5. Attridge, 134.
6. Although the term used for “word” in 11:3 is ῥῆμα rather than λόγος.
7. Pace J. Swetnam, “Jesus as Λόγος in Hebrews 4, 12–13,” Bib 62 (1981): 214–24, the context prevents limiting the “word of God” to the divine “logos” of John 1:1–14. This expression must embrace the word of God addressed to the people who lived before Christ, such as the wilderness generation just mentioned in this passage. However, this “word of God” finds its fulfillment and climax in what God has spoken through the Son. Hebrews knows nothing of a preincarnate revelation in the Son. By definition, God’s ultimate revelation in his Son is encompassed in his incarnation and exaltation. See “The Sermon’s Use of the Old Testament” in the Introduction (esp. pp. 41–47).
8. On the role of God’s word in creation see Gen 1:3; Ps 33:9; and Isa 55:11. On the judging function of God’s word see Amos 1:2; Ps 51:6; and Jer 7:13. Often the OT prophetic books begin with the “word of the Lord” coming to the prophet (Isa 1:10; Jer 1:4; Amos 5:1; Mic 1:1; Joel 1:1; Hag 2:20; Zech 1:7; cf. also 1 Sam 15:24; 2 Sam 12:9; 1 Kgs 12:24; 2 Kgs 9:36; 1 Chr 10:13; 2 Chr 11:2). Wis 18:14–16 personifies the word of God as a warrior who exercises the sharp sword that represents God’s decrees against the Egyptians who refuse to let Israel leave Egypt.
9. For the combined use of “soul” (ψυχή) and “spirit” (πνεύμα) see Wis 15:11; Josephus, Ant. 3.260; Philo, Worse 80–83; Heir 55–57; QG 2.59. Hebrews appears to use both “soul” (10:39) and “spirit” (10:39) with little distinction (O’Brien, 177, n. 137).
10. Ellingworth’s (263) argument that joints and marrow do not touch is worth consideration.
11. “Life and spirit” often occur together as a pair. See Wis 15:11; Josephus, Ant. 1.34; Philo, Worse 80–83; Heir 55–57; QG 2.59.
12. “For the ancients ‘marrow,’ deeply hidden inside the bones, served metaphorically for that which was most intimate in the body of a person” (G. R. Smillie, “‘ho logos tou theou’ in Hebrews 4:12–13,” NovT 46 [2004]: 343).
13. Smillie, “Hebrews 4:12–13,” 348–49. The word μάχαιρα is often used for a knife or dagger shorter than what is normally implied by the English word “sword” (Josh 5:2, 3; 24:31; Judg 3:16–22 in the LXX). Cf. Ellingworth, 282. Smillie references Wilhelm Michaelis, “μάχαιρα,” TDNT 4:527, and the examples there cited, as evidence that this word could be used for a surgeon’s knife. The fact that it is used to separate “joints and marrow” concurs with this proposal. Cf. Swetnam, “Jesus as Λόγος,” 218–19.
14. Smillie must unduly minimize the warning character of 3:7–4:11 in order to argue that the pastor is here attributing a healing power to the word of God. Furthermore, the contention that the following passage, 4:14–16, is a word of encouragement is no argument that the present passage should be so construed. Hebrews regularly follows warning with encouragement (see 6:1–8 followed by 6:9–12; and 10:19–25, by 10:25–31). Smillie, however, does provide a needed corrective. This present passage is not about the condemnation of the executioner’s sword (pace Michel, 198–99, n. 3). It is, however, about the exposure of the human heart and therefore about the accountability, and, indeed, the absolute helplessness, of God’s people before him (Lane, 1:102; O’Brien, 175). See Smillie, “Hebrews 4:12–13,” 338–59.
15. The difficulty in making a clear distinction between ἐνθύμησις (“thoughts”) and ἔννοια (“intentions”) only emphasizes the penetrating power of the word of God, able to “judge” between them (Johnson, 135). See BDAG, 336, 337; Attridge, 136; O’Brien, 177, n. 138. The pastor, ever sensitive to the resonance of his words in the ear, has chosen two terms that begin with ἐν.
16. The idea that nothing is hidden from God was common in the OT. This concept was prominent in contemporary Judaism (1 En. 9:5; Letter of Aristeas 132–33; Sir 16:17; Philo, Abraham 104) and was not absent from the Greco-Roman world (Seneca, Ep. 83; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.14.11). For further references see Attridge, 136, nn. 48, 49; Koester, 274; Lane, 1:103. The pastor, however, has used this imagery with renewed force and specificity in light of all that he says about the word of God and its final disclosure in the “great salvation” (2:3) provided by God’s Son.
17. See Spicq, 2:90–91.
18. Smillie, “Hebrews 4:12–13,” 347–48.
19. Ellingworth, 264–65.
20. Montefiore, 89
21. πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος. This translation takes ἡμῖν, “us,” as dative of reference, “to whom the word [must be given] in reference to us.” It could also be instrumental of agency, “to whom the word [must be given] by us.”
22. See G. R. Smillie, “‘The Other Logos’ at the End of Heb. 4:13,” NovT 47 (2005): 19–25. This forceful statement of accountability before God echoes the common idiom, “to give a word,” meaning “to give account.”
1. See “The Sermon’s Rhetorically Effective Structure” in the Introduction to this commentary (pp. 60–77).
2. In the Introduction this commentary (pp. 70–71) has noted the cohesion given Heb 5:1–7:28 by the quotation of Ps 110:4 (5:5–6, 10; 6:20; 7:1–25). Guthrie, Structure, 82, argues for a high-level cohesion shift at 5:1, a median-level shift after 7:28, and an inclusion between 5:1–3 and 7:26–28. His analysis has been followed most recently by O’Brien, 187–88. James Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest: Ps 110, 4 as the Substructure of Heb 5, 1–7, 28 (European University Studies; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2000), has dedicated his dissertation to proving the unity of this section. Yet Kurianal’s attempt to expound 5:1–7:28 as one section fails to account adequately for the fact that the comparison/ contrast between Aaron and the Son in 5:1–10 introduces 7:1–10:18 as a whole (see Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 263–68, for a summary of his arguments). He recognizes that 5:5–6 announces the theme of 7:1–28, but fails to see that 5:1–3, 7–10 establishes a typological relationship between the priesthoods of Aaron and the Son that is then developed in 8:1–10:18. The themes from 5:1–3, 7–10 reappear in 7:26–28, not merely as an inclusion but also in order to introduce the following section. Thus it is clear that 5:1–10 introduces not only 7:1–28 but also 8:1–10:18. The “entity of Melchizedek” may be “deactivated” after 7:28 (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 188), but other aspects of 5:1–10 come to the fore. Moreover, the exhortation in 5:11–6:20 is not without relevance for 8:1–10:18 as well as for 7:1–28. The break between 7:28 and 8:1 is hardly more pronounced than the breaks after 5:10, 6:12, or 6:20. Guthrie, Structure, 83–84, finds high-level cohesion shifts after both 5:10 and 6:12. Thus, despite a degree of formal unity in 5:1–7:28, it is more helpful to divide this section as in the commentary above. For the inclusion of 4:14–16 with this section see “The Sermon’s Rhetorically Effective Structure” (esp. pp. 61–62; 67, n. 273; and pp. 70–71).
1. On the importance of the parallel exhortation in 4:14–16 and 10:19–25 for the structure and effectiveness of this sermon see “The Sermon’s Rhetorically Effective Structure,” esp. pp. 61–62; 67, n. 273; and pp. 70–71.
1. Heb 4:14 repeats the terms “Jesus,” “high priest,” and “confession” from 3:1. A number of expressions in 4:15–16 concur with terms used in 2:17–18: “To sympathize” and “tempted in every way, just as we are” from 4:15 correspond to “merciful” and “made like his brothers in every way” in 2:17. The phrase “find grace to help us in time of need” in 4:16 corresponds to “able to help those who are being tempted” in 2:18. Pace both Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 104–7, and Braun, 85, the repetition of these terms in 4:14 does not form an inclusion with 3:1. The theme of Christ’s high priesthood has not been discussed in the intervening verses. Rather, v. 14 resumes the theme introduced in 2:17–18, 3:1. Thus it is to be taken as an introduction to the following exposition of that theme rather than as the conclusion to the previous section. Vanhoye would add v. 14 to what precedes and join vv. 15–16 to 5:1–10. However, the cohesion of this unit is demonstrated by the parallel structure, unity of theme, and hortatory nature of v. 14 and vv. 15–16. Comparison with the corresponding exhortation in 10:19–25 reinforces this conclusion. See the discussion in “The Sermon’s Rhetorically Effective Structure,” esp. pp. 61–62; 67, n. 273; and pp. 70–71.
2. See Guthrie, Structure, 102–3.
3. Compare ἔχοντες οὖν (“therefore, because we have”) in 4:14 and 10:21; προσερχώμεθα μετὰ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως (“let us come with true hearts in full assurance of faith,” 10:22) with προσερχώμεθα οὖν μετὰ παρρησίας τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς χάριτος (“therefore, let us approach the throne of grace with confidence,” 4:16); and κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος (“let us hold fast to the confession of hope,” 10:23) with κρατῶμεν τῆς ὁμολογίας (“let us hold firmly to our confession,” 4:14).
4. Weiss, 292–93.
5. The resumptive force of οὖν is likewise picked up by the “then” of the NRSV, NASB, etc.
6. Weiss, 292–93. See the opening introductory paragraph above.
7. For ὁ ἱερέυς ὁ μέγας, “great priest,” see Lev 21:10; Num 35:25, 28, 32; Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:3; Zech 3:1, 9; 6:11. Before the Maccabean period ἀρχιερέυς, “high priest,” occurs only in Lev 4:3 and Josh 22:13. See Johnson, 139.
8. The author of 1 Maccabees uses the full term μέγας ἀρχιερέυς, “great high priest,” in reference to Simon Maccabaeus (1 Macc 13:42), and Philo uses it to describe Melchizedek (Abraham 30) and the Logos (Dreams 1.214, 219; 2.183). See Ellingworth, 266. Both authors employ this term to emphasize the greatness of the high priest in question.
9. Spicq, 2:91. The pastor announces the superiority of Christ’s high priesthood in 4:14–16 by using the term “great high priest.” He concludes his discussion of this theme in 10:19–25 with the term “great priest.” In between these two references he has expounded “the incomparable majesty of His person” (Riggenbach, 118) and the saving efficacy of his priestly work. Compare 13:20, “the great Shepherd of the sheep.”
10. The plural “heavens” does not commit the author to a Hellenistic or rabbinic belief in a series of three or seven heavens (pace Spicq, 2:91), but indicates that Jesus has penetrated through whatever levels of heaven there may be into the place where God dwells. Nor is it likely that this is a reference to a two-part heaven parallel to the Holy Place and Most Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary (see Braun, 124; Bénétreau, 1:197). The varied usage of “heavens”/“heaven” (οὐρανοί/οὐρανός) in Hebrews militates against a precise cosmology of multiple heavens (Weiss, 294). In 1:10 the plural refers to the part of the temporal, created universe that is above the earth, and in 8:1 and 9:23 to the transcendent, never-ending dwelling place of God. In 11:12 the singular refers to the temporal, and in 9:24; 10:34; 12:12, 25; and probably 12:26 to the transcendent heaven.
11. “His entrance has been achieved and the results are immutable” (Spicq, 2:91). See Hughes, 170, and Attridge, 139.
12. “Son” in 1:2, 5, 8 and 3:6 means “Son of God.” Here, however, the pastor uses the full title for clarity and to highlight the contrast with the name Jesus. Our High Priest’s humanity and deity are put side by side. The pastor also uses “Son of God” for clarity and emphasis in 6:6; 7:3; and 10:29.
13. The pastor uses the name “Jesus” when he wants to direct our attention to the earthly life and humanity of our Lord (see 2:9; 3:1). “Jesus” is also used in connection with high priesthood in 6:20; 7:22; 10:19; 12:24; 13:12 (Donald Guthrie, 121).
14. Contrary to Spicq (2:92), there is no indication that the writer is comparing Jesus to contemporary high priests or religious leaders.
15. The present subjunctive, κρατῶμεν, shows that the pastor is encouraging his readers to continue holding faithfully to what they already posses. The difference between κρατῶμεν (“Let us hold firmly,” 4:14; cf. 3:14; 4:14; 6:18) and κατεχῶμεν (“Let us hold unswervingly,” 10:23; cf. 3:6) is stylistic rather than semantic. See Ellingworth, 267.
16. See the discussion of this term in 3:1 above.
17. Spicq, 2:92; Westcott, 107.
18. Spicq, 2:92. Although the term ἀσθένεια has a breadth of meaning roughly equivalent to the English “weaknesses” (compare Luke 8:2; Rom 6:19; 8:26; 1 Cor 8:7–10; 15:43; 2 Cor 11:30; Gal 4:13; 1 Tim 5:23; Jas 5:14), its use here is more specific. Compare the related word ἀσθενής, “weakness,” in 7:18. Christ sympathizes with “our weaknesses,” but he was not determined by “weakness” as was the Aaronic high priest. See the comments on 5:2 below.
19. For the significance of the contrast between συμπαθεῖν (4:15), “to sympathize,” and μετριοπαθεῖν (5:2), “to deal gently with,” see W. Michaelis, “μετριοπαθέω,” TDNT 5:938. The etymology of these two words gives some indication of the difference. Both are based on the root παθεῖν, meaning “to suffer,” “experience,” or “feel.” The prefix συμ means “with,” and the prefix μετριο means “measure.” Thus συμπαθεῖν suggests “suffering or feeling with” someone; μετριοπαθεῖν, “measuring or restraining one’s feelings toward” another. Yet Lane (1:114) is right when he says that συμπαθῆσαι “extends beyond the sharing of feelings (i.e., compassion). It always includes the element of active help (cf. 10:34; 4 Macc 4:25; 13:23; T. Sim. 3:6; T. Benj. 4:4). In this context the stress falls on the capacity of the exalted high priest to help those who are helpless.…” See also W. Schenk, “Hebräerbrief 4, 14–16: Textlinguistik als Kommentierungsprinzip,” NTS 26 (1979–80): 242–52.
20. Spicq, 2:93.
21. Lane, 1:114.
22. See 10:32–39; 11:32–38; 12:4–13; and 13:11–14. On the role of “shame” and “honor” in Hebrews see deSilva, 58–71, who argues that the writer urges his readers not to be discouraged by the “shame” they receive from the outside world but to seek “honor” from God through Christ, the most effective “Patron.”
23. Thus, in a sense, Ronald Williamson, “Hebrew 4:15 and the Sinlessness of Jesus,” ExpTim 86 (1974): 7, is correct when he says that the “sinlessness” to which Hebrews refers was not something that Jesus “possessed when he began his struggle with temptations, a kind of built-in pre-disposition against sin which would have infringed the reality of his humanity.” He is wrong, however, when he thinks that Jesus began by sinning but overcame that sin by persistent obedience culminating in his death. The writer of Hebrews believes that Jesus lived a completely obedient life culminating in his death. Of course, the verdict “without sin” could not be affirmed of this life until its completion. Thus in this sense he “became” sinless, that is, he presented his Father with a completely sinless human life, only at his self-offering. See on 5:1–10 and 10:5–10 below.
24. This understanding of “without sin” allows the interpreter to take χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, along with κατὰ πάντα (“in every way”) and καθʼ ὁμοιότητα (“according to likeness,” “like”) as qualifying the participle πεπειρασμένον (“tempted”). The process of temptation was without sin because Jesus never yielded. Spicq (1:93) argues that χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας qualifies ὁμοιότητα and thus restricts the way in which Christ’s temptation was like ours. Lane (1:114) is certainly correct when he says that Christ’s being without sin “does not restrict the likeness of the testing but relates exclusively to its outcome.” It is possible to take καθʼ ὁμοιότητα not as “like our temptations” but “according to his likeness to us” (Peterson, Perfection, 78); Bruce, 116, n. 65; O’Brien, 184. However, pace O’Brien, the pastor is not concerned with, though he would not deny, the uniqueness of Christ’s temptation, either in the wilderness or on the cross. He would have seen Christ’s refusal to turn stones into bread (Matt 4:3, 6) or to come down from the cross (Matt 27:40) as examples of the kind of faithful obedience his hearers should imitate.
25. προσερχώμεθα, “let us approach,” is often used in the LXX for entering covenant relationship with God and approaching him in worship. See Attridge. 141. It can be used of priestly ministry (Lev 9:7; 21:17; 22:3) or of congregational worship (Exod 16:9; Lev 9:5). This word is rare elsewhere in the NT, but is a favorite in Hebrews for describing the access to God won by Christ for his people (7:25; 10:1, 22; 11:6; 12:18, 22). For an extensive study of προσέρχομαι see John M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 49; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 95–149.
