« Prev IX. Next »


IX. ¹Εἶχε μὲν οὖν [καὶ] ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα

1 [καὶ] ἡ πρ.: om. καὶ Β syr vg me: om. D₂*: + σκηνή S me. + καὶ' λατρ. D₂*.

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

Having pointed out generally the new scene and the new conditions of Christ's High-priestly work, the writer goes on to consider it in detail in comparison with that of the Levitical system. He (1) describes with affectionate reverence the ordered arrangements of the Old Sanctuary and its furniture, and the limited privileges of the Old Priesthood (ix. 1-10); and then (2) he places in contrast with those the High-priestly Atonement of Christ resting upon a New Covenant, of which the issue will yet be revealed in glory (ix. 11—28).

(i) ix. 1—10. The Sanctuary and Priests under the Old Covenant.

This section falls into three subdivisions.

(a) The Tabernacle; its parts and furniture: (1—5).

(b) The priestly Service of the Tabernacle: (6, 7).

(c) The lesson of the restrictions of the service: (8—10).

¹Now even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world. ²For a tabernacle was prepared, the first, wherein were the candlestick and the table and the shew-bread, that which is called the Holy place. ³And after the second veil a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, ⁴having a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid all round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded, and the tables of the covenant; ⁵and above it Cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat; whereof we cannot now speak severally. ⁶But when these things have been thus prepared, the priests enter into the first tabernacle continually, accomplishing the divine services; ⁷but into the second, once in the year, the High-priest alone, not without blood, which he offereth for himself and for the ignorances of the people, ⁸the Holy Ghost thus signifying that the way into the Holy place hath not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle hath still an appointed place; ⁹which is a parable for the season now present, and according to this (parable) gifts and sacrifices are offered, such as cannot make the worshipper perfect in conscience, ¹⁰being only ordinances of flesh, resting upon (accompanied by) meats and drinks and divers washings, imposed until a season of reformation.

(a) 1—5. The writer begins his account of the High-priestly service of Christ with a retrospective view of the Levitical Service; and in doing this he first describes the Tabernacle—the divinely appointed scene of its performance—and not the Temple, with its parts and its characteristic furniture. As he had spoken at the close of the last chapter of the imminent disappearance of the old system, he now pauses for a moment to dwell upon the glories of that Old Covenant before he contrasts them with the supreme glory of the Christian order. He seems indeed to linger over the sacred treasures of the past; and there is a singular pathos in the passage, which is unique in the Ν. T. There was, he says, something majestic and attractive in the Mosaic ordinances of worship. Christians do not question the fact; nay rather when they acknowledge the beauty and meaning of the Law they can understand the Gospel better.

So Œcumenius gives the connexion rightly: ἐπεὶ κατέβαλεν αὐτὴν [τὴν παλαιὰν διαθήκην]


τῇ πρὸς τὴν νέαν παραθέσει ἵνα μή εἴπῃ ὅτι οὐκοῦν ἀεὶ ἀπόβλητος ἧν, προλαβα'ν φησὶν ὅτι εἶχε κἀκείνη δικαιώματα λατρείας, νόμους, φησίν, καὶ τάξιν καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐμπρέπουσαν λατρείᾳ θεοῦ.

Philo discusses the meaning of the arrangements of the Tabernacle: de vit. Mos. iii. §§ 3 ff. (ii. 146 ff. M.).

(1). εἶχε μὲν οὖν [καὶ] ἡ πρώτη...] Now even the first covenant had...Vulg. Habuit quidem et prius (O.L. Habebat autem)...The past tense (εἶχε) can be explained in different ways. The writer may regard the original institution of the Mosaic ritual (v. 2 κατεσκευάσθη); or he may regard the system as essentially abrogated by the fulfilment of Christ's work.

The latter is the view commonly taken from early times: δείκνυσιν ἥδη τούτῳ αὐτὴν ἐκκεχωρηκυῖαν. τότε γὰρ εἶχε, φησίν. ὥστε νῦν, εἰ καὶ ἔστηκεν, οὐκ ἔστι (leg. *ἔχει) (Chrys.). τὸ δηλοῖ ὅτι νῦν οὐκ ἔχει. ὥστε εἰ καὶ μὴ παντε\ῶς ἐπαύσατο διὰ τὸ τινὰς αὐτῇ ἕτι στοιχεῖν, τὰ μέντοι δικαιώματα οὐκ ἔχει (ŒŒcum.).

But it seems more likely that the writer is considering the Mosaic system in its divine constitution.

The particles μὲν οὖν correspond with the δέ in v. 6. There were divine and significant elements in the service which corresponded with the first Covenant, but they were subject to particular limitations in use. The Christian Order (v. 11 Χριστος δέ) offers a contrast to both parts of this description: its institutions are spiritual, and its blessings are for all. The combination does not occur again in the Epistle; and it is found in St Paul only in 1 Cor. ix. 25 ἐκεῖνοι μὲν oὖν...ἡμεῖς δέ...; Phil. ii. 23 τοῦτον μὲν οὖν...πἐποιθα δέ...ὅτι καὶ αὐτός... It is frequent in the Acts (viii. 4, 25; &c.).

There can be no doubt that διαθήκη (not σκηνή) is to be supplied with ἡ πρώτη. This interpretation, which is supported by the ancient Versions (except Memph.) and Fathers, is required by the context: c. viii. 13. Ἡ πρώτη τίς; Chrysostom asks, and answers Ἡ διαθήκη.

If the καὶ is retained (καὶ ἡ πρώτη) it emphasises the parallel of the Covenants. Though the first was destined to pass away, it had, no less than the second, ordinances of divine institution.

δικαιώματα λατρ.] ordinances of divine service...Vulg. justificationes (O. L. constitutiones) culturæ. The word δικαίωμα occurs again in a similar sense in v. 10. Δικαίωμα expresses the result, as δικαίωσις expresses the process (Rom. iv. 25; v. 18), corresponding to δικαιοῦν, to make right (righteous) in the widest sense. Two main meanings at once arise as the object of the verb is a word or a deed. The δικαίωμα may be 'that which is declared right,' an ordinance or a sentence pronounced by an authoritative power; or 'that which is rightly done,' righteousness realised in act. There is the same twofold meaning in the word 'judgment' (Hebrewpfflftf) in the O. T. which is constantly rendered by δικαίωμα in the lxx. It may be further noticed that an obligatory 'ordinance' viewed from another point of sight often becomes a 'claim.' For the use of the word δικαίωμα in the N. T. see (l) τὸ δικαίωμα the ordinance, regarded as requirement: Rom. i. 32; viii. 4. (2) τὰ δικαιώματα of special ordinances: Luke i. 6; Rom. ii. 26; Hebr. ix. 1, 10. (3) δικαίωμα a sentence or act fulfilling the claims of righteousness: Rom. v. 16, 18. (4) τὰ δικαιώματα of special acts of righteousness: Apoc. xv. 4; xix. 8.

The gen. which is connected with δικαίωμα may either express the authority from which it springs (Lk. i. 6 δικ. τοῦ Κυρίου: Rom. viii. 4); or the object to which it is directed, as here: comp. Ex. xxi. 9 τὸ δ. τῶν θυγατἐρων; 1 Sam. ii. 12 τὸ δ. τοῦ ἱερέως; viii. 9; x. 25 τὸ δ. τοῦ βασιλέως.


XaTpeias τό re ayiov κοσμικό. ²σκηνή yap κατβσκβν

τό τι: τ6Μ D₂*.

For λατρβία compare Additional Note on c. viii. a.

t6t€ Sy. κοσμ.] and its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world... Vulg. et sanctum sæculare. Euthymius reads and interprets totc όγιο κοσμικό (so arm.): r6t€ Μ άτ του πάΚαι, ότ Ικράτιι, wv γαρ ούκίχιι. The peculiar form of expression is chosen in order to recognise the familiar and characteristic place of the Mosaic worship—the Holy place—and at the same time to distinguish it from its antitype (comp. vii. 24; 1 Pet. iv. 8). The conjunction is rarely used by itself in the Epistles: c. i. 3 note; vi. 5; xii. 2; Rom. ii. 19; xvi. 26; 1 Cor. iv. 21; Eph. iii. 19. It marks something which is not regarded as distinct from and coordinate with that with which it is connected, but which serves to complete the fulness of one main idea.

The singular το &yto in the sense of the sanctuary is not found elsewhere in the Ν. T. It occurs not unfrequently in the lxx. for Hebrew&$p (Num. iii. 38; Ezek. xlv. 4, 18; xlviii. 8) and for Hebrewgth (Ex. xxvi. 33 &c.) without any obvious law. Here it appears to give naturally the general notion of the sanctuary without regard to its different parts.

It is not unlikely that the predicative force of κοσμικό reaches back to due λατρ.—'had ordinances of divine service and its sanctuary, both of this world.'

The word κοσμικός occurs elsewhere in the N. T. only in Tit. ii. 12 (comp. Didache xi. 11).

The thought which it conveys here is otherwise expressed under a different aspect by χιφοποίητος (vv. 11, 24; comp. viii. 2). The opposite is given in v. 11 ov ταύτης της κτίσβως.

The Mosaic sanctuary was not only 'on earth' (Ar/ycw), as opposed to 'in heaven' (ιπουράηος v. 23; viii. 5; xi. 16), but it partook of the nature of the world, and was therefore essentially transitory.

There does not appear to be any reference to the familiar thought that the Tabernacle was a symbol of the world, though this interpretation has patristic support: την σκηνή ούτως ίκαΚισ τύπο ίπίχουσα τον κόσμου πατός (Theodt).

But in connexion with this thought it is to be remarked that both Josephus and Philo speak of the Jewish service as having a universal, a 'cosmical,' destination: Philo De Monarch. ii. 6 (ii. p. 227 Μ.) βουΚβται το άρχιρ4α πρΛτον μ §1κόα του σατος 1χι 4μφαη πρ\ εαυτό Χα ^της συχους Θας όζίο παρίχβ τό mo βίο της των 8Κω» φύσ€ως, frctra Sums i rats Upovpylaut συλλειτουργά πας κόσμος αύτψ. Joseph. Β. J. iv. 5, 2 της κοσμικής θρησκείας κατάρχοντψς. And this thought was adopted by Chrysostom and many later fathers in various forms: rwtl καϊ Ελλ?σ< βάτο ή κοσμικό αυτό koXu, ού γαρ bSj ol Ίον&ΰοι ο κόσμος ήσα» (Chrys.). Sanctum sæculare i.e. quo sæculi homines, hoc est, gentiles, ad Judaismum transeuntes recipiebat; patebat enim non solum Judæis sed etiam talibus gentilibus (Primas.).

Such an interpretation however belongs to the later development of Judaism and not prominently to its first institution, though indeed it had from the first a universal element.

(2). σκηνὴ γάρ...ἡ πρώτη] For a tabernacle (tent) was prepared, the first...the outermost as approached by the worshipper. The writer explains and justifies the general statement in v. 1. For this construction, 245 άσθη η πρώτη iv y η re λυχνία και ή τράπεζα καϊ ή πρόθβσπ των άρτων, ήτις λέγεται Γ 'Άγια• μετά δβ τό

2, 3 Τά άγια.....μίψη Τα Αγια tQw ί«τ.

2 λυχ.: D₂*. o&amp: + ««! τ χρννοΟ θυμιανήριο Β (æg) [omitting ο νμ.καΙΐΏυ in v. 4]. yia: + ra'dVa B: + ay«p AD₂*: om. KB vg syrr ægg.

by which a noun first regarded indefinitely ('a tabernacle') ie afterwards defined ('the first'), see c. vi. 7; 2 John 7; Acts x. 41; Phil. iii. 6, &c. and especially with a partic. 1 Pet. i. 7; Moulton-Winer, pp. 174 f.

The two parts of the Tabernacle are regarded as two Tabernacles.

κατ<σκ€νάσ0η] was prepared...factum est V. Comp. c. iii. 3 note. The tense points to the first construction of the Tabernacle. Contrast v. 6 κατισιηνασμίρωρ.

fr i...] The substantive verb appears to be omitted purposely. The whole description (v. 4) will not apply to the existing Temple; and yet the writer will not exclude the Temple (Xcytrai, v. 6 ffoWur). He says therefore neither 'was' nor 'is,' but uses, as in v. 4 ΐχονσα, a neutral form of expression.

j \v X pia]--candelabra V. (-brum O. L.); literally the lampstand (Hebrewϊη^ρ) on which the lamp (Hebrewy) was placed (Ex. xxv. 37; Zech. iv. 2; Matt. v. 15 and parallels; comp. Apoc. i. 12; ii. 5; xi. 4). See Ex. xxv. 31—40; xxxv. 16; xxxvii. 17—24 (xxxviii. 13—17); Zech. iv. 2 f.; 11 ff.; Jos. B. J. v. 5. 5; νii. 5. 5.

In the account of Solomon's Temple ten candlesticks are mentioned: 1 K. vii. 49 (35); 2 Chron. iv. 7; comp. 1 Chron. xxviii. 15; Jer. iii. 19.

So also in 2 Chron. iv. 8 Solomon is said to have made ten tables; but in 1 K. vii. 48 (34) only one table is mentioned. Comp. Jos. Antt. viii. 3, 7. Primasius, following the plural of the Vulgate, supposes that the allusion is to the Temple: non de illo tabernacule disputaturns est hic apostolus quod Moyses fecit in eremo ubi tantummodo unum candelabrum fuit, sed de templo quod postea Salomon ædificavit in Hierusalem ubi fuerunt plura candelabra.

4Tponi(a] the table...mensa V. Ex. xxv. 23-30 (Hebrewφ^ D^n ip^, nyjflWJ &amp, 90 W); xxxvii. 10—16.

η πρόόισπ rmv αμτωρ] Vulg. propositio panum, the shewbread, literally 'the setting out of the bread (loaves)' that is 'the bread set forth in two rows.' The later Hebrew term for the 'shewbread' (Hebrew^D^Dr Ex. xxv. 30; comp. Lev. xxiv. 5 ff.) is Hebrewnj^Bpr Dh^ 'bread of the row' (e.g. 1 Chron. ix. 32 ol iprot rrjt npoBtatmt lxx.) or simply 'the row' (2 Chron. ii. 4 πρoθβσις*; xiii. 11 irptemt Uprmp; xxix. 18 rfjp τράπζα¥ rrjt irpolfVfffff) in which the Ν. T. phrases (Matt. xii. 4 ol Αρτοι rtjt irpoA. and h irpoU τ. &amp.) find their origin.

ijw λ/γ. Άγια] which is called the Holy place...Vulg. quæ dicitur Sancta. The qualitative relative (tfm) directs attention to the features of the place which determines its name as 'Holy.' The anarthrous form Άγια (literally Holies) in this sense appears to be unique, as also Άγια αγίω below, if indeed the reading is correct. Perhaps it is chosen to fix attention on the character of the sanctuary, as in other cases. The plural suggests the idea of the sanctuary with ail its parts: comp. Moulton-Winer,. p. 220.

Philo (Quis rer. div. hær. § 46; i. p. 504) interprets the three things in the Holy Place (A> voir), the Candlestick, the Table and the Golden Altar of Incense (re Ayuonfpio*), as 246 δεύτερον καταπέτασμα σκηνή ἡ λεγομένη Ἅγια Ἁγίων', ⁴χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα θυμιατήριον καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης

3 ἅγια ἁγίων Sא* AD*: τὰ ἅγ. τῶν ἁγ. א* Β me (æg). 4 χρ. ἔχ. θυμ. καί: ἔχουσα Β [see v. 2].

symbolic of thanksgiving from all parts of creation heavenly, human, elemental. Comp, de vita Mos. iii. §§ 9 f.(ii. pp. 150 f. M.).

For a general interpretation of their meaning see Oehler, Old Test. Theology, § 117.

(3). μετὰ δὲ τὸ δ. κ.] and after the second veil...Vulg. post velamentum autem secundum. This is the only place in which μετά is used in this local sense in the N. T. For καταπέτασμα see c. vi. 19 note. Ex. xxvi. 31 f.

σκηνὴ ἡ λεγ. Ἅγια Ἁγίων] a tabernacle (tent) was prepared (κατεσκευάσθη, v. 2) which is called the Holies of Holies. The form σκ. ἡ λεγομένη corresponds with σκ. ἡ πρώτη of v. 2. In the lxx. two translations of HebrewD^Jft the Holy of Holies, the moat holy place, are found, τὸ ἅγιον τῶν ἁγ. (e.g. Ex. xxvi. 33), and τὸ ἅγια τῶν ἁγ. (e.g. 1 K. viii. 6). This innermost sanctuary is also called simply τὸ ἅγιον in Lev. xvi. 2. On the name Hebrew1%5^ which was applied to it in later times (1 K. viii. 8) see Hupfeld on Ps. xxviii. 2. The Holy of Holies was a cube, like the New Jerusalem in the imagery of the Apocalypse: Apoc. xxi. 16.

For the general idea of the Tabernacle, as figuring the residence of God with His covenant people, see Oehler, l.c. § 116; and Additional Note on viii. 5. Chrysostom says of the two parts: τὰ μὲν oὖν ἅγια τοῦ προτέρου καιροῦ σύμβολά ἐστιν. ἐκεῖ γὰρ διὰ θυσιῶν πάντα γίνεται. τὰ δὲ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων τούτου τοῦ νῦν ἐνεστῶτος. And so Theodoret: ἐμιμεῖτο τὰ μὲν ἅγια τὴν ἐν τῇ γῇ πολίτειαν, τὰ δὲ άγια τῶν ἁγίων τὸ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐνδιαίτημα. αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ στερεώματος ἐπλήρου τὴν χρείαν. (Œcumenius follows out the parallel at length.

(4). χρ. ἔχ. θυμ.] having a golden altar of incense...Vulg. aureum habens turibulum (altare O. L.). The word θυμιατήριον has two distinct meanings, (1) Altar of incense, (2) Censer, and from very early times each has been adopted here.

Philo (Quis rer. div. hær. § 46, i. p. 504; de vit. Moysis, iii. § 9, ii. p. 150); and Josephus (Antt. iii. 6, 8 μεταξὺ δὲ αὐτῆς καὶ τῆς τραπέζης ἔνδον, ὡς προεῖπον, θυμιατήριον...Β. J. v. (vi.) 5, 5 τὸ θυμιατήριον δὲ διὰ τῶν τρισκαίδεκα θυμιαμάτων οἶς ἐκ θαλάσσης ἀνεπίμπλατο τῆς τ' ἀοικήτου καὶ οἰκουμένης ἐσήμαινεν ὅτι τοῦ θεοῦ πάντα καὶ τῷ θεῷ) use θυμιατήριον for the altar of incense in their accounts of the furniture of the Temple. And so also Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 6, § 33, p. 665 P. ἀνὰ μέσον δὲ τοῦ καλύμματος (the outer veil) καὶ τοῦ παραπετάσματος (the inner veil)...θυμιατήριoν ἔκειτο...); and Origen, probably on the authority of this passage, places the Altar of incense in the Holy of Holies: Hom. in Ex. ix. 3 ibi collocatur...propitiatorium sed et altare aureum incensi.

But it is urged on the other hand that in the lxx. the altar of incense is never called by this name, but (τὸ) θυσιαστήριον (τοῦ) θυμιάματος (Ex. xxx. 1, 27; Lev. iv. 7; 1 Chron. vi. 49; comp. Luke i. 11) and τὸ θυσ. τῶν θυμιαμάτων (1 Chron. xxviii. 18: 2 Chron. xxvi. 16, 19), while θυμιατήριον is twice used in the lxx. for a censer (HebrewΠ'9ρρ): 2 Chron. xxvi 19; Ezek. viii. 11; and in Jer. iii. 19 by 247 Aquila and Symmachus for Hebrewn$IJ© (fire-pan).

It must however be remarked that the translation of the lxx. was practically inevitable. The use of HebrewWp in the original required to be represented by θυμιαστήριον. The only other rendering βωμός was inapplicable. And further in Ex. xxx. 1 where the full phrase Hebrewtrp$ t$p Mp is found, Symmachus and Theodotion read θυσιαστήριον θυμιατήριον θυμιάματος, a reading which Origen introduced with an asterisk into his Greek text. Nor does the use of θυμιατήριον for 'censer' fix this single meaning to the word, for Josephus, who calls the altar of incense θυμιατήριον, uses the same word for 'censer' in his narrative of the rebellion of Korah (Antt. iv. 2, 6) where the lxx. has πυρεῖον (HebrewΠξίπρ).

It cannot therefore be urged that the usage of the lxx. offers a valid argument against adopting here the sense which is unquestionably justified by the contemporary evidence of Philo and Josephus. External evidence then, it may be fairly said, is in favour of the rendering Altar of incense.

If now we turn to internal evidence it appears to be most unlikely that the 'golden altar* (Ex. xxx. 1 ff.; xxxvii. 25 ff.; xl. 5, 26), one of the most conspicuous and significant of the contents of the Tabernacle, on which other writers dwell with particular emphasis, should be omitted from the enumeration here; and no less unlikely that a golden censer should be mentioned in its place, while no such vessel is mentioned in the Ο. T. as part of the furniture of the Holy of Holies, or even in special connexion with the service of the Day of Atonement. The mention in the Mishna (Joma, iv. 4) of the use of a golden censer on the Day of Atonement, instead of the silver censer used on other days, does not furnish sufficient explanation for the place which it would hold here in the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle. Nor indeed is there any evidence that the censer so used was in any sense part of the furniture of the Holy of Holies: on the contrary it was removed after the service (Joma, vii. 4).

At first sight however it is difficult to understand how the Altar of incense could be described as part of the furniture of the Holy of Holies; or, to speak more exactly, as properly belonging to it (ἔχουσα θυμιατήριον). But this phrase probably suggests the true explanation. The Altar of incense bore the same relation to the Holy of Holies as the Altar of burnt offering to the Holy place. It furnished in some sense the means of approach to it. Indeed the substitution of ἔχουσα for ἐν ᾖ (v. 2) itself points clearly to something different from mere position. The Ark and the Altar of incense typified the two innermost conceptions of the heavenly Sanctuary, the Manifestation of God and the spiritual worship of man. And thus they are placed in significant connexion in the Pentateuch: Ex. xxx. 6; xl. 5; comp. Lev. iv. 7; xvi. 12, 18 (before the Lord).

In one passage indeed (1 K. vi. 22) the Altar of incense is described in language closely resembling that which is used here as 'belonging to the shrine' (HebrewT^^ft).

It is further to be observed that the word θυμιατήριον is left indefinite. While the writer says ἡ λυχνία, ἡ τράπεζα (ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων), ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης, τὸ ἱλαστήριον, he says simply χρυσοῦν θυμιατήριον, 'a golden incense (altar).' The word is descriptive and not the technical name of a special object.

On the whole therefore it appears that both the evidence of language and the evidence of the symbolism of the passage are in favour of the sense 'Altar of incense.' This sense is given by the O.L. The Syriac is ambiguous 248 περικεκαλυμμένην πάντοθεν χρυσίῳ, ἐν ᾖ στάμνος χρυσῆ ἔχουσα τὸ μάννα καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος Ἀαρὼν ἡ βλαστήσασα

ἡ βλαστ.: om. Β.

incense-vessel (lit. house of perfume).

In Apoc. viii. 3, 5 the word for 'censer' is λιβανωτός which is not found in lxx. (elsewhere λιβανωτίς).

It may be added that in the service of the Day of Atonement the Golden Altar was treated in the same manner as the Holy of Holies by the sprinkling of blood: Ex. xxx. 10.

In prophetic imagery also there is an altar in heaven (Is. vi. 6; Apoc. viii. 3). The type of heaven therefore could not be without its proper altar; though it was not placed locally within it.

Perhaps it is worthy of notice that in the legend mentioned in 2 Macc. ii. 5 Jeremiah hides the Ark and the Altar of incense in the cave.

τὴν κεβωτὸν τῆς διαθ.] the ark of the covenant...Vulg. arcam testamenti. Ex. xxv. 10 ff.: xxxvii. 1 ff. (Deut x. 3). The writer of the Epistle, as has been noticed before, fixes attention on the Mosaic type, the Tabernacle. The Ark, which had belonged to the Tabernacle, was placed in Solomon's Temple (1 K. viii. 1 ff.); but in the later Temple the Holy of Holies was entirely empty (Jos. B. J. v. 6, 5 ἔκειτο δὲ οὐδὲν ὅως ἐν αὐτῷ; Tac. Hist. v. 9). The site which the Ark should have occupied was marked by 'the stone of foundation' (Hebrewn»ttf |3^), a raised platform on which, according to a late tradition, the sacred Tetragrammaton was inscribed. Comp. Buxtorf, Len. a. v. Hebrewn»n&amp.

