time (c. i. 1) in a form which is final for man.

The Tabernacle, as we have seen, presented three main ideas, the ideas of the dwelling of God among men, of His holiness, of His 'conversableness.' It was that through which He was pleased to make His Presence and His Nature known under the conditions of earth to His people Israel. The antitype of the Tabernacle, whether on earth or in heaven, must fulfil the same office, and fulfil it perfectly. Such an antitype we find in the humanity of Christ, realised in different modes and degrees during His life on earth, in His Body, the Church, and in the consummation in 'heaven.' In each stage, if we may so speak, of the 'fulfilment' (Eph. i. 23), Christ satisfies in actual life more and more completely, according to our apprehension, that which the Tabernacle suggested by figures. His earthly Body was a Sanctuary (John ii. 19 ff.). In Him it was the Father's pleasure that 'all the fulness should dwell' (Col. i. 19 κατοικῆσαι), and so 'in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily '(Col. ii. 9). Even now 'His Body' is that in which God is, and through which He reveals Himself (John xiv. 16 ff.; 1 John ii. 20; Apoc. xxi. 3). And so it shall be in the end. The saints 'who dwell in heaven' are His 'tabernacle' (Apoc. xiii. 6 om. καί); and when they are revealed in glory, in fellowship with Christ (1 John iii. 2), the goal of creation will be reached (Rom. viii. 19). Comp. c. ix. 11 note.

*Additional Note on* viii. 8 ff.

The quotation (Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 31 ff.) offers an instructive example of variations in Ν. T. quotations from the lxx., from the Hebrew, and from a repetition of part of the quotation in the same book.

The following are variations from the lxx.:

v. 8. λέγει] lxx. φησίν with v. l. λέyει.


v. 8. «rvrrtXar» Μ rh of... «αϊ Μ ror ot] 8aaAf<rofiM ry σ?κ....«α1 rf otr. iwrtXci» 8ia& oocurs in lxx., e. xli. (xxxW.) 8, 15.

v. 9. ίποίησα] &*9$4μηψ.

— λέχτι] φησίρ.

v. 10. 8ια0.] some add μον.

— λίγτ ι] φησΊρ.

— 8«8©vr] σome add Μσ•.

— Arrypty»] some read γρ^ΐ». A fViyp^fr» wkobt Μ rAf «. aw.

— avrovr] Η A insert «αϊ δψομαι avrovr before ml ίσομα*. Oomp. c xxiil 24 LXX.

v. 11. iroX/ri^...ddf\^w...] <!8fX$oV...irXipr{oy...

— fMitpov] add avrmw.

The lxx. follows the Hebrew closely except

v. 9. oik Μμ%νω> *p rg 8. '?n$ Π|>Π.

v. 10. 8icWr. . . Wr n)r 8. «5. DfJ? J . . . *fl}rrn$ *«)}.

v. 11. om. T\fc

  • γνῶθι Ηεβ.

— om. njn; D$.

To these certain differences most be added the rendering κἀγὼ ἡμέλησα αὐτῶν for D? % 9fP9 ?tyl, which is generally rendered *although I was a lord (a husband) to them. In this sense StfJ is used with a simple acc. (Is. lxii. 5). In Jer. iii. 14 and xxxi. 32 it is construed with Σ, and Gesenius (so appy. Delitzsch), following the lxx. and Syriac versions and Arabic usage, is inclined to adopt in those places the sense 'I rejected, I was displeased with, grew weary of them.' This interpretation appears to fall in best with the context, though the common rendering can be explained.

Tho differences between the quotation here and in c. x. 16 f. are remarkable:

v. 10. τῷ οἶκῳ Ἱσρ. εἰς τὴν διάν. αι'τ. ἐπὶ καρδίας.

v. 12. καὶ τῶν ἅμ. αὐτ. μνησθῶ.

v. 16. πρὸς αὐτούς. ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτ. ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν.

v. 17. καὶ τῶν ἅμ. αὐτ. καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν. μνησθήσομαι.

The quotation in x. 16 f. seems to be made from memory.

« Prev VIII. Next »

| Define | Popups: Login | Register | Prev Next | Help |