26. Ellingworth, 270. The term ὁ θρόνος τῆς χάριτος (“the throne of grace”) occurs nowhere else in the NT, the LXX, or the Apostolic Fathers (Braun, 128). Riggenbach (122, n. 21) cites rabbinic sources in which the “throne of grace” is contrasted with the “throne of judgment.” The MT of Prov 20:8 uses the phrase 
, “throne of justice,” but this reference is obscured by the LXX.
27. Bénétreau, 1:200. See H. Schlier, “παρρησία, παρρησιάζομαι,” TDNT 5:884.
28. In the LXX ἔλεος, “mercy,” usually translates a form of the root 
, which denotes God’s faithful covenant love. See, for example, Josh 2:14; 2 Sam 2:6; 15:20; Pss 24:10 LXX; 60:8 LXX; 83:12 LXX; 84:11 LXX; 88:15 LXX.
29. This usage of χάριν (“grace”) with some form of εὑρίσκω (“find”) occurs twelve times in the LXX of Genesis alone (Gen 6:8; 18:3; 30:27; 32:5; 33:8; 33:10; 33:15; 34:11; 39:4; 47:25; 47:29; 50:4). The manuscript support for εὕρωμεν (“let us find”) in Heb 4:16 is overwhelming despite its omission by B.
30. Bénétreau, 1:201.
1. Since A. Vanhoye, “La ‘teleiôsis’ du Christ: Point capital de la christologie sacerdotale d’Hébreux,” NTS 42 (1996): 334, n. 19, fails to see that these verses contrast as well as compare, he puts 5:1–10 in the larger section 3:1–5:10, which supposedly compares the two priesthoods. On the other hand, Kurianal’s (Jesus Our High Priest, 49–83) exclusive emphasis on contrast obscures the way in which 5:1–3, 7–10 establishes the typology developed in 8:1–10:18.
2. Pace Ellingworth, 272, the Son of God is not included in the “every high priest” whose ineffectiveness is about to be described in the following verses. In this regard Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 49–83, is correct, though he fails to see that vv. 1–4 provide the basis for a typological relationship between the Aaronic high priest and Christ.
3. See Ellingworth, 271. Thus the present tense in vv. 1–4 has nothing to do with whether or not the Jerusalem priesthood is still functioning (Weiss, 303; Braun, 131).
4. Ellingworth, 271.
5. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 108–13. Cf. Michel, 214–15, esp. n. 1 on 214.
6. Michel, 214–15, thinks that both show the humanity of the high priests. Gottfried Schille, “Erwägungen zur Hohepriesterlehre des Hebräerbriefes,” ZNW 46 (1955): 105, thinks that these verses show how both high priests are taken from among men and how both are beset with weakness. Egon Brandenburger, “Text und Vorlagen von Hebr. V 7–10,” NovT 11 (July 1969): 220–22, thinks that v. 7 corresponds to vv. 2–3, showing the human weakness of the high priests and their need to offer sacrifices for themselves, and that vv. 8–10 correspond to v. 1, showing that both are taken from among men. Theodor Lescow, “Jesus in Gethsemane bei Lukas und im Hebräerbrief,” ZNW 58 (1967): 235, sees two points of comparison in these verses: the sacrificial service mentioned in v. 1 corresponds to Jesus’ offering of prayers in v. 7, the ability of the old high priest in v. 2 to “deal gently” (μετριοπαθεῖν), since he himself is beset with weakness, is paralleled by Jesus’ learning obedience through suffering (ἔπαθεν) in v. 8. Johnson, 142, thinks that the author elaborates various characteristics of the OT high priest in vv. 1–3 but then applies only one of them to Christ in vv. 7–9, especially “his intense identification with the weakness of those he represents” (144).
7. Ellingworth, 271.
8. This analysis develops further the insights of Christian Maurer, “‘Erhört Wegen der Gottesfurcht,’ Hebr 5, 7,” in Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geschehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament, Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Heinrich Baltensweiler and Bo Reicke (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972), 275–84. Maurer is also correct in maintaining that the correspondences between the two high priests demonstrate the superiority of the latter.
9. Vanhoye is correct in arguing for the chiastic structure of this passage, but his insistence that the author’s purpose is only to show the similarity between the two high priests and not the superiority of the new is belied by his own exegesis of vv. 7–10, which speaks of the perfection of Christ as effective Savior (Vanhoye, Old Testament, 133–37). Indeed, it is because of this superiority that Vanhoye is able to discuss “new perspectives” on Christ’s priesthood. Thus he is forced to make statements like this: “Although his purpose has been to show the continuity between the Old Testament priesthood and the mystery of Christ, he has not in fact been able to avoid allowing some new perspectives to appear” (138). Perhaps he does not intend to avoid them. Bénétreau, 1:203–4, on the other hand, is correct in his contention that this passage moves toward a climax—the proclamation of the Son as the Source of salvation. He is mistaken, however, in denying the concentric or chiastic parallels between 5:1–4 and 5:5–10. These parallels serve to show the superiority of the new High Priest as well as the ways in which he fulfills the priestly role. Thus, while the two halves are chiastically parallel, they are not equal. The use of chiasm in this passage mirrors the chiastic tendencies of the entire book. In this passage the insufficient ministry of the old high priest (vv. 1–3) is followed by the sufficient ministry of the New (vv. 7–10). The turning point between the two is the proclamation of the Son’s high priesthood (vv. 4–6). So the negative examples in chapters 3 and 4 are followed by the positive examples in chapters 11 and 12. In between is the sufficiency of Christ’s high priesthood (chapters 7–10).
10. Thus, the pastor describes the old high priest’s sinful humanity that made his ministry ineffective and his sacrifice that substantiated his sinfulness with finite verbs: “since even he himself is beset (περίκειται) with weakness” (v. 2b), “and on account of this he must (ὀφείλει) offer a sacrifice for himself for sins” (v. 3). However, he describes the new High Priest’s obedient humanity and his resultant effective ministry with finite verbs: “he learned (ἔμαθεν) obedience” (v. 8); “he became (ἐγένετο) the Source of eternal salvation” (v. 9). Thus the pastor moves from the ineffective ministry of the old high priest, described by a participle (μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος τοῖς ἀγνοούσιν καὶ πλανωμένοις, “being able to deal gently with those ignorant and going astray”), to the effectiveness of the new, described by a finite verb. Bénétreau’s attempt (1:203–4) to structure the passage according to finite verbs misses this distinction in the use of participles and finite verbs.
11. Weiss, 302–3.
12. ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος (“taken from among human beings”) is best taken as an attributive participle: “Every high priest who is taken from among human beings,” rather than as adverbial, “Every high priest is taken from among human beings.” The above contention, however, is not negated even if the participle is adverbial.
13. According to Weiss, 302–3, the author of Hebrews has used Jewish tradition to craft this description of the Aaronic high priest in such a way as to provide a basis for presenting by comparison and contrast what he would say about the high priesthood of Christ.
14. From what other source would one get a high priest? There is no indication within the context that the pastor is combating speculations about angelic priestly ministry.
15. Ellingworth, 273, and Braun, 130–31.
16. This approach is in accord with the pastor’s immediate interest in the perseverance of the people of God. He is convinced that the Son became the human Jesus and died for all humanity (2:10).
17. In addition, the phrase “being able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and going astray” finds little or no parallel in Jewish tradition. Weiss, 304, thinks the author has added this phrase to emphasize the humanity of the old priest in anticipation of the humanity of the new.
18. Although a distinction was sometimes made between the terms δῶρον, “gift,” and θυσία, “sacrifice,” Hebrews appears to use them interchangeably. See Heb 8:3–4; 9:9; 11:4. Attridge, 143, n. 85; Ellingworth, 274–75; Koester, 285. Together they form a comprehensive description of sacrifices, which the pastor describes as “for sins” (Bénétreau, 1:205, n. 2; Bruce, 119). Ellingworth, 274–75, agrees that “for sins” qualifies both “gifts” and “sacrifices.”
19. Lane, 1:116–17. Rissi, “Menschlichkeit,” 40–41; Riggenbach, 125; and W. Michaelis, “συμπαθής, συμπαθέω,” TDNT 5:935–36 note the difference in the objects of συμπαθῆσαι, “sympathize,” in 4:15 and μετριοπαθεῖν, “restrain one’s anger,” in 5:2. The first deals with the “weakness” itself; the second only with the people “going astray.” For a similar use of μετριοπαθεῖν see Philo, Abraham 257, and Josephus, Ant. 12.128 (cited in Johnson, 143).
20. “… to ‘be ignorant’ and ‘to err’ are two expressions that tend to diminish the guilt” (Vanhoye, Old Testament, 119).
21. As demonstrated by the fact that this phrase translates two substantive present participles, ἀγνοοῦσιν καὶ πλανωμένοις, joined by one article, τοῖς. See Ellingworth, 276.
22. See Bruce, 120. But Ellingworth, 276, thinks this interpretation unlikely.
23. For an exception see Lev 6:1–7.
24. Cf. Riggenbach, 126.
25. Bénétreau, 1:207.
26. For περίκειται as “clothed” or “completely covered with” see Herodotus 1.171; Josephus, Life 334; and 4 Macc 12:2 (cited by Johnson, 143). For “burdened,” see Mark 9:42; Acts 28:20; and Ellingworth, 277.
27. Koester, 286–87, comments: “Many sources spoke of the glorious vestments worn by Israel’s high priest in order to accent the priest’s authority (Exod 28; Sir 45:6–7; Philo, Moses 2.109–35; Josephus, Ant. 3.151–87), but what the priest wears according to Hebrews is ‘weakness’ (Vanhoye, Old Testament, 139).” Vanhoye, Old Testament, 139, suggests that what the author thinks about Christ may have caused this change in his conception of the old high priest.
28. Bénétreau (1:207) argues that this weakness is “not yet sin,” but admits that it is the lack of power to resist sin and do good. This seems to be a distinction without a difference. In any case, this being “beset with weakness” implies that he is a sinner.
29. Williamson’s affirmation that “like the priests of Judaism Jesus too was ‘beset with weakness’” ignores the way this phrase is used in the immediate context (Williamson, “Sinless,” 6). Thus, pace Schille, “Hohepriesterlehre,” 105, the pastor’s failure to attribute “weakness” to Christ is no accident (cf. Rissi, “Menschlichkeit,” 41–45; Maurer, “Gottesfurcht,” 283). Johnson, 137, finds twelve characteristics of priesthood in 5:1–4 which “in one way or another will also be ascribed to Christ.” However, his sixth, seventh, and eighth characteristics do not apply to Christ but serve to contrast him with the old: “(6) dealing gently with ignorant and wandering, (7) sharing their weakness, (8) offering gifts for himself.” His statement on p. 143 would seem to belie the application of these characteristics to Christ: “The high priest can deal moderately with those who sin in this way, for he does himself as well.”
30. See ἐπεί (“because”) at the beginning of v. 2b and διʼ αὐτήν (“because of this”) at the beginning of v. 3.
31. Weiss, 306.
32. Although the mention of this double sacrifice may anticipate the pastor’s later reference to the Day of Atonement (9:11–14), he shows no particular concern with that occasion in this verse. The OT high priests offered sacrifices for themselves on other days besides the Day of Atonement. See Lev 4:3–12; 9:7–14; 16:6, 11; 17:14; and Yoma 4:2–5:7; Philo, Drunkenness 129; Moses 2.153; Heir 174; Spec. Laws 1.229 (cited in Ellingworth, 277).
33. This emphasis on offering for himself is shown by the fact that his sacrifice is mentioned last, while in the OT it was required to be offered first (Ellingworth, 277).
34. Pace Riggenbach, 127, and Michel, 218, ὀφείλει, “it is necessary” (v. 3), does not indicate obligation under the law per se, but obligation incurred because of the “weakness” (v. 2) of the old high priest (Weiss, 306). Ellingworth, 277–78, notes that this verb is not used in Leviticus. Furthermore, the law is always mentioned in the context when this verb has a legal connotation (cf. John 19:7).
35. The pastor returns to this mark of his insufficiency in 9:7. For the way in which Christ transcends this necessity to offer for himself see on 7:27 and 9:14 below.
36. Those who try to find a parallel way in which Christ offered a sacrifice for himself fail to recognize the function and significance of the old high priest’s offering for himself. Cf., for instance, Jürgen Roloff, “Der mitleidende Hohepriester: Zur Frage nach der Bedeutung des irdischen Jesus für die Christologie des Hebräerbriefes,” in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Georg Stecker (Tübingen: Mohr, 1975), 156, who thinks that Jesus offered “prayers and petitions” for himself in v. 7 because he, like the Aaronic high priest, was characterized by “weakness.”
37. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 120, points out, in contrast to Spicq (2:110) and others, that there is no shift here from the humility to the glorification of the high priest. The whole point is that this priest must be appointed by God—he cannot himself assume priesthood.
38. καθίσταται in v. 1 is a divine passive: “has been established” by God.
39. This necessity of divine appointment is based solely on Scripture and takes no account of the sordid way in which the contemporary high priesthood had been seized, bought, and sold (Weiss, 306–7; Ellingworth, 280; cf. Josephus, Ant. 15.2.4; 20.9). The pastor might have been thinking of Korah’s attempt to usurp the priestly dignity as recorded in Numbers 16 (esp. v. 5). See Ellingworth, 280.
40. Cf. Exod 28:1; 29:4–9; Lev. 8:1–2, 5; Num 3:10; 16:1–18:32.
41. Compare Josephus, J.W. 4.149, 164; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.42; Moses 2.225, cited by Johnson, 144.
42. Thus the change from the present tense of general description, which dominates vv. 1–4, to the aorist, which characterizes vv. 5–10.
43. These two titles begin and conclude the pastor’s description of Christ in 4:14. Thus they encompass the whole.
44. See the comments on 1:5, 13.
45. Thus the pastor has much more warrant for joining these verses than mere verbal analogy based on the fact that both make “you are” statements. The indefinite way of referring to the human source of this quotation as “another place” only highlights its divine origin (Weiss, 308, n. 26). Compare Acts 13:35; Barn. 15:2; 1 Clem. 8:4; 29:3; and 46:3.
46. Most scholars would translate the introductory formula at the beginning of v. 6: “As (καθώς) also in another place he says.” Attridge, 145–46, argues that καθώς has causal force—“Since also in another place he says.” Ps 110:4 is the reason the pastor can say that Christ did not make himself high priest.
47. Many commentators underscore the importance of the pastor’s linking priest-hood and sonship by joining these Pss 2:7 and 110:4: “The citation of the two texts … serves to link the key christological motifs of Son and High Priest” (Attridge, 145–46). “The purpose of vv. 5f. is to bind together the titles of Son and (high) priest as being equally conferred on Christ by God, as scripture attests” (Ellingworth, 281). Weiss, 308, argues that the author develops his hearers’ confession of Jesus as the Son of God in terms of high priesthood. Both have the same divine authorization. Bénétreau (1:208–10), however, is mistaken when he argues that the joining of these two references identifies Christ as both the High Priest (Ps 110:4) and Davidic Messiah (Ps 2:7). Ps 2:7 may have been messianic, but the author of Hebrews uses it to affirm Christ’s eternal sonship (1:5–6).
48. Riggenbach, 128–29.
49. For substantiation that God’s declaration of sonship (Ps 2:7) was at the exaltation see the comments on Heb 1:5 above.
50. On the Son’s entering into the full exercise of his sonship at the exaltation see on Heb 1:1–5 above.
51. Cf. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 142: “His unique offering is totally sufficient: it is at the same time a sacrifice of priestly consecration for himself and a sacrifice of expiation for the sins of all mankind, a sacrifice which is the basis of the Covenant and a sacrifice of thanksgiving.”
52. Thus the pastor’s theological vision embraces a high priesthood that begins on earth but reaches its fulfillment after Christ’s exaltation. There is no need to assume a combination of various conflicting traditions about an earthly and a heavenly high priesthood. See Weiss 309–10.
53. A literal translation might run something like this: “who in the days of his flesh prayers and petitions to the one able to save him from death with loud cries and tears having offered, and having been heard because of his godly fear; although being one who is Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became to all who obey him the Source of eternal salvation; having been declared by God High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.”
54. See studies by Brandenburger, “Vorlagen,” 190–224; Gerhard Friedrich, “Das Lied vom Hohenpriester im Zusammenhang von Hebr 4, 14–5, 10,” TZ 18 (March/April 1962): 95–115; Lescow, “Gethsemane,” 215–39; Schille, “Hohepriesterlehre,” 81–109; Jukka Thurén, “Gebet und Gehorsam des Erniedrigten (Hebr. V, 7–10 noch einmal),” NovT 13 (April 1971): 136; Ulrich Luck, “Himmlisches und irdisches Geschehen im Hebräerbrief: Ein Beitrag zum Problem des ‘historischen Jesus’ im Urchristentum,” NovT 6 (July 1963): 192–215; and Heinrich Zimmermann, Die Hohepriester-Christologie des Hebräerbriefes (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1964), 1–36. There is no consensus on the content of the supposed underlying hymn or confession. The only line upon which all the above agree is ἐγένετο αἴτιος σωτηρίας αἰωνίου, “he became the Source of eternal salvation.” The vocabulary of this passage is no more distinctive than that of many other passages in Hebrews. The author has demonstrated himself quite capable of an elevated poetic style characterized by participles and relative clauses. Furthermore, he here addresses his favorite themes—the eternal Son, his suffering, and his obedience. For further evaluation see Thorleif Bowman, “Der Gebetskampf Jesu,” NTS 10 (January 1964): 266; Gareth Lee Cockerill, “The Melchizedek Christology in Heb. 7:1–28” (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, Richmond, 1976), 338–52; R. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der Frühen Christenheit: Untersuchungen zu Form, Sprache und Stil der früchristlichen Hymnen (WUNT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 174; Ellingworth, 284–85; and Braun, 140–144.