On the traditional later history of the Ark see Grimm on 2 Macc. ii. 1—5; and Wetstein on Apoc. ii. 17.

περικεκ. π. χρυσίῳ] This clause is added predicatively: 'the Ark of the covenant, an Ark overlaid all round about with gold.' Χρυσίον as distinguished from χρυσός has the secondary idea of gold wrought for a particular use, as jewels 1 Pet. iii. 3, or coin, Acts iii. 6. For πάντοθεν compare Ex. xxv. 10 ἔσωθεν καὶ ἔξωθεν.

στάμνος] Vulg. urna. Ex. xvi. 32 ff. The epithet, 'a golden pot,' is an addition to the Hebrew text which is found in the lxx. (Ex. xvi. 33). In the Pentateuch the pot of manna and Aaron's rod are said to be laid up 'before the Testimony' (Ex. xvi. 34; Num. xvii. 10; comp. Ex. xxv. 16, 21) and not definitely in the Ark.

The significance of the Manna is indicated in Apoc. ii. 17 τὸ μ. τὸ κεκρυμμένον.

χρυσοῦν.,.χρυσίῳ... χρυσῆ...] The solemn repetition of the word emphasises the splendour of this typical sanctuary (comp. Æn. iv. 138 f.). Gold was the characteristic metal of the Holy of Holies. Comp. 1 K. vii. 48 ff. It is remarkable that Ezekiel in describing the Temple of his vision makes no mention of the materials of which it was constructed.

ἡ ῥάβδος] Num. xvii. 10 ff.

The pot of manna and Aaron's rod are not mentioned in Scripture except in the places of the Pentateuch referred to, and here.

When the Ark was removed to the Temple it contained only the Tables of the Law (1 K. viii. 9; comp. Jos. Ant. iii. 6, 5).

αἱ πλάκες τῆς διαθ.] Vulg. tabulæ testamenti. These are called in the lxx. αἱ πλάκες τοῦ μαρτυρίου (HebrewHl$) Ex. xxxi. 18; xxxii. 15, and (αἱ) πλάκες (τῆς) διαθήκης (HebrewW"f9 ΓΐΗΛ) Deut ix. 9, 11, 15. In 1 Κ. viii. 9 πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης is added as a gloss to πλάκες λίθιναι.

Chrysostom remarks that these memorials in the Ark were monuments 249 καὶ αἱ πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης, ³ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς Χερουβεὶν δόξης κατασκιάζοντα τὸ ἱλαστήριον. περὶ ὧν

5 ὑπεράνω...αὐτῆς: ὑπέρ...αὐτήν D₂*. χερουβείν (-ίν) אBD₂: βείμ (-βίμ) S A me. κατασκιάζοντα: -ζον Α.

of the rebellious spirit of Israel: πάντα ταῦτα σεμνὰ ἧν καὶ λαμπρὰ τῆς Ἰουδαἲκῆς ἀγνωμοσύνης ὑπομνήματα. καὶ αἱ πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης. κατέαξε γὰρ αὐτάς καὶ τὸ μάννα. ἐγόγγυσαν γάρ...καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος Ἀαρὼν ἡ βλαστήσασα. ἐπανέστησαν γάρ.

(5). ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς...] and above it, i.e. the Ark (superque eam V.), Cherubim of glory (Ex. xxv. 18 ff.), not simply 'glorious Cherubim,' as if the epithet characterised their nature, but 'Cherubim of glory' ministering to the divine revelation. The divine glory, the revelation of God's majesty, was in a peculiar sense connected with them. God revealed Himself 'from between them': Ex. xxv. 22; Num. vii. 89; 1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 2; 2 K. xix. 15 || Is. xxxvii. 16; Ps. lxxx. 1; xcix. 1. Comp. Lev. xvi. 2; Ecclus. xlix. 8.

κατασκιάζορτα] The Cherubim are treated as ζῷα (Apoc. iv. 6). Compare Ex. xxv. 20 συσκιάζοντες.

τὸ ἱλαστήριον] Vulg. propitiatorium, O. L. expiationem. Lev. xvi. 14 f. (Hebrewrvjbfy). The literal meaning of Hebbrewrnb is simply covering, but the 'covering' is distinct from the Ark which is complete without it (comp. Dillm. Ex. xxv. 17). It is possible that at a later time the idea of the 'covering,' atonement, for sin may have been added to the material sense (1 Chron. xxviii. 11 HebrewniJaM IV3). In itself the 'covering' of the Ark had a natural symbolic meaning. It was interposed between the Ark containing the Tables of the Law and the Divine glory.

On its first occurrence Hebrewrnb$ is translated in the lxx. ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα (Ex. xxv. 15); but generally it is rendered by ἱλαστήριον only. The rendering θυσιαστήριον in Lev. xvi. 14 seems to be an error, though there is a trace of this rendering in one of the Greek Versions in Ex. xxxvii. 6 (ἁλλος. θυσιαστήριον). The word ἱλαστήριον is used as technical by Philo: de vit. Mos. iii. § 8, ii. p. 150 M.; de prof. § 19, i. 561 M.

This rendering was taken from the use made of the 'covering' on the Day of Atonement when it was sprinkled with the atoning blood: Lev. xvi. 15.

In Ezekiel "iλαsτήριοn is used as the rendering of HebrewfTJjij (xliii. 14: Aqu. κρηπίδωμα; Sym. περιδρομή; 17, 20), the 'settle' or 'ledge' of the altar.

περὶ ῷν...κατὰ μέρος] Vulg. de quibus modo non est dicendum per singula. There is, it is implied, a typical significance in the details, but the writer notices only the lesson of the two great divisions of the Sanctuary, determined by the ordinances of service. For οὐκ ἔστιν comp. 1 Cor. xi. 20.

6—10. After speaking of the material arrangements of the Sanctuary, the writer goes on to shew the significant limitations which determined the use of it. The priests entered day by day into the Holy place: the High-priest once in the year, with special ceremonies, into the Holy of Holies (vv. 6, 7). As yet, under the Mosaic order, it was clearly taught that there was no free access to God (8—10). The people could only approach him through their representatives; and these had only a partial right of drawing near to Him.

Though there was an august array of typical instruments and means of service, the access to the Divine Presence was not yet open. Part of the Sanctuary was open to the priests: part to the High-priest only on a single day in each year. 250 οὐκ ἔστιν νῦν λέγειν κατὰ μέρος. ⁶Τούτων δὲ οὕτως κατεσκευασμένων, εἰς μὲν τὴν πρώτην σκηνὴν διὰ παντὸς εἰσίασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς τὰς λατρείας ἐπιτελοῦντες, ⁷εἰς δὲ τὴν

ἔστιν: ἔνεστιν א*.

It must be kept in mind throughout that the Holy place was the scene of man's worship, and the way by which he approached God; while the Holy of Holies symbolised the Divine Presence itself.

Thus the Tabernacle witnessed constantly to the aim of man and to the fact that he could not as yet attain it. He could not penetrate to that innermost sanctuary to which he necessarily looked, and from which blessing flowed. The same institutions which brought forcibly to the soul of the Israelite the thought of Divine Communion made him feel that he could not yet enjoy it as it might be enjoyed.

Compare Chrysostom: τουτέστιν, ἧν μὲν ταῦτα, οὐκ ἀπέλαυον δὲ τούτων αὐτῶν oἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, οὐ γὰρ ἑώρων αὐτά. ὥστε οὐκ ἐκείνοις μᾶλλον ἧν ἥ οἶς προετυποῦτο.

(b) 6, 7 The priestly service of the Sanctuary.

(6). τούτων dέ...] But when these things have been thus prepared....Vulg. His vero (O. L. autem) ita compositis (O. L. aptatis). The perf. (κατεσκ.) expresses that the historical foundation (v. 2 κατεσκευάσθη) issued in an abiding system (comp. v. 8 πεφανερῶσθαι, v. 18 ἐνκεκαίνισται).

εἰς μὲν τὴν πρ. σκ....εἰσίασιν...ἐπιτελοῦντες] into the first (v. 2) tabernacle, the Holy place, the scene of spiritual, symbolic worship, the priests enter continually accomplishing the services....Vulg. in priori quidem tabernaculo semper introibant sacerdotes, sacrificiorum officia consummantes.

The present (εἰσίασιν) expresses the ideal fulfilment of the original Mosaic institution. The writer here deals only with the original conception realised in the Tabernacle, though elsewhere (c. viii. 4) he recognises the perpetuation of the Levitical ritual; and the existing Temple system was naturally present to his mind as the representation of it. The Latin rendering is an accommodation to εἶχε in v. 1.

διὰ παντός] The word is used peculiarly in the N.T. of Divine Service which knows essentially no formal limits: c. xiii. 15; Lk. xxiv. 53; Acts x. 2. Comp. Matt, xviii. 10; Acts xxiv. 16.

As distinguished from πάντοτε (c. vii. 25 note) it seems to express the continuous, unbroken permanence of a characteristic habit, while πάντοτε marks that which is realised on each several occasion.

τὰς λατρείας ἐπιτελ.] accomplishing the divine services, such as the placing and removal of the shewbread on the Sabbath (Lev. xxiv. 5 ff.), the offering of incense every morning and evening, and the dressing of the lamps (Ex. xxx. 7 ff.). The Vulgate rendering (O.L. ministeria consummare) leads the thought away from the purely symbolic service of the Holy place to the animal sacrifices of the Temple Court.

The word ἐπιτελεῖν is used frequently of sacred observances in Herodotus (ii. 37; iv. 186) and in other classical writers. Comp. c. viii. 5 ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνήν. Philo, de somn. i. § 37 (i. 653 Μ.) τὰς νόμῳ προστεταγμένας ἐπιτελεῖν λειτουργίας.

(7). εἰς δὲ τὴν δ....ἀρχιερεύς] but into the second tabernacle, the tabernacle beyond 'the second veil' (v. 3), the symbol of the immediate Divine Presence, the High-priest alone, once in the year, that is, on one day in the year, though on that day he entered twice (Lev. xvi. 12 ff.), or, according to the later tradition, four times (Mishnah 251 δευτέραν ἅπαξ τοῦ ἑνιαυτοῦ μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος, ὁ προσφέρει ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων, ⁸τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου,

Joma ν. 1, 7, 4). But see Philo, Leg. ad Cai. § 39 (ii. 591 Μ.) καὶ ἄν αὐτὸς ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς δυσὶν ἡμέραις τοῦ ἔτους ἥ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ τρὶς ἥ καὶ τετράκις ἐπιφοιτήσῃ θάνατον ἀπαραίτητον ὑπομένει.

The words, ἅπαξ μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, emphasise the restrictions with which the approach was beset. There was only one occasion of entrance, and the entrance was allowed to one representative of the people only. And even he entered only in the power of another life (comp. c. x. 19 ἐν τῷ αἵματι).

Philo insists on the peculiar privilege in the same words: Leg. ad Cai. l. c. (εἰς τὰ ἄδυτα) ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ὁ μέγας ἱερεὺς εἰσέρχεται. See also de monarch. ii. § 2 (i. 223 M.) τούτῳ δι' ἔτους ἐπιτετραμμένον ἅπαξ εἰσιέναι. de ebriet. § 34 (i. 378 M.) δι' ἔτους ἅπαξ εἰσιόντα. And he applies the limitation even to the Logos: ὁρᾷς ὅτι οὐδὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς λόγος, ἐνδιατρίβειν δεὶ καὶ σχολάζειν ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις δώμασι δυνάμενος, ἅδειαν ἔσχηκε κατὰ πάντα καιρὸν πρὸς αὐτὰ φοιτᾶν ἀλλ' ἅπαξ δι' ἐνιαυτοῦ μόλις; (de gig. § 11; i. 269 Μ.).

οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος...ἀγνοημάτων] The High-priest first took the blood of the bullock, which was a sin-offering for himself, within the veil, and sprinkled it seven times before the Mercy seat (Lev. xvi. 11 ff.).

After this he offered the goat which was a sin-offering for the people, and brought the blood of this within the veil, and did with it as with the blood of the bullock (Lev. xvi. 15).

This sprinkling of the blood is regarded in a wider sense as an 'offering' (Lev. i. 5) which he makes for himself and for the ignorances of the people. The most general phrase is used in regard to the High-priest (ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ, O.L. pro se et populi delictis). The absence of the article before ἑαυτοῦ excludes the repetition of ἀγνοημάτων (as Vulg. pro eua et populi ignorantia). Compare Lev. xvi. 11, with Lev. x 16.

For οὐ χωρλις see c. vii. 20.

The word ἀγνόημα (sin of ignorance) occurs here only in the N.T., but the thought is included in τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν c. v. 2. Comp. 1 Macc. xiii. 39; Ecclus. xxiii. 2; Num. xv. 22 ff. 30 f. Theophylact notices that some thought that there is a reference here to the superior efficacy of the Christian covenant: αἱ μὲν γὰρ νομικαὶ [θυσίαι] τὰ ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ συνεχώρουν πλημμελήματα, ἡ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τὰ ἐν εἰδήσει ἁμαρτήματα ἀφίησι.

In connexion with the idea of ἀγνόημα Chrysostom expresses a striking thought: ὅρα, οὐκ εἶπεν ἁμαρτημάτων ἀλλ' ἀγνοημάτων ἵνα μὴ μέγα φρονήσωσιν. εἰ γὰρ καὶ μὴ ἑκὼν ἥμαρτες, φησίν, ἀλλ' ἄκων ἠγνόησας, καὶ τούτου οὐδείς ἐστι καθαρός.

(c) 8—10 The restrictions which limited the approach of priests and High-priest to God contained an obvious lesson. There was no way to God opened by the Law. The Law had a symbolical, disciplinary, value and looked forward to a more perfect system.

(8). τοῦτο δηλ. τοῦ πν. τ. ἁγ.] Vulg. hoc significante spiritu sancto. There is a divine meaning both in the words of Scripture and in the ordinances of worship. The Spirit which inspired the teaching and fixed the ritual Himself discloses it, and this He does continuously (δηλοῦντος not δηλώσαντος) as long as the veil rests over any part of the record. For δηλοῦν see c. xii. 27; 1 Pet. i. 11; 2 Pet. i. 14.

Compare the words of Theophylact: ...ἐδηλοῦτο συμβαλικῶς ὅτι ἔως 252 μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδὸν ἔτι τῆς πρώτης

οὗ ἵσταται ἡ σκηνὴ αὔτη, τουτέστιν ἔως οὗ κρατεῖ ὁ νόμος καὶ αἱ κατ' αὐτὸν λατρείαι τελοῦνται, οὐκ ἐστὶ βάσιμος ἡ τῶν ἁγίων ὁδός, τουτέστιν, ἡ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰσοδος.

μήπω πεφαν....] that the way into the Holy place hath not yet been made manifest while the first tabernacle hath still an Appointed place; Vulg. nondum propalatam esse sanctorum viam adhuc priore tabernaculo habente statum (O.L. virtutem). It is evident that this phrase 'the Holy place' most include 'the Holy of holies,' the symbolic Presence of God (v. 12; 24 f.; x. 19), even if it does not mean this exclusively. Perhaps however a general phrase is chosen by the Apostle to include both the scene of worship and the scene of the Divine revelation. The people had no way into the Holy place which was open to the priests only; the priests had no way into the Holy of holies which was open to the High-priest alone.

For the construction ἡ τῶν ἁγίων ὁδός compare c. x. 19; Matt. x. 5; Gen. iii. 24.

The comprehensive sense which has been given to τὰ ἅγια, as including both the Holy and the Most Holy place, explains the use of ἡ πρώτη σκηνή. This phrase has been used just before (v. 6; comp. v. 2) of the Holy place as the vestibule, so to speak, of the Divine presence-chamber; and it is very difficult to suppose that it should be suddenly used in another sense for 'the first (the Mosaic) tabernacle' as opposed to 'the heavenly archetypal tabernacle' (v. 11). 'The first, the outer, tabernacle,' the sanctuary of habitual worship, did in a most impressive way shew the limits which were placed upon the worshipper. While this held a recognised place among divine institutions the people were separated from the object of their devotion. All had not as yet the privilege of priests: all priests had not the right of approach to the Divine throne. Thus the outer sanctuary was the representative symbol of the whole Tabernacle as the place of service.

The phrase ἐχούσησ στάσιν must, it is reasonable to suppose, express something more than simply standing (ἑστηκυίας, ἑστώσησ) as the Latin Versions indicate. The periphrasis with ἔχω (comp. 1 John i. 8 note) marks the general position and not only the isolated fact: 'while the first tabernacle still has an appointed place answering to a Divine order' (c. x. 9). The phrase is used of the prevalence of periodic winds: Polyb. v. 5, 3 τῶν ἐτησιπων ἥδη στάσιν ἐχόντων.

(9). ἥτις παραβ....ἐνεστηκότα] Vulg. quae parabola est temporis instantis, which is (seeing it is) a parable, a figure, and nothing more, for the season now present, 'the present age,' that period of preparation which will be followed by 'the age to come' for which we look. This sense of ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐνεστώς is established beyond all doubt. In technical language all time was divided into 'the past, the present (ἐνεστώς), and the future' (Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hypot. iii. 17, 144 *ὁ χρόνος λέγεται τριμερὴς αἶναι. καὶ τὸ μὲν παρῳχηκώς, τὸ δὲ ἐνεστώς, τὸ δὲ μέλλων); and the use of the word ἐνέστηκα in the Ν. T. is decisive in favour of the sense the season that is present (not the season that is at hand): see 2 Thess. ii. 2; Gal. i. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 26. Things 'present' (ἐνεστῶτα) are contrasted with things 'future' (μέλλοντα): 1 Cor. iii. 22; Rom. viii. 38.

It may therefore be reasonably laid down that ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐνεστώς must be taken in connexion with that which the writer of the Epistle speaks of as 'future,' 'the future world' (ii. 5), 'the future age' (vi. 5), 'the future 253 σκηνῆς ἐχρύσης στάσιν ⁹ἣτις παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, καθ' ἣν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι προσφέρονται μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι τὂν

9 ἣτις: + πρώτη D₂*. καθ' ἣν אABD₂*: καθ' ὃν S.

blessings' (x. 1). If then, as is beyond doubt, 'the future,' in the vision of the writer, is that which is characteristic of the Christian order, 'the present' must be that which is characteristic of the preparatory order, not yet outwardly abolished (comp. Gal. i. 4), that which is commonly called in other writings, 'this age,' or 'the present age'; and in the present context ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐνεστώς stands in opposition to καιρὸς διορθώσεως (v. 10), and parallel with 'these days' in c. i. 1 (note).

It will be noticed also that καιρός is chosen (in place of αἰών) as suggesting the idea of a present crisis: comp. Rom. iii. 26; xi. 5 (2 Cor. viii. 13).

Thus 'the present season' must be carefully distinguished from the fulness of the Christian time, though in one sense the blessings of Christianity were already roalised essentially. So for Primasius, while he gives a wrong sense to 'present,' says truly: Quod enim agebatur in templo tunc temporis figura erat et similitudo istius veritatis quæ jam in ecclesia completur.

The Levitical system then, represented by 'the first Tabernacle,' is described here as a parable 'to serve for' or, perhaps 'to last as long as' the present season. It conveyed its lessons while the preparatory age continued up to the time of change. It did indeed foreshadow that which is offered in the Gospel, but that is not the aspect of it which is here brought forward. As a parable (c. xi. 19) it is regarded not so much in relation to a definite future which is directly prefigured ('type') as in regard to its own power of teaching. The parable suggests thoughts: the type points to a direct fulfilment.

(9), (10). καθ' ἣν δῶρα...μόνον ἐπὶ...βρ....βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα...ἐπικείμενα] in accordance with which (and after this parable, or teaching by figure) gifts and sacrifices are offered such as cannot make the worshipper perfect as touching the conscience (in conscience), being only ordinances of flesh, resting upon meats and drinks and divers washings, imposed until a season of reformation. If the καὶ is retained (καὶ δικαιώματα) then two things are stated of the Levitical sacrifices, 'that they cannot bring perfection, as resting only on meats'...and 'that they are ordinances of flesh...'.

This sense is given in a rude form by the Old Latin version: quæ [munera et bestiæ] non possunt conscientia consummare servientes, solum in cibis et potu et variis baptismis, justitia carnis usque ad tempus restitutionis imposita.

The Vulgate renders καὶ δικαιώμασιν...ἐπικειμένοις quæ non possunt...in cibis...et variis baptismatibus et justitiis carnis usque ad tempus correctionis impositis.

Three points in this complicated sentence require consideration, the weakness of the Levitical offerings (μὴ δυν. κατὰ συν. τελ. τὸν λατρ.), the ground of their weakness (μόνον ἐπι βρώμασιν...δικαιώματα σαρκός), the purpose of their enactment (μέχρι καιροῦ διορθ. ἐπικ.).

μὴ δυν....τελ. τὸν λατρ.] For the idea of τελείωσις 'a bringing to perfection' according to some assumed standard, see c. vii. 11 note. Here that standard is said to be 'according to' 'as touching the conscience.' The Levitical offerings were able to secure an outward perfecting, the admission of each worshipper to a full participation 254 λατρεύοντα, ¹⁰μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα σαρκὸς μέχρι καιροῦ

10 καὶ

10 βαπτισμοῖς א* AD₂* syr vg me the: + καί א* B vg syr hl the. δικαιώματα אAB syr vg me: δικαίωμα D₂* the: δικαιώμασιν S vg syr hl.

in the privileges of the ancient commonwealth of God, which depended on the satisfaction of ceremonial conditions. But they could not bring a spiritual perfecting. They could not, to notice one aspect, 'cleanse the conscience from dead works to serve a living God' (v. 14).

For συνείδησις see Additional Note.

τὸν λατρεύοντα expresses each worshipper who approached God through the appointed minister. Compare c. x. 2 τοὺς λατρεύοντας (of the whole body); xiii. 10. For the absolute use of λατρεύω see x. 2 note.

(10). μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμ....δικ. σ.] Those offerings were unable to satisfy man's destiny being only ordinances of flesh combined with, resting upon, meats and drinks and divers washings.

The μόνον and the ἐπὶ βρώμ. both serve to limit and explain the character of the Mosaic institutions. These institutions were only ordinances of flesh, ordinances which dealt with that which is external (comp. c. vii. 16 κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης); and the accompaniments of the sacrifices, the personal requirements with which they were connected, indicated their purely outward significance.

Fur the use of the preposition ἐπί to express the accompanying circumstances or conditions see 1 Thess. iv. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 10; 2 Cor. ix. 6; Gal. v. 13; Eph. ii. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 14. Compare also vv. 15, 17; c. viii. 6; x. 28.

The reference in βρώμ καὶ πόμ. καὶ διαφ. βαπτ. is general, and must be taken to include the various Levitical regulations positive and negative as to meats and drinks, developed by tradition. The mention of 'drinks' has caused difficulty, for the Law gave no universal directions in this respect: so Theophylact asks: πῶς δὲ εἶπε πόμασι; καίτοι περὶ πομάτων διαφορᾶς οὐ διελάμβανεν ὁ νόμος; He suggests that the reference may be to the conditions of the Nazarite vow (Num. vi. 3), or to the injunctions laid upon the ministering priests (Lev. x. 9). Comp. Col. ii. 16.

For the 'different washings' see Mark vii. 4. Comp. Ex. xxix. 4; Lev. xi. 25, 28 ff.; xvi. 4, 24 ff.; Num. viii. 7; xix. 17, &c.

μέχρι κ. διορθ. ἐπικείμενα] The provisional character of the Levitical institutions illustrates their enactment. They were imposed until a season of reformation. The word διόρθωσις is not found elsewhere in biblical Greek. It is used in late Greek writers for the reformation of laws, institutions, states. Comp. Acts xxiv. 3 διόρθωμα. The verb διορθοῦν is used in the lxx. of 'amending ways': Jer. vii. 3, 5 (HebrewT3P0); comp. Wisd. ix. 18; and also of 'setting up,' 'establishing': Is. xvi. 5; lxii. 7 (Hebrewfljto). The thought of 'making straight, erect' passes naturally into that of 'making stable.'

Under different aspects this 'reformation' is spoken of as a 'restitution' (Acts iii. 21 ἀποκατάστασις), and a 'regeneration' (Matt. xix. 28 παλιγγενεσία).

The anarthrous form of the phrase (καιρὸς διορθώσεως) marks the character of the coming change. The very nature of the Law shewed that it was transitory, if it did not shew the definite issue to which it led.

