9. Compare ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, “a different priest to arise” (v. 11), with ἀνίσταται ἱερεὺς ἕτερος, “a different priest arises” (v. 15).
10. For “a different” (ἕτερον) priest instead of merely “another” (ἄλλον) priest see Bruce, 165, n. 45; and Spicq, 2:188–89.
11. See 1 Macc 2:1; 14:41; Acts 7:18. Compare the English phrase, “a new king arose.”
12. Thus ἀνίστασθαι, “to arise,” contrasts with οὐ λέγεσθαι, “not … to be designated.” This contrast appears purposeful because the pastor usually abbreviates the second half of a contrast, leaving the hearers to supply the necessary words from the first (7:8, 16, 20b–21, 23–24). Here he expects hearers to supply ἱερέα but prevents them from supplying ἀνίστασθαι by his use of λέγεσθαι. See Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 87–88.
13. See Num 24:17; Jer 23:5; Zech 3:8; 6:11–12. The “great priest” of Heb 10:21 is reminiscent of Zech 3:8. Heb 3:6 refers to the Son’s being over God’s house; Zech 6:11–12 describes the “Branch” who will “arise” and rebuild God’s house. Cf. Matt 2:2. See Ellingworth, 373.
14. “For the people have received the law (νενομοθέτηται) on the basis of it (ἐπʼ αὐτῆς, referring to the priesthood).” For support of this translation, see, among others, Spicq, 2:189; Attridge, 220, n. 30; Ellingworth, 372; Johnson, 185; Michel, 270; Moffatt, 96; and Mitchell, 145.
15. See Ellingworth, 372. Cf. O’Brien, 258.
16. “For the people received the law [or “laws,” νενομοθέτηται] concerning it (ἐπʼ αὐτῆς).” See H. W. Hollander, “Hebrews 7:11 and 8:6: A Suggestion for the Translation of Nenomothetetai Epi,” BT 30 (1979): 244–47, followed by Lane, 1:174, n. b.; Weiss, 395; and Koester, 353. Lane supports this position with two examples from Philo. The clearest of these examples is found in Spec. Laws 2.35: ταῦτα μὲν ἐπʼ ἀνθρώπων, ἐπὶ δὲ κτηνῶν τάδε νομοθετεῖται, “these regulations were laid down by the law (νομοθετεῖται) concerning human beings (ἐπʼ ἀνθρώπων), but those concerning livestock (ἐπὶ κτηνῶν).” This parallel is not exact because the subject is impersonal (cf. ὁ λαός, “the people,” in Heb 7:11 with ταῦτα, “these,” in Philo). Spec. Laws 1.235 is less clear because the verb is active and the preposition ἐπί is followed by the dative.
17. The importance of the association between “law” and the Levitical “priesthood” is reinforced by the way the pastor comes back to this theme in v. 28. Cf. ἱερωσύνης and νενομοθέτηται in v. 11 with ὁ νόμος and ἀρχιερεῖς in v. 28. Some would see evidence for a pre-A.D. 70 date in the author’s insistence that life under the law depends on a functioning priesthood. His unswerving attention to the OT text and lack of reference to contemporary events make it difficult to evaluate such evidence.
18. On γάρ, “for,” see Riggenbach, 195, n. 45; on ἐξ ἀνάγκης, “of necessity,” see Michel, 270, who compares this verse with 2 Cor 9:7. Philo often uses this expression to denote logical necessity (Bruce, 164, n. 37, citing Spicq, 1:42).
19. For euphony we have rendered the genitive absolute μετατιθεμένης γὰρ τῆς ἱερωσύνης (“the priesthood being changed”) by “a change in the priesthood.” The oracle of Ps 110:4 demonstrates that this change of priesthood is a condition of fact (Attridge, 200–201, n. 34).
20. Joslin, Hebrews, Christ, and the Law, 143–48, argues that the “cultic” (i.e., the priesthood, sacrifice, and all that pertains to them) but not the moral part of the law has been changed. One must not lose sight, however, of the intrinsic relationship between the priestly/sacrificial system and the entire law as outlined in the text above. By fulfilling the “cultic” aspects of the law and exposing their typological nature Christ has actually radicalized the need for obedience to the law’s moral demand (2:1–4; 10:26–31, and comments).
21. Sowers, Hermeneutics, 98–99, n. 27. See Joslin’s discussion of contemporary Jewish attitudes toward the law (Joslin, Law, 23–90).
22. See “The Sermon’s Use of the Old Testament” in the Introduction to this commentary, esp. pp. 52–54.
23. Compare “a different (ἑτέρας) tribe” (v. 13) with “a different (ἕτερον/ἕτερος) priest” (vv. 11, 15) and see the comment on v. 11 above.
24. The perfect tense of both μετέσχηκεν (“has taken part”) and προσέσχηκεν (“has attended”) is supported by B, א, D, and most manuscripts. 
46 has the aorist for both of these verbs. A few other manuscripts attest the aorist rather than the perfect for προσέσχηκεν. The perfect is certainly to be preferred.
25. The use of this verb, προσέχω, in Heb 2:1 for “pay attention” is much more typical of its general use. Thus we have translated it here in 7:13 as “no one has ever attended to an altar.”
26. See Ellingworth, 376. Compare not only μετέσχηκεν (“he has taken part”) and προσέσχηκεν (“he has attended”), but the entire phrases, φυλῆς ἑτέρας μετέσχηκεν (“he has taken part in another tribe”) and ἀφʼ ἧς οὐδεὶς προσέσχηκεν (“from which no one has ever attended …”). There is balance between the sound of φυλῆς and of ἀφʼ ἧς; a bit less between ἑτέρας and οὐδείς.