55. Maurer, “Gottesfurcht,” 278. See also Weiss, 303, 311, n. 36.
56. In order to make this and the following verses independent sentences, I have used “he” in place of the relative pronoun ὅς, “who,” found in the Greek text (cf. NASB). The ESV, NIV, and NRSV have inserted “Jesus” as the subject of this sentence. This is a reasonable choice, since the pastor often uses “Jesus” when referring to the Son’s earthly life and suffering. Nevertheless, the antecedent of the relative pronoun is “Christ” (v. 5). Since Hebrews appears to use the names and titles of Christ with some precision, it seemed best not to insert a designation for him when omitted by the author.
57. The pastor delays the first participle until the end of its clause but gives the second at the beginning of its clause, thus joining the two: προσενέγκας καὶ εἰσακουσθείς, “having offered and having been heard.” One might suggest a chiasm: qualifiers, participle; participle, qualifiers—except for the fact that the qualifiers of the first participle are so much more extensive than the simple ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας, “because of his godly fear,” that qualifies the second.
58. Both Attridge’s and Riggenbach’s rejections of the sacrificial significance of v. 7 seem to arise at least partly from misunderstanding. Attridge, 149, appears to think that admitting a parallel between Christ’s sacrifice in v. 7 and the old high priest’s in v. 3 would imply that Christ offered for himself. He cites Montefiore, 97; Buchanan, 254; Rissi, “Menschlichkeit,” 37; Thurén, “Gebet und Gehorsam,” 144; K. Nissilä, Das Hohepriestermotiv im Hebräerbrief: Eine exegetische Untersuchung (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 33; Helsinki: Oy Liiton Kirjapaino, 1979), 92; and Bowman, “Gebetskampf,” 268. Cf. Riggenbach, 131. This misunderstanding, however, misses the point, established above, that the pastor is both comparing and contrasting the two priesthoods. The pastor relates the old high priest’s offering for his own disobedience as evidence of his ineffectiveness. The new, however, was effective because he offered himself in complete obedience. Anyone who looks for a reference to Christ’s offering for himself will seek in vain. See Ellingworth, 288.
59. “To offer” (προσφέρειν) is used for sacrifice in Heb 5:7; 8:3; 9:7, 14; 10:1, 2, 8, 11, 12. The related noun, προσφορά, is used of Christ’s sacrifice in 10:10, 14. See Friedrich, “Lied,” 95–97. Pace Weiss, 314, the fact that “offer” can be used for “offering” prayers as well as sacrifices facilitates rather than contradicts its sacrificial significance in this passage. Among recent commentators, both Koester, 298–99, and Johnson, 146, agree that 5:7 describes Jesus’ high-priestly offering. See also Nissilä, Hohepriestermotiv, 92.
60. Bénétreau, Attridge, and Weiss, along with many who doubt the sacrificial significance of v. 7, miss the connection with Heb 10:5–10. Cf. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 125. This connection from the larger context gives strong reinforcement to the evidence already provided by the sacrificial significance of “to offer” (προσφέρειν) and by the parallels between vv. 1, 3, and 7.
61. Cf. Rissi, “Menschlichkeit,” 41–45, and Maurer, “Gottesfurcht,” 283.
62. Thus Roloff, “Der mitleidende Hohepriester,” 152, and others are in error when they import the preexistence—humiliation—exaltation schema from Phil 2:6–11 into this passage. The pastor certainly assumes the incarnation here, but he says nothing about the preexistent act of obedience by which he became incarnate. God’s declaration of sonship and priesthood in vv. 5–6 did not occur in the Son’s preexistence but at his exaltation. Verses 7–8 describe the obedient course of his human life. This earthly obedience is integral to both the theological development and pastoral purpose of Hebrews. It is by this obedience that Christ becomes the “Source” of salvation and thus the one who enables the obedience of his people. His obedience is also their example and encouragement. See Weiss, 321–27.
63. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 124.
64. Philo, Cherubim 47; Embassy 276. Cf. Job 40:22 (LXX).
65. For similar expressions see 2 Macc 11:6; 3 Macc 1:16; 5:7, 25; Philo, Heir 19.
66. Hughes, 183–84.
67. Attridge, 150, argues convincingly that the phrase ἐκ θανάτου means “out of death,” that is, out of the realm or power of death. He says that this is the normal understanding of σῴζειν ἐκ (cf. John 12:27; 2 Cor 1:10; Jude 5; and Jas 5:20). Preservation from impending death would be more accurately described by σῴζειν ἀπό (cf. Matt 1:21; Acts 2:40; Rom 5:9). See Westcott, 126.
68. Pace August Strobel, “Die Psalmengrundlage der Gethsemane-Parallele Hebr. 5, 7ff,” ZNW 45 (1954): 252–66, it is difficult to find the background for this language of suffering in a particular psalm. There is some justification, however, for arguing that the anguish of the righteous sufferer evident in many psalms is reflected in these “prayers and also petitions” with “loud cries and tears” (Attridge, 148–51). Weiss, 312–13, thinks the author has taken traditional language often used for the righteous sufferer’s entreaty and used it to portray Christ’s Gethsemane suffering. Thus this description is independent of the tradition found in the Gospels.
69. See Spicq’s comment: “Hebrews certainly refers to the agony of Gethsemane, whether it comments on the Gospel accounts or is informed by other sources” (2:113, translation mine). Hughes, 182–83, argues that “loud cries and tears” depict Christ’s Gethsemane agony not just in the face of death but because he is bearing the sins of the world and wrestling with the powers of evil.
70. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 125, esp. n. 26.
71. Within the Synoptic Gospels Gethsemane is seen as the climax of the Son’s life of obedience to the Father’s will, also affirmed at the beginning of his ministry at the temptation in the wilderness. Weiss, 312, argues that the author of Hebrews uses the incident in the garden as paradigmatic of Jesus’ earthly life. See also Rissi, Theologie, 67–68.
72. Thus it is not necessary to follow Vanhoye, Old Testament, 126–30, by limiting the “offering” in v. 7 to the passion in order to preserve the sacrificial significance of Jesus’ death.
73. The first of these suggestions is eliminated by the fact that Jesus’ prayer was answered. Obviously God did not save him from going through the experience of crucifixion. For a full catalogue of suggestions as to the content of Jesus’ prayers see Attridge, 150, nn. 159–64. Swetnam’s suggestion that the Son prayed to die even though he was Son is very unconvincing (J. Swetnam, “The Crux at Hebrews 5, 7–8,” Bib 81 [2000]: 347–61; J. Swetnam, “The Context of the Crux at Hebrews 5, 7–8,” Filología Neotestamentaria 14 [2001]: 101–20). The supposed allusions to Psalm 22 are too subtle for the readers to discern. Furthermore, this interpretation requires taking “although he was a Son” with what goes before: “and having been heard because of his godly fear although he was a Son.” Pace Swetnam, “The Crux at Hebrews 5, 7–8,” 353, there is no reason to believe that the usage here should conform to the other four NT occurrences of this phrase, where it goes with the preceding main verb. The pastor’s familiarity with the LXX might point to the influence of the Greek Bible, where it sometimes goes with the following main verb. This is especially true since the preceding verb is a participle.
74. Cf. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 126.
75. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 126–30. Thus the Son did not actually pray for the resurrection, although his prayer was answered in the resurrection/exaltation. He may have offered “prayers and supplications” for himself, but by his submission he was obtaining our salvation at the same time (Vanhoye, Old Testament, 130–31). Bénétreau, 1:215, dismisses Vanhoye’s interpretation on the basis that v. 7 refers to Gethsemane alone.
76. The verb used for “hear” is εἰσακούειν, which implies God’s favorable response (Matt 6:7; Acts 10:31; Sir 34:26). When used of humans in relation to God it intimates a hearing that leads to obedience (Deut 1:43; 9:23; Sir 3:6; 39:13). See Johnson, 146.
77. Koester, 289–90. The phrase in question is ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας. In the first instance above, the preposition ἀπό has the sense of separation and is translated “from”; εὐλαβείας is rendered “fear.” In the second, ἀπό is translated causally and εὐλαβείας as “godly fear” or “reverence/piety.” The only drawback to this second interpretation is that elsewhere Hebrews does not use ἀπό in a causal sense.
78. Michael Bachmann, “Hohepriesterliches Leiden: Beobachtungen zu Hebr 5:1–10,” ZNW 78 (1987): 257–59
79. On the contrary, we have argued when commenting on these verses that the Son saves from the fear of death by removing sin.
80. Compare φόβος in 2:15 with εὐλαβεία in 5:7.
81. For εὐλάβεια as “godly fear” see Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5; 22:12; and Philo, Cherubim 29; Heir 22.
82. Koester, 289, citing Vanhoye, Old Testament, 127.
83. The chief difficulty with saying that God delivered him from “the fear of death” is that the description of God as “the one who was able to save him from death” “gives the strong impression that he prayed for deliverance” (Koester, 288). Paul Andriessen and A. Lenglet, “Quelques passages difficiles de l’Épître aux Hébreux (5, 7; 7, 11; 10, 20; 12, 2),” Bib 51 (1970): 209, miss the point when they say that ἀπό is always used to show the cause and not the motive. His “godly fear” is not the motive for his being heard by God but its cause. Furthermore, “godly fear” is more than a motive—it is his entire life of obedience. Their view that the phrase should be translated “after his fear” also requires “although he was a son” to be taken with what goes before. Nor does the meaning it gives to εὐλάβεια accord well with its other uses in Hebrews. Andriessen and Lenglet (“Quelques passages,” 208) support their hypothesis by the unconvincing claim that εὐλάβεια refers to fear of punishment in 11:7 and 12:28.
84. In fact, the aorist participles of v. 7, προσενέγκας καὶ εἰσακουσθείς, “having offered and having been heard,” are formally dependent on the finite verb of v. 8, ἔμαθεν, “he learned.” The NKJV seems to interpret these participles as temporal qualifiers of the verb in v. 8, “when He offered … and was heard.” We have translated them as circumstantial participles and thus allowed them to assume the indicative character of the verb they qualify.
85. Attridge, 147.
86. See Heb 1:2, 5, 8; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5.
87. Attridge, 152, Koester, 290; Lane, 1:120–21; Johnson, 147; and Bénétreau, 1:216, along with most commentators, argue that “although” goes with what follows. In arguing that the phrase “although he was a Son” should go with the previous verse, deSilva, 193, ignores the way in which the author has already stressed the Son’s majesty (see the references in the previous note) for what he will later say about suffering being the mark of true sonship in 12:4–11.
88. In the same way, when he speaks of the exalted Son, he is always referring to the eternal Son who became incarnate and through his obedient sacrifice has been exalted. Thus, those who would speak of the exalted Son without reference to his preexistence or incarnation distort the message of Hebrews.
89. See Herodotus, Hist. 1.207; Aeschylus, Agamemnon 177; Sophocles, Trachiniae 143; Aesop, Fables 134.1–3; 223.2–3; and many times in Philo (Flight 138; Dreams 2.107; Spec. Laws 4.29; Heir 73; Moses 2.55, 280). Citations in Johnson, 147.
90. “Thus to say that Jesus ‘learned’ obedience means that he practiced obedience” (Koester, 290).
91. He maintained the unity of his will with that of the Father (Riggenbach, 137; cf. Rissi, “Menschlichkeit,” 43–45).
92. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 126–30.
93. Pace Bénétreau, 1:216, it is impossible to exclude the cross from the obedience the Son learned through “suffering.”
94. Thus the aorist participle τελειωθείς, “having been perfected,” gives the means or the cause of the main verb: “he became” the Source of salvation. See Johnson, 148. In fact, his “perfecting” is almost synonymous with his becoming the fully adequate Savior.
95. In agreement with Johnson, 148. Pace Koester, 290, who thinks that this “having been perfected” refers only to the exaltation/session.
96. “It is thus, the perfection of his life leading up to the perfection of his death, that he became the source of eternal salvation” (Hughes, 188, italics original). “‘Once made perfect’ announces the validation by God of the perfect obedience that Jesus rendered as the priestly representative of the people” (Lane, 1:122). See Peterson, Perfection, 96–103.
97. Pace deSilva, 197–99, and others, there is no reason to limit this perfecting to nothing more than reaching a goal. deSilva seems to forget that it is not suffering but the obedience honed by suffering through which he is perfected. Nor is it completely correct to separate the suffering of believers (12:5–11) from their “perfection” (deSilva, 198, n. 48). Though both the Son and believers must endure suffering, it accentuates the obedience of the One but brings the others to a more complete obedience. See also Peterson, Perfection, 73; Anthony A. Hoekema, “Perfection of Christ in Hebrews,” CTJ 9 (1974): 33–37; Attridge, 86–87.
98. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 133, notes that the verb τελειοῦν is used in the Pentateuch exclusively for priestly consecration. He argues that one so knowledgeable of the Greek Bible as our author could not have missed this significance.
99. Spec. Laws 1.252.
100. Spicq, 2:120.
101. προσαγορευθείς, “having been declared,” is parallel to καλούμενος, “being called,” in v. 4. It appropriately describes God’s public declaration of the Son’s high priesthood.
102. Hebrews’ presentation of the work of Christ also complements the ways in which other NT writers use the imagery of Tabernacle and Temple. For Hebrews God’s people enter the heavenly sanctuary of his presence through the work of Jesus their High Priest. In John Jesus’ “body” is the new sanctuary in which God dwells and through which people come into fellowship with him (John 2:21–22). For Paul the church as the “body of Christ” is the new temple infilled by the Spirit of God (1 Cor 3:16–17). Each of these approaches provides a different perspective on the intimacy with God that Christ has provided for his people.
1. For ancient orators’ use of such “digressions” to regain their hearers’ attention see deSilva, 209–19 and Koester, 306–7 (cf. Braun, 149). Koester (307) estimates that it would have taken about fifteen minutes to deliver Heb 1:1–5:10.
2. While deSilva’s caution (210–11, esp. n. 1) against using Heb 5:11–14 as a precise diagnosis of the hearers’ spiritual situation has some merit, this description of their state and the following exhortations cannot be reduced to mere rhetoric. The pastor is burdened about real spiritual lethargy (Bénétreau, 1:221). Cf. Weiss, 327.
3. Bénétreau, 222, and Johnson, 152, are representative of those who divide 5:11–6:3 into two sections, 5:11–14; 6:1–3. In the first the pastor shames his hearers for their immaturity; in the second he urges them to go on to maturity. We have kept the two together for several reasons. First, the theme of immaturity/maturity clearly unites these verses and separates them from the following description of apostasy (6:4–8). Second, the exhortation in 6:1–3 is based on the description of the hearers’ condition in 5:11–14 (note διό, “therefore,” in 6:1 and the argument below). Third, the parallel description of the hearers in 6:9–12 also concludes with exhortation (6:11–12).
4. Attridge, 166–67, fails to see that the major turning point is between vv. 8 and 9 because he tries to find a chiastic structure in this passage. He argues that the apostasy of 6:4–8 balances the faithfulness of 6:9–12, but that there is no parallel between 5:11–6:3 and 6:13–20. In fact, the description of the hearers’ immaturity in 5:11–6:3 parallels the positive description of their conduct in 6:9–12. Both of these passages are second person plural address followed by first person plural exhortation (compare the impersonal third person of 6:4–8). As above in the text, 6:4–8 parallels 6:13–20. Thus the pastor turns from negative to positive between vv. 8 and 9.
5. The pastor often follows a strategy of turning his hearers from what he would have them avoid to the life he would have them emulate. Thus he would deter them from following the disobedient wilderness generation in 3:7–4:11 before urging them to follow those characterized by “faith and patience” (6:12) in 11:1–12:3. His purpose in explaining the privileges now theirs in Christ (7:1–10:18) is to move them from the former to the latter. This strategy does not prevent him from concluding the main section of his sermon with a strong reprise of previous warnings (12:25–29).