The Greek commentators call attention 255 διορθώσεως ἐπικείμενα. ¹¹Χρίστὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος

to the force of the word ἐπικείμενα. Thus Theodoret: καλῶς τὸ ἐπέκειτο, βάρος γὰρ ἧν μόνον τὰ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ (Acts xv. 10, 28).

(2) ix. 11—28. The High-priestly Atonement under the New Covenant.

The work of the Jewish High-priest has been Indicated as the climax of the old system (v. 7); and the High-priestly work of Christ is now considered in contrast with it. The comparison is instituted in respect of that which was the unique and supreme privilege of the Levitical High-priest, the access to God on the Day of Atonement. Thus two main points come into consideration: the entrance of the High-priest into the Divine Presence, and the fact that the entrance was through blood.

Under this aspect the work of Christ is first (a) described generally in vv. 11, 12; and then the truths suggested (b) by the shedding of His Blood (vv. 13—22), and (c) by His entrance into the Presence of God whence He has not yet returned (23—28), are followed out in detail.

(a) A summary description of Christ's High-priestly work (11, 12).

The work of Christ as High-priest of the new order now established stands in sovereign superiority over that of the Levitical type in regard to scene, and offering, and efficacy. The tabernacle through which He ministered was not of this creation but heavenly (11 b). The blood through which He entered before God was not that of sacrificed animals but His own (12 a). The redemption which He obtained was not for a brief season but for ever (12 b).

¹¹But Christ, having come a High-priest of the good things realised, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of this creation, ¹²nor yet through blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, entered in once for all into the Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.

(11), (12). In contrast (Χριστὸς δέ) with the repeated entrance of the Jewish High-priest into the Holy of Holies through the blood of appointed victims Christ once for all entered into the true Sanctuary, the actual Presence of God, through His own blood, and obtained not a temporary but an eternal deliverance. Thus the contrast extends to the system (τὰ γενόμενα ἀγαθά), the place and mode of the Atonement (διὰ τῆς μ. καὶ τελ. σκ., διὰ τοῦ ἰδ. αἴ.), the issue (αἰών λύτρ.). In all these points the 'parable' finds fulfilment.

(11). Χριστὸς δέ...] But Christ having come a High-priest of good things realised...O. L. Christus autem, sacerdos quando advenit bonorum factorum. Vulg. Christus autem adsistens pontifex futurorum bonorum. For the simple Χριστός (contrast ὁ χριστός iii. 14 note) see v. 24; iii. 6.

παραγενόμενος] Christ has not only become (γενόμενος) High-priest as one of an appointed line, He has made His presence as High-priest felt among His people as sent from another realm to fulfil the office in part on earth.

So Chrysostom says: οὐκ εἶπε γενόμενος ἀλλὰ παραγενόμενος, τουτέστιν, εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐλθών, οὐχ ἕτερον διαδεξάμενος. οὐ πρότερον παρεγένετο καὶ τότε ἐγένετο ἀλλ' ἅμα ἧλθε.

The idea of παραγενέσθαι is that of coming to, reaching, being present at, some marked place or company. Compare Matt. iii. 1 παραγίνεται Ἰωἁνης. Luke xii. 51 δοκεῖτε ὅτε εἰρήνην παρεγενόμην δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ; Acts v. 21 (and often in that book).

ἀρχ. τῶν γενομένων ἀγ.] The title of Christ at once marks His absolute supremacy. Ho is a High-priest whose work deals with blessings which have been gained and which do not 256 ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν διὰ τῆς μείζονος

11 μελλόντων

11 γενομένων BD₂* syrr: μελλόντων אA vg syr hl mg me (æg) [comp. c. x. 1].

exist only in hope and prophecy. He is High-priest of the good things which are already realised by the fulfilment of the divine conditions, and which are not promised only and future. The same blessings can be spoken of as 'realised' in respect of Christ's work, and as 'future' in respect of the preparatory discipline of the law (c. x. 1), or the actual position of Christians (comp. c. xiii. 14). In this place it seems natural that 'the good things' should be spoken of as realised from the divine side. Even if men have not entered upon their inheritance, it is already gained. In c. x. 1 the case is different and there the reading (τῶν μελλ. ἀγ.) is undisturbed.

For the gen. τῶν γεν. ἀγ. compare c. iii. 1 ἀρχ. τῆς ὁμολογίας (dealing with and belonging to).

(11 b), (12). The Majesty of Christ's title ('High-priest of the good things realised') is justified by a description of His Work. In the circumstances and the effects of His High-priestly service He offers the heavenly counterpart of that which was exhibited under an earthly figure in the Mosaic system. This is shewn first in respect of the Tabernacle 'through which' Christ fulfils His work.

διὰ τῆς μ....οὐδὲ δι' αἵμ....διὰ δέ...] through the greater...nor yet through blood...but through his own...Vulg. per...tabernaculum...neque per sanguinem...sed per...sanguinem....It seems to be best to take the preposition in each case in the same general sense and to join both διὰ τῆς μ. καὶ τ. σκ. and διὰ τοῦ ἰδ. αἵ. with εἰσῆλθε. Christ employed in the fulfilment of His office 'the greater Tabernacle' and 'His own Blood' (compare the corresponding though not parallel use of διά in 1 John v. 6).

The local sense which has been given to διά in the first clause ('passing through the greater...tabernacle into the Presence of God') does not give a very clear thought. It is true indeed that the High-priest passed through 'the first tabernacle' to the Holy of Holies, but no such stress is laid on this 'passage through' as to make it the one thing noticeable in the Sanctuary. The outer Sanctuary was not merely a portal to the Holy of Holies but the appointed place of priestly service. And on the other hand the idea conveyed by this limited (local) sense of 'through' is included in the wider (instrumental) sense of 'through' which describes that which Christ used in His work.

In this work it must be observed that Christ is said to make use not of 'a greater tabernacle' but of 'the greater tabernacle,' 'the true, ideal, tabernacle' (c. viii. 2). The thought of the reader is thus carried back to the heavenly pattern which Moses followed (c. viii. 5 note; Ex. xxv. 9). The earthly Tabernacle witnessed not only to some nobler revelation of God's Presence, but definitely to the archetype after which it was fashioned.

What then is this heavenly Tabernacle? Some preparation will be made for the answer if we call to mind the two main purposes of the transitory Tabernacle. It was designed on the one hand to symbolise the Presence of God among His people; and on the other to afford under certain restrictions a means of approach to Him. The heavenly Tabernacle must then satisfy these two ends in the highest possible degree. It must represent the Presence of God, and offer a way of approach to God, being in both 257 καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς οὐ χειροποιήτου, τοῦτ'

respects eternal, spiritual, ideal (ἀληθινή c. viii. 2).

In seeking for some conception which shall satisfy these conditions it is obvious that all images of local circumscription must be laid aside, or, at least, used only by way of accommodation. The spiritual Tabernacle must not be defined by the limitations which belong to 'this creation.' We may then at once set aside all such interpretations as those which suppose that the lower heavens, through which Christ passed, or the supra-mundane realm, or the like, are 'the greater tabernacle.' We must look for some spiritual antitype to the local sanctuary.

And here we are brought to the patristic interpretation which it requires some effort to grasp. The Fathers both Greek and Latin commonly understood the greater Tabernacle to be the Lord's 'flesh,' or 'humanity.' Thus Chrysostom: τὴν σάρκα ἐνταῦθα λέγει. καλῶς δὲ καὶ μείζονα καὶ τελειοτέραν εἶπεν, εἴ γε ὁ θεὸς λόγος καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τοῦ πρεύματος ἐνέργεια ἐνοικεῖ ἐν αὐτῇ.

And Theodoret, followed by Œcumenius: σκηνὴν ἀχειροποίητον τὴν ἀντρωπείαν φύσιν ἐκάλεσεν ἥν ἀνέλαβεν ὁ δεσπότης Χριστὸς...οὐ κατὰ νόμον φύσεως τῆς ἐν τῇ κτίσει πολιτευομένης. Compare also Euthymius: διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου φημὶ σώματος ἐν ᾦ ᾢκησεν ἡ τούτου θεότησ, ὅ μεῖζον ὡς ἡνωμένον τῇ θεότητι τούτου πάντοτε.

And Primasius: Tabernaculum per quod assistit deo patri humanitas illius est.

In this connexion Chrysostom and Theophylact notice how the Lord's 'Body' and 'heaven' are each spoken of as 'a veil' and as 'a tabernacle.' The text of Chrysostom is confused, but Theophylact has preserved his meaning: καλεῖ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ σκηνήν, ὡς ἐνταῦθα, διὰ τὸ τὸν Μονογενῆ σκηνῶσαι ἐν αὐτῇ. καὶ καταπέτασμα, ὡς ἀποκρύπτουσαν τὴν θεότητα. καλεῖ καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν τοῖς αὐτοῖς τούτοις ὀνόμασι, σκηνήν, ὡς ἐκεῖ ὄντος τοῦ ἀρχιερέως. καταπέτασμα, ὡς ἀποτειχιζομένων τῶν ἁγίων δι'αὐτοῦ.

This interpretation was met by one interesting objection in early times: How could the Lord's Body be said to be 'not of this creation'? Was not this assertion, it was asked, a denial of His true humanity? ἐνταῦθα, Theophylact says, ἐπιπηδῶσιν οἱ αἱρετικοὶ λέγοντες οὐράνιον εὶναι τὸ σῶμα καὶ αἰθέριον. He replies that 'heaven' and 'sky' are themselves 'of this creation.' But Œcumenius meets the difficulty more satisfactorily by saying that under different aspects the Lord's Body was and was not 'of this creation': τὸ σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ ταύτης ἧν τῆς κτίσεως καὶ οὐ ταύτης, ταύτης μέν, κατὰ τὸ ἴσον εὶναι καὶ διὰ πάντων ὅμοιον τῷ ἡμετέρῳ σώματι, οὐ ταύτης δέ, κατὰ τὸ ἔχειν ἀσυγχύτως καὶ ἀδιαιρέτως τὴν θεότητα.

As far as the Lord's historical work on earth is concerned this interpretation is adequate. He was the perfect revelation of the Father and the way to Him. But in considering the ideal antitype, or rather archetype, of the Tabernacle we must take account of the Lord's ministry in heaven. In this (c. viii. 1 f.) the heavenly High-priest and the heavenly Tabernacle are in some sense distinguished; and the Lord acts as High-priest in His human Nature (c. iv. 14 ff.). Bearing this in mind we may perhaps extend the patristic conception so as to meet the difficulty, though, with our present powers of conceiving of divine things we must speak with the most reverent reserve. In this relation then it may be said that 'the greater and more perfect Tabernacle' of which Christ is minister, and (as we must add) in which the Saints worship, gathers up the various means under which God 258 ἔστιν οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως, ¹²οὐδὲ δι' αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ

reveals Himself in the spiritual order, and through which men approach to Him. Under one aspect these are represented by the union of the redeemed and perfected hosts made one in Christ as His Body. Through this glorified Church answering to the complete humanity which Christ assumed, God is made known, and in and through this each believer comes nigh to God. In this Body, as a spiritual Temple, Christ ministers. As members in this Body believers severally enjoy the Divine Presence. Thought fails us under the bondage of local limitations, and still we can dimly apprehend how we have opened to us in this vision the prospect of a spiritual reality corresponding to that which was material and earthly in the old ordinances of worship. It enables us to connect redeemed humanity with the glorified human Nature of the Lord, and to consider how it is that humanity, the summing-up of Creation, may become in Him the highest manifestation of God to finite being, and in its fulness that through which each part is brought near to God.

This heavenly Tabernacle is spoken of as greater and more perfect ( Vulg. amplius et perfectius), greater in comparison with the narrow limits of the earthly Tabernacle, more perfect as answering to the complete development of the Divine plan. And in its essential character it is not made by hands, that is, not of this creation (Vulg. non manu factum, id est, non hujus creationis). Human skill had nothing to do with its structure, for man's work finds its expression in the visible order of earth, to which this does not belong.

For ού χειροποίητον see v. 24; Mk. xiv. 58 (ἀχειροποίητος); 2 Cor. v. 1 (οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς). Compare Acts vii. 48; xvii. 24. For οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως compare 2 Cor. iv. 18 τὰ γὰρ βλεπόμενα πρόσκαιρα, τὰ δὲ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια; c. viii. 2 ἡ σκηνὴ ἡ ἀληθινὴ ἔπηξεν ὁ Κύριος; and for κτίσις, Rom. viii. 19 ff.

Philo, in a striking passage, speaks of the world as 'the house and city' of the first man μηδεμιᾶς χειροποιήτου κατασκευῆς δεδημιουργημένης ἐκ λίθων καὶ ξύλων ὕλης.

(12 a). A second point which marks the heavenly character of Christ's work is seen in the nature of His offering. He made not a twofold offering but one only. He entered into the Holy place through His own Blood, and that once for all.

οὐδὲ δι' αἵμ. τράγ. καῖ μόσχ.] nor yet through blood of goats and bulls....The οὐδέ seems to be due to the preceding οὐ χειρ. as if the sentence had run οὐ διὰ χειροπ....οὐδὲ δι' αἵματος...The goat was the offering for the people (Lev. xvi. 15): the bullock for the High-priest himself (Lev. xvi. 11). The plural generalises the thought. The words used in the lxx. version of Leviticus are μόσχος and χίμαρος. Symmachus and Aquila seem to have used τράγος for χίμαρος. The phrase τράγοι καὶ ταῦροι (v. 13) gives the form in which the reference to animal victims would be popularly expressed. Compare Ps. xlix. 13; Is. i. 11 (elsewhere μόσχος seems to be always used in the lxx.).

διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδ. αἵμ....τὰ ἅγια] but through His own blood (He) entered once for all into the Holy place, the immediate Presence of God in heaven (see v. 8 note).

The use of διά as marking the means but not defining the mode (μετά) is significant when taken in connexion with v. 7 (oὐ χωρίς). The earthly High-priest took with him 259 εἰς τὰ ἅγια, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος. ¹³εἰ γὰρ τὸ

the material blood: Christ 'through His own blood' entered into the Presence of God, but we are not justified in introducing any material interpretations of the manner in which He made it efficacious. Comp. c. xiii. 12 διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος: Acts xx. 28 ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.

ἐφάπαξ] See vii. 27 note. Christ did not need (like the Jewish High-priest) a double entrance, even as He did not need to repeat His entrance. One entrance left the way open for ever. The 'veil was rent' (Matt. xxvii. 51). There was no longer any obstacle interposed between the worshipper—for all are now priests (Apoc. i. 6)—and the Object of his worship.

(12 b). A third element in the absolute supremacy of Christ's High-priesthood lies in the abiding efficacy of His One priestly act. He obtained an eternal Redemption in contrast with the limited, recurrent, redemption of the yearly Atonement.

αἰων. λύτρ. εὑρ.] having obtained eternal redemption, Vulg. æterna inventa redemptione, O. L. æterna expiatione reperta. In combination with εἰσῆλθεν, εὑράμενος may express a coincident (comp. c. ii. 10 note), or a precedent fact: 'Christ entered...therein obtaining' or 'Christ entered...having already obtained.' The choice between these senses will be decided by the meaning given to 'redemption.' If 'redemption' is the initial work, the conquest of death (c ii. 14 f.), then this was completed in the Passion and Resurrection; but it seems more natural to find the fulness of the word satisfied in the Triumph of the Ascension. Compare Additional Note on λύτρωσις.

The form εὑράμενος is found here only in the Ν. T. The force of the middle voice (compare c. i. 3 ποιησάμενος) is that of 'having obtained as the issue of personal labour' directed to this end.

Chrysostom sees an emphatic sense in the word: σφόδρα τῶν ἀπόρων ἣν καὶ τῶν παρὰ προσδοκίαν πῶς διὰ μιᾶς εἰσόδου αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὕρατο.

And so Theophylact: ὅρα δὲ καὶ τὸ εὑρόμενος, ὡς παρὰ προσδοκίαν γενομένου τοῦ πράγματος οὕτω ταύτῃ τῇ λέξει ἐχρήσατο. ἅπορον γὰρ ἧν τὸ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἡμῖν, ἀλλ' αὐτὸς εὗρε τοῦτο.

Œcumenius also touches upon the voice: εὑράμενος...οὐχ ἑαυτῷ, πῶς γὰρ ὁ ἀναμάρτητος; ἀλλὰ τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ. η ἐπειδὴ κεφαλὴ τῆς ἀντρωπότητος ἠξίωσεν εἶναι, τὰ ἡμῖν κατορθωθέντα αὐτῷ κατωρθῶσθαι λέγει ὁ ἀπόστολος.

(b) The truths taught by the shedding of Christ's Blood (vv. 13—22).

The thoughts springing out of the fulfilment of Christ's High-priestly work which have found a summary expression in vv. 11, 12 are developed in the remainder of the chapter. The efficacy of Christ's Blood is (α) first contrasted with that of the Jewish victims as a purifying power (13, 14); and then a new thought is introduced, which arises from the extension of the virtue of Christ's Blood to His people. The Blood is (β) the ratification of a new Covenant, as comprehensive in its application as the blood 'of the calves and the goats' by which the Old Covenant was ratified (15—22).

¹³For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctifieth unto the cleanness of the flesh, ¹⁴how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through His eternal spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to the end that we may serve a living God? ¹⁵And for this reason He is mediator of a new covenant, in order that a death having taken place for redemption 260 αἷμα τράγων καὶ ταύρων καὶ σποδὸς δαμάλεως ῥαντίζουσα τοὺς κεκοινωμένους ἁγιάζει πρὸς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς

13 τρ. καὶ ταύρ. אABD₂ vg syr vg me (æg): ταύρ. καὶ τρ. S syr hl. κεκοιν.: κεκοιμημένους D₂*.

from the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. ¹⁶For where there is a covenant, the death of him that made it must needs be presented. ¹⁷For a covenant is sure where there hath been death; since it doth not ever have force when he that made it liveth. ¹⁸Whence not even hath the first covenant been inaugurated without blood. ¹⁹For when every commandment had been spoken according to the Law by Moses to all the people, taking the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, ²⁰saying This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to youward. ²¹And the tabernacle also and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood ²²And I may almost say, it is in blood all things are cleansed according to the Law, and apart from outpouring of blood there cometh no remission.

(a) vv. 13, 14. A sense of difficulty might arise at the prospect of the vast claim which has been made for Christ's work. How, it might be asked, can it avail for ever? The Mosaic institutions furnish the answer.

The ritual purification of the Jewish system had a limited validity. It was directed to that which was outward. In this respect it removed outward defilement, and gave outward cleanness. If then it availed within its proper sphere, much more (we may confidently conclude) the blood of Christ will avail within its proper sphere, which is spiritual. The consequence which follows in the one case is (so to speak) due to an arbitrary enactment: the consequence in the other case lies in the very nature of things. The conclusion rests upon the comparison of a twofold relation, the relation of the blood of Christ to the blood of animals, and the relation of the inward sphere of religion to the outward.

(13). Two typical examples of the purificatory Levitical sacrifices are taken in illustration: the yearly sacrifices 'of goats and bulls' on the day of Atonement (Lev. xvi), and the occasional sacrifice of the red heifer (Num. xix.). The first regarded the impurity contracted from daily action, the second the impurity contracted from contact with death.

τράγων καὶ ταύρων] Comp. v. 12 note.

σποδὸς δαμάλεως] In this case the blood of the sacrifice was also burnt: Num. xix. 5.

ῥαντίζουσα τοὺς κεκοιν. ἁγ...] sprinkling them that have been defiled, who by a definite act have contracted some stain, sanctifieth unto the cleanness of the flesh...Vulg. adspersus (O.L. sparsus) inquinatos sanctificat ad emundationem carnis (O.L. ad emundandam carnem). For the use of the word κεκοινωμένους, which is not found in the lxx., see Matt. xv. 11 ff.; Acts xxi. 28. The accus. depends on βαντίζσυσα: Ρs. l. (li.) 9 ῥαντιεῖς με ὑσσώπῳ. The verb ῥαντίζειν occurs in the N.T. only in this Epistle: vv. 19, 21; x. 22 note. In the lxx. the form ῥαίνειν is more common. The 'water of separation (impurity)' is called in the lxx. ὕδωρ ῥαντισμοῦ, Num. xix. 9, 13, 20 f.

Theophylact calls attention to the distinction between ἁγιάζει, 261 καθαρότητα, ¹⁴πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ αἷμα τοῦ χριστοῦ, ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν ἄμωμον τῷ

14 αἰωνίου א* ΑΒ syrr: ἁγίου א* D₂* vg me (æg).

sanctifieth,' 'halloweth,' in regard to destination, and καθαρίζει (v. 14 καθαριεῖ), 'cleanseth' in regard to character: ὅρα δὲ σύνεσιν, οὐκ εἶπεν ὅτι ἐκαθάρισε τὸ αἷμα τῶν τράγων, ἀλλ' ἡγίαζεν...ἐκεῖ μὲν εἶπε τὸ ἁγιάζει...ἐνταῦθα δὲ καθαριεὶ εἰπὼν ἔδειξεν εὐθὺς τὴν ὑπεροχήν.

The idea is that of the ceremonial parity which enabled the Jew to enjoy the full privileges of his covenant worship and fellowship with the external Church of God. The force of the words καθαρός, ἅγιος—moral, external: ideal, personal—is determined by the context.

(14). πόσῳ μᾶλλον] The superior efficacy of Christ's Blood is based generally on the considerations that His Sacrifice was

(1). Voluntary, not by constraint as in the case of the animal sacrifices of the Law.

(2). Rational, and not animal.

(3). Spontaneous, not in obedience to α direct commandment.

(4). Moral, an offering of Himself by the action of the highest power in Himself; whereby He stood in connexion with God, and not a mere mechanical performance of α prescribed rite.

Comp. John x. 17 f.

τὸ αἷμα τοῦ χριστοῦ] The blood of Christ stands parallel both to the blood of goats and bulls and to the ashes of the heifer, as the means (1) of atonement for sins, and (2) of purification from contact with death: of access to God and of life in His Church.

It will be observed that it is not the death of the victim as suffering, but the use of the Blood (that is, the Life) which is presented here as the source of purification.

The efficacy of Blood—the life, Lev. xvii. 11—is regarded in different aspects in this passage. Now one aspect predominates and now another. It is a means of atonement, and it is a means of purification: it has a power retrospectively and prospectively. Death again, which makes the blood available, is the seal of the validity of a covenant. But no one view exhausts the meaning of that which is the fulness of a life made available for others. Compare Additional Note on 1 John i. 7.

ὃς...ἑαυτ. προς. ἄμωμον τ. θ.] who through His eternal spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, Vulg. qui per spiritum sanctum semetipsum obtulit immaculatum Deo. The sacrifice upon the altar of the Cross preceded the presentation of the blood. The phrase ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν clearly fixes the reference to this initial act of Christ's High-priestly sacrifice. This act He accomplished διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου. In virtue of His inseparable and unchangeable Divine Nature Christ was Priest while He was victim also. He offered Himself, living through death and in death. Epiphanius puts together the different aspects of Christ's work in His sacrifice of Himself in a striking passage: αὐτὸς ἱερεῖον, αὐτὸς θῦμα, αὐτὸς ἱερεύς, αὐτὸς θυσιαστήριον, αὐτὸς θεός, αὐτὸς ἄντρωπος, αὐτὸς βασιλεύς, αὐτὸς ἀρχιερεύς, αὐτὸς πρόβατον, αὐτὸς ἀρνίον, τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γενόμενος, ἵνα ἡμῖν ζωὴ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον γένηται...(Hær. iv. § 4, 471 f.).

The absence of the article from πνεῦμα αἰώνιον marks the spirit here as a power possessed by Christ, His 'Spirit.' It could not be said of any man absolutely that his spirit is eternal; but Christ's Spirit is in virtue of His Divine Personality eternal. By this, while truly man, He remained in unbroken connexion with God. 262 θεῷ, καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν ἡμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔpγwv

14 ὑμῶν

καθαρ.: + δε' καθαρ. D₂* [Β ends with mfc]. ἡμῶν AD₂ (vg) syr vg me: ὑμῶν א (vg) syr hl.

Through this He had 'the power of an indissoluble life' (c. vii. 16).