27. Robertson, Grammar, 721, says that οὗτος is implied before ἐφʼ ὅν, “this one [the priest according to Melchizedek’s order] about whom.” “The one about whom these things were spoken” is not, as Michel, 270–71, seems to think, a circumlocution for Christ. The pastor is not yet speaking of Christ. On the basis of the psalm alone, the “one about whom it spoke,” whoever that might be, took part in “a different tribe.”
28. Compare the perfect μετέσχηκεν, “he has taken part,” with the aorist μετέσχεν in 2:14. Ellingworth, 375, quotes Westcott: “It is not said simply that He was born of another tribe: [it is implied that] He was of His own will so born.”
29. On the perfect tense of μετέσκηκεν see Delitzsch, 1:353, and Riggenbach, 197, n. 47. The perfect tense here emphasizes certainty more than the continual participation advocated by Lenski, 225–26.
30. Spicq, 2:192. Thus we have understood πρόδηλον (“all the more clear”) as referring to the argument of v. 13, and ὅτι as adverbial, “because,” instead of “that.” Despite the way in which this understanding differs from many translations, it seems to be required because it allows πρόδηλον to be comparative and to anticipate περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλον (“exceedingly more clear”) in v. 15. The argument of v. 13 becomes “clearer” because Christ has come from the non-Levitical tribe of Judah (v. 14). This argument becomes “exceedingly yet still clearer” when one realizes the eternal quality of this new priest (vv. 15–17). On the other hand, if one takes ὅτι as “that” introducing a noun clause, then it is Christ’s descent from Judah that has become “clear” (cf. TNIV, “For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah”). πρόδηλον becomes a rather weak affirmation of something the author can assume is commonly shared by his hearers.
31. See the comments on v. 19 below. The pastor also refers to the incarnate Jesus as “our Lord” in 2:3. Compare also “our Lord Jesus” in 13:20. Cf. Lane, 1:183.
32. Thus the words ἐξ Ἰούδα, “from Judah,” come first in the ὅτι clause: “that (ὅτι) from Judah (ἐξ Ἰούδα) arose our Lord.” Cf. Spicq, 2:190.
33. See references to Davidic descent in Acts 2:29–36; Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8; and Rev 22:16. Only the birth narratives of Matthew (cf. Matt 2:6) and Luke refer to descent from Judah.
35. Matt 4:16 (quoting Isa 9:1); 5:45; 13:6; Mark 4:6; 16:2; Jas 1:11; and 2 Pet 1:19.
36. Compare ἐξ Ἰούδα ἀνατέταλκεν ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν (“from Judah has arisen our Lord”) with ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ιακωβ (“a star shall arise from Jacob”) in Num 24:17. The parallel phrase in Num 24:17 is “a scepter shall arise out of Israel,” which the LXX has rendered, “a human being shall arise out of Israel” (καὶ ἀναστήσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ Ισραηλ). Several observations should be made about this passage. In its original context the “star” and the “scepter” referred to a person (or persons?). The LXX’s translation of “scepter” as ἄνθρωπος, “human being,” confirms this interpretation. The “star” was someone of great importance. Thus this verse uses ἀνατέλλω to speak of a great leader’s arising “from Jacob” just as Heb 7:14 uses this verb to speak of “our Lord” arising “from Judah.” Furthermore, in the parallel clause the LXX uses ἀνίστημι, “arise,” the same word that Hebrews uses for the “arising” of the “different priest” (ἱερεὺς ἕτερος) in vv. 11 and 15. Thus the verbal parallels between Hebrews and Num 24:17 plus their common use of these two verbs (ἀνατέλλω and ἀνίστημι) in reference to the coming of a great person strongly suggest that the wording of Hebrews has been influenced by Numbers. The Messianic significance of this oracle may be attested by the parallel use of ἀνατέλλω, “arise,” in Mal 4:1–2 (in the LXX 3:19–20) and the Messianic significance of the cognate noun ἀνατολή (“branch”) in Jer 23:5; Isa 11:1; Zech 3:8; and 6:11–12. 1QM 11, 4–6; 4QTestimonia; CD 8:18–21; and T. Jud. 24:1 recognize the Messianic character of Num 24:17. See Joachim Gnilka, “Die Erwartung des messianischen Hohenpriesters in den Schriften von Qumran und im Neuen Testament,” RevQ 2 (1960): 399–402; F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 45–47; and M. De Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of Their Text, Composition and Origin (2nd ed.; Van Gorcum’s Theologische Bibliotheek; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975), 89–96. For further discussion see Bruce, 165–66, nn. 42, 46; O’Brien, 260–61; and Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 97.
In light of these observations there should be no surprise that Hebrews alludes to this passage. The fourth Balaam oracle (Num 24:15–19), in which Num 24:17 occurs, is, like Deut 32:43 (Heb 1:6), part of a prophecy for the future. Thus it can be associated with such passages as Ps 2:7–8; Ps 110:1, 4; and 2 Sam 7:14 (see Heb 1:5, 13; 5:5–6; 6:20; etc.). Although the author of Hebrews allows these Messianic echoes to “remain very much in the background” (Attridge, 201), they are in full accord with his conviction that the Son fulfills all OT expectations.
37. However, pace Johnson, 186–87, ἀνίστημι (“arise”) in vv. 11 and ἀνατέλλω (“arise”) in v. 14 refer to the earthly origin of the Son from Judah, and not to his exaltation. The use of ἀνίστημι in v. 15 is more ambiguous.
38. περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστιν. περισσότερον (“exceedingly”) is a comparative adverb (Riggenbach, 198, n. 51; BDF §102, 1; cf. Heb 6:1), as is κατάδηλον (“more clear”). The force of the whole is redoubled by the use of these two comparatives (Robertson, Grammar, §63). ἔτι also heightens the degree (MHT, 3:29) over the πρόδηλον (“clearer”) of v. 14.
39. Compare v. 12—“The priesthood having been changed (μετατιθεμένης), of necessity a change (μετάθεσις) of the law occurs”—with v. 18—“the abolition (ἀθέτησις) of the foregoing ordinance” (v. 18). Joslin, Law, 141–53, fails to give ἀθέτησις (“abolition”; “setting aside”) its full force because he fails to see that the eternal character of the new Priest necessitates the complete removal of the old as a means of approaching God.
40. Pace Ellingworth, 378, this replacement is far more than a stylistic variant. Cf. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 162.
41. τάξις, the word here translated “order,” could be used for “position” or “office” as well as for priestly “descent.” See LSJ, 1756, III; MM, 625; and BDAG, 989, 3–4. It is noteworthy that Hebrews is the only reference given by the foregoing sources as an example of priestly “descent.”
42. The perfect, γέγονεν (“has become”), in v. 16a, is implied in v. 16b. This one “has become” already and continues to be “a priest by the power of an indestructible life.”
43. Ellingworth, 378.
44. Westcott, 184; Michel, 272; W. Gutbrod, “νόμος,” TDNT 4:1078; BDF §167.
45. See Weiss, 400, n. 104. σαρκίνης (“made of flesh”) is preferred over the alternate σαρκικῆς (“pertaining to the flesh”). It has the best manuscript support. Furthermore, it fits the context better than the alternative, although a scribe would be more likely to substitute σαρκικῆς because it is the most common Pauline word (Rom 15:27; 1 Cor 3:3; 9:11; 2 Cor 1:12; 10:4). σαρκικός even occurs as an alternative in the two places where Paul probably used σάρκινος (Rom 7:14; 1 Cor 3:1). σαρκίνης best expresses the idea that this “ordinance” referred to actual physical descent.
46. Michel, 272; see Héring, 60.
47. The term ἀκατάλυτος, “indestructible,” only occurs once in the LXX, 4 Macc 10:11, where it refers to “indestructible sufferings.” Here it is probably a more specific description of ζωή αἰώνιος (“eternal life”). See John 3:16; 11:25; Michel, 272; and Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 109–10.
48. There is no justification, in light of Heb 1:1–4, and especially in light of 7:3b, “without beginning of days or end of life,” to follow Ellingworth, 379, and reduce “he lives” to “he still lives.” As noted above, “he lives” is intentionally parallel to descriptions of “the living” and eternal God.
49. Neyrey, “True Deity,” 450. See also Philip E. Hughes, “The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews, Part II: The High-Priestly Sacrifice of Christ,” BSac 130 (1973): 208.
50. Pace Attridge, 202, referencing Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 122.
51. Koester, 355; Johnson, 188; deSilva, 271; Michel, 272; Héring, 60; O’Brien, 264; and Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, ed. J. D. G. Dunn (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 78, hold this position. For support of “indestructible life” as the divine life of the eternal Son see Westcott, 185; Montefiore, 125–26; Spicq, 2:193; and esp. Neyrey, “True Deity,” 450. Compare Williamson, Philo and Hebrews, 447, and Hughes, “Sacrifice,” 208.
52. “Is it any more difficult to think of the Son as having ‘indestructible life’ in Himself and yet dying than to think of Him as ‘without beginning of days’ and yet ‘arising from Judah’?” (Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 111). See Alexander Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood: Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913), 170.
53. According to Lane, 1:184, the pastor uses “indestructible” to show that Jesus’ “life was not destroyed by the death suffered on the cross.”
54. The heroes of antiquity cited by Neyrey were accorded divinity because of their benefaction to humanity. The eternal Son, however, was exalted because of his incarnate obedience (10:5–10) in order that he might grant benefaction to God’s people. See Neyrey, “True Deity,” 449–50.
55. “For” indicates that this witness attests the “indestructible life” predicated of the Son in v. 16.
56. See the discussion of εἰς τὸ παντελές (“to the uttermost”) in v. 25 below.
57. Cf. Weiss, 400.
58. Thus the μετάθεσις (“change”) of the priesthood and law in v. 11 can now be expressed by the much stronger terms, first negatively, the ἀθέτησις (“abolition”) of the old in v. 18; then positively, the ἐπεισαγωγή (“bringing in”; “establishing”) of the new in v. 19b. Cf. Moffatt, 97. In Heb 9:26 ἀθέτησις, “abolition,” refers to the cancellation of sins through Christ’s self-offering. In the papyri this term is often used for the cancellation of debts (Michel, 273; MM, 12; G. Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity, 2nd ed., trans. Alexander Grieve [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909], 228–29).
59. See the examples of προάγω in BDAG, 864; MM, 537. While the pastor is emphasizing the removal of the old as a means of salvation, he would not forget its continuing validity as a type (Attridge, 203). See Westcott, 186–87; Delitzsch, 1:356–57.
60. The two words, ἀσθενές (“weakness”) and ἀνωφελές (“uselessness”), joined by this article, are adjectives used here as abstract nouns (BD §263, 2; Robertson, Grammar, 763).
61. Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 116.