6. Thus νωθροί, “dull” or “sluggish” (5:11/6:12), forms more than a mechanical inclusion around 5:11–6:12. Yet it would be a mistake to separate 5:11–6:12 from 6:13–20 on the basis of this inclusion, as Lane, 1:133–35, and others have done. Such separation neglects the way in which the exhortation to imitate the faithful in 6:12 is substantiated by 6:13–20. Thus it risks missing the key importance of this verse. One need not deny the unity of 5:11–6:12 and 6:13–20 just because one function of the latter is transition back to the topic of priesthood (cf. deSilva, 209–10). Nor can one make a clean break between 5:11–6:12 and 6:13–20 by arguing that the former is hortatory, while the latter is expository (pace Lane, 1:133–35). Note the “we have” in 6:19–20 characteristic of other hortatory passages (4:14–16; 10:19–25) and the third person description in 6:4–8 so uncharacteristic of the hortatory. Even Weiss, 328, who would separate the two, admits that 6:13–20 is completely subordinate to the hortatory context. Furthermore, pace Weiss, 328–29, the language of Hellenistic moral philosophy is largely confined to 5:11–6:3.
1. Johnson, 154, thinks περὶ οὗ, “concerning whom,” refers to “Christ” or “the Messiah” introduced in v. 5. Ellingworth, 299, opts for Melchizedek in v. 10.
2. Lane, 1:135–36; Spicq, 1:142; Weiss, 330; cf. Ellingworth, 299.
3. πολὺς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος καὶ δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν. ὁ λόγος, “the word,” is definite and is preceded by one adjective and its complement, πολὺς ἡμῖν, “much to us,” and followed by a second adjective and its complement, δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν, “difficult to explain.” Most English versions obscure this emphasis on “word” by the translation “we have much to say” (NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV).
4. Lane, 1:135–36, shows how this phrase, “much to us the word,” was a common literary device for designating something the writer felt important. Contrast the “much” (πολύς) the pastor has to say about this “word” (λόγος) with the “word” (λόγος) “of the beginning of Christ” (τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ) in 6:1.
5. For the causal sense for ἐπεί, “because,” see Ellingworth, 300–301. Paul Andriessen, “La communauté des ‘Hébreux,’ était-elle tombée dans le relâchement?” NRTh 96 (1974): 1054–66, has argued that this word means “otherwise” and that the pastor nowhere gives evidence that he thinks his hearers “dull,” “sluggish,” or immature. David G. Peterson, “The Situation of the ‘Hebrews’ (5:11–6:12),” Reformed Theological Review 35 (1976): 14–15, has shown that where Hebrews uses ἐπεί as “otherwise” (9:26; 10:2), the context makes this meaning clear. “Otherwise” does not fit the context of 5:11 (cf. 2:14; 4:6; 5:2; 6:13; 9:17; and 11:11). “Otherwise” fits poorly with the following perfect tense verb. Moreover, the exhortations in 2:1–4; 3:7–4:11, etc., appear to substantiate the sluggishness affirmed in this passage.
6. Pace Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 29. “Dull in hearing” is much more than “intellectual inertia.” Such mental sluggishness is of a piece with spiritual dullness, as evidenced by the listeners’ slowness to hear and obey. “Dullness in hearing” describes resistant hearers in Heliodorus, Aethiopica (Ethiopians) 5.1.5 and Epictetus, Diatr. 1.7.30 (cited in Johnson, 155).
7. See Koester, 308.
8. See Lane, 1:136–37; Attridge, 158.
9. The participle ὀφείλοντες is certainly concessive, “Although being obligated,” “Although you ought.”
10. It was common in antiquity to arouse people by telling them that they should by now be teachers (examples in Moffatt, 70). Thus there is no reason to believe that the pastor is referring to a particular office of “teacher” (Bénétreau, 1:223; pace Donald Guthrie, 134). Cf. Weiss, 331–32.
11. For τινά as the indefinite “someone” instead of the interrogative, τίνα, “which” or “what basic elements,” see Riggenbach, 141–42.
12. Koester, 301. However, this reference to lack of need for teaching under the New Covenant does not play a prominent part in the pastor’s thinking. He makes no mention of it in his summary of New Covenant benefits (10:15–18).
13. For στοιχεῖα as “basic elements” of instruction see Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.1. In Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.56, and Philo, Prelim. Studies 149–50, it is used for the letters of the alphabet (Johnson, 155). See Bénétreau, 1:224.
14. Attridge, 159; cf. Bénétreau, 1:224. “Words” reminds the hearers that they are accountable before God’s revelation (4:12–13). Cf. Johnson, 155; Koester, 301, 309.
15. Hughes, 190, n. 23, and Weiss, 332, represent those who miss the pastor’s rhetorical intention by identifying these “basic elements” with the elementary teachings of Christ in 6:1. Noel Weeks, “Admonition and Error in Hebrews,” WTJ 39 (1976): 76, errs in the opposite direction by making the teachings of 6:1 no more than those referred to in this verse. Koester, 309, supported by Johnson, 155, has speculated that the author was referring to a proper Christological understanding of 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; and Ps 110:1. However, the context would indicate that these “basic teachings” were something even more primitive.
16. Cf. Calvin, 68.
17. Many translations render this verse smoothly by the use of an infinitive: “And you have come to need milk, not solid food.” However, the Greek finite verb γεγόνατε (“you have become”) is followed by a participial phrase: χρείαν ἔχοντες (“need having”). The participle might be taken as modal, “you have become as having need.” However, the “as” unduly weakens the analogy. The full force of the pastor’s thought is retained by a substantive translation: “you have become those who have need.”
18. Terms such as νωθροί (“dull,” v. 11); γάλα (“milk,” v. 12), στερεὰ τροφή (vv. 12, 14, “solid food”); ἄπειρος (v. 13, “inexperienced”); νήπιος (“immature,” v. 13); τέλειος (“perfect,” v. 14); ἕξιν (“mature state,” v. 14), and γυμνάζω (“to exercise,” v. 14) are drawn from this philosophical environment (see Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 35–37). However, Spicq, 2:142, is right when he says, “These first four verses [5:11–14] contain many ideas and expressions current in the philosophical language of the first century, particularly those of Stoic moralism, but the inspiration is fundamentally biblical” (translation mine).
19. Lane, 1:137; Attridge, 159; Koester, 309. Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 39, argues that, under the influence of Platonic paideia, Hebrews affirms that one passes from lower to higher to the highest studies. The highest pertain to heavenly things. H. P. Owen, “The ‘Stages of Ascent’ in Hebrews V.11–VI.3,” NTS 3 (1957): 243–53, finds the three stages of development characteristic of Platonic/Stoic philosophy in Hebrews. Both neglect two important aspects of Hebrews’ thought. First, the pastor uses this language only to shame his hearers for their unnatural immaturity. Second, Hebrews does not see the Christian life as progress toward but as perseverance in the “perfection” that comes through Christ’s high priesthood. The pastor would have his hearers understand the benefits of this priesthood not because they are the goal but because they are the sine qua non of the Christian life. Owen’s argument is undone by his own admission that Hebrews skips the supposed stage one, the acquiring of rudimentary knowledge, and combines two and three—the practice that brings maturity and the acquisition of advanced knowledge (248, 250, 252).
20. Riggenbach, 143–46, draws attention to the importance of this shift.
21. For examples of this usage see Koester, 302, and Johnson, 156.
22. See Lane, 1:137–38; Ellingworth, 307; George Guthrie, 202–3; Osborne, “Arminian,” 109; and Bénétreau, 1:226. Cf. also Bénétreau, 1:226. In the second century Polycarp referred to obeying “the word of righteousness” as practicing the kind of endurance that led to martyrdom (Phil. 8.1–9.1, cited by Lane, 1:138).
23. Pace Hughes, 191–92, and others, reference to Christ as our righteousness decontextualizes the expression “word of righteousness” by putting it in a forensic context foreign to Hebrews. Hughes also misidentifies the “word of righteousness” with the elementary Christian teachings.
24. Riggenbach, 143.
25. John A. L. Lee, “Hebrews 5:14 and ἕξις: A History of Misunderstanding,” NovT 39 (1997): 151–76, has shown conclusively that there is no basis for translating ἕξις as “exercise.” This word was a favorite of the philosophers, and the evidence is overwhelming that it should be translated “state” or “condition” in Heb 5:14, denoting the good state or condition of the mature. We have adopted Lee’s translation, “mature state” (166). His study confirms the opinion of many previous commentators and has won broad support (see, most recently, O’Brien, 210).
26. The Greek word is κάλος, not ἀγαθός, and implies not only what is morally right but what is appropriate in God’s sight. See Hughes, 193. “It is precisely the discernment of the good or evil course, of the noble and the base, and of the proper evaluation of advantages and disadvantages that is at risk among the wavering” (deSilva, 213).
27. τελείων is the genitive plural of the adjective τέλιος (-α, -ον) used substantively for “the mature” (people). Its lack of an article puts emphasis on the quality of maturity, “those who are mature.” The same adjective is translated “the perfect” in the KJV of 1 Cor 6:2 (cf. Eph 4:13). The verb used in 2:10; 5:9; 10:14; 11:40; and 12:23 is τελειόω, “to perfect.” Cf. τελειοτής, “perfection” or “maturity,” in 6:1 below.
28. διό (“therefore”) at the beginning of 6:1 has full inferential force.
29. Compare Epictetus, Diatr. 2.16.39: “Are you not willing, at this late date, like children, to be weaned (ἀπογαλακιστήναι) and to partake of more solid food (τροφῆς στερεᾶς)” (cited by Johnson, 156).
30. “Having left behind (ἀφέντες) the word of the beginning of Christ,” and “not building (καταβαλλόμενοι) again the foundation of.…” The first is aorist active, the second present middle. Both are nominative, plural, masculine modifying the first person plural subject of φερώμεθα, “let us go on,” to maturity.
31. Koester, 303, citing Epictetus, Diatr. 1.16.9; 4.1.15; Plutarch, Mor. 423C; 793A. Cf. Westcott, 142.
32. Koester, 300.
33. This understanding is sustained by the Greek word order. Both genitives, τῆς ἀρχῆς, “of the beginning,” and τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “of Christ,” are in the attributive position, coming between the article τόν, “the,” and the noun λόγον, “word”: “the of-the-beginning, of-Christ word.”
34. τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “of Christ,” is a genitive of description (Ellingworth, 311–12; Bénétreau, 1:229). In light of the teachings to follow, the adjective “Christian” best represents its intended meaning. J. C. Adams, “Exegesis of Hebrews VI.1f,” NTS 13 (1966–67): 378–85 (followed by Attridge, 162), argues that “of Christ” is a subjective genitive and that the pastor is referring to what the earthly Jesus taught. The pastor’s teaching for the mature, on the other hand, is about the significance of what Jesus did in providing salvation, about his “work.” This position is untenable. The teachings of Christ were highly valued. As remembered in the Gospels, they had much to do with his “work.” Furthermore, such things as “baptisms and laying on of hands” were not central to Jesus’ preaching. Those, like Spicq, 2:146, who attempt to identify these teachings with “the basic elements of the beginning of the words of God” in 5:12 miss the ironic character of the pastor’s argument in 5:11–14.
35. So Johnson, 158.
36. The author’s use of ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα, “for the purpose of (this) perfection” (cf. BDAG, 366, 11), instead of εἰς τὴν τελειότητα or πρὸς τὴν τελειότητα, is in accord with his urgency that this “maturity” can and must be obtained.
37. Bénétreau, 1:228, correctly attributes double reference to the term τελειότητα (“maturity”): “on the one hand the fullness characteristic of the maturity of an adult; on the other, the fullness of a teaching that communicates all the wealth of revelation” (translation mine).
38. φερώμεθα, first person, plural, present, passive or middle, subjunctive of φέρω. Among others, Hughes, 194; Westcott, 143; Montefiore, 104; and Spicq, 2:146, prefer the passive.
39. Attridge, 162–63, n. 97. Cf. also Bénétreau, 1:228, who prefers the middle.
40. This shift of reference to the pastor and his future activity is in agreement with the change from the initial aorist participle, ἀφέντες, “having left,” to the present participle, καταβαλλόμενοι, “laying.” We agree with Bénétreau, 1:238–39, that the pastor uses participles with care. Nevertheless, his suggestion that the difference in tense between these two participles justifies distinguishing the teachings listed in vv. 1b–2 as Jewish from the basic Christian teaching of v. 1a is unjustified. Furthermore, the metaphor of laying a foundation fits well with the idea of teaching. Compare 1 Cor 3:10; Philo, Cherubim 101; Names 211; Spec. Laws 2.110; Dreams 2:8; and Epictetus, Diatr. 2.15.8 (cited in Attridge, 163, n. 104).
41. The first pair consists of two genitives each qualified by a prepositional phrase: μετανοίας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων (“of repentance from dead works”); καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ θεόν (“and of faith in God”). The second, of two genitives each qualified by a second genitive: βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς (“of teaching of baptisms”); ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν (“and of laying on of hands”). The third, of two genitives, the first qualified by another genitive, ἀναστάσεως τε νεκρῶν (“of resurrection of the dead”), and the second by an adjective, καὶ κρίματος αἰωνίου (“and of eternal judgment”). See Koester 310–11. Thus one could lay out the structure of these verses as follows:
not laying again a foundation
of repentance from dead works and of faith in God
of teaching of washings and of laying on of hands
of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment.
There are two alternate ways of arranging the structure of these phrases. First, some would take “of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment” as qualifying “teaching” (Riggenbach, 148–49; Weiss, 336). Then one would lay out these verses as follows:
not laying again a foundation
of repentance from dead works and
of faith in God
of teaching of washings and of laying on of hands
of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment.
Second, some would follow those manuscripts that have the accusative (διδαχήν) for “teaching” instead of the genitive (διδαχῆς). See Lane, 1:140; Attridge, 163; Hughes, 196; and Montefiore, 105. This rendering joins “foundation” (θεμέλιον) and “teaching” (διδαχήν) as the compound direct object of the participle καταβαλλόμενοι (“laying”). Attridge identifies the “foundation” as the initial preaching of the gospel but the “teaching” as subsequent instruction for new believers:
not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith in God
teaching of washings and of laying on of hands
of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment.
Both of these alternate arrangements find support from the way in which the last two pairs are bound together by a semi-chiastic structure: βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς (“teaching of washings”) balancing κρίματος αἰωνίου (“eternal judgment”); and ἐπιθέσεως τε χειρῶν (“laying on of hands”) paralleling ἀναστάσεως τε νεκρῶν (“resurrection of the dead”). They may also be supported by the initial location of βαπτισμῶν (“washings”) before διδαχῆς (“teaching”). Cf. Westcott, 145–46. The accusative alternate reading is, however, unlikely. The UBS4 gives the genitive διδαχῆς an “A” rating (see TCGNT, 596). Despite Ellingworth’s reservations (313–14), the genitive is supported by scribal probability, by the balance of external evidence, and by the likelihood that the pastor intends to emphasize the “foundational” nature of all of these teachings.
42. According to Koester, 311, “The six items listed in 6:1–2 span the journey of faith from initial repentance to final judgment.”
43. The pastor’s first reason for using the term “foundation” was to continue his emphasis on the elemental nature of these teachings and thus on their insufficiency (Bénétreau, 1:230). However, the term also implies that these teachings were basic to more advanced instruction, as witnessed by its use among the philosophical schools (deSilva, 216, n. 10; cf. Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 30).
44. Note Ellingworth’s comment (313) that this “list contains nothing distinctively Christian, and of course nothing exclusively Jewish [in contrast to Christianity, not to paganism].”
45. This explanation for the Jewish character of the basic teachings described in these verses is superior to either of the two mutually contradictory alternatives. Some, like Ellingworth, attribute the Jewish character of this language to the fact that the author of Hebrews was “a Jewish Christian writing mainly to readers in the same tradition” (Ellingworth, 313). Others contend that the readers were originally Gentiles who needed this basic “Jewish” teaching before they could come to Christ. Weiss (337–39) argues that there was much commonality between Jewish and Christian preaching to Gentiles. Braun (160) thinks that Hebrews is referring to his hearers’ earlier conversion to Judaism. See the critique of this position in both Koester (305) and Bénétreau (1:231–32). The first of these alternatives reduces the use of Jewish-sounding language in 6:2–3 to habit. The second does not adequately account for the author’s widespread custom of describing Christians in ways appropriate for God’s OT people.
46. The term “repentance” (cf. 6:6; 12:17) fits well with conversion because it “suggests a once-for-all, definitive turning” (Johnson, 158, citing J. K. Solari, “The Problem of Metanoia in the Epistle to the Hebrews” [Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1970]).
47. Cf. 9:14 and Attridge, 164. Cf. also Koester, 305. “Dead works” describe the actions of those separated from the “living God” (cf. Spicq, 2:147). Bénétreau, 1:231, suggests sin in general which leads to death. The pastor is not thinking of the external regulations of the Levitical cult (pace Lane, 1:140). There is no contextual support for understanding these works as works of human self-justification (pace Donald Guthrie, 138). deSilva’s (217) suggestion of works “without value or life or honor” is also forced.