The truth will become clearer if we go yet a step further. In men the 'spirit' is, as has been said, that by which they are capable of connexion with God. But in Christ, who did not cease to be the Son of God by becoming man, the 'spirit' is to be regarded as the seat of His Divine Personality in His human Nature. So far the πνεῦμα αἰώνιον included the limited πνεῦμα of the Lord's humanity. This πνεῦμα, having its own proper existence, was in perfect harmony with the πνεῦμα αἰώνιον. (Comp. ep. Barn. vii. 3 ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτιῶν ἔμελλεν τὸ σκεῦος τοῦ πρεύματος προσφέρειν θυσίαν.)

This 'eternal spirit' obtained complete sovereignty at the Resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 45); and it is probably by reference to this fact that the difficult passage 2 Cor. iii. 17 ff. is to be explained. See also 1 Pet. iii. 18.

Another more obvious thought lies in the phrase.

Other sacrifices were wrought by the hand, being outward acts of flesh, but this was wrought by that which is highest in man's nature whereby he holds fellowship with God, being a truly spiritual act. Chrysostom indicates this thought under another aspect: τὸ διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου (so he reads) δηλοῖ ὅτι οὐ διὰ πυρὸς προσήνεκται οὐδὲ δι' ἄλλων τινῶν, though this is but a small part of the meaning. Comp. Euthymius: διὰ τινος πυρὸς ὡλοκαύτωσεν ἑαυτὸν τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἄμωμον καλλείρημα.

For ἑαυτ. προς. τῷ θεῷ, compare c. vii. 27 note, vv. 25, 28 (προσενεχθείς). See also c. xi. 4; John xvi. 2.

The epithet ἄμωμον describes Christ as a perfect victim. That which was required outwardly in the Levitical victims was satisfied absolutely by Christ.

The word ἄμωμος is used technically in this sense in the lxx. (e.g. Ex. xxix. 1 HebrewDnpJJ). Comp. Philo de agric. § 29 (i. 320 M.); de merc. mer. § 1 (ii. 265 M.) Δεῖ δὴ τὸν μέλλοντα θύειν σκέπρεσθαι μὴ εἰ τὸ ἱερεῖον ἄμωμον, ἀλλ'εἰ ἡ διάνοια ὁλόκληρος αὐτῷ καὶ παντελὴς καθέστηκε. The connexion in which it stands shews that it refers here to the conditions and issue of the Lord's earthly life.

καθαριεῖ...θεῷ ζῶντι] (shall) cleanse our (your) conscience from dead works to the end that we (ye) may serve a living God. Vulg. emundabit conscientiam vestram ab operibus mortuis ad serviendum Deo viventi. The action of the blood of Christ is not to work any outward change but to communicate a vital force. It removes the defilement and the defiling power of 'dead works,' works which are done apart from Him who is 'the life' (comp. c. vi. 1 note). These stain the conscience and communicate that pollution of death which outwardly 'the water of separation' was designed to remove. The Levitical ritual contemplated a death external to the man himself: here the effects of a death within him are taken away.

For καθαρίζειν compare Acts xv. 9; Eph. v. 26; Tit. ii. 14; 1 John i. 7, 9; c. x. 2; c. i. 3 (καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος).

Καθαρός as distinguished from ἅγιος marks what the object is itself ('clean' ceremonially or morally), while ἅγιος marks its destination.

τὴν συνείδησιν] Comp. v. 9 note.

Chrysostom says on 'dead works': καλῶς αἶπεν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων, εἴ τις γὰρ ἥψατο τότε νεκροῦ ἐμιαίνετο. καὶ νταῦθα εἴ τις ἄψαιτο νεκροῦ ἔργου 263 εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν θεῷ ζῶ ζῶντι. ¹⁵Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν, ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν λάβωσιν οἱ κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου

θ. ζ.: τῷ θ. τῷ ζ. D₂*: + καὶ ἀληθινῷ A me (1 Thess. i. 9).

μολύνεται διὰ τῆς συνειδήσεως, and again τὰ παρ'ἡμῖν καὶ ζῶντα καὶ ἀληθινά, ἐκεῖνα δὲ τὰ παρὰ Ἱουδαίοις καὶ νεκρὰ καὶ ψευδῆ.

εἰς τὸ λατρ. θ. ζ.] Purity is not the end but the means of the new life. The end of the restored fellowship is energetic service to Him Who alone lives and gives life. The thought of performing certain actions is replaced by that of fulfilling a personal relation.

This service is specifically the service of a sacred ministry of complete surrender (λατρεύειν). Compare Apoc. xxii. 3 οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ, and contrast 1 Thess. i. 9 δουλεύειν θ. ζ. καὶ ἀληθινῷ. Acts xx. 19 δουλεύων τῷ Κυρίῳ. Rom. xiv. 18 δουλεύων τῷ χριστῷ. xvi. 18 τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Χριστῷ οὐ δουλεύουσιν. Col. iii. 24 τῷ Κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε.

For θεὸς ζῶν see c. iii. 12 note.

(β) vv. 15—22. From the thought of the efficacy of Christ's Blood as the means through which He entered into the Divine Presence and cleanses the individual conscience the writer of the Epistle goes on to shew that through the shedding of His Blood came the inauguration of a new Covenant. The idea of death gives validity to the compact which it seals (15—17); and the communication of the blood of the victim to those with whom God forms a covenant unites them to Him with a power of life, a principle which was recognised in the ritual ordinances of the Mosaic system (18—22).

(15). καὶ διὰ τ....μες. ἐ.] And for this reason, even that the Blood of Christ purifies the soul with a view to a divine service, He is mediator of a new covenant...Vulg. Et ideo novi testamenti mediator (O. L. arbiter) est. The transition from the thought of the one all-efficacious atonement to that of the corresponding covenant is natural. The new internal and spiritual relation of man to God established by Christ involved of necessity a New Covenant. The Blood-the Life-of Christ, which was the source and support of the life, was the seal of the Covenant.

The words διαθήκης μεσίτης go back to the prophetic promise c. viii. 8, which found its fulfilment in Christ. The emphasis lies on the phrase new covenant and specially upon the word covenant. It is of interest to notice the variation of emphasis in 2 Cor. iii. 6 διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης and here διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης. For διαθήκη compare c. vii. 22; vii. 6 note, and xii. 24; and for μεσίτης c. viii. 6 note; xii. 24; Gal. iii. 19 f.; 1 Tim. ii. 5.

ὅπως θαν. γεν....τὴν ἐπαγγ. λάβ....] that a death having taken place for redemption from the transgressions that were under the first covenant they that have been called may receive...Vulg. ut morts intercedente in redemptionem earum prævaricationum quæ erant...The Old Covenant had been proved incapable of bringing men to perfection. God therefore provided them with fresh and more powerful help. At the same time He opened to them a nobler view of their end. In place of a material inheritance He shewed them an eternal inheritance. And the aim of the New Covenant was the attainment of the spiritual realities shadowed 264 forth in the temporal blessings of Israel.

But the establishment of a New Covenant, a new and permanent relation between God and man, required as its preliminary condition the discharge of man's existing obligations. The sins which the Law had set in a clear light could not be ignored. The atonements provided for sin under the Law could not but be felt to be inadequate. They were limited in their application and so to speak arbitrary. Christ at last offered the sacrifice, perfect in efficacy and moral value, to which they pointed. This sacrifice was the characteristic basis of the New Covenant (c. viii. 12).

Thus the death of Christ appears under a twofold aspect. His Blood is the means of atonement and the ratification of the Covenant which followed upon it

For γενέσθαι εἰς compare Mk. xiv. 4 εἰς τί...γέγονεν; and with different shades of meaning Lk. xiii. 19; Matt. xxi. 42 (lxx.); Rom. xi. 9 (lxx.); 1 Cor. xv. 45 (lxx.); Apoc. viii. 11; xvi. 19; Acts v. 36; 1 Thess. iii. 5; i. 5; 2 Cor. viii. 14; Gal. iii. 14; Eph. iv. 32. Γεν. πρός occurs 1 Pet. iv. 12.

The phrase εἰς ἀπολ. τῶν...παραβάσεων is remarkable: for redemption from the transgressions... from their consequences and their power. The genitive expresses in a wide sense the object on which the redemption is exercised ('redemption in the matter of the transgressions,' 'transgression-redemption'). So it is that elsewhere the genitive is used for that which is delivered: Rom. viii. 23 τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος. Eph. i. 14 εἰς ἀπολ. τῆς περιποιήσεως.

The transgressions are spoken of as 'the transgressions that were under the first covenant.' The phrase is general in its application. It includes all transgressions committed on the basis of Law, all transgressions against the revealed will of God made known as Law. Ἐπί expresses the conditions, the accompanying circumstances, under which anything takes place, see v. 10.

In this connexion the covenant with Abraham (Acts iii. 25) does not come into consideration. It was of the nature of a universal promise. The 'first covenant' was that between God and the Jewish people represented by Moses: the 'new covenant' that between God and men represented by Christ.

When the necessary condition has been satisfied (θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπ. τῶν...παραβάσεων) scope is given for the positive fulfilment of the Covenant, that they that have been called may receive in fact what had been promised before. Compare vi. 12 κληρονομούντων τὰς ἐπαγγ. vi. 15; x. 36; xi. 13, 39; Gal. iii. 14.

The blessing is no longer limited to a particular people. It is for all to whom the invitation has been sent (Acts ii. 39; comp. iii. 1).

The phrase oἱ κεκλημένοι, which occurs nowhere else in the epistles, is an echo of the Parables: Matt. xxii. 3, 4, 8; Luke xiv. 17, 24; comp. Apoc. xix. 9. The word κλητοί, though not very common, has a wide range (Rom., 1 Cor., Jude, Apoc.).

τὴν ἐπαγγ....τῆς αἱ. κληρ.] The position of the gen. dependent on τὴν ἐπ. is due to the fact that it is added as a further definition of the promise (comp. xii. 11 note). The sentence stands essentially complete without it: *that they that have been called may receive the promise (comp. c. vi. 15). But the explanation is naturally suggested by the thought of the contrast of the Old and the New. Moses secured to the people an 'inheritance,' which was however only a figure of that which was prepared (comp. Ex. xxxii. 13).

(16), (17). The mention of a 'new covenant' and of 'death' in close connexion suggests a fresh thought. The Death of Christ fulfilled two distinct purposes. It provided an 265 κληρονομίας. ¹⁶ὅπόυ γὰρ διαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου. ¹⁷διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὶ

atonement for past sins; and, besides this, it provided an absolute ratification of the Covenant with which it was connected.

The Death set man free: the Covenant gave him the support which he required. The Death removed the burden of the past: the Covenant provided for the service of the future.

In any case a covenant is ratified by the death of a representative victim. But here Christ died in His own Person; and by thus dying He gave absolute validity to the covenant which He mediated: the preceding thought of the atonement shews how such a covenant was possible.

The Death of Christ was a chief difficulty of the Hebrews, and therefore the writer presents it under different aspects in order to shew its full significance in the Christian dispensation.

For a justification of the interpretation of the following verses see the Additional Note.

(16). ὅπου γάρ...διαθεμένου] For where there is a covenant the death of him that made it must needs be presented. Vulg. Ubi enim testamentum more necesse est intercedat testatoris. The circumstances under which the New Covenant was made, however unlooked for in man's anticipation of the Christ (τοῦτο τὸ ταράσσον αὐτοὺς τὸ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ Χριστοῦ Œcum.), are to deeper thought most intelligible, for an unchangeable covenant implies death. It is not said that he who makes the covenant 'must die,' but that his death must be 'brought forward,' 'presented,' 'introduced upon the scene,' 'set in evidence,' so to speak. This sense of φέρεσθαι appears to be perfectly natural, and to be more simple than the sense commonly attributed to the word, either 'to be alleged' as a fact, or to be pleaded in the course of an argument, or to be 'current' as a matter of common notoriety.

He who makes the covenant (ὁ διαθέμενος) is, for the purposes of the covenant, identified with the victim by whose representative death the covenant is ordinarily ratified. In the death of the victim his death is presented symbolically.

In the case of the New Covenant Christ in His Divine-human Person represented God who reveals through and in Him the unfailing greatness of the divine love, and at the same time He represented the complete self-surrender of humanity. A covenant so made could not fail. The weakness and instability of men had no longer any place. The thought expressed by the representative victim had become an eternal fact.

(17). διαθήκη γάρ...διαθέμενος] For a covenant is sure where there hath been death, since it doth not ever have force when he that made it liveth. Vulg. Testamentum enim in mortuis confirmatum est; alioquin nondum valet dum vivit qui testatus est. The statement which has been made is supported by an explanation which is borrowed from ancient usage and language. A solemn covenant was made upon the basis of a sacrifice. The death of the victim was supposed to give validity to it. The idea which is involved in the symbolic act is intelligible and important. The unchangeableness of a covenant is seen in the fact that he who has made it has deprived himself of all further power of movement in this respect: while the ratification by death is still incomplete, while the victim, the representative of him who makes It, still lives, that is, while he who makes it still possesses the full power of action and freedom to change, the covenant is not of force.

The sense here given to the death 266 μή ποτε ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῃ ὁ διαθεμένος. ¹⁸Ὅθεν αὐδὲ ἡ πρώτῃ χωρὶς αἵματος ένκεκαίνισται. ¹⁹λαληθείσης γὰρ

17 μὴ τότε id. διαθέμενος;

17 μέ ποτε א* Α: μὴ τότε א* D₂* [the verss. are free]. 18 ἡ πρ.: + διαθήκη D₂*.

of the victim appears more natural than to suppose that it indicates the penalty for the violation of the covenant.

For the sense of ἐπί (ἐπὶ νεκροῖς), as giving the accompanying conditions, see v. 10 note, and compare also Lev. xxi. 5 (lxx.); Eurip. Ion, 228 f.

The subjective negative may be explained on the principle that the reason alleged is regarded as a thought (John iii. 18) and not as a fact. The clause may be taken interrogatively (for is it ever of force...? John vii. 26); so Œcumenius: κατ' ἐρώτησιν άνάγνωθι. Perhaps this best suits the rhetorical form of the passage.

If the reading μὴ τότε is adopted, and it has high claims on consideration, the rendering will necessarily be: since hath it then force when...?

18—22. The great, inaugurating, sacrifice of the Old Covenant embodied the same thought that death marks the immutability of the terms laid down (Ex. xxiv.); and yet more: this death also was employed to convey the thought of atonement, of life surrendered that it may be given back. The blood was sprinkled on the altar and on the people. Thus the law which was enacted for the yearly access of the High-priest to the Divine Presence (v. 7 οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος) was observed when the people entered into the Divine Covenant.

In relation to the use which is made of this thought, it is important to observe, that it is not said of the first covenant that it was inaugurated 'not without death' but 'not without blood.' By the use of the words 'not without blood' the writer of the Epistle suggests the two ideas of atonement and quickening by the impartment of a new life which have been already connected with Christ's work (vv. 14, 15).

(18). ὅθεν...ἐνκεκαίνισται] (Vulg. dedicatum est) whence, since every absolute, inviolable, covenant is based upon a death, and, further, since every covenant of God with man requires complete self-surrender on the part of man, not even hath the first covenant, though it failed in its issue, been inaugurated without blood.

The word ἐγκαινίζω occurs again in the N. T. in c. x. 20, note. It is used several times in the lxx. to render Hebrewfi^O (to renew, e.g. 1 Sam. xi. 14) and HebrewVp (to dedicate, e.g. 1 K. viii. 63).

Compare 1 Macc. iv. 36, 54, 57; and τὰ ἐνκαίνια John x. 22.

(19). λαληθείσης γάρ...] Vulg. lecto enim omni mandato legis....The ceremonies connected with the establishment of the Law-Covenant emphasise the ideas already seen to be involved in 'blood'; for when every commandment had been spoken according to the Law by Moses...taking the blood... The terms of the divine covenant were declared fully to the people (Ex. xxiv. 3) and they expressed their acceptance of them (id.). Then an altar was built 'and twelve pillars.' Burnt-offerings were offered and peace-offerings were sacrificed (vv. 4, 5). Half the blood was sprinkled upon the altar: half was sprinkled over the people (vv. 6, 8).

These sacrifices were offered by young men of the children of Israel, representatives of the fulness of the people's life (Ex. xxiv. 5). The ordinances of the Levitical priesthood were not yet given (Ex. xxviii.); though some form of priesthood still 267 πάσης ἐντολῆς κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὑπὸ Μωυσέως παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, λαβὼν τὸ αἷμα τῶν μόσχων καὶ τῶν τράγων μετὰ ὕδατος καὶ ἐρίου κοκκίνου καὶ ὑσσώπου αὐτό τε τὸ

19 π. ἐντ.: π. τῆς ἐντ. D₂*. τὸν ν. א* ACD₂*: om. τὸν S א*. ὑπὸ Μ.: om. ὑπό D₂*. τῶν μ. καὶ τῶν τράγων א* AC: τῶν τρ. καὶ τῶν μόσχων D₂: om. καὶ τῶν τρ. א* syrr: om. τῶν 2° S.

remained (Ex. xix. 22). Compare Ex. xix. 6.

In this connexion Philo speaks of Moses as ἀρχιερεύς: Quis r. d. hær. § 38 (i. 498 Μ.) θαυμαστὴ μέντοι καὶ ἡ τῶν θυσιῶν αἵματος ἵση διανομή, ἥν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς Μωὒσῆς φύσει διδασκάλῳ χρησόμενος διένειμε.

It is of interest to notice that 'sprinkling of persons with blood' is noticed in the Ο. T. only on one other occasion: Ex. xxix. 21 (the consecration of Aaron).

The words according to the law go with spoken. Every commandment was spoken by Moses 'according to the tenor of the Law' in which they were included. The Law represented the sum of the whole revelation made to Moses. The separate fundamental commandments which preceded the conclusion of the covenant were fashioned (so to speak) after its scope.

The word λαλεῖν is used frequently in the Epistle of divine communications: i. 1 f.; ii. 2 f.; iii. 5; iv. 8; v. 5; vii. 14; xi. 18; xii. 25.

λ. τὸ αἷμα τῶν μ. καὶ τῶν τ....] taking the blood of the calves and the goats...Goats are not directly spoken of in the Mosaic narrative (Ex. xxiv. 5) and Philo notices the fact: Non autem agni neque hædi (offeruntur); quia hæ bestiæ vitule debiliores sunt; sacrificium vero ex fortioribus videtur (volie) facere (Quæst. in Ex. l. c.).

The addition is the more remarkable because the offering of a goat (i.e. τράγος, see Dillmann on Lev. i. 10) is never prescribed in the Law except as a sin-offering; while the sacrifices in Ex. xxiv. are described as 'burnt-offerings' and 'peace-offerings.' Yet see Num. vii. 17, 23, 29, 35, &c.

At the same time the use of the definite article (τῶη μ. καὶ τῶν τρ.) points distinctly to the sacrifices offered at the inauguration of the Law.

The explanation of the difficulty is probably to be found in the fact that these sacrifices were not made according to the Mosaic ritual. They were initiatory sacrifices offered not by priests but by the 'young men,' representing the people, and so partook of the patriarchal type. Under this aspect it is noticeable that in the record of the original covenant-sacrifice of Abraham 'a heifer of three years old and a she goat of three years old' are specially mentioned (Gen. xv. 9).

τὸ αἷμα] He used half the blood for the sprinkling: Ex. xxiv. 6.

μετὰ ὕδ....καὶ ὕσσ.] These details are not given in Exodus. Water is mentioned in connexion with blood Lev. xiv. 5 f. (comp. Num. xix. 9) in the purification of the leper, when also a sprinkler of 'cedar wood and scarlet and hyssop' was used (Lev. xiv. 4: comp. Num. xix. 18).

Compare Philo de vict. offer. § 3, ii. 252 f. Barn. Ep. c. 8.

For κόκκινος compare Clem. 1 Cor. c. 12 (in reference to Josh. ii. 18 το σπαρτίον τὸ κόκκινον), πρόδηλον πoιοῦντες ὅτι τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου λύτρωσις ἔσται....See also Barn. Ep. c. 7. The significance of blood and water is marked 1 John v. 6; John xix. 34.

αὐτό τε τὸ βιβλ.] i.e. the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxiv. 7). This detail also is an addition to the Mosaic 268 βιβλίον καὶ πάντα τὸν λαὸν ἐράντισεν, ²°λέγων Toῦτο τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης ἦς ἐνετείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός. ²¹καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν δὲ καὶ πάντα τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας τῷ αἵματι ὁμοίως ἐράντισεν. ²²καὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματι πάντα

20 ἐνετείλατο: διέθετο C (Ex. xxiv. 8 lxx.).

narrative. Though 'the Book' was the record of the words of God it was outwardly the work of man, and so required the application of the purifying, vivifying, blood. Thus in a figure the 'letter' received a power of life.

πάντα τὸν λαόν] all the people: not of course literally ('every individual of the people') but representatively. All were present, and the act of sprinkling was directed to all.

For ἐράντισεν see v. 13 note.

(20). τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα τ. δ.] The words in Ex. xxiv. 8 are Ἰδοὺ (so Hebr.) τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης ἧς διέθετο Κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων τῶν λύγων τούτων. It is possible that the corresponding phrase at the institution of the New Covenant (Matt. xxvi. 28) may have influenced the quotation.

The force of the words is: 'This Blood shed, offered, sprinkled upon you, shews the validity and the power of the purpose of God.' So Primasius: ac si diceret: Hæc est confirmatio hujus testamenti quod mandavit ad vos Deus.

ἐνετ. πρὸς ὑμᾶς] commanded to youward,...Vulg. mandavit ad vos, to be brought to you; you were the people to whom the Lord looked in the commandments which He gave me. The full construction appears in Ecclus. xlv. 3 ἐνετείλατο αὐτᾦ [Μωυσεῖ] πρὸς λαὸν αὐτοῦ. Yet comp. Acts iii. 25 διαθ. ἧς ὁ θεὸς διέθετο πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας....

The sprinkling of the Tabernacle and its vessels took place at a later time. They were not yet made when the Sacrifice of the Covenant was offered. Moreover it is not recorded in the Pentateuch that the Tabernacle was sprinkled with blood, though it 'and all that was therein' was anointed with oil (Ex. xl. 9; comp. Philo, Vit. Mos. iii. § 18; ii. 158 M.). But Josephus, like the writer of the Epistle, regards the Tabernacle as having been consecrated with blood: τὴν τε σκηνήν, καὶ τὰ περὶ αὐτὴν σκεύη ἐλαίῳ τε προθυμιωμένῳ καθὼς εἶπον καὶ τῲ αἵματι τῶν ταύρων καὶ κριῶν σφαγέντων καθ' ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἑνὸς κατὰ γένος [ἐθεράπευε] (Antt. iii. 8, 6).

(21). καί...δέ...] And the tabernacle also.... Vulg. Etiam (tabernaculum). The combination is found here only in the Epistle. It occurs in the Epistles of St Paul, Rom. xi. 23 κἀκεῖνοι δέ; 1 Tim. iii. 10 καὶ οὗτοι δέ; 2 Tim. iii. 12 καὶ πάντες δέ. Comp. 1 John i. 3 note.

τᾦ αἵματι] with the blood. The definite form (contrast v. 22 ἐν αἵματι, xii. 24 αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ) is used to bring out the thought that this was not the ordinary blood of purification, but the blood of the covenant, the blood of inauguration.

(22). καὶ σχ. ἐν αἵμ. π.] The position of σχεδόν, separated from πάντα by ἐv αἵματι, shews that it qualifies the whole of the following clause: And, I may almost say, it is in blood all things...The position of ἐν αἵμ. is significant. Blood was the characteristic mean for cleansing, though fire and water were also used. It is the power of a pure life which purifies. Under this aspect the Blood becomes, as it were, the enveloping medium in which (ἐv), and not simply the means or instrument through or by which, the complete purification is effected.

The main reference is naturally to the service of the Day of Atonement. 269 καθαρίζεται κατὰ τὸν νόμον, καὶ χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ

The word σχεδόν occurs again in the N.T. in Acts xiii. 44; xix. 26. It is found in the lxx. only in 2 Macc. v. 2.

πάντα] all things, things and men alike. The reference is probably to the dress of the priests, the attendants of the Temple, the offerers of sacrifice.

κατὰ τὸν νόμον] according to the law which was itself thus inaugurated by blood.

καὶ χωρὶς αἱματ. οὐ γ. ἄφ.] and apart from outpouring of blood there cometh no remission. The former statement was general (σχεδόν): this is universal (yet there is an exception Lev. v. 11).

The principle which is here affirmed belongs to the Law; and finds expression in the Pentateuch (Lev. xvii. 11). It occurs in identical terms in a later legal maxim (Hebrew0Ί2 vh H1D3 p«).