62. Michel, 273. See also Peterson, Perfection, 127–28.
63. Although ἐπεισαγωγή can be used for the “bringing in” of something new in addition to the old (MM, 231), here it describes the “bringing in” of the new in place of the old (Spicq, 2:194; Moffatt, 98). See Josephus, Ant. 11.196, where the new wife brought in replaces the old.
64. Contrast the noun used here for “bringing in” or “institution,” ἐπεισαγωγή, with the participle used to modify “ordinance” above, προαγούσης, “foregoing.” The pastor, ever a master of word sounds, uses two words based on the root ἄγω to contrast the transitoriness of the old with the permanent establishment of the new.
65. Spicq, 2:194. Every other occurrence of ἐλπίς (“hope”) in Hebrews is part of an encouragement to perseverance (3:6; 6:11, 18; 10:23). See also 11:1.
66. Cf. Michel, 209–10, 273.
67. Although ἐγγίζω, “to draw near,” followed by πρός with the accusative is normal, the dative used in Hebrews is also possible (Exod 19:22; Lev 10:3).
68. The pastor refers to believers with priestly language, especially in chapter 13. However, the suggestion of Olaf Moe, “Der Gedanke des allgemeinen Priestertums in Hebräerbrief,” TZ 5 (1948): 163–65, and Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 201–7, that Hebrews understands Christ as High Priest and believers as priests, must be taken with a caveat. While believers have the priestly privilege of access, only Christ has performed the priestly function of atonement, and only he performs the priestly function of mediating that atonement to the faithful.
69. Attridge, 204.
70. The ellipsis in “according to how much … not without an oath” is to be filled from the following parenthesis, “he has become priest” (Riggenbach, 203–4; Westcott, 188).
71. Robertson, Grammar, 966–67; Ellingworth, 383. See Spicq, 2:195; and Riggenbach, 203–4, n. 56.
72. καθʼ ὅσον rather than καθʼ ὅν.
73. Ellingworth, 383.
74. Compare ὁρκωμοσία in 7:20–21 with ὅρκος in 6:16. Michel, 274; cf. Ellingworth, 383. 1 Esd 8:93 and Ezek 17:18–20 are the only places this term occurs in the LXX. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 17.163 and MM, 458.
75. This statement assumes that God’s words in Ps 110:4 are directed to the Son at his exaltation, just as those found in v. 1 of this psalm were so directed. See on 1:3, 13 and 5:5–6 above.
76. Thus E. Grässer, Der alte Bund im Neuen: Exegetische Studien zur Israelfrage im Neuen Testament (WUNT 35; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1985), 99, mistakenly identifies “covenant” with “law.” Hebrews always uses “law” in a negative sense. This first introduction of “covenant” is positive.
77. J. Behm, “διαθήκη,” TDNT 2:124–34, defines διαθήκη (“covenant”) in the LXX as the freely given “… ordinances, or dispositions of the sovereign will of God, which declare both His demands and His saving purposes” (127). This understanding of διαθήκη was continued in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and was known by Philo, though he is influenced by contemporary Hellenism. In the papyri διαθήκη occurs exclusively as “testament” or “will” (MM, 148–49). See Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 126.
78. Attridge, 208, substantiates the pastor’s purposeful use of ἔγγυς (“guarantor”) by noting that it is not normally associated with covenant language.
79. Pace Ellingworth, 388, ἔγγυς (“guarantor”) is not a mere synonym for μεσίτης (“mediator”) that the pastor has used because of euphony with ἐγγίζομεν (“we draw near”) at the end of v. 19. As we have seen, the pastor is a word-smith sensitive to the impact made by the sound of words. He may well have been aware of this euphony coming appropriately at the end of two sections of his thought, but such similarity of sound cannot account for his choice of ἔγγυς. προσέρχομαι (“come to,” “approach,” v. 25) would have been just as appropriate in v. 19. Thus, if anything, it is more likely that he used ἐγγίζομεν at the end of v. 19 in anticipation of ἔγγυς at the end of v. 22. He uses ἔγγυς to express the certainty created by the oath. If μεσίτης (“mediator”) in 9:15 takes some of the significance of ἔγγυς, as Ellingworth suggests, it is because the pastor has used ἔγγυς here to prepare for that later reference. Just as he uses ἔγγυς to establish a context for understanding Christ’s mediatorial work, so ἐλπίς (“hope,” v. 19) establishes a context for understanding the future orientation of the new διαθήκη (“covenant”).
80. Cf. Weiss, 408, who thinks that the unchangeable divine oath underlies not only the priesthood (“you are a priest”) but also the eternity (“forever”) of the Son. However, Heb 1:1–14 makes it clear that the pastor does not base the Son’s eternity on Ps 110:4. Yet this verse is in accord with the Son’s eternity because it establishes and confirms the eternal Son as the eternal and thus ultimate “Priest.”
81. Bruce, 171, n. 70, argues that the God-man guarantees the New Covenant to God by fulfilling its requirements as a human being; and to human beings, by fulfilling its requirements as the Son of God. The pastor is, however, primarily concerned with his assuring the effectiveness of this covenant for the people of God (Westcott, 189; Lenski, 237; and Delitzsch, 1:368–69). It is important to note that the text does not say “he guarantees” but he is, in himself, the “Guarantor”—for all and any.
82. Cf. Bénétreau, 2:43.
83. The perfect tense of “has become” (γέγονεν) in v. 22 indicates that he became and continues to be the Guarantor.
84. See Weiss, 409–10.
85. See Westcott, 189; Delitzsch, 1:368–69.
86. For the contrast between vv. 23 and 24 note καὶ οἱ μέν (“and those on the one hand) … ὁ δέ (“but he”). For v. 25 as the logical conclusion note ὅθεν (“therefore”).