48. The NT normally uses βάπτισμα for both the baptism of John (Mark 1:4; Matt 3:7; Luke 3:3; Acts 19:3) and for Christian baptism (Rom 6:4; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; 1 Pet 3:21). The word used here in Hebrews, and in Josephus, Ant. 18.117, for John’s baptism, is βαπτισμός.
49. Hughes, 199–202; Ellingworth, 315; Attridge, 164; and Bénétreau, 1:233–34. Apollos’s experience (Acts 18:24–28) shows that the same person could have undergone proselyte baptism, John’s baptism, and Christian baptism (Johnson, 159; Spicq, 2:148). Justin, 1 Apol. 62, condemns the continuation of Jewish washings. This understanding is much more likely than a reference to triple immersion (pace Braun, 160–61, critiqued by Bénétreau, 1:234), or distinction between inward and outward cleansing (pace deSilva, 218).
50. Pace Braun, 161–62, it is unlikely that the pastor is critiquing OT sacrifices on which people placed their hands. Nor is it likely, as Lane, 1:140, contends, that the pastor develops his understanding of Christ’s high priesthood from the imposition of hands in priestly ordination.
51. Bénétreau, 1:237.
52. Hughes, 206. Cf. Attridge, 165, and Bénétreau, 1:237.
1. deSilva, 219. γάρ, “for,” shows that vv. 4–8 provide motivation for vv. 1–3.
2. “Those” before this first relative clause indicates that all three relative clauses describe the same people.
3. Although the other participial phrases are linked by καί, the second is linked to the first only by a postpositive τε (γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου, “and having tasted of the heavenly gift”). If καί is the major connective, then the second through fourth participles expand the first. Cf. Osborne, “Arminian,” 111–12. The internal use of τε in the fourth phrase (θεοῦ ῥῆμα δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, “the word of God and the powers of the coming age”) establishes a balance between the fourth and second phrases. The contrasting nature of the fifth participle has caused Bénétreau, 1:244, to take the last καί as adversative: “but have fallen away” (καὶ παραπεσόντας).
4. Ellingworth, 319. There is no suggestion of baptism itself in the immediate context. Compare λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας (“to receive the knowledge of the truth”) in 10:26 (Moffatt, 78). Yet these believers were, no doubt, baptized at the time of their conversion. Thus the usage of this term here prepared for its later use as a technical term for baptism (Weiss, 343). The pastor’s use of “enlightened” is distinct from its usage at Qumran and in the Gnostic writings (Weiss, 342).
5. Spicq, 2:150. ἅπαξ, “once,” describes the finality of heart cleansing in 10:2, of death in 9:26, and of the last Judgment in 12:26–27. Cf. also 9:7, 27, 28. The related ἐφάπαξ (“once for all”) is used in 7:27; 9:12; and 10:10 to affirm the unrepeatable finality of Christ’s saving work. See Koester, 313.
6. Bénétreau, 1:242; Spicq, 2:150; Weiss, 347; Randall C. Gleason, “A Moderate Reformed View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 352. Although the following participles need not refer specifically to the event of conversion, as Bénétreau (1:242) and Johnson (162–63) contend, they do describe the blessings received in conversion and enjoyed by the converted. See Ellingworth, 319; Weiss, 341.
7. Lane, 1:141–42. Roger Nicole and Wayne Grudem have argued that these participles describe those not yet fully converted. V. D. Verbrugge has tried to avoid the implications of these participles describing the converted by arguing that the author is concerned with communal, not individual, apostasy. See R. Nicole, “Some Comments on Hebrews 6:4–6 and the Doctrine of the Perseverance of God with the Saints,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed. G. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 355–64; Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study from the Warning Passages in Hebrews,” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 133–82 (a reprint from The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, 1995); and V. D. Verbrugge, “Towards a New Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–6,” CTJ 15 (1980): 61–73. McKnight, “Warning Passages,” 45–48, has shown the weakness of their arguments. Even Randall C. Gleason, “The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4–8,” BSac 155 (1998): 62–69, agrees that these participles describe true believers. “If this passage were found in Romans 8, we would all hail it as the greatest description of Christian blessings in the entire Bible” (Osborne, “Arminian,” 112). See also Gareth Lee Cockerill, “A Wesleyan Arminian Response to a Moderate Reformed View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. Herbert W. Batemann IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 272–80.
8. Rissi, Theologie, 5, argues that the preceding and following blessings are received through the Spirit.
9. The normal meaning for the metaphorical use of “taste” in the LXX and the NT (Acts 10:10; 1 Pet 2:3) is not to sample but to fully experience (Bénétreau, 1:242–43). “It is not merely a matter of ‘instruction’ (logos) that apostates reject, but of actual experience. The aorist tense of the participles therefore is significant: they were once-for-all enlightened, they did taste, they had been made partakers! The ‘falling away’ is not from an external teaching but from the experience that the hearers have themselves had” (Johnson, 162).
10. This gift encompasses their whole present experience of salvation (cf. Riggenbach, 155). Bénétreau, 1:242, cautions the interpreter against making the “heavenly gift” more specific than the evidence allows. He cites Braun, 166, as giving a list of such overly specific proposals: baptism, the eucharist, the Holy Spirit, pardon for sins, Christ himself, etc.
11. Spicq, 2:151.
12. Hebrews makes no distinction between ῥῆμα, the term here used for “word,” and its synonym, λόγος (2:1; 4:2, 11; 5:11, etc.). See Ellingworth, 321; Spicq, 2:152; and Attridge, 170. Attridge cites Philo, Flight 137 and Alleg. Interp. 3.169, 174–75, as illustrative of the synonymous use of these terms. God’s word is never abstract theory but is always truth addressed to the human situation (cf. Weiss, 344–45).
13. The word is καλός rather than ἀγαθός. It comes first in the clause, after the initial καί (“and”), for emphasis.
14. deSilva, 224, makes reference to τὰ ῥήματα τὰ καλά in Josh 21:45 and 23:15, where this term refers to God’s promises that have been fulfilled.
15. Cf. Weiss, 344.
16. Ellingworth, 321. The pastor is certain that his hearers are part of the same people of God to which the exodus generation belonged (see on 3:1–4:11). However, pace D. Mathewson, “Reading Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament,” WTJ 61 (1999): 219–20, the use of δυνάμεις (“miracles” or “powers”) does not establish a parallel with the miracles of the exodus. See the discussion of σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα (“signs and wonders”) and δυνάμεις at 2:4. The “powers of the age to come” is a clear reference to what Christ has provided.
17. See deSilva, 244.
18. In v. 4 the object of “taste” (γεύομαι) is the “heavenly gift” (τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου) in the genitive case. In v. 6, however, “word” (ῥῆμα) and “powers” (δυνάμεις) are in the accusative. In the NT “taste” (γεύομαι) usually takes its object in the genitive (Matt 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; John 8:52; Heb 2:9). BDF §169, 3, suggests that the genitive signifies “eat one’s fill,” while the accusative implies, “eat some of it.” If so, the pastor is saying that they have eaten their fill of “the heavenly gift” but have had only a taste of God’s “good word” and the “powers” of the coming age.” However, such a subtle distinction is unlikely (Ellingworth, 320).
19. It is gratuitous, then, to argue that, because Hebrews sees salvation as future, the people here described were not truly converted (cf. deSilva, 221). Such a position ends up affirming that none can fall from salvation because none are saved until Christ’s return. Those who argue this way neglect the great privileges provided for believers through Christ’s high priesthood—“forgiveness” (10:17), a “cleansed” conscience (9:14; 10:22), God’s law on their hearts (10:16), access to God through Christ to receive what is needed for perseverance (4:14–16; 10:19–25; 12:22–24). For refutation of this position see David A. deSilva, “Hebrews 6:4–8: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation (Part 1),” TynBul 50 (1999): 33–57.
20. Lane, 1:142.
21. For such attempts see Weeks, “Admonition,” 78–79; Gleason, “Moderate Reformed,” 343–44; Gleason, “OT Background,” 74–78; and Mathewson, “Heb 6:4–6,” 209–25. Cf. also M. Emmrich, “Hebrews 6:4–6—Again! (A Pneumatological Inquiry),” WTJ 65 (2003): 83–95, and Pneumatological Concepts, 56–64. When speaking of “once having been enlightened” the pastor is hardly thinking of the “enlightenment” brought by the pillar of fire in the wilderness. The experience of the Holy Spirit described in 6:5 is far from the limited experience of Bezalel or of the elders in Num 11:16–30. Having “tasted the heavenly gift” or “the good word of God” is hardly parallel to “tasting” manna. One cannot draw significant theological conclusions from such very tenuous OT allusions. The accumulation of unconvincing arguments does not lead to a convincing conclusion. For critique see deSilva, 222, esp. n. 28; deSilva, “Hebrews 6:4–8, Part 1,” 44, n. 24; and Cockerill, “Wesleyan Arminian,” 424–25. In spite of all the immediate contextual evidence to the contrary, Weeks and Mathewson use the above hypothetical parallels to argue that the experience of those described in 6:4–8 was no more that of true believers than was the experience of the wilderness generation. Gleason, on the other hand, argues that the judgment of 6:6 was no more than the temporal judgment inflicted on those who sinned at Kadesh. We have already demonstrated that the wilderness generation had truly experienced God’s grace and that, according to Hebrews, their loss was eternal. Gleason’s position also falls prey to the fact that virtually all OT judgment, whether on professed believers or unbelievers, is described in temporal terms. For critique of the way he handles the wilderness generation see Cockerill, “Wesleyan Arminian,” 420–24.
22. Mathewson, “Heb 6:4–6,” 210–11, argues that the presence of OT examples in the other warning passages makes their presence here more likely. Such a fortiori argument is questionable. Even on Matthewson’s interpretation, the OT example in this passage is not nearly as clear as the examples in 2:1–4; 3:7–4:11; 10:26–31; 12:14–17. Furthermore, neither 4:12–13 nor 12:25–29 invokes OT examples in support of the warning given. Mathewson neglects the unique purpose of this passage as described in the text above.
23. Attridge, 171.
24. Riggenbach, 157.
25. “This is not a matter of faults and errors, in other words, but of apostasy, of making a deliberate choice not to participate in the gift once given” (Johnson, 161). It the LXX of Ezek 14:13; 15:8; 18:24; and 20:27 the verb παραπίπτω (“fall away”) and the related noun παράπτωμα are used together to describe unfaithfulness to God’s covenant. In these contexts they translate the Hebrew verb and noun meaning “to be unfaithful”/“unfaithfulness,” derived from the root 
. See also Wis 6:9. The related noun παράπτωμα is used five times of Adam’s “offense” or fall (Rom 5:15 [twice], 17, 19, 20). The same term is used to describe Israel’s “fall” from God through unfaithfulness in Rom 11:11–12. Gal 5:4 and 2 Pet 3:7 use the related verb ἐκπίπτω to describe falling from God’s grace (Cockerill, “Wesleyan Arminian,” 275, n. 41).
26. John A. Sproule, “Παραπεσόντας in Hebrews 6:6,” GTJ 2 (1981): 327–32, has shown conclusively that παραπεσόντας, “having fallen away,” is not conditional but is the fifth of five substantive participles joined by the article τούς. Although he does not draw conclusions from this fact, he seems to think that it weakens the threatening nature of the passage. In fact, as per the text above, it reinforces the text’s foreboding character. See Cockerill, “Wesleyan Arminian,” 275.
27. deSilva (225, n. 34) argues that Hebrews’ emphasis on “drifting away” (2:1; cf. 3:13; 4:1) and “falling short” (12:15) precludes reference to a “decisive moment” of apostasy. He fails to see that drifting can lead to such a moment. Israel’s rebellion at Kadesh-Barnea (3:7–4:11) was the conclusion of such a process. See Lane, 1:142; Hughes, 218, n. 68.
28. Weiss, 345–46.
29. Riggenbach, 157.
30. Compare the word used here, ἀνασταυρόω, with σταυρόω, “to crucify.” ἀνα is the prefix in question.
31. For ἀνασταυρόω as simply “to crucify” see Josephus, J.W. 1.97; 2.75, and the examples cited by Koester, 315.
32. Johnson, 161.
33. The parallel πάλιν (“again”) earlier in this verse makes “re-crucify” or “crucify again” more likely. By “re-crucifying” the one who offered himself “once for all” the apostates cut themselves off from the only sufficient source of salvation (cf. also 9:25–28). See esp. Ellingworth, 324. Thus the pastor probably used ἀνασταυρόω over σταυρόω, not merely from a predilection for more sophisticated terminology, but because of this possible aspect of its meaning.
34. Thus with Koester, 315, and Riggenbach, 158 (but pace Ellingworth, 324–25, and Lane, 133), ἑαυτοῖς, “for/to themselves,” is more than a dative of disadvantage—“to their own loss.” “Those who have crucified Christ ‘to themselves’ have terminated their relationship with him (Moffatt)” (Koester, 315).
35. παραδειγματίζω, the word used here for exposing Christ to disgrace, was often used for punishments that made an example of the victim. Koester, 315, cites the following examples of such usage: Polybius, Histories 2.60.7; 29.29.5; Plutarch, Mor. 520b; Num 25:4; and Ezek 28:17.
36. The author’s affirmation that Jesus “endured the cross” (σταυρός) in 12:2 is the only other place he comes close to crucifixion language.
37. Lane, 1:142; Ellingworth, 323; Attridge, 169; deSilva, 225; Weiss, 346–49; and Johnson, 163–64. Koester, 319–20, contends that it is the definitiveness of their rejection rather than the greatness of what was rejected that makes renewal impossible. However, to set these two causes in opposition is to oversimplify Hebrews. The rejection of those described in 6:4–6 is so definitive because in rejecting Christ they have rejected the great, all-sufficient, climax of God’s plan. That is why the description of Christ’s high priesthood reinforces the impossibility of restoration (see 10:26). Their possession of fulfillment in Christ distinguishes them from the wilderness generation to which Koester refers in support of his position. However, even that generation’s fall was definitive because refusal to enter the land was rejection of that which was the goal for which they had been brought out of Egypt and the climax of their pilgrimage.
38. Koester, 312–13, 322. In light of 2:1–4, 3:7–4:11, and 10:26–31, it is impossible to reduce “impossible” to “impossible for men (but not for God).” See Bénétreau, 1:241; Hughes, 212–13; Braun, 164.
39. Nevertheless, the pastor may have hesitated to directly affirm the impossibility of God’s bringing restoration. The faithfulness of God—and thus his inability to lie—is part of the bedrock of biblical faith (6:18). A direct assertion that it was “impossible” for him to restore the apostate might have been mistaken as a limitation on his power and thus as inappropriate. The pastor would do nothing that might distract his hearers from following his argument.
40. deSilva, 244, argues that understanding Hebrews from the perspective of the ancient patron/client relationship leaves room for God to restore such apostates. Hebrews is instruction to clients. Such instruction warned clients to expect their benefactor to cease bestowing benefits once and for all if they refused to render due gratitude and loyalty. On the other hand, instruction to patrons encouraged them to continue giving even if they did not receive due honor. Thus these client-directed threats to the recipients of Hebrews do not limit the generosity of God, their Patron. This argument is fascinating, but unconvincing, because it tends to reduce Hebrews to no more than instruction for clients. It does not take sufficient account of the eschatological magnitude of what those who turn from Christ reject.
41. In spite of the arguments put forward by J. K. Elliott, “Is Post-Baptismal Sin Forgiveable?” BT 28 (1977): 330–32, it would be inaccurate to mollify the harshness of this verdict by construing the present participles as temporal: they cannot repent “so long as they are re-crucifying for themselves the Son of God.” The entire context has the urgency of finality. This interpretation ignores the way in which the impossibility of restoration is proportionate to the rejection of the greatness of Christ’s provision. The following parable of the land and the examples of Esau (12:14–17) and the wilderness generation (3:7–4:11) forbid such a reduction. The present tense shows that the lives of those who have thus apostatized continue to heap shame on their former Savior (see Hughes, 218, n. 68). Koester, 315, and Bruce, 149, are correct in arguing that a temporal interpretation reduces these participles to a truism hardly worth stating.
42. The pastor had no intention of establishing a standard by which the church could determine if a person could be reunited to fellowship. Thus the use of this passage by the ancient church in the controversy over the readmission of those who had denied Christ under persecution was inappropriate. See Weiss, 347.
43. In the OT fruitful land is the blessing given to the obedient.
44. Under the Old Covenant God’s “blessing” was “life” lived in the abundance of the Promised Land. The “curse” was destruction and exclusion from the land and its blessings. The pastor, however, has discerned that the true goal of the promise is the Heavenly Homeland (11:8–10, 13–16). See the comments on 4:1–11 above.
45. Rom 1:28; 1 Cor 9:27; 2 Cor 13:5–7; 2 Tim 3:8; Tit 1:16.
46. Ellingworth, 328. This interpretation follows the etymology of ἀδόκιμος: α- privative, meaning “not,” and δόκιμος, meaning “approved.”