The 'outpouring' of blood may be understood in two ways; either of the actual slaughter of the victim, or of the pouring out of the blood upon the altar. Neither idea is in itself complete. The provision of the blood and the application of the blood are both necessary. Maimonides, in speaking of the Passover, lays down that 'the sprinkling of the blood is the main point (Hebrew-φ w) in sacrifice' (de Sacr. i. 2, § 6).

The word αἱματεκχυσία, Vulg. sanguinis effusio (fusio), is found elsewhere only in patristic writings.

ἅφεσις] The absolute use of ἄφεσις is remarkable. Elsewhere in the Ν. T., except Luke iv. 18 (from lxx.), the word is always used with a gen. (usually ἁμαρτιῶν). The absence of further definition here (contrast x. 18) leaves it with the broad sense of 'release,' 'deliverance,' not so much from special sins as from the bondage of which wrong-doing is a result. In this sense 'cleansing' is to a certain degree opposed to 'release.' The one marks the removal of the stain, the other the enabling for action.

At the same time the choice of γίνεται, in place of ἐστίν, presents the release as the issue of the operation of a divine law. Comp. vii. 12, 18; xi. 6.

Chrysostom in comparing the use of Blood under the Old and New Covenants writes of Christ and His disciples: ποῦ τοίνυν τὸ βιβλίον ἐκάθηρε; τὰς διανοίας αὐτῶν αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἧσαν βιβλία τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης. ποῦ δὲ τὰ σκεύν τῆς λειρουργίας; αὐτοὶ εἰσι. ποῦ δὲ ἡ σκηνή; αὐτοί εἰσι πάλιν. ἐνοικήσω γὰρ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω, φησί.

23—28. The writer of the Epistle goes back now to the consideration of the fulfilment of the work of Christ. The exposition of the full meaning of 'blood' as the means of atonement and ratification came in as a necessary parenthesis. The last illustration—the use of the blood in cleansing all human means of approach to God under the Old Covenant—supplies the transition to the thought of Christ's cleansing the heavenly sanctuary 'through His own Blood' (v. 23); so He entered once for all into heaven itself to fulfil His atoning work (24—26). And that single entrance suggests the thought of a corresponding return (27 f.).

The paragraph offers an additional feature in the preeminence of the new order over the old. The sacrifice on which it rests is better (12 f.): the covenant in which it is embodied is better (15—22): the service also—one sovereign and all-sufficing act—is better (23—28).

(c) vv. 23—28. The truths taught by Christ's Entrance into the Presence of God.

The Blood of Christ by which the New Covenant was inaugurated was available also for the cleansing of the heavenly archetype of the earthly sanctuary (23). For Christ has entered once for all into the Presence 270 γίνεται ἄφεσις. ²³Ἀνάγκη οὖν τὰ μὲν ὑποδείγματα

23 (ἀνάγκη)...καθαρίζεσθαι: (ἀνάγκῃ)...καθαρίζεται D₂* me.

of God for us, having overcome sin for ever (24—26); and men now await the Return of the great High-priest to announce the accomplishment of His work (27, 28).

²¹It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. ²⁴For Christ entered not into a Holy place made with hands, like to the pattern of the true, but into the heaven itself, now to appear openly before the face of God on our behalf; ²⁵nor yet did He enter in order that He may often offer Himself as the High-priest entereth into the Holy place year by year with blood not his own; ²⁶since in that case He must often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once for all, at the close of the ages, hath He been manifested to disannul sin by the sacrifice of Himself. ²⁷And inasmuch as it is appointed for men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; ²⁸even so Christ also, having been once offered to carry the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for Him, unto salvation.

(23). This verse serves for the return from the line of thought in vv. 13—22 to that indicated generally in vv. 11, 12. The consideration of the use of blood for cleansing and for remission under the Law throws light upon the significance of Christ's Blood in connexion with His heavenly ministry. That which was done in symbol on earth required to be done truly in the spiritual order. Io regard to the individual conscience, the Blood of Christ has absolute eternal validity (v. 14): in regard to the scene—if we may so speak—of the future service of the Church, the Living Christ fulfils that which was represented by the blood of victims.

ἀνάγκη οὗν...] It was necessary therefore, since blood is the means of purification for all that is connected with man's service of God, that the typical sanctuary, the copies of the things in the heavens, should be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. The fact that such a mode of purifying by blood was enjoined for the material instruments of worship carried with it the inevitable consequence that some analogous and therefore some nobler purification should be provided for the divine archetypes.

In an external system the purification might be external, but in the spiritual order it was requisite that the purification should be of corresponding efficacy, spiritual and not material only.

The whole structure of the sentence requires that 'cleansed' should be supplied in the second clause from the first, and not any more general term as 'inaugurated.' In what sense then can it be said that 'the heavenly things' needed cleansing?

The necessity for the purification of the earthly sanctuary and its vessels came from the fact that they were to be used by man and shared in his impurity (comp. Lev. xvi. 16).

Agreeably with this view it may be said that even 'heavenly things,' so far as they embody the conditions of man's future life, contracted by the Fall something which required cleansing (comp. 1 Tim. iv. 4 f. καλόν, ἀγιάζεται). Man is, according to the revelation in Scripture, so bound up with the whole finite order that the consequences of his actions extend through creation in some way which we are unable to define (compare Gen. iii. 271 τῶν ἐv τοῖς οὐρανοῖς τούτοις καθαρίζεσθαι, αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ ἐπουράνια κρείττοσι θυσίας παρὰ ταύτα. ²⁴οὐ γὰρ εἰς χειροποίητα εἰσῆλθεν ἅγια Χριστός, ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν, ἀλλ' εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν, νῦν

ταύτας: ταύτης D₂*. 24 εἰσ. ἅγια אΑ: ἅγια εἰσ. CD₂. Χριστός: ὁ χρ. S.

17 ff.; Is. xxiv. 5, 6; Jer. xxiii. 10; Rom. viii. 18 ff.). And conversely the effect of Christ's work extends throughout creation with reconciling, harmonising power: Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 20.

ἀνάγκη] It was necessary. The reference is definite, to the purification of the earthly sanctuary on the one hand by the High-priest, and of the heavenly sanctuary by Christ. For ἀνάγκη see v. 16; Matt. xviii. 7; and for ὑποδείγματα (Vulg. exemplaria) c. viii. 5 note.

τούτοις καθ.] with these ceremonial observances, that is, the blood of bulls and goats, applied according to the directions of the Law. The Mosaic system was external: the means of purification were external also.

αὐτὰ τὰ ἐπουράνια] This phrase, as distinguished from τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, expresses those things, answering to the sanctuary with all its furniture, which have their proper sphere in the heavenly order (comp. c. iii. 1; viii. 5 notes; John iii. 12), and not simply those things which are there.

κρείττοσι θυσίαις] The plural is used for the expression of the general idea (κρ. θ. παρὰ ταύτας). And in point of fact the single sacrifice of Christ fulfilled perfectly the ideas presented by the different forms of the Levitical sacrifices, the sacrifices of service (burnt-offering and peace-offering), and the sacrifices for atonement (sin-offering and trespass-offering).

24—26. The writer shews that Christ has satisfied the requirement which he has described in v. 23. He has entered heaven itself to make ready a place for us (e. 24); and that not by providing for the accomplishment of a recurrent atonement (vv. 25, 26 a); but by vanquishing sin for ever (26 b).

(24). oὐ γὰρ εἰς χειρ.] The clause justifies the reference to the purification of the heavenly things. If we consider what was needed for the due preparation of that spiritual Tabernacle for man's service and God's revelation of Himself we shall feel the greatness of the requirements. For it was no Holy place made by hands Christ entered, and entered once for all, but heaven itself. He has fulfilled therefore, necessarily fulfilled, all those requirements to which the symbols pointed.

The epithet χειροποίητα stands emphatically first: 'for it was not into a hand-made sanctuary Christ entered.'

The title Χριστός has become a proper name: v. 11; c. iii. 6. It stands emphatically at the end of the sentence as χειροποίητα at the beginning.

ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀλ.] like to the pattern (τύπος c. viii. 5) of the true....Vulg. exemplaria verorum, O.L. exemplarium veritatis (allegoria verorum).

In the two passages in which the word ἀντίτυπον is used in the N.T. the sense corresponds with the two fundamentally different ideas of τύπος. The τύπος may be the archetype (comp. Acts vii. 44) of which the ἀντίτυπον is the provisional copy, as here; or the τύπος may be the provisional adumbration (comp. Acts vii. 43) of that which the ἀντίτυπον more completely expresses. So the water of baptism answered as ἀντίτυπον to the water of the flood which bore in safety the tenants of the ark (1 Pet. iii. 21). 272 ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. ²⁵οὐδ' ἵνα

ἡμῶν: ὑμῶν C.

Comp. Const. Apost. v. 14, 4 παραδοὺς τὰ ἀντίτυπα μυστήρια τοῦ τιμίου σώματος καὶ αἵματος...vi. 30, 1 τὴν ἀντίτυπον τοῦ βασιλείου σώματος Χριστοῦ δεκτὴν εὐχαριστίαν προσφέρετε...2 Clem. c. xiv. and Βρ Lightfoot's Note.

εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρ.] The sing. (οὐρανός) occurs again xi. 12; xii. 26. The plural marks the whole heavenly order: the singular that which we conceive of as locally definite. 'The heaven itself,' 'the very heaven,' is regarded as the absolute truth which the Holy of Holies symbolised, 'quo nihil ulterius.'

νῦν ἐμφανισθ. τῷ προσ. τ. θ.] now to appear openly before the face of God. Vulg. ut appareat nunc vultui Dei. (The Old Latin rendering modo apparuit personæ Dei implies a reading ἐνεφανίσθη.) The open evident appearance of Christ before the face of God is contrasted with the appearance of the High-priest in the dark sanctuary veiled by the cloud of incense (Lev. xvi. 12 f.).

So too the 'face of God' suggests the idea of a vision direct and absolute, not like that of 'the glory of the Lord' (Ex. xl. 34 ff.), or even that granted to Moses (Ex. xxxiii. 18 ff.).

The word ἐμφανίζεσθαι (Matt. xxvii. 53; comp. Rom. x. 20), as distinguished in such a connexion from φανεροῦσθαι (2 Cor. v. 11 f.), conveys the thought of that being made a clear object of sight, which under ordinary circumstances is not so (comp. Wisd. i. 2; xvi. 21; xvii. 4 φάσματα ἐνεφανίζετο; John xiv. 21 f.). Ἐμφανής is the general opposite to 'invisible,' as φανερός is to 'indistinct.' In Christ humanity becomes the object of the regard of God. In the glorified Son the words used at critical revelations during His earthly work find absolute fulfilment: ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα (Lk. iii. 22; Matt. xvii. 5: [xii. 18]).

The phrase 'the face of God (of the Father)' occurs in the Ν. T. only Matt. xviii. 10; Apoc. xxii. 4; and in quotations from the lxx.: Acts ii. 28; l Pet. iii. 12; in addition to the occurrence of the phrase πρὸ προσώπου κυρίου (Matt. xi. 10 &c.). In the O. T. the thought of 'the face' (פָּנִים) of God occupies an important place, as expressing the revolution of His Presence (Ex. xxxiii. 14; Deut. iv. 37, R. V.); and that either in judgment (Ps. xxi. 10 Hebr.); or, as the defence (Ps. xxxi. 20) and crowning joy of the faithful (Ps. iv. 7; xvii. 15). The significance of the phrase is seen specially in the priestly blessing: Num. vi. 25; comp. Ps. iv. 6.

In this connexion it appears strange at first that Christ should be said to have entered the heavenly sanctuary 'to appear openly' before the face of God and not to look on the face of God: that he should be described as the object of the vision of God and not that God should be spoken of as seen perfectly by Him. The explanation of the form of thought seems to lie in this, that everything finally must be referred to God: that which bears His regard is accepted by Him. Comp. Gal. iv. 9 γνύντες θεὸν μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ: 1 Cor. xiii. 12 τότε ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην 1 Cor. viii. 2, 3 εἴ τις ἀγαπᾷτὸν θεὸν, οὔτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ' αὐτοῦ.

Nor must we limit the conception of the appearance of Christ before the face of God to one part of His work. It is commonly regarded only as the effective manifestation of His redeeming Passion (e.g. apparet vultui, id est præsentiæ et benevolentiæ Dei Patris, intercedeus apud eum pro nobis ostendendo cicatrices vulnerum quæ pro nostra redemptione pertulit. Herv.); but it is necessary to include in it also the thought of the revelation of 273 πολλάκις προσφέρῃ ἑαυτόν, ὥσπερ ὁ ἀχιερεὺς εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια κατ' ἐνιαυτὸν ἐv αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ,

25 τὰ ἅγια: + τῶν ἁγίων א* the (æg).

humanity consummated by the fulfilment of the will of God (x. 9 ff.). The 'appearance' of Christ alone is, to our conception, the adequate presentment of the whole work of the Son to the Father (comp. c. vii. 25 note).

There is another peculiarity in the form of expression which requires to be noticed, the combination of νῦν with the aor. ἐμφανισθῆναι. This combination appears to affirm two complementary truths and to exclude two opposite errors. The manifestation of Christ, in whom humanity is shewn in its perfect ideal before the face of God, is 'one act at once' (ἐμφανισθῆναι); and still for us who work in time it is in the case of each believer a present act (νῦν). There is, to look at the subject from the opposite side, no succession in the fulfilment of His work; and, on the other hand, it cannot in any sense grow old.

Such epexegetical infinitives as ἐμφανισθήναι are generally in the aorist as expressing the abstract thought (v. 9; Matt. xi. 7; xx. 28; Luke i. 17); but the present is also used when the idea of continuance or repetition predominates: John iv. 15; Lu. viii. 8; Mk. iii. 14; vii. 4; 1 Cor. i. 17. Both tenses are combined 1 Cor. x. 7.

The manifestation of Christ before God is 'on our behalf' (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν). In Him humanity obtains its true harmony with God, and in Him it can bear the full light of God. He can be therefore, in virtue of His perfect manhood, our Advocate (1 John ii. 2 Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον). Nῦν γὰρ πρῶτον, as Theodoret says, εἰs τὸν οὐρανὸν φύσις ἀνελήλυθεν ἀνθρωπεία; and each Christian in Christ, as well as through Him, has access to God: Eph. iii. 12 (ἐν ῷ ἔχομεν τὴν...προσαγωγήν). Comp. c. vii. 25.

(25). The writer of the Epistle goes on to meet another difficulty of his Jewish readers while he unfolds the absolute uniqueness of Christ's Death. They found it hard to understand how Christ should die, and how one death could have never-ending virtue. It is shewn from the very nature of the case that He could only die once, and that by this Death He satisfied completely the wants of humanity.

οὐδ' ἵνα...] Nor yet did He enter (εἰσῆλθεν) in order that He may again often offer Himself, and so enter afresh as the High-priest from time to time. The main idea of the writer seems to be: 'Christ did not enter in order to secure an access to God which might be available on repeated occasions.' Then for such a phrase as 'in order to repeat His entrance' be substitutes 'in order to offer Himself,' and thus by bringing into preeminence the preliminary condition of entrance he shews the impossibility of repetition.

πολλάκις] The parallel is between Christ's offering and entrance and the High-priest's offering and entrance as a whole repeated year by year. The idea that the parallel is between Christ's work and the repeated entrances of the High-priest into the Holy of Holies on each day of Atonement, which invoked the two sacrifices of the bullock and goat, is against the whole form of the argument in the Epistle. The ceremony of the Day of Atonement is treated as one great act. The thought of the High-priest's offering for himself is necessarily excluded in the case of Christ (vii. 27); but this consideration does not come into account here.

προσφέρῃ ἑαυτόν] Two different interpretations of this offering have been proposed. It has been supposed to correspond with the bringing of 274 ²⁶ἐπεὶ ἔδει αὐτὸν πολλάκις παθεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. νυνὶ δὲ ἄπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν τῆς

26 πολλάκις: πολλά D₂*. παθεῖν: ἀποθανεῖν the (æg). νυνί אAC: νῦν S D₂.

the blood into the Holy of Holies, and again with the offering of the victim upon the altar. The general usage of the writer, apart from other considerations, is decisive in favour of the second view. It is unreasonable to give a different sense to the words from that which they bear in v. 14 ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν ἄμωμον τῷ θεῷ (comp. ν. 28), where the reference is to the Passion of Christ. See also xi. 17; vii. 27 v. l.; viii. 3 note.

It was only by the offering upon the Cross that the Blood 'through which' the divine High-priest entered into the heavenly sanctuary was made available. This sense of the phrase is confirmed by the words which follow, where προσενεχθείς stands parallel to ἀποθανεῖν. Compare also c. x. 10 διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which can only refer to the offering on the Cross.

The contrast of tenses in προσφέρῃ here and προσενέγκῃ c. viii. 3 is clearly marked.

ὥσπερ...] An annually repeated sacrifice was the necessary means for obtaining the atoning blood in virtue of which the Levitical High-priest entered the Sanctuary year by year.

ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ] The use of different prepositions in this connexion will repay study: v. 7 οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος, v. 12 δι' αἵματος. For the use of ἐv compare v. 22 αἵματι καθ.: x. 19 ἐν τῷ αἵμ. Ἰησοῦ: xiii. 20 ἐν αἵμ. διαθήκης αἰωνίου: and in other Books: Rom. iii. 25 ὅv προέθ. ἱλαστ...ἐν τῷ αἵμ.: v. 9 δικαιωθέντες ἐν τῷ αἵμ.: Eph. ii. 13 ἐγενήθητε ἐγγὺς ἐν τῷ αἵμ. τοῦ χρ. (i. 7 ἐν ῷ...διὰ τοῦ αἵματος): Apoc. i. 5 λυσαντι...ἐν τῷ αἵμ.: ν. 9 ἠγόρασας...ἐν τῷ αἵμ.: vii. 14 ἐλεύκαναν...ἐν τῷ αἵμ.

The High-priest was, as it were, surrounded, enveloped, in the life sacrificed and symbolically communicated. Christ Himself living through death came before God.

(26). If the one offering of Christ is (as has been shewn from its nature) sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, then it is evident that its efficacy reaches through all time past and future. If it had not been sufficient, then it must have been repeated. It is assumed that it is God's will that complete atonement should be made for sin; and if He had willed that this should be made in detail and by successive acts, occasion must have arisen in earlier ages for Christ's sufferings, a thought in itself inconceivable. The virtue of Christ's work for the past in the eternal counsel of God is taken for granted.

ἐπεί] Vulg. alioquin, since in that case, else. See v. 17, c. x. 2; Rom. iii. 6; 1 Cor. v. 10, &c.

ἔδει] For the force of δεῖ see c. ii. 1; and for the absence of ἅν 1 Cor. v. 10 ἐπεὶ ὠφείλετε. Winer, pp. 353 f.

παθεῖν] See c. xiii. 12 note; ii. 9. The word is not used in the Epistles of St Paul for the Death ('the Passion') of Christ. Comp. Acts i. 3; (iii. 18); xvii.3.

ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου] Vulg. ab origine mundi. Compare c. iv. 3 note. A prospect is opened beyond the beginning of the Mosaic system. The divine counsel had a universal scope.

νυνὶ δέ] but now, as things actually are, once for all, at the close of the ages, hath He been manifested to disannul (set at naught) sin by the sacrifice of Himself, Vulg. nunc autem semel in consummatione sæculorum ad destitutionem peccati per hostiam suam apparuit. Each element in this sentence brings out some contrast between the work of Christ and that 275 ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται. ²⁷καὶ καθ'

τῆς ἁμ. אΑ ægg: om. τῆς C: ἁμαρτιῶν D₂*.

of the Levitical High-priests. Their sacrifices were repeated year by year during a long period of preparation: His sacrifice was offered once for all at the close of the succession of ages. They by their action called sins to mind (c. x. 3): He annulled sin. They provided typical atonement through the blood of victims: He provided an absolute atonement by the sacrifice of Himself. With them the most impressive fact was the entrance into the darkness in which the Divine Presence was shrouded: with Him the manifestation on earth, still realised as an abiding reality, brought the Divine Presence near to men.

Generally it is made plain that Christ accomplished all that the Levitical Service pointed to.

ἅπαξ] The absolute oneness of Christ's offering has been touched upon before, v. 12; c. vii. 27. In proportion as this truth was felt, the weakness of the Levitical offerings, shewn by their repetition, became evident.

It is assumed that the repetition of Christ's suffering in the future is inconceivable.

ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰ.] at the close of the ages, of a long and complex course of finite development. The exact phrase is not found elsewhere in the N.T.

Compare Matt. xiii. 39 συντέλεια αἰῶνος: vv. 40, 49 ἐν τῇ συντ. τοῦ αἰῶνος: xxiv. 3 ἡ σὴ παρουσία καὶ συντ. τοῦ αἰ.: xxviii. 20 ἔως τῆς συντ. τοῦ αἰ. For ἐπὶ (as distinguished from ἐv) see vv. 10, 15 notes; Phil. i. 3.

Similar phrases occur in the Greek translations of Daniel: ix. 7 συντ. καιρῶν; xii. 13 συντ. ἡμερῶν.

Ἐπὶσυντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων has a somewhat different meaning from ἐπ' ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμ. τούτων (c. i. 2). This latter phrase describes the last period of 'the present age' (see note); while ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰ. marks a point of termination of a series (so to speak) of preparatory ages. The Death of the Lord, including His Resurrection and Ascension, is essentially the beginning of a new development in the life of man and in the life of the world. It was needful, as we speak, that the 'natural' development of man should have had fullest scope before Christ came.

Διὰ τί ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων; Chrysostom asks, and answers μετὰ τὰ
πολλὰ ἁμαρτήματα. εἰ μὲν οὖν παρὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐγένοντο (leg. ἐγένετο) εἶτα οὐδεὶς ἐπίστευσεν, ἧν ἄν τὸ τῆς οἰκονομίας ἀνόνητον.

The word συντέλεια occurs in the N.T. only in the passages which have been quoted. It occurs frequently in the lxx. A characteristic use is found in Ex. xxiii. 16 ἑορτὴ συντελείας ('of ingathering'). As distinguished from τέλος, the end as one definite fact, σνντέλεια expresses a consummation, an end involving many parts. Compare συντελεῖν Luke iv. 2; Acts xxi. 27; c. viii. 8; Luke iv. 13.

The plural αἰῶνες occurs again in the Epistle; xiii. 8, 21; and, in a different connexion, i. 2 (note); xi. 3.

In each case it preserves its full meaning. The whole discipline and growth of creation in time is made up of manifold periods of discipline, each having its proper unity and completeness. Per sæcula debemus intellegere omnia quæ facta sunt in tempore (Primas. ad c. i. 2).

εἰς ἀθέτησιν τῆς ἁμαρτ.] This thought goes beyond 'the redemption from transgressions' (v. 15). It is literally 'for the disannulling of sin' (vii. 18 ἀθέτησις προαγ. ἐντ.). Sin is vanquished, shewn in its weakness, 'set at naught' (Mk. vii. 9; Gal. iii. 15).

The comment of Theodoret deserves notice: παντελῶς τῆς ἁμαρτίας 276 ὅσον ἀπόκειται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπαξ ἀποθανεῖν, μετὰ δὲ

κατέλυσε τὴν 'σχὺν ἀθανασίαν ἡμῖν ὑποσχόμενος. ἐνοχλεῖν γὰρ αὔτη τοῖς ἀθανάτοις οὐ δύναται σώμασι.

The use of the singular τῆς ἁμαρτίας brings out this general, abstract conception (comp. x. 18 προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας). Elsewhere in the Epistle the work of Christ is regarded in its action on the many actual sins in which sin shews itself. Comp. p. 32.

In this connexion different phrases are used which present different aspects of its efficacy.

[The Son] sat down on the right hand of the Majesty καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος (i. 3). He is a merciful and faithful High-priest εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ (ii. 17). (Compare ix. 15 ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων.)

It is further said that the 'blood of bulls and goats is unable ἀφαιρεῖν ἁμαρτίας (x. 4)' and that the Levitical sacrifices cannot περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας (x. ii); where it is implied that the Blood and Sacrifice of Christ have this efficacy.

So sins are presented as a defilement which clings to man, a force which separates him from God, a burden which he bears, a robe of custom in which he is arrayed.

διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ] The phrase, referring as it does to ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ v. 25, cannot mean anything less than 'the sacrifice of Himself.' The word θυσία is used again of Christ c. x. 12; and in connexion with προσφορά in Eph. v. 2.