87. Attridge, 209. Ellingworth, 389, fails to see that ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην (“he has an inviolable priesthood”) parallels πλείονές εἰσιν γεγονότες ἱερεῖς (“many have become priests”).
88. Compare παραμένειν (“to continue [in office]”) in v. 23 with μένειν (“to remain”) in v. 24. For examples of παραμένειν as “continue in office” see Weiss, 415, n. 157; Braun, 218–19; MM, 458; and F. Hauck, “παραμένω,” TDNT 4:587–88. Josephus uses this term for priests continuing in office (Ant. 9.273).
89. See θεὸς μὲνων καὶ ζῶν εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος (“God remaining and living unto generations of generations forever”) in Dan 6:27 LXX. See also F. Hauck, “μένω,” TDNT 4:575–76. Neyrey, “True Deity,” 445–46, has collected many examples of similar terms used in the broader Hellenistic world to describe the eternal, uncreated, and imperishable gods or God.
90. Attridge, 209.
91. Attridge, 209. Though Attridge missteps when he says that Hebrews uses μενεῖν (“to remain”) here to develop the “contrast between the earthly and the heavenly, the temporal and the eternal,” there is nothing here about “the earthly and the heavenly.”
92. Although Neyrey has shown clearly from contemporary parallels that Hebrews describes the Son as eternal deity past and present in chapter 7, he misses this distinction between the terms the author chooses and those given him in the psalm, “You are a priest forever.” Thus the statement made by him on the basis of the psalm verse is unnecessary: “Yet it must be quickly noted that the author of Hebrews seems considerably more interested in Jesus’ imperishability and eternity in the future than he is in his eternity in the past.” See Neyrey, “True Deity,” 452.
93. The emphasis given to ἀπαράβατον (“inviolable”) by its initial position is best expressed by translating it as a relative clause. See Robertson, Grammar, 656, 789. See Heb 5:14.
94. See ἀπαράβατος in BDAG, 97; MM, 53.
95. E. K. Simpson, “The Vocabulary of the Epistle to the Hebrews, II,” EvQ 18 (1946): 187–90. See also Weiss, 416, n. 159, and Paul Ellingworth, “The Unshakable Priesthood: Hebrews 7.24,” JSNT 23 (1985): 125–26.
96. Spicq, 2:197; Montefiore, 128; Hughes, 268–69; and Moffatt, 99, among others. This interpretation was common among the Church Fathers. For criticism of this position, see Bénétreau, 2:43–44, and O’Brien, 273.
97. See Attridge, 210.
98. Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 133–34.
99. For the significance of ὅθεν (“therefore”) see Michel, 276; Lane 1:189; and Heb 2:17; 3:1; 7:25; 8:3; and 9:18.
100. Compare εἰς τὸ παντελές (“to the very end”) with comparable expressions the pastor normally uses for “forever”—εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (1:8; 5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28) and εἰς τὸ διηνεκές (7:3; 10:1, 12, 14).
101. The pastor may have been influenced in his choice of εἰς τὸ παντελές (“completely,” “to the uttermost,” in the KJV) because παντελές and the words he uses for “perfect” (τελείοω, 7:19) and “perfection” (τελείωσις) share the same root. Such association only reinforces the interpretation given above.
102. Thus εἰς τὸ παντελές was equivalent to παντελῶς (“completely,” “fully,” “wholly”), and was used by Philo and Josephus in this sense. See BDAG, 754; Bleek 2, 2:398; Gerhard Delling, “παντελής,” TDNT 8:66–67.
103. Ellingworth, 391; Weiss, 416; Moffatt, 100; Montefiore, 129; Windisch, 67; and MM, 477, among others.
104. Thus Johnson, 194; Michel, 275; Dods, 316; Delitzsch, 1:371; and O’Brien, 274, affirm the meaning “completely” without excluding “forever.” Attridge, 210, agrees, but his statement that “the very ambiguity of the phrase probably appealed to our author” shows he has not grasped how “completely” and “forever” are bound together in the pastor’s thought. It is usually those who fail to see that the Son’s eternity is central to the pastor’s argument who miss the significance of this term.
105. Here προσέρχομαι; in v. 19, ἐγγίζω.
106. For προσέρχομαι of priests see Lev 9:7–8; 21:23; and 22:3; for its use of people approaching “before” God see Exod 16:9 and Lev 9:5.
107. It is true that in secular Hellenistic Greek προσέρχομαι was often followed by τῷ θεῷ, “to God,” in the dative case, just as in Hebrews (J. Schneider, “προσέρχομαι,” TDNT 2:683–84). Nevertheless, in light of the way the pastor is influenced by the LXX, this deviation from its usage appears significant.
108. The expression in 10:22 is προσέρχομαι, the same word that we have translated “come to” in 7:25.
109. This participle, ζῶν, “living,” is probably causal (MHT, 3:154–58; BDF §418, 1). A literal translation of the phrase would be, “Always living to make intercession for them.”
110. On the significance of πάντοτε (“always”) see Robertson, Grammar, 300.
111. Hay calls the eternal intercession of the Son “somewhat of a ‘foreign body’” in Hebrews’ theology (David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity [Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973], 132). He suggests that the pastor uses ἐντυγχάνειν, “to intercede,” of Christ because it was a traditional formulation. Cf. Bruce, 174; Michel, 277. Although this term is a bit awkward, Christ’s present eternal ministry as High Priest is at the very heart of the pastor’s thought and pastoral concern (cf. 8:1). For an extended discussion of ἐντυγχάνειν see Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 138–43.