47. Compare the NRSV: “on the verge of being cursed.”
48. Attridge, 173; Ellingworth, 328; and Hughes, 223–24; but pace Riggenbach, 161.
49. Heb 10:27; 12:25–29. Riggenbach, 160, cites Isa 8:18–19; 10:17; 33:12; Mal 4:1; Matt 13:30, 40–42; and John 16:6 as examples of judgment by fire. Pace Montefiore, 110, there is no evidence that the pastor is thinking of a burning off in order to foster new growth (deSilva, 233).
50. See ἀκάνθας, “thorns,” in Isa 5:2, and ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους, “thorns and thistles,” in Heb 6:8. ὑετός, “rain,” is used in both passages, but in very different ways. On the differences in language see deSilva, 229. Still, similarity of ideas was likely to remind the pastor’s Scripture-literate hearers of Isaiah. See Hughes, 223.
51. deSilva, 232; Allen, Deuteronomy, 127–34. Cf. Lane, 1:143; Ellingworth, 326–27.
52. Since this combination of terms, ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους, “thorns and thistles,” occurs only once elsewhere in the LXX (Hos 10:8), it is very likely that this expression is an echo of the Genesis passage, which refers to “thorns and thistles” as part of God’s curse on the “land.” In fact, τρίβολος, “thistles,” occurs only four times in the LXX—Gen 3:18; 2 Kgs 12:31; Prov 22:5; and Hos 10:8.
53. Mathewson, “Heb 6:4–6,” 221–22. Compare Heb 6:7, γῆ γὰρ ἡ πιοῦσα τὸν ἐπʼ αὐτῆς ἐρχόμενον πολλάκις ὑετόν, “for the land that drinks the rain that often comes upon it,” and Deut 11:11, ἡ δὲ γῆ εἰς ἣν εἰσπορεύῃ ἐκεῖ κληρονομῆσαι αὐτὴν, γῆ ὀρεινή καί πεδεινή? ἐκ τοῦ ὑετοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πίεται “But the land into which you are going to inherit it, a land of mountains and plains. From the rain of heaven it will drink.” These two quotations share only three scattered words (underlined above). These words are separated by a number of varying expressions, they do not come in the same order, and two of them, ὑετόν/ὑετοῦ (“rain”) and πιοῦσα/πίεται (“drink”), occur in different grammatical forms. The contexts of the keyword γή (“land”) are distinctly different. In Hebrews the land represents God’s unfaithful people who suffer judgment. In Deuteronomy, enjoyment of the land will be the reward given the people for faithfulness. Thus it is very unlikely that the pastor intends his hearers to identify the “land” of Heb 6:7 with the Promised Land of Deut 11:11. Such an association is at least as doubtful as “the allusions/echoes from the wilderness generation” proposed by Mathewson “for vv. 4–6” and discussed above. Instead of putting those allusions, which Mathewson admits were not “entirely convincing” (222), “on firmer footing” (222), it confirms their dubious nature.
1. Riggenbach, 161.
2. Cf. Lane, 1:144.
3. See pp. 33; 98, n. 66; and 118, n. 4.
4. Note how one article joins both the adjective κρείσσονα, “better,” and the participle, ἐχόμενα, “having”—τὰ κρείσσονα καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, literally “things better and having salvation.” Spicq, 2:157, contrasts “having salvation” with “subject to a curse” (κατάρας ἐγγύς) in v. 8.
5. Johnson, 165.
6. Here “forget” means “neglect” or “overlook” (Luke 12:6; cf. esp. Heb 13:6, 11). For litotes, emphasis by understatement or negation, see Johnson, 165.
7. εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ is literally “unto his name.” We follow Ellingworth, 331, who suggests either “with regard to him” or “to his account” (see MM, 451) instead of the popular translation: “for his sake” (NRSV; ESV). For ἅγιοι, “saints,” as believers in general see 3:1; 13:24; and compare Rom 16:2; 1 Cor 16:1, and many other passages (Riggenbach, 164; Weiss, 354).
8. The two participles, διακονήσαντες (aorist, “having ministered”) and διακονοῦντες (present, “ministering”), are instrumental. This love for God is shown “by having ministered” and “by ministering.”
9. Johnson, 165, calls the pastor’s mention of love “unexpected.”
10. Cf. “it is our earnest wish” (J. B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English). Hughes, 227–28.
11. Such confidence is what the pastor means by τὴν πληροφορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος, “the full assurance of hope.” Although etymology and the use of its cognate verb suggest the idea of “fullness,” πληροφορία always means “full confidence” or “assurance” in nonbiblical Greek (Gerhard Delling, “πληροφορία,” TDNT 6:310–11). This meaning is well suited to the context of Heb 6:11, and is confirmed by the parallel πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως (“full assurance of faith”) in 10:22. Cf. Koester, 317; Weiss, 355–56. Under the influence of 10:22, a few mss (I pc a*) have substituted πίστεως (“faith”) for ἐλπίδος (“hope”) in 6:11. This substitution suggests that πληροφορία was understood as “full assurance” in both places. However, Bruce, 150; Attridge, 176; and Johnson, 167, opt for “fullness” or “fulfillment.” On this interpretation the prepositional phrase, πρὸς τὴν πληροφορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος (“for the fullness of hope”), gives the purpose of the infinitive ἐνδείκνυσθαι (“to demonstrate”), rather than the object of σπουδήν (“zeal,” “diligence”). “Show diligence for the fulfillment of hope”—cf. “show this same diligence … in order to make your hope sure” (T/NIV). That is, be diligent so that you will obtain the things for which you hope.
12. Thus taking γένησθε, “you became,” as ingressive aorist: “in order that you might not begin to be dull.” Such dullness is the opposite of the “zeal” described in v. 11 (O’Brien, 233).
13. Pace Ellingworth, 333, the pastor avoids redundancy of style by allowing this one word “dull” to evoke the earlier phrase, “dull of hearing” (5:11). This understanding is confirmed by the fact that those “dull of hearing” are the direct opposite of “those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.”
14. Lane, 1:145, citing Jub. 17:7; 19:1–9. The terms used here are πίστις (“faith”) and μακροθυμία (“patience”). The pastor introduces the examples of chapter 11 in 10:36 with πίστις, “faith,” and ὑπομονή, “endurance.” μακροθυμία and ὑπομονή are closely related terms (Col 1:11; 1 Tim 1:16; 2 Tim 3:10; Rom 2:4–7; 2 Cor 6:4–6; and Jas 5:10–11). The pastor begins with the traditional μακροθυμία, but replaces it with his term of choice, ὑπομονή. μακροθυμία (“patience”) is well suited to Abraham’s waiting for God to fulfill his promise of a son, but ὑπομονή (“endurance”) is better suited to the pastor’s concern for perseverance through difficulties. Thus ὑπομονή, and its cognate verb ὑπομονέω (“endure”), are important terms in Hebrews (10:32, 36; 12:1, 2, 3, 7).
15. Ellingworth, 333.
16. Cf. Riggenbach, 166–67.
1. Johnson, 169.
2. Literally, “If not blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you.” In Gen 22:17 God’s oath ends with “I will multiply your seed” instead of “I will multiply you.” The pastor keeps the focus on Abraham without altering the meaning by paraphrasing “you” for “your seed.” This paraphrase also facilitates reference to Isaac’s birth as the initial fulfillment of the promise (Riggenbach, 169).
3. Ellingworth, 338–39, is certainly correct when he says that ἐπέτυχεν, “he obtained,” is too strong a word to mean that Abraham merely received the renewal of the promise. Pace Lane, 1:151.
4. Attridge, 179–80.
5. So Koester, 326; Riggenbach, 170; Weiss, 361; Ellingworth, 338–39; O’Brien, 236; Bruce, 153; and many others.
6. Hughes, 231. The pastor will make it clear in 11:17–19 that Abraham’s willingness to offer Isaac was the greatest demonstration of his faith in the trustworthiness and power of God.
7. Cf. Weiss, 359.
8. “ἐν ᾧ at the beginning of this verse means “in regard to which” or “because of which,” referring back to God’s oath—“because of the significance of the oath” for human beings God makes use of it (Ellingworth, 340–41; cf. Spicq, 2:161). Compare Philo’s discussion of God’s oath (Abraham 273). We have begun our translation of this verse with “thus” to show that the pastor is referencing God’s oath. For God’s great condescension in using an oath see Chrysostom, quoted in Heen and Krey, 92.
9. περισσότερον, “even more,” takes on particular coloring from the word it modifies. Translations that understand the infinitive ἐπιδεῖξαι as “show” take περισσότερον as “even more clearly” (NRSV). The whole tenor of the context, however, seems to indicate that one should understand ἐπιδεῖξαι as “demonstrate, prove.” If so, then περισσότερον should be rendered “more convincingly” (ESV) or “most convincingly.” Though comparative in form, this expression draws superlative force from the context. Weiss, 362, n. 15, along with the KJV and NASB, takes περισσότερον with the following participle βουλόμενος (“desiring”), for example, “desiring even more” (NASB). Weiss, however, acknowledges the possibility of taking περισσότερον with ἐπιδεῖξαι. We have translated the Greek infinitive ἐπιδεῖξαι as an English gerund, “demonstrating.”
10. Spicq, 2:160–61; Montefiore, 115; Riggenbach, 173; and Weiss, 362, n. 16. Cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 4.31. Compare μεσιτεύω, “mediate,” “confirm,” with μεσίτης, “mediator.” Jesus is not only the mediator of the new and better covenant (κρείττονος, “better,” 8:6; καινῆς, “new,” 9:15; νέας, “new,” 12:24), but, by God’s oath, he is its “guarantor” (ἔγγυς, 7:20–22).
11. The adjective ἀμετάθετον appears nowhere else in the NT and is used here in the neuter substantively: “unchangeableness” or “unchangeable character.” This translation by the ESV (compare NRSV, “unchangeable nature”) is certainly better than that by the NIV/TNIV, “unchanging nature.” Compare ἀμετάθετον with ἀπαράβατον (“inviolable”) as a description of Christ’s priesthood in 7:24.
12. The pastor is not speaking of Abraham’s physical descendants (Weiss, 172). See on 3:1–6 above. It is obedient response to the word (promise) of God that constitutes the people of God and defines the descendants of Abraham.
13. The “promise” incorporates the entire series of God’s promises to Abraham (Gen 12:2–3, 7; 13:14–17; 15:5–7, 13–16; 17:4–8, 19), while the oath refers to the climax of God’s promise in the oath God swore to Abraham after the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:16–17). So Ellingworth, 335, and Koester, 328. For the unlikely suggestion that the reference is to Ps 2:7 and Ps 110:4, or to the two oaths of God in Gen 22:16–17 and Ps 110:4, see Lane, 1:152. Nor is it likely that the “two unchangeable things” are God’s “word” and Christ’s “entrance,” as suggested by Johnson, 171.
14. The NRSV and ESV understand the infinitive phrase κρατῆσαι τῆς προκειμένης ἐλπίδος (“to take hold of the hope laid before us”) as qualifying παράκλησιν (“encouragement”) rather than the participle καταφυγόντες (“having fled for refuge”): “In order that we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to seize the hope set before us” (NRSV). On the other hand, the NASB takes the infinitive κρατῆσαι (“to lay hold”) as a modal qualifier of the participle καταφυγόντες (“having fled for refuge”), “We who have fled for refuge in laying hold of the hope.…” The urgency of the pastor is best expressed by taking the infinitive phrase as expressing the purpose of the participle, “having fled for refuge to take hold of the hope laid before us.” See the discussion in Attridge, 182–83; Lane, 1:148j, 153; Ellingworth, 343–44; and O’Brien, 240, n. 182.
15. Gen 19:20; Exod 21:14; Lev 26:25; Num 26:25–26; cf. Deut 4:42. There is no reason to follow Ellingworth’s (344) contention that the pastor uses καταφυγόντες (“having fled for refuge”) for seeking safety but not for flight from danger. One can hardly do one without the other. The pastor intends both.
16. See 1 Kgs 1:50; 2:28; Euripides, Iphigeneia at Aulis (Iphigeneia aulidensis) 911; Herodotus, Hist. 2.113; 5.46; and Tacitus, Ann. 3.6 (cf. Koester, 328). καταφεύγω is also used for fleeing to the cities of refuge in Num 35:25–26 and Philo, Spec. Laws 3.130.
17. See Ellingworth, 344, for lists of those who understand both “take hold of” (κρατῆσαι) and “laid before” (προκειμένης) as referring to the present or to the future. “The tension between present and future [in this verse] is not merely a matter of lexical ambiguity: it lies at the heart of the situation which the writer addresses (cf. 12:22, προσεληλύθατε)” (Ellingworth, 344). One must not forget that Hebrews normally uses “hope” in the objective sense of the things for which God’s people hope (Lane, 1:153; cf. Attridge, 183). “Laid before us” is best understood as confirming the future, eschatological reality of the things hoped for. Yet those who now “take hold” of this future hope live their lives in the present with confidence in its reality. Thus in this verse the pastor would not sever the future final fulfillment of this hope from present subjective confidence in its certainty (see Weiss, 365–66; Koester, 329; cf. O’Brien, 240).
18. Cf. Johnson, 172.
19. Hughes, 235. Heb 13:2; cf. Matt 10:28; 16:26; Luke 9:24; 12:19–20; John 12:27; 2 Cor 1:23; 12:15; Phil 1:27; 1 Thess 2:8.
20. ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν, “sure and indeed steadfast.” Although these two words modify ἄγκρυαν (“anchor”), they affirm the certainty of the ἐλπίδος (“hope,” v. 18) represented by the anchor (Attridge, 183–84). They also occur together in the LXX of 2 Sam 8:2. βεβαίος is a favorite of Hebrews (2:2; 3:6, 14; 9:17). See βεβαίωσις, “confirmation,” in 6:16 and βεβαιόω, “to confirm,” in 2:3; 13:9. For the anchor as a metaphor of stability see Plato, Laws 961C; Artemidorus, Onir. 2.23; and Philo, Sacrifices 90; Cherubim 13 (cited in Johnson, 172).
21. We have taken the participle εἰσερχομένην (“entering into”) as modifying the relative pronoun ἥν at the beginning of the verse, and thus qualifying ἐλπίδος (“hope,” v. 17), which is the antecedent of that relative pronoun, instead of modifying ἄγκυραν (“anchor”). Notice how τε καὶ binds the two adjectives that modify ἄγκυραν (“anchor”) closely together (ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν, “steadfast and also sure”), and separates them from the following participle, εἰσερχομένην (“entering into”). This construal makes much better sense than mixing the nautical and priestly imagery by having an unmoving anchor suddenly enter into the Most Holy Place. Riggenbach, 176; Ellingworth, 345; O’Brien, 241; Otfried Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6, 19f und 10, 19f (WUNT 14; Tübingen: Siebeck, 1972), 87, n. 226 (cited in O’Brien), but pace Spicq, 2:164–65, and Weiss, 367, n. 38.
22. The phrase ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος, “inside the veil,” occurs only four times in the LXX—Lev 16:2, 12, 15 and Exod 26:33. In Exodus it describes the location of the Ark, but in the three Levitical verses it refers to the high priest entering the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. Thus the entrance described in Heb 6:19–20 draws on Day of Atonement imagery. See Norman H. Young, “‘Where Jesus Has Gone as a Forerunner on Our Behalf’ (Hebrews 6:20),” AUSS 39 (2001): 165–73. Norman H. Young, “The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement? The Old Testament Background to Hebrews 6:19–20 Revisited,” AUSS 40 (2002): 61–68, has successfully refuted Davidson’s objections to his position (Richard M. Davidson, “Christ’s Entry ‘within the Veil’ in Hebrews 6:19–20: The Old Testament Background,” AUSS 39 (2001): 175–90; Richard M. Davidson, “Inauguration or Day of Atonement? A Response to Norman Young’s ‘Old Testament Background to Hebrews 6:19–20 Revisited,’” AUSS 40 [2002]: 69–88).
23. There is no contradiction in the pastor’s use of the Most Holy Place as a description of both God’s heavenly dwelling place (9:24) and the coming age (9:6–10), for the latter is the full realization and triumph of the former. Cf. Koester, 330.
24. Ellingworth, 347. If the participle were aorist, we might identify the “anchor” directly with Christ himself. As it is, the author establishes a more indirect analogy between the “anchor” and Christ. The certainty of the anchor is provided by the fully adequate High Priest (v. 20). See Attridge, 183–84.
25. This is the runner who wins the race (Pollux, Onom. 3.30.248, cited by Koester 330; cf. 12:1–3).
26. See Johnson, 173.
27. For “on our behalf” cf. 2:9; 7:25; 9:7; 10:19–20. The omission of the article before πρόδρομος, “forerunner,” may indicate that the pastor is focusing on the “quality” of being a “forerunner” for others.
28. Note the way in which he introduced this whole section on Christ’s high priesthood with the emphatically redundant “great high priest” of 4:14.