πεφανέρωταθ] He, who is our High-priest, hath been manifested, hath entered the visible life of men as man. On the scene of earth, before the eyes of men, He has overcome death (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54—57). And more than this: the fact of the Incarnation is regarded in its abiding consequences. The manifestation of Christ continues in its effects.

In this relation the 'manifestation' of Christ offers a contrast to the veiling of the High-priest in darkness when he was engaged in fulfilling his atoning service. Christ is withdrawn and yet present: hidden and yet seen.

Contrast 1 John iii. 5, 8; i. 2 (ἐφανερώθη); 1 Pet. i. 20 (φανερωθέντος).

The perfect occurs again v. 8; 2 Cor. v. 11; Rom. iii. 21.

(27), (28). The fulfilment of the work of the Levitical High-priest suggests another thought. When the atonement was completed the High-priest came again among the people (Lev. xvi. 24). So too Christ shall return. He shall in this respect also satisfy the conditions of humanity. His Death shall be followed by the manifestation of His righteousness in the judgment of God.

(27). The conditions of human life are regarded as furnishing a measure by analogy of the conditions of Christ's work as man. He fulfilled the part of man perfectly in fact and not in figure (as by the Mosaic sacrifices). For Him therefore Death, necessarily one, must be followed by a Divine Judgment.

καθ' ὅσον...οὕτως καί...] inasmuch as...even so also...Vulg. quamadmodum...sic et...Καθ' ὅσον is found in the N.T. only in this Epistle (iii. 3; vii. 20); ἐφ' ὅσον occurs Matt. ix. 15; xxv. 40, 45; Rom. xi. 13; 2 Pet. i. 13.

Καθ' ὅσον...οὕτως καί expresses a conclusion drawn from an identity between two objects in some particular respects (comp. καθώς...οὕτω v. 3), while ὥσπερ...οὕτως...(not found in this Epistle) describes a complete correspondence so far as the objects are compared (Rom. v. 12, 19, 21).

ἀπόκειται] Vulg. statutum est. Death lies stored in the future, 'laid up' for each man: 2 Tim. iv. 8; Col. i. 5.

μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο...] and after this cometh judgment, not in immediate sequence of time, but in the development 277 τοῦτο κρίσις, ²⁸οὕτως καὶ ὁ χριστός, ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς

28 οὕτως καί אACD₂ vg syrr ægg: om. καί S.

of personal being. The writer appears to connect the Judgment with the Return of Christ on 'the Day': c. x. 25, 37 f.

For the distinction of κρίσις, the act, the process, of judgment, from κρίμα, the issue of judgment, the sentence, compare c. vi. 2 with x. 27; see also John ix. 39; 1 John iv. 17 note.

(28). οὕτως καί...] Death finally closes man's earthly work, and is followed by the judgment which reveals its issue. So too Christ as man died once only; and that which answers to judgment in His case is the revelation of His glory, the revelation of Himself as He is.

Sicut enim unusquisque nostrum post mortem recipit juxta opera sua, ita Christus devicta morte et adepto regno secundo apparebit expectantibus se in salutem ut juste vindicet suos qui injuste passus est ab alienis (Primas.).

For the force of ὁ χριστός, 'the Christ,' see Addit. Note i. 4.

ἅπαξ προσενεχθείς] Vulg. semel oblatus. The passive form (contrast v. 25 ἵνα προσφέρῃ ἑαυτόν) completes the conception of the Lord's offering. It is on the one side voluntary and on the other side it is the result of outward force. How this outward force was exerted and by whom is not made known. It cannot be said directly that Christ was 'offered up' by God, nor yet that He was 'offered up' by men; nor would such a form be used to express the offering of Christ by Himself (ὑπὶ τίνος προσενεχθείς; ὑφ' ἑαυτοῦ δηλονότι. ἐνταῦθα oὐδὲ ἱερέα δείκνυσιν αὐτὸν μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ θῦμα καὶ ἱερεῖον. Chrys.). There is a divine law which men unconsciously and even involuntarily fulfil. This embodies the divine will of love and right. The Jews were instruments in carrying it out.

εἰς τὸ πολλ. ἀνεν. ἁμ.] to carry the sins of many, Vulg. ad multorum exhaurienda peccata. This most remarkable phrase appears to be taken from Is. liii. 12 (6) lxx., where the sense is 'to take upon himself and bear the burden of sin.' But φέρειν as distinguished from βαστάζειν (comp. c. i. 3 note) involves the notion of carrying to some end; and so in 1 Pet. ii. 24 (the nearest parallel in the Ν. T.) we read τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀνήνεγκεν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον ('carried up to'). Hence comes the sense of 'offering,' 'carrying up to the altar' (vii. 27; xiii. 15; James ii. 21); and it is difficult to suppose that this idea is not present in the phrase here. Christ 'carried to the cross' and there did away with sin and sins. Compare Chrysostom: τί δέ ἀστιν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας; ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῆς προσφορᾶς ἧς ἀναφέρομεν, προφέρομεν καὶ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα λέγοντες Εἴτε ἑκόντες εἴτε ἄκοντες ἡμάρτομεν συγχώρησον. τουτέστι μεμνήμεθα αὐτῶν πρῶτον καὶ τότε τὴν συγχώρησιν αἰτοῦμεν, οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐνταῦθα γέγονε. ποῦ τοῦτο πεποίηκεν ὁ Χριστός; ἄκουσον αὐτοῦ λέγοντος. Καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτόν. ἰδοὺ ἀνήνεγκε τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, ἧρεν αὐτὰ ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀνήνεγκε τῷ πατρὶ οὐχ ἵνα τι ὁρίσῃ κατ' αὐτῶν ἀλλ' ἵνα αὐτὰ ἄρῃ

In any case it is essential to the understanding of the passage to keep strictly to the literal statement. The burden which Christ took upon Him and bore to the cross was 'the sins of many,' not, primarily or separately from the sins, the punishment of sins. 'Punishment' may be a blessing to the child conscious of his sonship.

In the lxx. ἀναφέρειν is used with ἁμαρτία in Is. liii. 12 (Hebrewfy); comp. Num. xiv. 33; and Is. liii. 11 (Hebrew^3p). Commonly Hebrewίφ} in connexion with Sin 278 ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν.

ἀπεκδεχ. ¨ἐκδεχ. D₂*. εἰς σωτ. אCD₂ vg syr vg ægg: + διὰ πίστεως A syr hl.

is rendered in lxx. (Pent. Ezek.) by λαμβάνειν: Lev. v. 1, 17; vii. 8 (18) &c. Num. ix. 13; xviii. 22 ff. &c. Ezek. iv. 5; xxiii. 49; comp. Ezek. xviii. 19 f.

The word 'many' does not (of course) imply 'many out of the whole number of men'; but 'many' is simply contrasted with Christ's single person, and His single entrance. Compare ii. 10 note; Matt. xx. 28; xxvi. 28.

Chrysostom's note is strangely wide of the meaning: διὰ τί δὲ πολλῶν εἶπε καὶ μὴ πάντων; ἐπειδὴ μὴ πάντες ἐπίστευσαν. ὑπὲρ ἀπάντων μὲν γὰρ ἀπέθανεν εἰς τὸ σῶσαι πάντας, τὸ αὐτοῦ μέρος, ἀντίρροπος γὰρ ἧν ὁ θάνατος ἐκεῖνος τῆς πάντων ἀπωλείας, οὐ πάντων δὲ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀνήνεγκε διὰ τὸ μὴ θελῆσαι πάντας.

ἐκ δευτέρου...σωτηρίαν] The 'appearance' of Christ corresponds in the parallel to the judgment of men. In this case the complete acceptance of Christ's work by the Father, testified by the Return in glory, is the correlative to the sentence given on human life. He rises above judgment, and yet His absolute righteousness receives this testimony. For Him what is judgment in the case of men is seen in the Return to bear the final message of salvation.

The fulness of this thought finds more complete expression by the description of Christ's Return as a return 'for salvation' and not (under another aspect) as a return 'for judgment,' which might have seemed superficially more natural. 'Salvation' emphasises the actual efficacy of His work, while 'judgment' declares its present partial failure.

Nothing indeed is said of the effect of Christ's Return upon the unbelieving. This aspect of its working does not fall within the scope of the writer; and it is characteristic of the Epistle that judgment is not directly referred to Christ, whom the writer regards peculiarly as the Royal High-priest. Compare c. x. 27 note.

ἐκ δευτέρου] in comparison with His first manifestation on earth: Acts i. 11.

χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας] c. iv. 15. Here the words stands in contrast with εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας. At His first manifestation Christ took on Him the sins of humanity, and, though Himself sinless, endured the consequences of sin. At His second coming this burden will exist no longer. Sin then will have no place, (χώραν οὐκέτι ἐχούσης κατὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Theodt.)

ὀφθήσεται] Apoc. i. 7; 1 John iii. 2. The vision is regarded from the side of man who sees, and not (v. 26 πεφανέρωται) from that of God who reveals.

By the use of the word ὀφθήσεται the Return of Christ is presented as a historical fact (comp. Acts i. 10 f.). But it is to be noticed that the writer does not use the word παρουσία, which is found in St Matthew, 2 Peter, St James, St Paul, St John. Nor does he use the word ἐπιφάνεια which has a more limited range: 2 Thess. (ii. 8 ἡ ἐπιφ. τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ), 1, 2 Tim., Tit.

This revelation will be the completion of the transitory revelations after the Resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 5 ff. ὥφθη). But, like those, it will be for such as wait for Him, even as the people of Israel waited for the return of the High-priest from the Holy of Holies after the atonement had been made.

The word ἀπεκδέχεσθαι appears to be always used in the Ν. T. with reference to a future manifestation of the glory of Christ (1 Cor. i. 7; Phil. iii. 20), or of His people (Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25). Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 8.

εἰς σωτηρίαν] to accomplish, consummate salvation, which includes not only the removal of sin but also the attainment of the ideal of humanity.


*Additional Note on* ix. 7. *The Service of the Day of Atonement*.

The ritual of the Day of Atonement, 'the Day' (Joma), is present to the mind of the writer throughout this section of the Epistle, and it will be convenient to set out the Levitical ordinances in a clear form, that the relation of their typical teaching to the work of Christ may be distinctly seen (Lev. xvi.; xxiii. 26—32; comp. Lev. xxv. 9; Num. xxix. 11; Ezek. xlv. 18 ff.).

The Mishnaic treatise Joma, of which there is a convenient edition by Sheringham, gives some additional details as to later usage; and Delitzsch has given a translation of the full account of the service by Maimonides. To the edition of Sheringham's Joma of 1696 is added a very elaborate comparison of the work of the High-priest with that of Christ by J. Rhenferd.

The Service of the Day summed up and interpreted the whole conception of Sacrifices, which were designed by divine appointment to gain for man access to God.

In the same way the High-priest summed up the idea of consecration and religious service, represented in different stages by the people, the Levites, the priests.

The occasion of the institution of the Service illustrates its central thought. It followed on the death of the eldest sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, for 'offering strange fire' (Lev. x. 6 f.; xvi. 1; comp. Num. iii. 4; xxvi. 61). The way of access to God was not yet freely open: even the most privileged servants could only draw near as God provided a way.

The day was the one Fast of the Law: Acts xxvii. 9 (ἡ νηστεία).

All the ordinary priestly duties of the day were done by the High-priest ιn his 'golden robes,' and according to custom he prepared for his work by a retirement of seven days.

On the day itself, after bathing, the High-priest put on his [white] linen robes (Lev. xvi. 4; comp. Lk. ix. 29) as representing the people before God, while 'the golden robes' were appropriate to the messenger of God to the people.

Then the victims for the congregation and for the High-priest were prepared and presented (for sin offerings, a bullock for the High-priest, and two goats for the people; for burnt-offerings, a ram for each: Lev. xvi. 3, 5, 6), and one of the two goats was assigned by lot 'to the Lord' and the other 'to Azazel' (v. 8 ff).

All being thus made ready, the High-priest killed the bullock, and made atonement 'for himself and for his house' (the priesthood), entering within the veil, under cover of a cloud of incense that 'he might not die' (vv. 11 ff.; comp. v. 2).


After this (and according to the later ritual he returned meanwhile from the Holy of Holies and re-entered it with the blood) he took of the blood and sprinkled it with hie finger 'upon the mercy seat eastward,' and 'before the mercy seat seven times' (v. 14).

So the High-priest and the scene of the manifestation of God were duly atoned, and the High-priest was able to act for the people. He then killed the goat, the sin-offering for the people, and dealt with its blood as with the blood of the bullock (v. 15). As in the ordinary sacrifices the blood was applied in some cases to the altar of burnt-offering and in other cases to the altar of incense, so now it was brought to the mercy seat. Afterwards the High-priest 'made atonement' for the Holy place, being there alone (Ex. xxx. 10), and for the altar of burnt-offering (vv. 16 ff.).

Atonement having been thus made for priests and people and the whole place of service (the sanctuary in its three parts), the High-priest 'laid both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confessed over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel [with which the Law dealt]... putting them upon the head of the goat, and sent it away.. .into the wilderness' (vv. 20 ff.).

Thus the special service was ended. The High-priest put off his linen garments in tho Holy place, washed himself, put on his robes and offered the burnt-offerings for himself and the people, 'and made an atonement for himself and the people' (vv. 23 ff.).

Last of all the bodies of the sin-offerings were carried without the camp and wholly consumed (v. 27)

Thus in a figure year by year the people had access to the Presence of God in the person of the High-priest. The fellowship between God and the people, established by the Covenant but marred by sins against its conditions, was restored. By the virtue of an offered life communion became possible.

To this end there was a double sacrifice for the High-priest and for the people, and a double representation of the people by the High-priest and by the sin-offering; and till the atonement was made for the High-priest he could only enter the Holy of Holies under the cloud of incense. It is needless to point out the general fulfilment of the type by Christ. One point only, which appears to have been left unnoticed, may be suggested for consideration. The High-priest entered 'the unseen' twice, once for himself, once for the people. May we not see in this a foreshadowing of the two entrances of Christ into 'the unseen'? Once He entered, and came back victorious over death, ready in His glorified humanity to fulfil His work for His people. Again He entered the unseen 'to appear (ἐμφανισθῆναι) before the face of God for us,' and hereafter returning thence 'He shall appear (ἀφθήσεται) a second time to them that wait for Him.'


*Additional Note on* ix. 9. *The prae-Christian idea of Sacrifice*.

There is no reason to think that Sacrifice was instituted in obedience to a direct revelation11   As in the case of the præ-Christian Priesthood I had hoped to write an Essay on præ-Christian Sacrifice, but I can do no more than set down a few notes which may be useful in marking some main points in the inquiry. Those who have dealt with the Scriptural ordinances and teaching on Sacrifice have too commonly neglected ethnic institutions. Even now more illustrations may be expected from Egypt and from Assyria. The articles in the different Encyclopedias give references to the Literature, but I am not acquainted with any book which deals with the subject in its full range and significance. Kalisch has accumulated a great mass of material in his Essay attached to his edition of Leviticus, but it requires sifting; and Dillmann's notes in the Kursgef. Exeg, Handb. are extremely useful. The books of Lippert and Tylor already referred to (p. 137 note) contain much that is valuable..

It is mentioned in Scripture at first as natural and known.

It was practically universal in prae-Christian times [Kalisch's reference to Strabo xi. 11, 8 is in error (οὐδὲν θῆλυ θύουσι)]. Compare Hes. Op. 134 ff.; Porph. de abet. ii. 8 [Theophrastus].

In due time the popular practice of Sacrifice was regulated by revelation as disciplinary, and also used as a vehicle for typical teaching.

Sacrifice, in fact, in the most general form, belongs to the life of man, and, in the truest sense, expresses the life of man. It is essentially the response of love to love, of the son to the Father, the rendering to God in grateful use of that which has been received from Him. Language cannot offer a more impressive example of moral degeneration in words, than the popular connexion of thoughts of loss and suffering with that which is a divine service.

In considering the Biblical teaching on Sacrifice we must take account of

I. @Natural Conceptions.

II. Biblical Teaching.

I. Natural Conceptions.

  1. The general idea.

The natural idea of sacrifices in each case is shaped by the view which is entertained by men of their relation to the unseen.

(1) They recognise, to speak generally, a relation of dependence on unseen powers, conceived after their own likeness. Hence they bring

A royal tribute, as to some earthly king, either

(α) Regular offerings, from a common sense of obligation; or

(β) Special offerings, in respect of particular occasions.


(2) More particularly they necessarily connect joy and suffering with the unseen. Hence follow

(α) Eucharistic offerings in acknowledgment of benefits.

(β) Deprecatory offerings to obtain relief.

(γ) Impetratory offerings to obtain blessings. These are connected with prayer as a gift with a request. Comp. Tylor, ii. 340.

Such offerings are of two kinds:

(α) To gratify: the offering of that which is valued, as presents in homage; self-abnegation in fasting.

(β) To benefit: the offering of that which is thought useful as food, of which the spiritual element is supposed to be consumed. Comp. Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, p. 428.

And they embody two kinds of feeling (love or fear) according as the power is conceived to be

(α) Good and righteous; or

(β) Malevolent or capricious.

The difference is shewn in the most extreme case. Thus there are two aspects of human sacrifices.

(α) To prove the complete devotion of the worshipper.

(β) To propitiate the cruelty of the power to which the sacrifice is made.

So far, with the partial exception of the Eucharistic offerings, the sacrifices have a personal end (thank-offerings: fear-offerings: prayer-offerings).

In accordance with this general view Theophrastus (quoted and adopted by Porphyry, de abet. ii. 24; comp. 44) classes Sacrifices as ἧ διὰ τιμὴν ἧ διὰ χάριν ἧ διὰ χρείαν τῶν ἀγαθῶν. Moreover they are 'concerned with material things. The feeling by which they are prompted may be that of the slave, the subject, the friend, the son.

But one signal omission will be observed. There are so far no expiatory offerings.

The idea of expiatory offerings, answering to the consciousness of sin, does not belong to the early religion of Greece. Expiation was the work of special ministers.

Comp. Plat. Resp. ii. p. 364 b J. Bernays' Theophrastos üb. Frömmigkeit, pp. 106 f.

It is not possible to determine absolutely in what order the different kinds of sacrifice came into use. The order probably depended in a great degree upon physical conditions, as the ordinary phenomena of life suggested terror or gratitude. This is the teaching of present experience.

(2). Materials of sacrifice

(1) Simple produce of the earth.

Comp. Ovid, Fast. 1. 337 ff.; Porphyr. [Theophr.] de Abet. ii. 5 ff.; iv. 22.

(2) Prepared produce of the earth: first-fruits of food: juice of soma.


[continue]Comp. Porphyr. [Theophr.] ii. 6.

(3) Animals.

Comp. Porphyr. ii. 9. These were generally limited to those used for food: Porphyr. l.c. ii. 24, 25; offered to 'demons': id. ii 36, 38.

(4) Human beings.

Comp. Porphyr. ii. 27 ff.; 54 ff.; Just. Μ. Αρ. ii. 12; Tertull. Ap. 9; C. Quest. 7; Aug. de Civ. vii. 19.

The custom of offering human sacrifices was not unfrequently signified by representative offerings: Herod. ii. 47; Ovid, Fasti, v. 621 ff.; Tylor, ii. 366 f.

See E. V. Lasaulx, D. Sühnopfer der Gr. u. Röm.

Here again it is impossible to determine what materials were first used in sacrifice. General tradition points to the offering of the fruits of the earth as the earliest form of worship. Comp. Plato, Legg. vi. p. 782 c; Plut. Quaest. Conv. viii. 8. 3.

(3). Modes of Sacrifice.

The primitive manner of sacrifice was determined by the thought that the Divine Power received the gifts, and shared the feast. Hence the use of

(1) The altar.

The gifts were symbolically brought near to God.

(2) Fire.

The etherealised essence of the gift was borne aloft (Hom. Il. i. 317).

For descriptions of sacrifices compare Hom. Il. i. 458 ff.; Od. iii. 439 ff.; xiv. 414 ff.; Eur. Electr. 792 ff.; Ar. Pax, 940 ff.: Apoll. Rhod. i. 425 ff.

The adorning, &c. of the victims preserved the fiction that they met death willingly.

(4). Effect of sacrifice.

The effect of sacrifices was conceived of either as

(1) Relative,

When the offering was welcomed as an expression of a real harmony of spirit and fellowship between the worshipper and the object of his worship; or

(2) Absolute,

When the sacrifice had in itself a positive virtue. This view finds the most complete expression in Hindu theology. Comp. Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, p. 31 note. In its popular form it became a subject for Classical Satirists: e.g. Luc. de sacr. 2.

In addition to the sacrifices which formed part of common worship, account must be taken of those which were made by vows (e.g. Spolia opima), and by voluntary devotion (legends of Macaria, Curtius, the Decii).

Meanwhile the true idea of sacrifice found not infrequent expression: e.g. Porphyr. ii. 34, 46.

Nowhere, as far as I know, is the ethnic conception of sacrifice, as the means of a fellowship of men with spirits, and of the one representative of 284 the nation—the Emperor—with God, given more fully or impressively than in the Sacred Books of China. See Li Ki (Sacred Books of the East, xxvii, xxviii.) Books xx, xxi. Comp. Book vii. § 4.

II. Biblical teaching.

(1). Præ-Mosaic Sacrifices.

Præ-Mosaic sacrifice is presented to us in two forms:

(1) Primitive.

(α) Gen. iv. 4 (Cain and Abel) (i).

Both offerings are called HebrewΠΠρ (gifts: comp. Gen. xxxii. 14; xliii. 11; Num. xvi. 15; 1 Sam. ii. 17; xxvi. 19).

No altar is mentioned.

The narrative implies that

(a) The material is indifferent.

(b) The spirit of the offerer is that to which God looks ('Abel and his offering,' 'Cain and his...'). Comp. Heb. xi. 4.

(β) Gen. viii. 20 (Noah) (ii).

An Altar is now first mentioned.

The offerings are 'of every clean beast and every clean fowl.' Thus we have the widest offering: a universal consecration in worship of all that is for man's support.

(2) Patriarchal Sacrifice.

(α) Abraham.

Gen. xii. 6, 7, 8 (iii); xiii. 4 (iv.).

An altar at Shechem: Josh. xxiv. 1, 26.

Gen. xiii. 18 (v).

An altar at Hebron: 2 Sam. xv. 7.

Gen. xv. 9 ff. (vi).

The Covenant offerings. Animals allowed by the Levitical Law. For the birds see Lev. i, 14—17.

Gen. xxii. 1 ff. (vii).

At Moriah. The practice of sacrifice familiar (v. 7).

The offering of Isaac is a critical point in the history of the Biblical teaching on Sacrifice. It is shewn that the most absolute faith and devotion exists without the material exhibition of it. The human sacrifices of Canaan were most effectively condemned by the clear proof that the element of good to which they witnessed was wholly independent of their horrors.

It was plainly declared what God would and what He would not have.

Isaac, the child of promise, was a second time given to faith. Faith received him at his birth, as a divine gift, and again from death. He became the sign of the power of God and of human self-surrender: Hebr. xi. 19.

Under the Law the first-born were given representatively: Ex. xxii. 29. Comp. Euseb. Praep. Ev. i. 10, p. 37.

(β) Isaac.

Gen. xxvi. 25 (viii).

An altar at Beer-sheba (the altar first, then the tent). Comp. c. xxi. 33.


(γ) Jacob. Gen. xxviii. 18 ff. (ix).

A 'pillar' at Beth-el. Comp. c. xxxi. 45; xxxv. 14; Ex. xxiv. 4; Is. xix. 19: 'pillars' forbidden, Deut. xvi. 22. Comp. Gen. xxxv. 7 (an altar: El-beth-el).

Gen. xxxi. 54 (x).

A sacrifice and feast at Mizpah: a 'pillar' and 'heap' set up. Comp. c. xxvi. 30; Ex. xxiv. 11; 2 Sam. iii. 20.

Gen. xxxiii. 20 (xi).

An altar at Shalem: El-elehe-Israel (comp. xxxv. 7; Ex. xvii. 15).

Gen. xxxv. 1 ff. (xii), 7 (xiii).

An altar at Beth-el (El-beth-el). Comp. c. xxviii. 18 ff.

Gen. xxxv. 14 (xiv).

A pillar at Beth-el (comp. xxviii. 18). A drink-offering first mentioned.

Gen. xlvi. 1 (xv).

Sacrifices at Beer-sheba (c. xxvi. 25).

The student will notice the wide range of details in these incidents.