112. This is the normal meaning of ἐντυγχάνειν followed by περί, or ὑπέρ (BDAG, 341, 1, a).
113. Spicq, 2:198; Bruce, 175.
114. Weiss, 419.
115. Ellingworth, 392.
1. Note the contrast between ἡμῖν καὶ ἔπρεπεν ἀρχιερεύς (“a high priest is appropriate for us”) in v. 26 and ἀρχιερεῖς ἔχοντας ἀσθένειαν (“high priests having weakness”) in v. 28.
2. Compare this line, ὅσιος, ἄκακος, ἀμίαντος, with v. 3c above, ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος (“without father, without mother, without genealogy”). There is no concrete evidence, however, that the pastor is quoting from a hymn. These lines are closely integrated with his theology. Weiss, 420, lists those who find a hymn here in n. 173; those who do not in n. 174.
3. Fifty-one of the fifty-six times that τοιοῦτος occurs in MG, 954–55, it clearly refers to what has gone before. In the remaining five instances it is followed by a correlative—ὁποῖος in Acts 26:29; ἥτις in 1 Cor 5:1; ὡς in Phlm 9; and ὅς in Heb 7:27; 8:1. The question is whether ὅς is too far from τοιοῦτος to have correlative force. Compare τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα, ὅς (“we have such a high priest, who …”) in 8:1. Delitzsch, 2:2; Michel, 278; and Ellingworth, 393, think τοῦτος refers to the previous material; Héring, 62–64; Robertson, Grammar, 710; Bruce, 176–77; and Windisch, 68–69, think the following. Westcott, 193; Dods, 317; and Kuss, 65, opt for both. See Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 148–50.
4. καί (“and”) emphasizes ἔπρεπεν (“it is fitting”) (Michel, 277–79; Westcott, 193). We have translated καί as “precisely” (Robertson, Grammar, 1181). This opening statement is the controlling statement for vv. 26–27 (Lane, 1:191). “It is fitting” not only denotes the logical conclusion of the pastor’s discussion but also indicates its pastoral appropriateness (Weiss, 420–21).
5. πρέπω (“fitting”) denotes what is fitting or proper in the light of certain circumstances or a particular relationship; with regard to the position or nature of the persons involved (BDAG, 861; MM, 534; LSJ, 1461, III, 4; cf. Matt 3:15; 1 Cor 11:13; 1 Tim 2:10; Tit 2:1). See the comments on Heb 2:10.
6. “Holy” runs the risk of not distinguishing this term, ὅσιος, from the more common word for “holy,” ἅγιος. In the LXX ὅσιος is used to translate 
, but never 
(= ἅγιος, “holy”), or 
(= δίκαιος, “righteous”). In older English “pious” meant one who kept one’s responsibilities to God, family, etc. In that sense it was very close to ὅσιος. “Pious,” however, has been spoiled by its modern usage for superficial godliness. ὅσιος is rare in the NT, being used of the Messiah in Acts 2:27; 13:34 (both in dependence on Psalm 16); of God in Rev 15:4; 16:5 (cf. Deut 32:4; Ps 144:17 in the LXX); and twice of human beings (1 Tim 2:8; Tit 1:8; see also 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Tim 3:2). See F. Hauck, “ὅσιος,” TDNT 5:491–92.
7. Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 153–56.
8. Delitzsch, 2:2.
9. Compare the usage of ἄκακος (“without evil”) by Philo in Spec. Laws 3.119; Virtues 43; Creation 156, 170. For a discussion of these passages see Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 157, n. 440. Rom 16:18, the only other NT passage that uses ἄκακος, has little relevance for Hebrews, since the word there has the alternate meaning, “simple.”
10. W. Grundmann, “ἄκακος,” TDNT 3:482, contends that we should take ἄκακος in the active sense of “one who does no evil” because the following adjective, ἀμίαντος, “blameless,” is passive. His position does not give due weight to the overwhelming evidence from LXX usage.
11. The cultic context of ἀμίαντος is reinforced by the way in which the LXX uses the related verb μιάνω for cultic pollution (F. Hauck, “μιαίνω, μίασμα, μιασμός, ἀμίαντος,” TDNT 4:644–47).
12. That is, “freedom from passion, from sense-perception, from degeneration, from the ties of this life” (Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 160)
13. “The verb προσέρχομαι (cf. v. 25 above) is used to describe “those who draw near to God” in T. Jos. 4:6. In this passage καθαρός describes the “pure” heart and ἀμίαντος the “blameless” mouth. καθαρός and ἀμίαντος are often used together, particularly in passages drawing on cultic imagery (cf. 2 Macc 14:36; Josephus, J.W. 6.99; Philo, Flight 119). They also occur together, but without clear cultic association, in Jas 1:27.
14. See Michel, 279; Spicq, 2:201; Attridge, 213.
15. The verb is χωρίζω followed by the preposition ἀπό. Conversely, when it signifies difference it is almost never followed by ἀπό (Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 163–69).
16. As advocated by Westcott, 195; Lenski, 244; and Buchanan, 128.
17. Michel, 280; Delitzsch, 2:4; Spicq, 2:201; Riggenbach, 210–11; Montefiore, 130.
18. Reduction of this phrase to a description of Jesus’ sinlessness requires one either to affirm that at a particular time Jesus became sinless or to exclude any sense of past action from this perfect participle, κεχωρισμένος (“having been separated”).