29. The pastor ends 3:15 with “rebellion” and then describes its nature in 3:16–19; he ends 6:12 with “promises” and verifies their integrity in 6:13–20; he concludes 6:18 with “hope” and elaborates upon it in 6:19–20.
30. Attridge, 185, affirms the importance of the author’s reserving “forever” until the end of v. 20 and the fact that its significance is explained in chapter 7. However, he thinks its primary reference is to Christ’s eternal priesthood rather than to the eternal sonship that makes his priesthood sufficient.
1. Attridge, 187; Ellingworth, 350; Spicq, 2:205; Weiss, 371–72; G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of Interpretation (Richmond: John Knox, 1965), 123–24; and esp. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 212–15. Pace Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “‘Now This Melchizedek … ,’” CBQ 25 (July 1963): 305, who thinks that Gen 14:18–20 is the primary text. There is no evidence to sustain Davila’s contention that because of the widespread use of Ps 110:1 Christians were aware of a “Melchizedek tradition at least to some degree” (James R. Davila, “Melchizedek, the ‘Youth,’ and Jesus,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity [Leiden: Brill, 2003], 267; cf. D. W. Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7,” Bib 81 [2000]: 84). The way in which Hebrews introduces the fourth verse of this psalm and argues for its significance belies Davila’s hypothesis.
2. The importance of the eternity of the Son in this chapter is demonstrated by the way the pastor introduces and concludes this chapter with “forever,” εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (6:20; 7:28; cf. Weiss, 372). P. Pilhofer, “KREITTONOS DIATHEKES EGGYOS: Die Bedeutung der Präexistenzchristologie für die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 121 (1996): 319–28, makes it clear that this “eternity” includes the Son’s preexistence.
3. See the comments on these verses below.
4. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 125, points out the occurrence of “Melchizedek” and “met” in vv. 1 and 10 and “perfection” and “having been perfected” in vv. 11 and 28. The term “Son” in v. 3 anticipates “Son” in v. 28.
5. Bénétreau’s analysis (2:19–20) of this chapter on the basis of classical rhetoric (6:20, thesis; 7:1–4, the facts; 7:5–25, argument; 7:26–28, conclusion) obscures the role played by Ps 110:4 and Gen 14:17–24 and the transitional nature of 7:26–28.
6. Weiss, 407, argues that ὁρκωμοσία (“oath,” vv. 20, 28) forms an inclusion joining vv. 20–25 with vv. 26–28. However, v. 28 resumes the whole of vv. 11–25. Note νόμος (“law”) in vv. 12 and 20 and νενομοθέτηται (“received the law”) in v. 11. Weiss, however, expounds vv. 20–22 and 23–25 as subunits, just as we do below.
7. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 137–52, fails to see the way vv. 26–28 announce themes to come and thus joins these verses with vv. 11–25. See the criticism in John Bligh, “The Structure of Hebrews,” Heythrop Theological Journal 5 (1964): 173. On the other hand, Delitzsch, 1:325–27, 2:1–6, represents those who fail to see the connection with vv. 1–25.
8. Westfall’s attempt to make 7:1–3 part of 6:13–20 is unconvincing (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 159–62, 169). First of all, 6:20 reintroduces Ps 110:4 and the subject of Christ’s high priesthood rather than the subject of Melchizedek. We have already noted the use of “high priest” and the way this verse ends with “having become a high priest forever.” Furthermore, pace Westfall, 160, οὗτος (“this”), in 7:1, is not a demonstrative pronoun that refers back to Μελχισέδεκ (Melchizedek) in v. 20, but a demonstrative adjective that intensifies ὁ Μελχισέδεκ in 7:1—“now this Melchizedek” (οὗτος ὁ Μελχισέδεκ). This phrase in 7:1 introduces the Melchizedek of Gen 14:17–24. The exposition of this passage unites 7:1–10. Verse 11 returns to the interpretation of Ps 110:4 cited in 6:20. θεωρεῖτε, “see,” in 7:4 introduces the pastor’s interpretation of the material cited from Gen 14:17–24 in vv. 1–3.
9. In vv. 11–19 the pastor explains what “according to the order of Melchizedek” is not (vv. 11–14) before he explains what it is (vv. 15–19). Note the inclusions τελείωσις/ἐτελείωσεν (“perfection”/“perfected”) and νενομοθέτηται/νόμος (“have received the law”/ “law”) in vv. 11 and 19 (Ellingworth, 370; deSilva, 268 n. 15).
1. γάρ (“for”) shows clearly that the pastor is explaining Ps 110:4, cited in 6:20 (Weiss, 373).
2. Note Leschert’s comment: “But whereas the rabbis often employed this rule of interpretation artificially, here Genesis 14 is the true historical background of Ps 110:4” (Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 218–19).
3. Pace Fred L. Horton Jr., The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century a.d. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 30; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 170. See the critique of Horton in Gareth Lee Cockerill, “The Melchizedek Tradition, a Review,” Int 31 (July 1977): 329, and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Melchizedek Tradition, a Review,” CBQ 39 (July 1977): 437.
4. Mikeal C. Parsons, “Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews,” EvQ 60 (1988): 214, n. 204; Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 204.
5. Hebrews uses ἐμέρισεν, “apportioned,” instead of the LXX, ἔδωκεν, “he gave.” Neither Josephus nor Philo uses ἐμέρισεν when describing this episode in Genesis 14 (Attridge, 188 n. 28). This observation supports the assertion of Ellingworth, 356, and Moffatt, 91–92, that the author of Hebrews chose this word to emphasize the fact that Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek.
6. Nor did the pastor feel the need to explain it away as if it detracted from Melchizedek’s position. Much ancient and medieval interpretation of Genesis understood this “bread and wine” as a type of the eucharist and used it as a defense of the priesthood and Mass (Bruce G. McNair, “Luther, Calvin and the Exegetical Tradition of Melchizedek,” RevExp 101 [2004]: 750–54). Although Luther and Calvin rejected this interpretation (McNair, “Luther, Calvin,” 751–53), Jonathan Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption (first published Edinburgh: W. Gray, 1774; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2003), 60, retained a place for this typology in his Reformed theology: “The bread and wine [presented by Melchizedek] signified the same blessings of the covenant of grace, that the bread and wine do in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. So that, as Abraham had a seal of the covenant in circumcision that was equivalent to baptism, so now he had a seal of it equivalent to the Lord’s supper.”
7. For “Melchizedek” as “King of Righteousness” or “Righteous King” see Josephus, Ant. 1.180; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.79–82; Tg. Neof. 1; and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; Fitzmyer, “‘Now This Melchizedek … ,’” 311–13, and Str-B 3:692–93. However, only in the passage from Philo cited above is “King of Salem” interpreted as “King of Peace.” In the Genesis Apocalypse, Josephus, and the Targums “Salem” is identified with Jerusalem. See Fitzmyer, “‘Now This Melchizedek … ,’” 313–14. In later rabbinic literature this identification was made on the basis of Ps 76:3 (Str-B, 3:693). See also Martin McNamara, “Melchizedek: Gen 14, 17–20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature,” Bib 81 (2000): 1–31, esp. p. 11.
8. Bénétreau, 2:30–31, summarizes the Messianic significance of these terms. For the joining of “righteousness” and “peace” with Messianic significance see Isa 9:6–7; 11:1–9; 32:16–18; 4 Ezra 13:37–39; and T. Levi 18:2–4 (deSilva, 266, n. 4). Koester has shown how “King of Righteousness” and “King of Peace” are appropriate for the larger argument and parenetic purpose of Hebrews (Koester, 347–48).
9. Pace Rooke, “Reflections,” 88–89.
10. See Héring, 57; Gerd Theissen, Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief (Studien zum Neuen Testament 2; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969), 23–24; and Windisch, 59.
11. Attridge, 189–90. For others who have found a hymn here see Rooke, “Reflections,” 87–89, esp. n. 24. Rooke cites me as affirming a hymn in this verse, a position I no longer hold. See also Koester, 349–50.
12. On the appropriateness of Heb 7:3cd to the argument of Hebrews see Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireshaʿ (CBQMS 10; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 120–21; Fitzmyer, “‘Now This Melchizedek … ,’” 316, n. 48; Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 210–12; and Attridge, 189–90. The exposition below will demonstrate the importance of v. 3ab.
13. Philo’s treatment of Melchizedek in Alleg. Interp. 3.79–82; Prelim. Studies 99; and Abraham 235 provides no evidence for such a speculation. Philo believed Melchizedek to be a human being. He allegorized such terms as “priest,” “king,” “righteousness,” and “peace” in the Genesis account of Melchizedek in the same way that he allegorized those terms in other passages. There is no distinction between the way Philo allegorizes Melchizedek and what he does with the Levitical priests (Koester, 340). There is absolutely no basis for Longenecker’s contention that for Philo Melchizedek was “mainly the manifestation of the eternal logos” (Richard N. Longenecker, “The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews: A Study in the Development and Circumstantial Expression of New Testament Thought,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology, ed. Robert A. Guelich [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 177). For extensive treatment of the Philonic Melchizedek passages see Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Melchizedek without Speculation: Hebrews 7:1–25 and Genesis 14:14–24,” in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Context, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (LNTS 387; T&T Clark, 2008), 134–36.
14. 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) has been the primary Qumran document cited in support of a contemporary Melchizedek speculation. Most scholars agree that this document uses the name Melchizedek for the angel called Michael, “Angel of Truth,” and “Prince of Light(s)” in other Qumran writings. For the extensive literature on this document see the notes in Cockerill, “Melchizedek without Speculation,” 136–41. 4Q401 (4QShirShabbb) may refer to Melchizedek as a heavenly priest (Carol Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition [Harvard Semitic Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985], 133–34). 4QAmramb (4Q544); and 4QBer (4Q280) appear to refer to Michael’s evil counterpart, often called “Belial,” as “Melchiresha‘,” “King of Wickedness.” I have argued elsewhere that the use of this parallel name for Michael’s antithesis and the fact that “Melchizedek” is written as two words in 11QMelchizedek (
, “king”; 
, “righteousness”) suggest that the people of Qumran coined the name “King of Righteousness” for Michael by analogy with the other names they gave him, “Angel of Truth” and “Prince of Light(s). “King of Righteousness” was particularly appropriate for Michael’s function in 11QMelchizedek as the one who brings about the “righteousness” of God by establishing God’s eschatological kingship. Thus there is no more reason to speak of a “Melchizedek” (“King of Righteousness”) speculation than of an “Angel of Truth” speculation. That the people of Qumran would understand “Melchizedek” as “King of Righteousness” is substantiated by the fact that Hebrews, Philo (Alleg. Interp. 3.79–82), Josephus (Ant. 1.180; J.W. 6.438), who knew Hebrew, and the admittedly later Targums (see McNamara, “Melchizedek,” 3, 21 and Fitzmyer, “‘Now This Melchizedek … ,’” 309–13) understand “Melchizedek” in this way. I know of no witness to any other understanding of this name in the Second Temple period. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that 11QMelchizedek is describing the biblical person named “Melchizedek.” This document makes no reference to Psalm 110 or to Gen 14:14–24. When the people of Qumran did refer to the Melchizedek of Genesis in the Genesis Apocalypse, they wrote his name as one word. See Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Melchizedek or ‘King of Righteousness,’” EvQ 63 (October 1991): 305–12, and Cockerill, “Melchizedek without Speculation,” 136–41. The fragmentary condition of 11QMelchizedek renders any conclusion about its nature and contents tentative. This inconclusiveness is demonstrated by the fact that two recent scholars have presented cogent cases for diametrically opposite interpretations of 11QMelchizedek, both of which differ from the majority view: Paul A. Rainbow, “Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran,” BBR 7 (1997): 179–94, has argued that 11QMelchizedek presents Melchizedek as the human royal messiah anticipated at Qumran. Franco Manzi, Melchisedek e l’angelologia nell’Epistola agli Ebrei e a Qumran (AnBib 136; Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1997) has argued that 11QMelchizedek uses “Melchizedek” as a title for Yahweh, the God of Israel. Both agree that “Melchizedek” is a title and should be translated “King of Righteousness.” Both affirm that 11QMelchizedek is no witness to speculation about the biblical Melchizedek as a heavenly being.
15. Davila, “The ‘Youth,’” 253–54, n. 10, argues that “Other, roughly contemporary, Jewish traditions accept his [Melchizedek’s] angelic status and his high priesthood.” However, the only source he can cite, in addition to Philo and Qumran, is Slavonic Enoch, a document of uncertain antiquity, as Davila admits (261, n. 10). Nor is there evidence of such speculation from an earlier period, as P. J. Nel, “Psalm 110 and the Melchizedek Tradition,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 22 (1996): 11, and others have suggested. Nel argues that by Hebrews’ use of Ps 110:4 “Christ was legitimized as Priest according to the priesthood of Zion that existed for ever in terms of Yahweh’s (El Elyon) eternal connection with the cult of Zion.” However, he must admit that “the historical evidence of an El Elyon cult in Jerusalem is as yet very sparse” and “evidence does not confirm the worship of a god Zedek in Zion” (Nel, “Tradition,” 5–6).
16. See McNamara, “Melchizedek,” 11 and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Melchizedek in the MT, LXX, and the NT,” Bib 81, no. 1 (2000): 66, n. 19. This united voice of later Jewish (and also Christian) interpretation belies Bodinger’s suggestion that Melchizedek was already a heavenly being in Gen 14:14–22 and Ps 110:4 (M. Bodinger, “L’énigme de Melkisédeq,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 211 [1994]: 297–333, esp. 309, 313). See Aschim’s critique of Bodinger (Anders Aschim, “Melchizedek the Liberator: An Early Interpretation of Genesis 14?” in SBL 1996 Seminar Papers [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996], 254, n. 53).
17. ἀπάτωρ, “without father,” was used of the gods Hephaestus (Pollux, Onom. 3.26), Pan (Scolia on Theocritus, Idyls 1.3/4) and Horus (Karl Preisendanz, ed. and trans., Papyri graecae magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri [2nd ed., 2 vols.; Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1973–74], 1:5, 282), denoting the unusual circumstances of their birth. See also Nonnos, Dionysiaca 41.53 (with ἀμήτωρ). Pseudo-Athanasius, Dialogues on the Trinity 11.19, applies this term to God. From even earlier times ἀμήτωρ, “without mother,” was used of Athena (Pallas Athena, Pallas), who was “born” from the head of Zeus split open with an axe (Euripides, Phoenician Maidens 666; Pollux, Onom. 3.26; Julian, Orations 5.166, 439; 7.230; and Nonnos, Dionysiaca 36.21–22). A later Christian writer, Lactantius, quotes the non-Christian source Trismegistus as applying both ἀπάτωρ and ἀμήτωρ to God because he was born from no one (The Divine Institutes 4.13). Attridge, 190, cites the Apocalypse of Abraham 17:9 as applying both to God. See Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 42–48, for a full discussion of these terms. See also Westcott, 172.
19. O’Brien’s (248–49) attempt to restrict this description of Melchizedek in v. 3 to the perpetuity of Melchizedek’s priesthood rather than to the “eternity” of his person is unconvincing. He must reduce “without beginning of days or end of life” to the level of “without genealogy.” His statement regarding “he lives” of v. 8 betrays the weakness of this approach: “as far as the biblical record goes Melchizedek is without… end of life (Heb. 7:3)” (O’Brien, 253, italics original).
20. J. H. Neyrey, “‘Without Beginning of Days or End of Life’ (Hebrews 7:3): Topos for a True Deity,” CBQ 53 (1991): 439–55; cf. Weiss, 376–77, and sources there cited. When used, as here, with a Jewish background and as part of the exegesis of Scripture, such language clearly describes the one of whom it is predicated as included within the one true God (Bauckham, “Divinity,” 28–32).
21. The inappropriateness of applying “without father, without mother, without genealogy” directly to the Son is no evidence for a hymn to Melchizedek (pace Weiss, 380–81), but of the author’s sensitivity to the Genesis text.
22. Gottfried Wuttke, Melchizedek, der Priesterkönig von Salem: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Exegese (BZNW 5; Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1927), 44–45, esp. 45, n. 1. See also Bruce Demarest, A History of Interpretation of Hebrews 7, 1–10 from the Reformation to the Present Day (Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 19; Tübingen: Siebeck, 1976), 11, and Heen and Krey, 104–6. Such inappropriate application has led Vanhoye to the speculative assertion that the resurrection was a new beginning of the Son’s human nature without father or mother. This interpretation is in accord with his unconvincing argument that “priest according to the order of Melchizedek” refers to the Son’s exaltation rather than to his eternity. See Vanhoye, Old Testament, 156–67.
23. “Scripture itself has drawn Melchizedek in such a fashion as to enable the reader to see a likeness between him and Jesus the Son of God” (Johnson, 177). Thus we give the perfect passive participle, ἀφωμοιωμένος, its full force as a divine passive, “having been made like the Son of God,” rather than reducing it to adjectival status, “like the Son of God.” See Bénétreau, 2:31–32; Ellingworth, 358–59; and O’Brien, 249.