(a) There is mention of

Minchah (i); Olâh (ii) (vii); Zebach (x) (xv); Nesek (xiv).

Anointing with oil (ix).

(b) The altar is said to be

'built' (ii) (iii) (v) (vii) (xiii); 'made' (iv) (xii); 'set up' (xiv).

(c) A pillar is

'placed'(ix); 'set up'(xiv).

(d) In other cases no altar or pillar mentioned: (i) (vi) (x).

Compare also Gen. xxi. 33. Abraham planted 'a tamarisk-tree' in Beer-sheba (R. V., Hebrewp;X) and called there on the name of the Lord...(Amos v. 5; viii. 14).

To these references may be added: Job i. 5; xlii. 8; Ex. x. 25.

On the other hand there is no trace of the idea of

(a) a vicarious substitution of the victim for the offer (not Gen. xxii. 13; comp. Mic. vi. 7 f.); or of

(b) propitiation.

The thoughts of (a) gratitude and (b) tribute are dominant.

There is no application of the blood before the Law.

The perfect 'naturalness' of the record is most impressive.

God is invited to share in the common feast: fellowship with God is realised by the worshipper.

In Ex. xviii. 12 (Jethro) we have the transition to the new order. Here the primitive conception of sacrifice is fully recognised when it was about to be replaced by a more definite typical teaching. The sacrifice of Jethro bears the same relation to the Levitical Law of sacrifice as the appearance of Melchisedek to the Levitical Law of Priesthood.

In Ex. xxiv. 4—11 (the Covenant sacrifice) specific mention is made of 'burnt-offerings,' 'peace-offerings,' and of the sprinkling of the blood.

Note@. On human sacrifices in Palestine. The following references 286 will be useful in investigating how far human sacrifices were offered in Palestine:

(1) Among the non-Jewish peoples:

Lev. xviii. 21; xx. 2 ff.

Deut. xii. 30 ff.; xviii. 10.

2 K. iii. 26 f. (the King of Moab).

— xvii. 31 (the Sepharvites).

The passages in the Pentateuch shew how great the temptation would be to the Jew to try whether his own faith could rival the devotion of the neighbouring nations.

(2) Among the Jews:

Jud. xi. 30 ff. (v. 31 distinctly suggests a human offering; so lxx. ὁ ἐκπορευόμενος, Vulg. quicunque primus fuerit egressus. Comp. v. 2).

[The incident in 2 Sam xxi. 1—14 is in no sense a sacrifice. See also 2 Sam xii. 31.]

2 K. xvi. 3 (Ahas): 2 Chron. xxviii. 3.

— xvii. 17 (the children of Israel).

— xxi. 6 (Manasseh): 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6.

— xxiii. 10.

Is. lvii. 5 (the people).

Jer. vii. 31 (the children of Judah).

— xix. 5(-).

— xxxii. 35 (—).

Ezek. xvi. 20 f. (Jerusalem).

— xx. 25 f., 31 (the house of Israel).

Ps. cvi. 37 f.

Comp. Mic. vi. 7.

(2). The Levitical Sacrifices11   The most general term for an offering, sacrifice, is jyjjj (3Τ?Π to offer, προσφέρειν). This includes all sacred gifts, even those which are not brought to the altar: Lev. i. 3; ii. 1; iii. 1; iv. 23; vii. 13; Num. ix. 7..

The Levitical Sacrifices were based upon existing customs (Lev. xvii. 1—7). They were in some sense a concession to the spiritual immaturity of the people (Jer. vii. 22 f.); but at the same time the legislation by which they were regulated guarded them from superstitious excesses, and preserved the different true ideas to which natural sacrifice bore witness, and completed this instructive expression of devotion by fresh lessons corresponding with deeper knowledge of God and man.

(1) The general idea.

The Levitical offerings express the main thoughts which are expressed by the Gentile offerings though they express much more. They are in a true sense a tribute brought by a people to its Sovereign (Ex. xxiii. 15; xxxiv. 20; Deut. xvi. 16 f.); and they represent what man, in human fashion, conceives of as 'the bread—the food—of God' (Lev. iii. 11, 16; xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21; xxii. 25; Num. xxviii. 2, 24; Ezek. xliv. 7).

This conception was embodied specially in 'the Shew-bread'; and in 287 those sacrifices which «re described as 'of a sweet savour' (Lev. i. 9, 13, 17; ii. 2, 9, 12; iii. 5; iv. 31; vi. 15; viii. 21; xxvi. 31; Num. xv. 7, 10, 13 f.; xxviii. 6, 13; xxix. 2, 6. Comp. Gen. viii. 21; Ex. xxix. 18; 1 Sam. xxvi. 19; Phil. iv. 18; Eph. v. 2).

The idea is naturally connected with idolatrous services (Deut. xxxii. 38; Is. lxv. 11; Jer. vii. 18; Ezek. xvi. 19; xxiii. 41; Bel and Dr.); but it admits of a true spiritual interpretation. In this sense it has been most justly remarked that Ood says to us, 'Give Me my daily bread' (Hengstεnberg); and under one aspect the Jewish sacrifices were a type of this 'reasonable service' (comp. Jos. Β. J. vi. 2, 1 ἡ καθ' ἡμέραν τροφὴ [τοῦ θεoῦ]).

At the same time while God is represented as accepting these gifts from men, it is carefully laid down that He does not need them (Is. xl. 16 f.; Ps. l. 8 ff.).

Another thought contained in the Gentile sacrifices was recognised in the Law. He to whom the sacrifice was offered admitted His worshippers (with certain limitations) to His table. They 'had communion with the altar' (l Cor. X. 18 οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσί). They shared with the Lord in a common feast.

But all these thoughts of homage, servioe, fellowship, were shewn to rest, as men are, upon the thought of a foregoing atonement, cleansing, consecration. This thought was brought out into fullest relief in the Levitical ritual by the characteristic use which was made of the blood—the virtue of the offered life.

The foundation of the Levitical law of sacrifice is laid in the Covenant Sacrifice (Ex. xxiv.). 'Young men of the children of Israel'— the representatives of the people in the fulness of their vigour—'offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord' (v. 5). Such was the spontaneous expression of human worship. But it was not enough. 'Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar' (v. 6). Then followed the pledge of obedience; 'and Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you...' (v. 8). 'Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and they saw the God of Israel... they saw God and did eat and drink' (vv. 9 ff.). So the human desire was justified and fulfilled. The blood of the Covenant, the power of a new life made available for the people of God, enabled men to hold communion with God (v. 11 upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand: contrast c. xix. 21). The lessons of sacrifice were completed: service, cleansing, consecration, fellowship.

The teaching thus broadly given in the consecration of the people to God found a more detailed exposition in the consecration of the priests, the representatives of the people in the divine service (Ex. xxix.; Lev. viii.). Here, as was natural, the acknowledgment of personal sin was of the more prominent. The bathing, robing, anointing, were followed by the sacrifice of a sin-offering (Ex. xxix. 10 ff.). Then one of two rams was offered as a whole burnt-offering, 'a sweet savour,' and of the other, after the blood had been duly applied to the altar and the candidates for the 288 priesthood, part, together with a portion of the prepared bread, was burnt for a 'sweet savour before the Lord,' and part with the remainder of the bread was eaten by Aaron and his sons by the door of the tent of meeting (v. 32): they ate those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate, to sanctify them (v. 33).

It follows from the general idea of the Jewish sacrifices that they were ruled by the conception of the Covenant. In part they embodied the devout action of those for whom the full privileges of the Covenant were in force; and in part they made provision for the restoration of the privileges which had been temporarily forfeited.

Thus the customary sacrifices fall into two groups1:

(a) Sacrifices made while the covenant relation is valid.

(α) The burnt-offering (HebrewΠgt).

Lev. i. 3 ff.

(β) The peace-offerings (HebrewD^, of three kinds: (1) Hebrewnjta thanksgiving: (2) T}} vow: (3) Hebrewn} free-will offering: Lev. vii. 12, 16). Lev. iii. 1 ff.

With these must be combined

(γ) The meal-offering (HebrewΠΓ^Ρ).

Lev. ii. 1 ff.

(δ) The Shew-bread (HebrewDp ϋφ and later HebrewΤγην λ gt).

(ε) First-fruits.

(b) Sacrifices made in regard to violations of the Covenant.

(α) The sin-offering (HebrewginwjO). Lev. iv. 1 ff.

(β) The guilt-(trespass-) offering (HebrewDdf). Lev. v. 15 ff.

To these must be added the various sacrifices for Purification: Lev. xiv. (lepers); xv. (uncleanness); Num. xix. (contact with dead).

The Peace-offering, through which man entered in a peculiar sense into fellowship with God, was offered after the Sin-offering and the Burnt-offering: Lev. ix. 18; Num. vi. 16 f.

It is necessary to observe that the range of the Levitical atonements was very narrow. They were confined to

(α) Bodily impurity,

(β) Ceremonial offences.

(γ) Sins of ignorance.

(δ) Certain specified offences: Lev. vi. 1, 7; xix. 20.

They did not deal with moral offences as such: they had no relief for 289 'high-handed sins.' Here the voice of Psalmist and Prophet met the heart-broken penitent with promises which the Law could not give.

To the other Sacrifices the Passover must be added, which stood by itself and renewed the foundation of the Covenant.

(2) Materials of Sacrifice.

The distinction of Sacrifices as 'bleeding' and 'unbloody' is not expressly noticed in the Ο. T.; but there were occasions when they were made separately according to the Levitical ritual. Thus we have to notice offerings of

(a) The produce of the earth.
Wine: oil: meal.
Simple fruits (grapes, olives, &c.11   The nearest approach to the offering of the simple grain is Lev. ii. 14; yet here the grains are 'roasted.' The offering of the sheaf of the firstfruits is different: Lev. xxiii. 10. Comp. Ex. xxii. 29; Lev. ii. 12.) or flowers were not accepted.

It was required that man's life and labour should have entered into that which he offered to God (Gen. iii. 17—19).

These kinds were mixed in the Meal- (and Drink-) offering (Minchah, Nesek) and offered separately in the Holy Place: Bread: Oil (the lamps): with Incense, but not with Wine.

Incense was not offered by itself.

No details are given as to the Wine: it is once spoken of as HebrewTjtf (Num. xxviii. 7).

The Meal was of 'corn': not less than one-tenth of an ephah (a day's food: Ex. xvi. 16). Barley, which was half the value (2 K. vii. 1), was admitted only in the offering of jealousy: Num. v. 15 ff.

The sheaf of first-fruits was of barley, because that is ripe earliest: Lev. xxiii. 10 (comp. Ruth ii. 23; 2 Sam. xxi. 9).

Oil is a natural symbol of refreshment, light, life, spirit. So it was used for consecration. Comp. Gen. xxviii. 18; xxxv. 14.

The Incense was given wholly to God: of this the priest had no part. It was a symbol of prayer offered to God only (comp. Apoc. viii. 3 f.; v. 8).

It was not used with the sin-offering (Lev. v. 11); or with the jealousy-offering (Num. v. 15).

Leaven was not admitted except Lev. vii. 13; xxiii. 17; nor honey (except as an oblation of first-fruits) which was especially used in offerings to the dead: Porphyr. de antr. Nymph. 18.

Tho use of water as 'poured out before the Lord' (1 Sam. vii. 6; 2 Sam. xxiii. 16) is obviously exceptional.

For the Meal-offering, see Lev. ii. 1 ff: for the Drink-offering, Lev. xxiii. 13, 18, 37; Ex. xxix. 40 f.; xxx. 9; Num. xv. 1 ff.; for Incense, Ex. xxx. 22 ff.

(b) Animals. Clean domestic (not wild) animals: oxen; sheep; goats; pigeons: representing different types of service (comp. Jukes, The Law of the Offerings, pp. 77 ff.).

These served as the support of man's own life, and were nearest to him in labour, and as food.


They were required to be perfect (Hebrew99, ἅμωμοι): Deut. xvii. 1; and, in detail: Lev. xxii. 18 ff.; comp. Mal. i. 8. There was relaxation only in the case of the 'free-will offering': Lev. xxii. 23. The victims were always male in a public offering for the people; and generally a year old: in no case less than seven days: Lev. xxii. 27.

As compared with the requirements of other rituals, the Levitical rules are singularly simple and significant. They contain no restrictions as to colour, &c.

Salt was used with all sacrifices: Lev. ii. 13; Ex. xxx. 35 R.V.; comp. Ezek. xliii. 24; Mk. ix. 49 v. l.; and see also lxx. Lev. xxiv. 7 (add. καὶ ἅλα).

Salt keeps off corruption; removes impurity; acts internally like fire; sustains peace (by withdrawing elements of disorder): Mk. ix. 50; and so it came to be regarded as a symbol of an indissoluble covenant: Num. xviii. 19.

Compare Philo de vict. § 3 (ii. 240 M.) οἱ ἄλες [σύμβολον] διαμονῆς τῆς τῶν συμπάντων, οἶς γὰρ ἄν περιπασθῶσι διατηροῦσι, καὶ ἱκανοῦ προσοφἠματος.

The 'meal-offering' made alone was represented by the 'Shew-bread.' The offering in Lev. v. 11 was not a true Minchah; and the offerings of first-fruits were of a different order.

Animal sacrifices alone were made in the sin and guilt offerings (yet notice Lev. v. 11).

The burnt and peace offerings included meal and drink offerings.

(3) Characteristics of ritual. The sacrifices wore to be made at an appointed place: Lev. xvii. 3—5. The access to God was not yet freely open (comp. John iv. 21).

The structure of the Altar was prescribed: Ex. xx. 24 f.; xxvii. 1 ff.

In the Sacrifice itself notice must be taken of (a) the imposition of hands, (b) the killing, (c) the exception of the blood, (d) the application of the blood, (e) the disposition of the victim, (f) the sacrificial meal.

(a) The Semicah. The imposition of hands (Rabb. Ηebrewnypp χειροθεσία). The offerer laid his hands on all offerings except the Paschal offering (and birds). Lev. i. 4; iii. 2; iv. 4, 15.

Compare Num. viii. 10 (Num. xxvii. 20; Deut. xxxiv. 9) (hands laid on the Levites); Lev. xvi. 21 (the High-priest laid both hands on the scape-goat); Lev. xxiv. 14 (the hands of the witnesses laid on the blasphemer before he was stoned).

The action expressed an intimate connexion between the offerer and the victim: in some sense a connexion of life: a dedication to a representative office.

The interpretation in each case depended upon tho particular office or act to be fulfilled by the offering.

(b) The killing (HebrewπρΠ: Hebrewn3J and HebrewΒΓφ to be distinguished). As a general rule the killing of the victim (unless it was a bird) was not the work of the priest but of the offerer in the case of private sacrifices: Lev. i. 5; iii. 2; iv. 24, 29. 33; though the priests might kill them. Compare Ochler, § 126.


In sacrifices for the whole nation the victims were killed by the priests who here represented the offerers; and so on the Great Day of Atonement they were killed by the High-priest: Lev. xvi. 15.

In the cleansing of the leper the victims were necessarily killed by the priest: the leper was outside the Congregation: Lev. xiv. 13, 25.

The victim was killed with the least possible pain: no stress was laid on death as suffering.

(c) The exception of the blood. The blood of the victim was the appointed means of atonement: Lev. xvii. 11.

It was received by the priests (2 Chron. xxix. 22; comp. 2 Chron. xxx. 16).

In certain cases it was mixed with water: Lev. xiv. 5 f.; but nothing is said in the Ο. T. of the mixture noticed in Hebr. ix. 19.

(d) The application of the blood.
This was the most significant part of the sacrifice. The rules in their solemn variety of detail are characteristic of the Levitical ritual. Elsewhere we read generally of the blood being poured upon the altars. In some cases (e.g. in Arabia) idols were smeared with blood. But there is apparently no parallel to the minute distinctions as to the use of the blood observed in Judaism.

The blood was applied by the priests only, and in four different ways.

i. It was 'sprinkled' (HebrewPit to asperse), i.e. probably it was all thrown about from the bowl directly or by the hand from the bowl 'on the altar [of burnt-offering] round about': Lev. i. 5; iii. 2; vii. 2, &c. This was done in the case of burnt-, peace- and guilt-offerings.

ii. It was 'applied' (HebrewJPJ to give) to the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and the remainder poured out at the base of the altar: Lev. iv. 30. This was done in the case of a sin-offering for 'one of the common people.'

iii. It was carried into the Holy place, and some of it was applied to the horns of the altar of incense and sprinkled (HebrewΠ|Π) with the finger upon the veil seven times: the remainder was poured out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering: Lev. iv. 6, 17 f. This was done in the case of a sin-offering for a priest or for the congregation.

iv. It was carried into the Holy of holies and sprinkled with the finger 'upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat seven times': afterwards it was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and sprinkled upon it with the finger seven times: Lev. xvi. 14, 15, 18, 19. [Nothing is said of the disposition of the remainder of the blood.] This was done on the Day of Atonement.

(e) The disposition of the victim.
The gift to God by fire followed on the completion of the atonement by the use of the blood.

In this connection the word for 'burning' was not Hebrewnb (used of consuming the remains of offerings outside the camp), but HebrewΝΠ 'to cause to [ascend as] smoke.'


The fire was kept perpetually burning: Lev. vi. 13.

The burnt-offerings, and the offerings whose blood was carried into the Holy or most Holy place (sin offerings for the priest or the congregation) were wholly consumed: Lev. iv. 11, 21; xvi. 27; Hebr. xiii. 11. So also were the unbloody offerings for priests.

Other offerings, under special limitations, were consumed by the priests or made the materials of a feast by the offerer.

Two rites, apparently peculiar to the Jews, have to be noticed in this connexion, the 'waving' (HebrewΠρϋ$) and the 'heaving' (HebrewnpVUjI) of parts of the offering which were so presented to God and then in some cases resigned by Him to the priests: Ex. xxix. 23 ff.; Lev. vii. 34; viii. 27 ff.; xxiii. 11, 20; Num. v. 25; xv. 19 ff.; xviii. 26 ff.; comp. Num. viii. 9 ff.; xviii. 6 f.

The absence of all inspection of the entrails of the victims, which was usual in Phoenicia, Egypt, &c., is specially to be noticed.

(f) The Sacrificial meal.

The parts of the offerings which were not consumed by fire were disposed of in different ways.

i. The unbloody offerings of the people except the part burnt as a 'memorial' (HebrewTJtl) were eaten by the priests alone in the court of the sanctuary: Lev. vii. 9 f.; x. 12 ff.

ii. The flesh of the guilt-offerings and of the sin-offerings for one of the people were eaten by the priests in the Holy place: Lev. vi. 25 ff.; vii. 6 ff; x. 16 ff.

iii. In the case of the peace- (thank-) offerings (Hebrewgt), after the disposal of the assigned parts, the offerer made a feast of the remainder within a fixed time and at a fixed place, to which he invited his household, his friends and the poor: Lev. vii. 15 ff.; xix. 5 ff.; xxii. 29 f.; Deut. xii. 6 ff.

In this last case we have the completest view of the sacrifice offered in virtue of a covenant relation with God. The offering is made to God, and He returns part to His worshipper through whom it is made a common blessing. Thus, as Philo pointed out, God received the faithful offerer to His own table: de vict. § 8 (ii. 245 M.).

The student will not fail to notice the representative completeness of the references to the Levitical Sacrifices in the Epistle. Thus we have the general description gifts and sacrifices (v. 1; viii. 3 f.); and, more particularly sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin (x. 8). Mention is made of the daily (x. 11) and of the yearly sacrifices (ix. 6 ff.; x. 1); of the Covenant Sacrifice (ix. 18 ff.); and of the sacrifices which were provided for removing the legal impurities which impaired the validity of the Covenant, through contact with death (ix. 13), or in the common conduct of life, on the Day of Atonement (v. 3; vii. 27 ff.; ix. 7 f.).


*Additional Note on* ix. 9. *The idea of συνείδησις*.

The conception of 'the conscience' (ἡ συνείδησις), which is not developed in the O. T. (comp. Ecclus. x. 20; Wisd. xvii. 11), comes into clear prominence in the Ν. T. It presents man as his own judge. Man does not stand alone. He has direct knowledge of a law — a law of God — which claims his obedience, and he has direct knowledge also of his own conduct. He cannot then but compare them and give sentence. His 'conscience,' as the power directing this process, is regarded apart from himself (Rom. ix. 1; ii. 15). The conscience may be imperfectly disciplined and informed (1 Cor. x. 25 ff.; viii. 7 ff.; contrast Acts xxiii. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 9; 2 Tim. i. 3; 1 Pet iii. 16, 21). It may again be modified (1 Cor. viii. 10, 12), and defiled (Tit. i. 15); and finally it may be seared and become insensible (1 Tim. iv. 2). The man is responsible for the character which it assumes.

The distribution of the word in the Books of the Ν. T. is interesting. It is not found in the Gospels (notice the occurrence in some copies in [John] viii. 9). It occurs in Acts, the central group of St Paul's Epistles (1, 2 Cor., Rom.), the Pastoral Epistles (1, 2 Tim., Tit), the Epistle to the Hebrews and 1 Peter.

The simplest use is that for direct, personal, knowledge with the gen. of the object (1 Cor. viii 7 εἰδώλου, 1 Pet ii. 19 θεοῦ, Hebr. x. 2 ἁμαρτιῶν), corresponding to συνειδέναι τι (1 Cor. iv. 4).

The absolute use of the word presents various functions which the conscience fulfils. It is a witness (2 Cor. i. 12; Rom. ii. 15); a judge (2 Cor. iv. 2; v. 11); a motive (1 Pet. ii. 19 διὰ σ.; 1 Cor. x. 25 ff. διὰ τὴν σ.; Rom. xiii. 5). It is turned to God (Acts xxiii. 1 τῷ θεῷ; xxiv. 16 *πρὸς τὸν θεόν); and it becomes an object of consideration to men (1 Cor. x. 28 f.).

In one passage it is placed in a most significant relation with 'the heart' and 'faith' (1 Tim. i. 5). The end of the Apostolic charge is love 'out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned.' Purity of personal character, rectitude of moral judgment, sincerity of trust in the unseen, form the triple foundation of active Christian work.

For the manifold description of the conscience see c. x. 22 note; and for references to general discussions see Thayer-Grimm, s.v. Nowhere have the claims of conscience been more nobly set out than in the writings of Mencius: Legge's Chinese Classics ii, Prolegg. 61 ff.

*Additional Note on* ix. 12. *On the use of the term 'Blood' in the Epistle*.

I have endeavoured to shew elsewhere (Addit.' Note on 1 John i. 7) that the Scriptural idea of Blood is essentially an idea of life and not of death. This idea is widely spread among primitive races, and finds a striking illustration in the familiar passage of the Odyssey, where the 294 ghosts of the dead are represented as receiving strength for a time from the blood which they eagerly drink: Od. xi. 36 ff.; 95 ff.; 152; 231.

The Blood, in other words, represents the energy of the physical, earthly, life as it is. The use of the term in the Epistle to the Hebrews becomes first fully intelligible by taking account of this truth. The Blood poured out is the energy of present human life made available for others.

  1. The first mention of Blood prepares for all that follows from the conception: Since the children are sharers in blood and flesh, He also in like manner partook of the same...(ii. 14). Christ became true man under such conditions that He could die even as men die, and in dying make the virtue of His life accessible to the race. For it must be remembered that in Scripture death under its present form is not regarded as a natural necessity, but as a consequence of sin. By this perfect assumption of humanity, the sacrifice of absolute obedience became possible. In life and in death Christ was able 'to do the will of God,' both as Son of man and under the circumstances of the Fall (x. 4 ff.).

  2. The next mention of Christ's Blood brings before us the accomplishment of this work: Through His own Blood [Christ] entered once for all into the Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption (ix. 12). As, in the type, the Jewish High-priest came before God through and in (v. 25) the power of the life of victims offered up, Christ came before Him 'through His own Blood11   In connexion with the thought in ix. 23 it is interesting to notice that according to the primitive Chinese ritual temples and their vessels were consecrated by blood: Li Ki xviii. § 2, pp. 2, 33 (S. Β. E. xxviii. 169 f.)..' Through a life lived and a death willingly borne according to the mind of God, He could rightly approach God in His glorified humanity; and at the same time He provided for men also the means of approach 'in His Blood.'

  3. This thought comes next. The Life of Christ offered in its purity and fulness to God cleanses men, and enables them also to serve Him Who is a living God (ix. 14). Just as the blood of the appointed victims was efficacious by Divine promise for the representative of the people, the Blood of Christ in its essential nature is efficacious for those to whom it is applied. In the Blood of Jesus--not simply 'through' it—we have boldness to enter into the Holy place (x. 19). In this respect the Blood has a twofold action, personal and social. It is the 'blood of sprinkling' (xii. 24), touching with its quickening power each believer; and it is also a force of consecration through which 'Jesus sanctified the people' (xiii. 12).