19. Under the influence of Strack and Billerbeck, many commentators make reference to the high priest’s being sequestered in a special part of the Temple seven days before the Day of Atonement in order to ensure ritual purity (Str-B 3:696). However, this separation of the Aaronic high priest is of little relevance. He was separated to ensure his ritual purity. Christ has been exalted on the basis of his moral purity and has actually entered the presence of God. Cf. Attridge, 213.
20. Michel, 279; Delitzsch, 2:4; Riggenbach, 211; Montefiore, 130; Moffatt, 101.
21. Ellingworth, 394, misses this distinction when he says, “But this kind of distance from sinners does not entail inability to help them (cf. 4:15; 5:7f).” Hebrews uses the word “sinners” for those who oppose Jesus. Jesus has come to help God’s people, “those who draw near to God through him.” Of course, this distinction does not mean that God’s people were totally without sin, nor does it exclude the conversion of “sinners.” This perspective is in accord with the pastor’s purpose of enabling the perseverance of those who already belong to God.
22. Bénétreau, 2:47.
23. Weiss, 422. See Michel, 311–12, for discussion of the supposed intermediate “heavens” through which Christ had to pass. The idea that Christ had to overcome hostile forces in these heavens is totally foreign to Hebrews. See the further discussion in Cockerill, “Melchizedek Christology,” 170–71.
24. Weiss, 424–25. Thus there is no need here to take καθʼ ἡμέραν, “daily,” or “day by day,” as “every day of atonement” (Str-B 3:696–700). Nor is there need to speculate that the author is following an alternate interpretive tradition according to which the high priest offered daily sacrifices (deSilva, 275; Attridge, 214), or that he has fused the daily sacrifices with those of the Day of Atonement (Bénétreau, 2:48). The accurate knowledge he displays in 9:7 and 25 shows clearly that there is no need to accuse him of making a mistake (Johnson, 195).
25. This fact is demonstrated by the position of καθʼ ἡμέραν (“daily”) immediately after ἔχει (“he has”) and before ἀνάγκην (“need”).
26. Note the structure of 5:3, “as (καθώς) for himself … thus also (οὕτως καί) for the people.”
27. Note the way τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ (“for the [sins] of the people”) is isolated from τῶν ἰδιῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (“for his own sins”) by θυσίας ἀναφέρειν (“sacrifice to offer”) and put immediately before τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίησεν (“for this he did”). Bruce, 178; Westcott, 197; Spicq, 2:203; and Attridge, 214 agree that τοῦτο, “this,” refers only to the last phrase of the previous clause.
28. Thus taking the participle ἀνενέγκας (“having offered up”) as instrumental. The aorist tense of this participle is in accord with the “once-for-all” nature of this sacrifice, as is the aorist of ἐποίησεν, “he did.” This aorist contrasts with the present tense used to describe the old high priests’ need for perpetual sacrifices and is in accord with the aorist of 1:2, God “has spoken” (Weiss, 425).
29. Compare ἀνθρώπους … ἔχοτας ἀσθένειαν (“human beings … having weakness”) in 7:28 with ἐξ ἀνθρώπων (“from human beings,” 5:1) and περίκειται ἀσθένειαν (“beset with weakness,” 5:2). See the comments on these verses. Ellingworth, 397, would limit “weakness” to being “subject to sickness and death” because he does not understand 5:2 properly. Also, Hebrews never attributes “weakness” to Christ.
30. The lack of an article before both ἀνθρώπους (“human beings”) and υἱόν (“Son”) emphasizes the comparative quality of each (Robertson, Grammar, 794, j).
31. With Bénétreau, 2:49, “forever” qualifies “having been perfected” and not an implied “established.”
32. Weiss, 427, correctly sees his “having been perfected” as taking place at the exaltation (5:8–9); however, it cannot be separated from his sacrifice by which it was accomplished. It might be better to say that his “having been perfected” was completed at his exaltation.
33. Contrary to Johnson, 185–86, these other aspects of the Son’s “having been perfected” do not negate the cultic connotation of this word, discussed above, for priestly consecration. Rather, they are taken up into this cultic connotation, giving it a deeper meaning. Johnson, 186, is certainly correct, however, that the moral purity of the Son is his obedience to the Father and is not a matter of Philonic superiority of the inner (moral) to the physical (ritual).
34. Note the emphatic position of τετελειωμένον, “having been perfected,” at the end of the sentence. εἰς τόν αἰῶνα, “forever,” echoes Ps 110:4 (6:20; 7:17, 21). In light of the argument in 7:1–25, it describes not only the perpetuity of Christ’s “having been perfected,” but the “eternal” degree or quality of that perfection. There is no need to take this phrase as qualifying an understood καθίστησιν, from the previous line, as does Héring, 64. (See Moffatt, 102.)
1. The pastor’s concern with the high priest “we” now “have” is better served by understanding the relationship between 7:1–28/8:1–10:18 as what he “was”/what he “has become” instead of what he “was”/what he has “done” (as per James Swetnam, “Form and Content in Hebrews 7–13,” Bib 55 [1974]: 335; Grässer, Bund, 105; and others).
2. Harold W. Attridge, “The Uses of Antithesis in Hebrews 8–10,” in Christians among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. G. W. E. Nickelsburg and G. W. MacRae (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 3.
3. Thus Lane, 2:257, “In this extended section the themes of covenant, sacrifice, and ministry are developed in concert.” Bénétreau, 2:51, notes the importance of Christ’s sacrifice in chapter 8 for the renewal of the covenant and the designation of the true sanctuary. M. Gourgues, “Remarques sur la ‘structure centrale’ de l’épître aux Hébreux: A l’occasion d’une réédition,” RevBib 84 (1977): 32–33, says that the “sacrificial cult” is the “middle term” between the terms “covenant” and “ministry” (sanctuary) in 9:1–28. Others have recognized the importance of these themes in chapters 8 through 10.