24. Cf. Weiss, 378.
25. Horton, Melchizedek, 155.
26. This situation confirms the argument above that Hebrews is not dependent on speculation about a heavenly Melchizedek. Any actual heavenly being great enough to foreshadow the Son’s eternity would also be his rival. Any too small to be his rival could not foreshadow his eternity (see Horton, Melchizedek, 164). Pace Davila, “The ‘Youth,’” 253, there is no anti-Melchizedek apologetic in Hebrews, and thus no evidence that the recipients of this sermon believed in Melchizedek’s eternal priesthood. Ellingworth gives one of the clearest articulations of the way in which the argument of Hebrews necessitates parity between the eternity of Melchizedek and the eternity of the Son. Still, he fails to see how this parity prohibits Hebrews’ dependence on speculation about a heavenly Melchizedek (Paul Ellingworth, “‘Like the Son of God’: Form and Content in Hebrews 7:1–10,” Bib 64 [1983]: 255–62).
27. μένει (“he remains”) is the main verb in the long Greek sentence that makes up vv. 1–3. ἐμέρισεν (“he apportioned,” v. 2a), in the relative clause “to whom Abraham apportioned a tenth of all,” is the only other finite verb. ἐμέρισεν is fundamental to the comparison between Melchizedek and Abraham in vv. 4–10; μένει, to the contrast between the Son and the Levitical priests in vv. 11–25.
28. Weiss, 377, says “he remains” is used in a “free citation” of Ps 110:4. εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, “forever,” in v. 3 is an elegant stylistic variant of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, “forever,” in Ps 110:4. See Ellingworth, 359; Johnson, 177. Vanhoye’s attempt to make εἰς τὸ διανεκές less than εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα because Melchizedek was only “like” the Son is unconvincing (Vanhoye, Old Testament, 153).
29. Pace Bénétreau, 2:32.
30. See Weiss, 377–78, and note 7:23; 10:34; 12:27; and 13:14. Pace Weiss, however, the use of this term does not necessarily indicate a distinction between the real and the material world like that found in Philo. For more on μένει (“remain”) see the pastor’s exposition of “you are a priest forever” in vv. 23–25, with comments.
31. See the references cited by Bruce Demarest, “Hebrews 7:3, a Crux Interpretum Historically Considered,” EvQ 49 (1977): 148–49, 156–57, 161; McNair, “Luther, Calvin,” 748; A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London, 1965), 70–71; and Heen and Krey, 98–100. See Rissi, Theologie, 89, for the argument that Melchizedek was a copy of the heavenly High Priest.
32. Bruce, 159–60; Lane, 1:165–67; Westcott 199, n. 1; etc. This exegetical principle affirmed that what was not recorded in Scripture did not exist—at least for exegetical purposes. This principle is often expressed by the Latin phrase, quod non in Torah, non in mundo, “What is not in the Torah, is not in the world.” When Philo used the silences of Scripture in his allegorical interpretations, he was not denying the actual existence of that about which Scripture was silent. For instance, in Drunkenness 59–60, Philo allegorizes Sarah as “the virtue-loving mind.” Scripture makes no mention of her mother. Thus she is “without mother” (ἀμήτωρ; cf. Heb 7:3a) in that the “virtue-loving mind” is not descended from “perceptible” and ever-changing “matter.” Philo is not denying that the Sarah who married Abraham had a mother. On the other hand, the rabbis seem to have denied the existence of something until its mention in Scripture. See the examples in Str-B 3:693–95: there was no old age until its mention in regard to Abraham (Gen 18:1; 24:1); no sickness prior to its affirmation in regard to Jacob (Gen 48:1); no war before its first recorded occurrence in Genesis 14, etc. They appear to have searched for the origin of everything in the sacred text. Thus it is questionable whether they distinguished between reality and what was claimed “for exegetical purposes,” as Bruce, 159, n. 18, seems to suppose.
33. The description of Melchizedek of Heb 7:1–10 is derived from Scripture and patterned on the Son of God. Melchizedek’s being the concrete historical figure who met Abraham is essential to the pastor’s argument. See Pfitzner, 108.
34. Melchizedek’s very appearance in Genesis puts him outside the old earthly order of tabernacle, priesthood, and the law that sustained them. He is the one who, according to Ps 110:4, foreshadows the Son’s priesthood, not the one whose priesthood the Son fulfills. See Bénétreau, 2:27–30.
35. It is true that the pastor sees various OT passages as conversation between God and his Son (Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; Pss 110:1; 110:4; and 40:6–8; in Heb 1:5, 13; 5:5–6; 10:5–10). Yet this conversation always pertains to the Son’s incarnation, exaltation, session, second coming, etc.
36. See Cockerill, “Melchizedek without Speculation,” 141–44, for a more extensive discussion of the role of Melchizedek in Genesis.
37. Cf. Johnson, 176.
38. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1; Dallas: Word, 1991), 304–7. Terence E. Fretheim, “The Book of Genesis: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 438, concurs when he says that chapter 14 “serves as an integral part of the larger story of Lot and Abraham.” See also N. M. Sarna, Genesis (Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 109. For a convenient summary and evaluation of many proposals concerning the tradition history of Genesis 14 see John A. Emerton, “Riddle of Genesis 14,” Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971): 403–39.
39. Cf. George W. Coats, “Lot: A Foil in the Abraham Saga,” in Understanding the Word, ed. James T. Butler, Edgar W. Conrad, and Ben C. Ollenburger (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 117.
40. For the numerous detailed parallels between Abraham in Genesis 18 and Lot in Genesis 19 see Cockerill, “Melchizedek without Speculation,” 142. A comparison of the opening verses of these chapters in the Hebrew text is also instructive.
41. Cockerill, “Melchizedek without Speculation,” 143.
42. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 321. Wenham is incorrect, however, when he argues that Melchizedek and the King of Sodom are examples of how those who bless Abraham will be blessed (here by receiving the tithe) and those who curse Abraham will be cursed. The text does not identify the King of Sodom with those who curse Abraham. Wenham’s understanding ignores the way this event fits into the story of Abraham and Lot.
43. Rabbinic and later Jewish interpretation appears to have attempted removal of the offense caused by Melchizedek’s being outside the Abrahamic family by identifying him with Abraham’s ancestor, Shem. See pp. 299–300, n. 16.
44. John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Genesis (2 vols.; Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2003), 1:285, suggests that Melchizedek’s abrupt entry was a timely intervention to forestall Abraham’s accepting the offer made by the King of Sodom.
45. Gen 16:7–11; 21:17; 22:11–15; Exod 3:2; Num 22:22–35; Judg 6:11–22; 13:3–21. Except in Judg 2:1–4, the Angel of the Lord appears to individuals. Melchizedek’s appearance was public.
46. πηλίκος (4 Macc 15:21; Gal 6:11) is used here as an exclamation (“how great!” see Ellingworth, 360), and is the key word in this section which emphasizes Melchizedek’s superiority (Spicq, 2:185). It would be possible to translate this opening phrase as indicative, “You see how great this one [described in vv. 1–3] is” (Ellingworth, 360).
47. Thus Michel, 264, would take δεκάτη, “tithe,” as the word most characteristic of this section.
48. Note καὶ οἱ μέν (v. 5) … ὁ δέ (v. 6), “and on the one hand those … but he.” Compare καὶ ὧδε μὲν … ἐκεῖ δέ, “and here on the one hand … but there” (v. 8).
50. Spicq, 2:185; Weiss, 389. This verse reads ἑκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων (“of the spoils”) instead of ἀπὸ πάντων (“from all,” v. 2a).
51. We have repeated the word “Abraham” for clarity in our English translation.
52. Although Abraham is called πατήρ (“father”) more than anyone else in the NT (Ellingworth, 361), this is the only place where he is called ὁ πατριάρχης (“the patriarch”). In fact, this word occurs only three other times in the NT: Peter refers to “the patriarch David” in Acts 2:29, and Stephen refers twice to the twelve sons of Jacob as “the patriarchs” in Acts 7:8–9.
53. Compare πατήρ, “father,” in v. 9 with πατριάρχης, “patriarch,” at the end of v. 4.
54. Compare ἀγενεαλόγητος (without genealogy,” v. 3), ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Λευί (“from the sons of Levi,” v. 5) and μὴ γενεαλογούμενος (“not reckoning his genealogy from them,” v. 6).
55. οἱ μὲν ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Λευί τὴν ἱερατείαν λαμβάνοντες. The article οἱ joins both the prepositional phrase ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Λευί and the participial phrase τὴν ἱερατείαν λαμβάνοντες as a description of one group of people. See MHT, 3:260. The author uses “sons of Levi” instead of “sons of Aaron” to facilitate connection with Abraham, Levi’s “father.” Anyone with the OT mastery demonstrated by the author of Hebrews was certainly aware that according to Lev 18:21 and Num 18:26–28 the Levites collected tithes from the people and the Levitical priests from the Levites. This practice was in force as late as Neh 10:38–39. The pastor does not address such details in the present argument because by doing so he would distract his hearers from the main point. His description of “those from the sons of Levi receiving the priesthood” is sufficient. He is talking about the Levites who were priests. They collected tithes from all other Israelites either directly or through other Levites. See Delitzsch, 1:340–43, 397–98. There is no need to explain this usage by reference to contemporary practices according to which the priests collected the tithes directly (see Josephus, Life 80; Ant. 20.181, 206–7) or to arbitrarily emend the text (see Ellingworth, 364).
56. It is possible to take ἐκ, “from,” as derivative (Westcott, 175) or partitive (Spicq, 2:186): either as “those descended from the sons of Levi who receive the priesthood” or “those from (that part of) the sons of Levi who receive the priesthood.” The parallel with Melchizedek in v. 6 supports the former. Ellingworth, 362, is correct when he argues that the derivative sense of ἐκ would have been clearer if the pastor had just written ἐκ Λευί, “from Levi,” instead of ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Λευί, “from the sons of Levi.” However, this omission would have lost the emphasis on descent inherent in the use of “sons.”
57. ἱερατεία, “priestly office,” here in v. 5, but ἱερωσύνη, “priesthood,” in vv. 11, 12, and 24 below. ἱερατεία occurs in Luke 1:9; ἱερωσύνη, nowhere else in the NT. See Michel, 265, esp. n. 4.
58. See Riggenbach, 188, n. 16.
59. The present tense of ἔχουσιν, “have,” followed by the present infinitive ἀποδεκατοῦν, “to tithe,” is the present of general description. The use of the present here neither confirms nor denies the continuation of the temple ritual at the time of writing. For ἀποδεκατόω used in reference to collecting tithes see the LXX of 1 Sam 8:15, 17 and Neh 10:37.
60. See Riggenbach, 189, n. 21. Hebrews distinguishes between ἐντολή, “a specific commandment” or “ordinance,” and νόμος, “the law as the sum of its commandments” (Lane, 1:168). This interpretation takes κατὰ τὸν νόμον, “according to the law,” as qualifying ἐντολήν, “ordinance.” See Bleek, 2, 2:232. Since Hebrews understands the law primarily in terms of priesthood, tabernacle, and sacrifice, “according to the law” implies “according to the whole Levitical religious system” (Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 68, 105–7). Joslin’s attempt to limit νόμος (“law”) in this verse to the specific law establishing the Aaronic priesthood is without support (Barry C. Joslin, Hebrews, Christ, and the Law: The Theology of Mosaic Law in Hebrews 7:1–10:18 [Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008], 139, n. 26). See on vv. 11–12 and 18–19 below.
61. In Gen 15:4, however, the LXX reads ὅς ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ σοῦ, “the one who will come out of you,” omitting ὀσφύς, “loins,” but retaining the verb (ἐξέρχομαι, “to come out”) used in Heb 7:5. See also the LXX of Gen 35:11, cf. 2 Chr 6:9.
62. On the Semitic nature of this phrase see Riggenbach, 188, n. 15. Reference to “loins” anticipates what v. 9 will say about Levi being in Abraham’s “loins” when Abraham paid the tithe.
63. Michel, 266, esp. n. 4. The promises of God are certain of fulfillment (6:13–18), while, as the pastor will show, the “law” with its “ordinances” perfects nothing (vv. 18–19 below).
64. See A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (3d ed.; New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919), 895–96, in reference to Heb 7:6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 20, 23. See also Bruce, 163, n. 32; Westcott, 177; Spicq, 2:186; and Ellingworth, 365.
65. The neuter singular of τὸ ἔλαττον (“the lesser” or “the inferior”) and τοῦ κρείττονος (“the greater” or “the superior”) puts emphasis on the quality of the persons involved. BDF, §138; Spicq, 2:186; MHT, 3:21. Cf. Heb 9:5.
66. Attridge, 196.
67. Michel, 266. The traditional nature of this formulation is supported by Philo’s use of “blessing” in Spec. Laws 1.142.
68. Ellingworth, 366. Cf. O’Brien, 253, who distinguishes between εὐλογέω as “blessing” and as “praise.” An inferior may “praise” a superior, but it is a superior who “blesses” an inferior.
69. See, in Hebrews alone, Heb 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22.
70. The use of ἄνθρωποι, “human beings,” is reminiscent of what the pastor said in 5:1–4 about these priests’ being taken ἐξ ἀνθρώπων (“from human beings”) and having ἀσθένεια (“weakness”). It anticipates the contrast in v. 28 between those who are merely ἄνθρωποι (“human beings”) and the eternal υἱός (“Son”).
71. MM, 62, and Ellingworth, 367.
72. For μαρτυρούμενος as a divine passive see Michel, 267; Ellingworth, 368; and compare v. 17 below.
73. Genesis 14 is clearly the primary text of this witness because it is the text about Melchizedek himself. Thus we would hesitate to say, with Ellingworth, 368, that the Scriptural witness points backward to Genesis and forward to Ps 110:4. See Westcott, 178.
74. See Delitzsch, 1:345–46. Windisch’s contention (63) that v. 8 refers only to the last half of v. 3b, μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων (“nor end of life having”), and not to the first, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν (“neither beginning of days”), is both artificial and tendentious. Weiss, 391, and others like him, blunt the force of this verse when they import a contrast between the heavenly and the earthly borrowed from Philonic dualism. The pastor is not identifying Melchizedek with the heavenly world but describing him in terms appropriate for God alone.
75. While Héring, 58, may be correct when he says that the author “was already thinking about the new High Priest,” he is still describing Melchizedek.
76. But this phrase, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, occurs fairly often in Philo (Creation 13; Planting 158; Drunkenness 51) and Josephus (Ant. 15.387). Michel, 268, n. 1, citing Bleek, 2, 2:343–46.
77. Pace Michel, 267–68; Pfitzner, 107; and Attridge, 197. But see Bénétreau, 2:36, and Weiss, 392.
78. See Héring, 59; Spicq, 2:187; and Lenski, 221.
79. Westcott, 178, is worth quoting at length on this point: “The descendants of Abraham were included in him, not only as he was their forefather physically, but also because he was the recipient of the divine promises in which the fullness of the race in its manifold developments was included. And Levi includes his descendants in his own person just as he was himself included in Abraham.”
80. From the time of Augustine older commentators discussed the question of whether Christ was not also in Abraham’s “loins” when he met Melchizedek (see Kuss, 56; Calvin, 93–94). If the author of Hebrews had considered this question, he probably would have answered with Ps 110:1, 4: Christ was a descendant of Abraham, but as the eternal Son he was much more. See Riggenbach, 191, n. 22; Bleek, 2, 2:348. This question reminds one of the way in which Jesus used Ps 110:1 to challenge the view that the Messiah was merely the Son of David and not also the Son of God (Matt 22:41–46 and parallels).
1. μὲν οὖν marks the resumption of the train of thought initiated in 6:20 (Riggenbach, 194, n. 25).
2. Weiss, 393, has a good description of the unity and significance of this section.
3. The fact that there is no known pre-Christian occurrence of the term λευιτικός (“Levitical”) suggests that the pastor may have coined this term.
4. Ἐιʼ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευτιτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν (“If then perfection had been through the Levitical priesthood”) must be taken as a condition contrary to fact despite the absence of the particle ἄν normally employed by Hebrews (cf. 4:8; 8:4, 7; 11:15). Cf. Weiss, 394.
5. Compare the pastor’s argument from Jer 31:31–34 in Heb 8:6–13.
6. Cf. Bénétreau, 2:38.
7. For a discussion of the way Hebrews uses the language of perfection see the comments on 2:10. Cf. also 5:9. Lane, 1:181, denies the priestly connotation of “perfection” because he does not think the author of Hebrews would completely deny the privilege of approaching God to OT people (cf. 10:1; 11:6). This is a misunderstanding. The OT faithful certainly worshiped God and the priests were “perfected” so that they could approach God in the ritual of the Tabernacle or Temple. The OT priests, however, were not “perfected” in the sense that Christ is “perfected” as our Savior and thus able to bring us into God’s heavenly presence. See the comments on 11:39–40.
8. Cf. O’Brien, 257.