  4. This last passage brings into prominence yet another thought The Blood of Christ is not only available for individual men. It has established for the race a new relation to God. The offered Life in which Christ found the glorified Life of the Resurrection (xiii. 20 ὁ ἀναγαγὼν ἐκ νεκρῶν...ἐν αἷματι...), is, in virtue of His Nature, the blood of an eternal covenant (l.c.). In this the Christian is sanctified (x. 29) when he is admitted into the Christian Society. And, however little we may be able to give distinctness to the truth, its hallowing, cleansing, power reaches to all finite things with which man has contact.

The mere indication of the passages, as they follow one after the other 295 and reveal the harmonious completeness of the apostolic teaching, will be enough to encourage the student to examine them in detail in their mutual relations.

*Additional Note on* ix. 12. *The idea of λυτροῦσθαι, λύτρωσις, *.

The use in the Ν. T. of the group of words connected with Χύτρορ is based upon their use in the lxx. All the simple forms (Χύτρορ, Χυτρόω, λντρωσις, λυτρωτής) are found there together with the compound άποΧυτρουρ (Ex. xxi. 8 for η|; Zeph. iii. 1 for ί>Κ|).

The word Χύτρον, in relation to men, represents IDb, as a ransom for a life: Ex. xxi. 30; xxx. 12; Num. xxxv. 31 f.; Prov. xiii. 8 (ίλασμα Aq. Sym. Th.) comp. Prov. vi. 35; TfUp, as the price of a captive: Is. xlv. 13; Tupn (?VJ$), and Π^| as the price of redemption of a slave: Lev. xix. 20, and xxv. 51 f. (comp. Num. iii. 46 ff.; xviii 15); and more widely n^KJ, as the price of redemption of land: Lev. xxv. 24.

The verb Χυτρουσθαι is very frequent as the translation of ?$\ and ΠΊ9 (of each more than forty times). It is used literally of the 'redemption' of that which has been alienated: Lev. xxv. 25 ff. (λυτρωσται τη πρασιρ τοΰ ά&Χφοΰ); xxvii. 13 ff.; and in a more general sense of deliverance from the power of outward enemies: Ps. cvi. [cvii.] 2, &c.; from the power of sin: Ps. cxxix. [cxxx.] 8; Dan. iv. 24; and from the power of death: Hos. xiii. 14. It was specially used of the 'redemption' of Israel from Egypt: Ex. vi. 6 (λυτρώνομαι ύμας p βραχίονι ύψηΧγ και κρίση μίγοΧ); xν. 13; Deut. νii. 8; ix. 26; xiii. 5; 2 Sam. vii. 23; Ps. lxxvi. [lxxvii.] 16; Mic. vi. 4; and of that future 'redemption' of which this was a type: Is. xxxv. 9; xli. 14; xliii. 1, 14).

ύτρωσι occurs with the full breadth of the meaning of the verb: of the redemption of a slave (Lev. xxv. 48), of the firstborn (Num. xviii. 16), of the people (Ps. cx. [cxi.] 8), of the penitent (Ps. cxxix. [cxxx.] 7). Comp. Jud. i. 15 (a false reading of the Hebr.).

λυτρωτής which is not quoted from classical authors, is found in Ps. xviii. [xix.] 15; lxxvii. [lxxviii.] 35 (for bni). [The form Χυτρωται in Lev. xxv. 31, 32 is wrongly referred to the noun; it is evidently from the verbal λυτρωτός.]

In the Ν. Τ. Xvrpov occurs only in Matt. xx. 28 || Mk. x. 45 σοϋναι την ψυχήν αυτού Χύτρον άντ\ πολλών. The compound αντΙΧυτρον is found in I Tim. ii. 6 Χ. Ί. ό ftow «αυτορ άντιλυτρον ύπίρ πάντωρ.

The verb Χυτρουσθαι is comparatively rare. It occurs only three times, Lk. xxiv. 21 δτι αυτός ivrip 6 μίλλοον Χυτρουσθαι τ6ν Ισραήλ. Tit. ii. 14 Ινα Χυτρωσηται ήμας άπο πάσης ανομίας. I Pet. i. 18 ου φθαρτο\ς...Ιλυτρωθητ9 ίκ της ματαίας υμών ανάστροφης.. Άλλα τιμίω αίματι.... The variety of construction in these three passages is strikingly representative, (1) absolutely, (2) with ἀπό, (3) with ἐκ and the addition of dat. instr. Άπολυτρουσθαι is not found in N.T.


Λύτρωσις occurs Lk. i. 68 ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ, ii. 38 τοῖς προσδεχομένοις λύτρωσιν Ίερουσαλήμ. Hebr. ix. 12 αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος.

Ἀπολύτρωσις is much more common: Lk. xxi. 28 ἐγγίζει ἡ ἀπολύτρωσιν εὑράμενος ὑμῶν. Rom. iii. 24 διὰ τῆς ἀπ. τῆς ἐv X. Ἰ. viii. 23 τὴν ἀπ. τοῦ σώματος. 1 Cor. i. δε (Ἰησοῦς) ἐγενήθη...ἡμῖν...ἀπ. Eph. i. 7 || Col. i 14 ἐν ὧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολυτρωσιν. id. i. 14 εἰς ἀπ. τῆς περποιήσεως. iv. 30 εἰς ἡμέραν άπ. Hebr. ix. 15 εἰς ἀπ. τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων. xi. 35 οὐ προσδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπ.

Λυτρωτής is found only in Acts vii. 35 τοῦτον (Μωυσῆν) ὁ θεὸς καὶ ἄρχοντα καὶ λυτρωτὴν ἀπέσταλκεν.

The whole group of words, it will be seen, with the exception of the single occurrence of λύτρον in the Synoptic narrative, is confined to the Epistles of St Paul and writings (including 1 Peter) which are strongly coloured by his language. They are entirely absent from the writings of St John.

The conception of 'redemption' lies in the history of Israel. The idea of deliverance from Egypt furnished the imagery of hope. To this the work of Christ offered the perfect spiritual antitype. This parallel is of importance, for it will be obvious from the usage of the lxx. that the idea of a ransom received by the power from which the captive is delivered is practically lost in λυτροῦσθαι, &c. It cannot be said that God paid to the Egyptian oppressor any price for the redemption of His people. On the other hand the idea of the exertion of a mighty force, the idea that the 'redemption' costs much, is everywhere present. The force may be represented by Divine might, or love, or self-sacrifice, which become finally identical. But there is no thought of any power which can claim from God what is not according to the original ordinance of His righteous compassion.

It follows that the discussions which have been raised on the question of 'To whom was the ransom for man's redemption paid' are apt to be misleading. The deliverance of man from the debt, the captivity, the bondage of sin—however we express the image--could only be through the satisfaction of the claims of a violated law. These claims regarded under the light of punishment present a twofold aspect. To him who rebels against the divine law, they are simply pain: to him who humbly submits himself to it, they are a salutary discipline. The first aspect includes the truth which was expressed by the patristic conception that Christ paid the ransom of man to the devil: the second includes the truth expressed by the later view that the ransom was paid to God. Each view however is essentially incomplete, and it is perilous to attempt to draw conclusions from limited interpretations of Scripture.

The idea of 'redemption,' 'deliverance,' in the spiritual order requires to be supplemented by the idea of 'purchase.' Man has no power of standing by himself. His freedom lies in his complete acceptance of the will of God. When therefore he is 'redeemed' from the power of evil he is also 'purchased,' so as to become wholly in the hands of God. The idea of 'purchase,' though of less frequent occurrence in the Ν. T. than the idea of 'redemption,' is more widely spread. It occurs in St Paul, 2 Peter, and the Apocalypse (ἀγολάζειν, ἐξαγοράζειν).

1 Cor. vi. 20 οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν, ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ τιμῆς.


1 Cor. vii. 22 f. ὁ ἐλεύθερος κληθεὶς δοῦλός ἐστι Χριστοῦ. τιμῆς ἠγοράσθητε μὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων.

2 Pet. ii. 1 τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι.

Apoc. v. 9 ἐσφάγης καὶ ἠόρασας τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἴματί σου ἐκ πάσης φυλπης καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους....

— xiv. 3 f. (ᾄδουσιν ὡς ὠδὴν καινὴν) οἱ ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς...οὗτοι ἠγοράσθησαν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀπαρχὴ τῷ θεῷ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ.

The compound ἐξαγοράζειν combines the thought of redemption with that of purchase:

Gal. iii. 13 Χρίστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα.

— iv. 4 f. ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ...ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ, ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν.

The Christian, it appears, is bought at the price of Christ's Blood for God. He is Christ's bond-servant, and at the same time God's son by adoption. They that have been purchased leave a work for others: they are firstfruits to God and the Lamb.

Additional Note on ix. 14. Aspects of Christ's Sacrifice.

The Levitical Sacrifices expressed, as we have seen, several great ideas, the ideas of atonement and fellowship resting upon the idea of a covenant. They brought before the people in vivid types thoughts of cleansing and divine communion through which God realised the gracious purpose which He made known when He took them to Himself. Under outward forms and limitations they shewed how man might yet reach the destiny for which he was created.

The self-sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross fulfilled absolutely all that was thus shadowed forth. That Sacrifice is presented to us in the Epistle under three distinct aspects:

(1) As a Sacrifice of Atonement (ix. 14, 15);

(2) As a Covenant Sacrifice (ix. 15—17); and

(3) As a Sacrifice which is the groundwork of a Feast (xiii. 10, 11).

In each respect it had a spiritual, an eternal, a universal validity, where the type had been necessarily external and confined.

These several aspects are considered in detail in the notes on the passages which deal with them, but there is one common feature which may be more conveniently noticed here. In the animal sacrifices of the Law two points are carefully distinguished which our own habits of thought lead us more or less to confuse, the killing of the victim and the application of the blood. The killing was properly the act of the person on whose behalf the victim was presented, or, in the case of a public sacrifice, of the representative of the people. The application of the blood was the office of the priests only. Christ was Offerer at once and Offering. In Him the victim and the people and the priest were one. He therefore performed both acts, He offered Himself through the eternal Spirit (ix. 14), and so 298 by the surrender of life He fulfilled the work of the people, of the humanity which He had assumed. Through His Blood He entered into the Divine Presence and cleansed the heavenly archetypes of the earthly sanctuary (ix. 12, 23), and so by the impartment of a new life He fulfils the work of the priest, having realised In His divine-human nature the end of man's existence.

The direct references to Christ's Death are naturally less frequent than the references to His Blood. Death, with its unnatural agony, was the condition, under the actual circumstances of fallen man, whereby alone the Life of the Son of man could be made available for the race (ii. 9, 14; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 26; Rom. v. 10; vi. 3 f.; Phil. ii. 8; iii. 10; Col. i. 22). The Blood was the energy of Christ's true human life, under the circumstances of earth, whereby alone man's life receives the pledge and the power of a divine glory (see Addit. Note on v. 12).

Thus the two—the Blood and the Death—correspond generally with the two sides of Christ's work, the fulfilment of the destiny of man as created and the fulfilment of this destiny though man has fallen. The first would have been necessary even though sin had not interrupted the due course of man's progress and relation to God. It becomes necessary therefore, in order to gain a complete view of the Sacrifice of Christ, to combine with the crowning act upon the Cross His fulfilment of the will of God from first to last (x. 5 ff.), the Sacrifice of Life with the Sacrifice of Death. And when we look back over the facts of Christ's Sacrifice brought forward in the Epistle we notice two series of blessings gained for men by Him, the one series answering to the restoration of man's right relation to God which has been violated by sin, and the other answering to the fulfilment of the purpose of creation, the attainment by man of the Divine likeness: on the one side we recognise a re-opened entrance into the Holiest closed against fallen man and fresh access to God, on the other side sovereignty over 'the house' and free intercourse with God.

*Additional Note on* ix. 16. *The meaning of διαθήκη in* ix. 15 ff.

(1). The meaning of διαθήκη in the N. T. must be determined in the first instance by the use of the word in the lxx. In the lxx. διαθήκη and διατίθεμαι are the regular representatives of Hebrew and Hebrew (with two exceptions: Deut. ix. 15 αἱ δύο πλάκες τῶν μαρτυρίων, 1 Κ. xi. 11 τὰς ἐντολάς). In one place (Zech. xi. 14) διαθήκη represents the more specific idea of 'brotherhood' (Hebrew) (comp. Ed. 5, Ps. ii. 7). Elsewhere it has uniformly the meaning of Covenant in the translation of the books of the Hebrew Canon (so in the three other places where it represents other words than Hebrew: Εx. xxxi. 7 [Hebrew]; Deut. ix. 5 [Hebrew]; Jer. xli. (xxxiv.) 18 [Hebrew]; compare also Lev. xxvi. 11; Ezek. xvi. 29); and, as representing Hebrew, it is applied to a covenant between peoples (Josh. ix. 6; 299 Jud. ii. 2) and between persons (1 Sam. xxiii. 18; 2 Sam. iii. 12 f. &c.; Mal. ii. 14). The same sense is preserved in the Apocrypha except in Ecclus. xxxviii. 33 διαθήκην λρίματος οὐ διανοηθήσανται, and xlv. 17 ἐν διαθήκαις πριμάτων, where it appears to have the original and wider sense of 'disposition,' 'arrangement.' There is not the least trace of the meaning 'testament' in the Greek Old Scriptures, and the idea of a 'testament' was indeed foreign to the Jews till the time of the Herods: comp. Jos. Ant. xiii. 1, 16, 1; xvii. 3, 2; B. J. ii. 2, 3.

Συνθήκη, the ordinary word for covenant, is very rare in the lxx., though it is used several times by the later translators (Aqu. 8ymm. Theod.) as the rendering of nT|. The choice of διαθήκη to express the notion of a divine covenant is easily intelligible. In a divine 'covenant' the parties do not stand in the remotest degree as equal contractors (συνθήκη). God in His good pleasure makes the arrangement which man receives, though he is not passive (2 K. xi. 17). Such a covenant is a 'disposition,' an 'ordainment,' an expression of the divine will which they to whom it is made reverently welcome.

(2). In classical writers, on the other hand, from the time of Plato, διαθήκη generally means 'a testament,' 'a will,' a 'disposition' (of property, &c.) to take effect after death; though the more general sense of 'arrangement,' 'agreement,' is also found (Arist. Av. 440).

(3). Philo (de nom. mut. §§ 6 ff.; i. 586 f. M.) refers to a treatise of his on 'Covenants' (διαθῆκαι), which has unfortunately been lost. But in the same context he states the general idea which he attached to a Divine διαθήκη. 'Covenants' he says 'are written for the benefit of those who are worthy of bounty. So a Covenant is a symbol of grace, which God sets between Himself Who extends the boon and man who receives it' (l.c.). And directly after he presents God Himself as 'the highest kind of Covenant, the beginning and source of all graces.' In another phrase of the passage he shews how easy it was to pass from the sense of 'covenant' to 'will': '[God] acknowledges that He will leave to the sinless and blameless an inheritance by terms of a covenant (κατὰ διαθήκας), which it is fitting for God to give and for a wise man to receive. For He says: I will place My Covenant between Me and thee' (Gen. xvii. 2). Comp. de sacr. Ab. § 14 (i. 172 f. M.).

Josephus uses the word several times for 'will' (Ant. xvii. 3, 2; 9, 7; B. J. ii. 2, 3), and he appears to avoid the phrases of the lxx. ἠ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης and the like, using κιβωτός only.

(4). In the N. T. the sense of 'covenant' is unquestionable, except in two passages: Gal. iii. 15; and the passage under consideration (Heb. ix. 15 f.). For the former passage see Bp. Lightfoot's note, who defends the sense 'covenant.' Compare Matt. xxvi. 28 and parallels; Acts iii. 25; vii. 8; and notice the plural: Rom. ix. 4; Gal. iv. 24; Eph. ii. 12 (Wisd. xviii. 22; Ecclus. xliv. 11; 2 Macc. viii. 15).

(5). The Latin renderings of διαθήκη are instructive. In the Ν. T. the rendering is uniformly testamentum, even where the sense of covenant is unquestionable (Lk. i. 72; Acts iii. 25 (d. dispositionis); vii. 8 (d. dispositionem); Rom. xi. 27) and in quotations from the 0. T. where faedus stands in the Vulgate rendering of the O. T. itself: Jer. xxxi. 31 (c. viii. 8). 300 The rendering is undoubtedly due to the Old Latin translation which Jerome in his cursory revision left untouched. The first translators naturally gave the ordinary equivalent of διαθήκη. It is, however, not unlikely that in the common language testamentum was not restricted to the classical sense of will but had the wider meaning of charta testium subscriptionibus firmata, which is not uncommon in later ecclesiastical documents. See Du Cange s. v.

Even in the 0. T. the Old Latin rendering had such authority that the phrase arca testamenti occurs four times (Ex. xxx. 26; Num. xiv. 44; 2 Regg. vi. 15; Jer. iii. 16) for the common rendering arca foederis; and so in Mal. iii 1 we have angelus testamenti; comp. Zech. ix. 11 and Dan. iii. 34 (Vulg.); xi. 28, 30, 32; Is. xiv. 13.

Elsewhere (except in the version of the Psalms taken from 0. L. where Jerome has pactum), the rendering of JV"ty by foedus appears to be universal.

The Syriac Versions transliterate the Greek word.

(6). The Biblical evidence then, so far as it is clear, is wholly in favour of the sense of 'covenant,' with the necessary limitation of the sense of the word in connexion with a Divine covenant. When we pass to the consideration of the sense of διαθήκη in c. ix. 15 ff. one preliminary remark offers itself. The connexion of vv. 15 — 18 is most close: v. 16 ὅποι γάρ...: v. 18 ὅθεν οὐδέ....

This connexion makes it most difficult to suppose that the key-word (διαθήκη) is used in different senses in the course of the verses, and especially that the characteristic of a particular kind of διαθήκη, essentially different from the πρώτη διαθήκη of vv. 15, 18, should be brought forward in v. 16. For it is impossible to maintain that the sacrifices with which the Old Covenant was inaugurated could be explained on the supposition that it was a 'Testament.' Nor does it appear that it could be called a 'Testament' in any sense.

It is then most reasonable to conclude that διαθήκη has the same sense throughout, and that the sense is the otherwise universal one of 'covenant,' unless there are overwhelming arguments against such a view.

(7). But it is said that there are such arguments: that the mention of an 'inheritance' suggests the thought of 'a will,' and that the phrases θάνατον φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου, ἐπὶ νεκροῖς, ὅτε ζῇ διαθέμενος require it; and further it is asked how can it be said that a covenant requires 'death' to give it validity?

(8). In answer to those contentions it must be replied that the mention of the 'inheritance' in v. 15 does not appear to furnish any adequate explanation of a transition from the idea of 'Covenant' to that of 'Testament' It is true that Christ has obtained an inheritance (i. 4); and it is also true that He entered on the possession of it through death; but it cannot be said that He 'bequeathed' it to His people. He 'made a disposition' in favour of His people (Luke xxii. 29). By union with Him they enjoy together with Him what is His. But He does not give them anything apart from Himself. It is also of importance in this respect to notice that the thought of the bequeathal of an inheritance by Christ to 301 His people is not supported by any other passage of Scripture (not by Luke xxii. 29).

Again there can be no question that in v. 15 Christ is spoken of as 'the mediator of a new covenant' (comp. vii. 22 ἔγγους). Now the conceptions of Christ as the 'Mediator of a Covenant' and as a 'Testator, the 'framer of a will', are essentially distinct᾿ A Covenant is a disposition of things determined by God for man and brought about through Christ: a Testament would be the expression of Christ's own will as to what should be after His death. The thoughts are wholly different; and the idea of death is unable in itself to combine them. The Covenant might include the necessity of the Mediator's Death, but the admission of that necessity does not convert the Covenant into a Testament, or place the Mediator in a position of a Testator. He who fulfils the Covenant may indeed by the Covenant secure rights which He can communicate to others after death, but such a communication is not a testamentary disposition.

Yet further: if the writer had had in his mind the simple fact of the death of a testator it is unintelligible that he should have used language so strange as ἐπὶ νεκροῖς and φέρεσθαι. Nor is the use of ἐπὶ νεκροῖς explained by the supposed choice of the words to meet the case of the Old Covenant, to which the idea of a Testament does not apply (yet comp. Lact. Inst. iv. 20).

(9). It does not therefore appear that the sense of 'testament' clears away the difficulties of the passage in itself, or in relation to the context. Is it possible then, on the other hand, to give an intelligible meaning to the passage if the sense 'covenant' is retained throughout? To meet this question fairly it is necessary to recal what has been already said by the Apostle.

The course of thought appears to be this. In v. 15 the two notions of a 'covenant' and a 'death' have been introduced. The death, as it is first presented, is presented as a means for redemption from past obligations. But when it has once been brought forward the question arises: Had it no further meaning in this connexion? The answer is found in a reference to the rites by which covenants were solemnly ratified. A sacrifice was a constituent part of the ratification; and it must be remembered that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant included not only death but also the sprinkling of blood, already touched on in the reference to the Sacrifice of the New Covenant. The early phrases used for making a covenant shew that the idea of death actually entered into the conception of a covenant: ΠΠ? ΓΠ?, ὅρκια τέμνειν, icere foedus..

In some way or other the victim which was slain and, in some cases at least, divided (Gen. xv. 10, comp. v. 18; Jer. xxxiv. 18 f.), represented the parties to the covenant.

Probably the fundamental idea was that so far as this special arrangement was concerned they had no longer will or life. The arrangement was final and unchangeable.

In ordinary covenants the death of the persons who made the covenant was represented of necessity in symbol only, and both parties were alike liable to change. In the Covenant of the Gospel, Christ, being Himself 302 truly man, represented humanity, at the victims represented the Jewish people at the founding of the Mosaic Covenant; and by His death He fulfilled the Covenant for men eternally, and satisfied the conditions on which forgiveness rests. He showed that the promise of God was inviolable, and He shewed also how man could avail himself of its provisions. The redemption which was accomplished was the pledge of the fulfilment of the promise in the Covenant still to be realised.

For here fresh considerations offer themselves which underlie the argument of the passage. The Covenant to which the writer looks is, as has been seen, not one between man and man, who meet as equal parties, but between man and God. The death of the covenant-victim therefore assumes a new character. It figures not only the unchangeableness of death but also the self-surrender of death.

(10). If then the view be adopted that the sense of διαθήκη remains unchanged throughout as 'Covenant,' the general force of the argument will be this:

The system, the dispensation, established by Christ corresponds in the truest sense to a New Covenant, and rests upon a Covenant. A Covenant indeed requires for absolute validity the ratification by death, as is conspicuously illustrated by the fundamental covenant-sacrifice in Gen. xv. and by the Covenant with Israel.

And this condition was satisfied by Christ. He was Himself the Covenant-Victim. In this aspect He attested the inviolable force of the Covenant which He established. Not in a figure only, but in reality, He showed how the Covenant was valid and must be valid. He made the new relation of man to God possible and sure. His Death was an atonement for sin, and it was a perfect ratification of the Covenant which He made 'in His blood,' in His life offered and communicated. In Him humanity fulfilled its part. For here we are considering not a Covenant between man and man, but between man and God. And that man may enter into such a relation he must yield up life, that he may receive it again. This Christ has done once for all for men, and in Him, in virtue of His Life, all men can draw nigh to God.

Hence the ceremonies connected with the inauguration of the Old Covenant become fully intelligible. In that case also the life offered was imparted to the people in a symbol. The blood of the victims whose death marked the ratification of the Covenant was sprinkled on the people and on the sanctuary.

It can cause no surprise that the patristic interpretations rest on the sense of 'will.'

It was natural that the Greek Commentators (from Chrysostom downwards) should take the familiar sense of διαθήκη, and Latin Commentators found it given (apparently) by the text which they used. Yet there are traces of the other idea being still remembered, as in an interesting note of Isidore of Polusium: τὴν συνθήκην, τουτὲστι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν διαθήκην ἡ θεία παλεῖ γραφή, διὰ τὸ βέβαιον καὶ ἀπαρόβατον• συνθῆκαι μὲν γὰρ πολλάκις ἀνατρέπονται, διαθήκαι δὲ νόμιμοι ο»θδαμῶς (Ερρ. ii. 196).

« Prev IX. Next »


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