4. The unity of 8:1–10:18 is widely accepted. See Attridge, “Uses,” 3.
5. Some, like Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 137–72 (cf. Bénétreau, 2:51, 96), have taken 8:1–9:28 as one section and 10:1–18 as a second. Guthrie, Structure, 106, 117, on the other hand, separates 8:1–13 (Guthrie takes 8:1–2 as a “direct intermediary transition” and then makes 8:3–6 and 8:7–13 separate sections) from 9:1–10:18. Such disagreement is not surprising since, as Gourgues, “Remarques,” 26–37, has pointed out, formal literary indicators of structure are not as prominent in 8:1–10:18 as in many other parts of Hebrews. Thus Vanhoye’s argument that προσφέρειν, “to offer,” establishes an inclusion between 8:3 and 9:28 is undone by the fact that the same word occurs in 8:4; 9:7, 9, 14, 25; 10:1, 2, 8, 11, and 12 (Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 43; see Gourgues, “Remarques,” 29). Nor is Χριστός in 9:11, 24, and 28 cause for inclusions between 11/28 and 24/28 (pace Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 148–49). Furthermore, Weiss, 429–30, has shown the many linguistic connections both between 8:1–13 and 9:1–28 and between 9:1–28 and 10:1–13. Westfall points out the continuity of cultic vocabulary throughout 8:1–10:18 (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 228). For critique of Vanhoye see Gourgues, “Remarques,” 28–31 and Attridge, “Uses,” 1–3. Gourgues himself divides this larger unit into 8:1–13; 9:1–28; and 10:1–18, as have many others. Justification for ending the second section at 9:22 and adding 9:23–28 to 10:1–18 will be given below. For a more extensive analysis of the structure of this section see G. L. Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18: A Symphony in Three Movements,” BBR 11 (2001): 179–201.
6. Bénétreau, 2:96, recognizes clearly that 10:1–18 is the summit of this section and not merely its summary, as some have suggested. As noted above, we would begin this final section at 9:23 instead of 10:1.
7. Thus, pace Vanhoye, Heb 10:5–10, not 9:11–14, is the ultimate explanation of Christ’s sacrifice. Vanhoye thinks that 9:11–14 is at the center of the chiasm he has found in 8:1–9:28 (Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 140–45, 161). Cf. Weiss, 430, citing both Vanhoye and L. Dussaut, Synopse structurelle de l’épître aux Hébreux (Paris: Cerf, 1981), 73.
8. Those who attempt to structure Hebrews according to its use of primary OT citations—such as Psalm 8; Psalm 95; Psalm 110; Jeremiah 31 and/or Psalm 40—sometimes miss the subtlety of their inner relationship. For a summary of such proposals see J. R. Walters, “The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews,” Asbury Theological Journal 51 (1996): 59–70. In addition to his own proposal Walters refers to those of Caird, Lohse, Bruce, and Nauck. Walters opts for Jeremiah 31 as the dominant passage in this section, though others give this honor to Psalm 40. Attridge overstates the case when he likens the exposition of Jeremiah 31 in this section to that of Psalm 95 in 3:1–4:12 (Attridge, “Uses,” 5). O’Brien, 287, also describes Jer 31:31–34 as the central text of Heb 8:1–10:18. Although there can be no doubt that Jer 31:31–34 receives more attention in this section than Ps 40:6–8, the latter is the keystone at the pinnacle of the pastor’s argument. The pastor argues from Ps 110:1 and Jer 31:31–34 to Ps 40:6–8.
9. In describing Jesus’ death Hebrews uses “Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16), the Red Heifer (Numbers 19), the institution of the covenant (Exodus 24), and the ordination of the priests (Leviticus 8)” (Daniel Stökel Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century [WUNT 163; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003], 187). However, Hebrews uses the red heifer only in describing the limitations of the old sacrifice. The above quotation is cited in Felix H. Cortez, “From the Holy to the Most Holy Place: The Period of Hebrews 9:6–10 and the Day of Atonement as a Metaphor of Transition,” JBL 125 (2006): 529. Cortez shows many ways in which 9:6–10 anticipates the themes yet to be developed. However, he gives no evidence that contradicts the clear indication in 9:11–14 that Christ’s sacrifice has provided the atonement only anticipated by the annual Day-of-Atonement sacrifice.
1. The section headings for each of these movements are taken, sometimes with adaptation, from Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18,” 182, 185, 190.
2. Heb 8:1–13 provides “an elaborate statement of the points about to be made” (Swetnam, “Hebrews 7–13,” 335).
1. Cf. Guthrie, Structure, 106, who describes 8:1–2 as a “Direct Intermediary Transition.”
2. Williamson, Philo and Hebrews, 126–29, argues cogently that “main point” means the “crown” of the pastor’s argument, what he has been coming to and what he will develop in the following section.
3. See Weiss, 431, n. 10, citing Braun, 227, concerning ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις, “of the things being said.” Unfortunately O’Brien, 287–88, emphasizes the way in which 8:1–2 introduces what follows to the neglect of how these verses tie what follows to what has gone before. See the introduction to Heb 4:14–10:18 on pp. 218–20 above.
4. See Weiss, 428–29.
5. Pace Koester, 375, Bénétreau, 2:52, and others who would make Christ’s high priesthood the main theme of only the central section of Hebrews. Those who hold this position fail to grasp its significance for the author’s overall pastoral purpose.
6. τοιοῦτον (“such”) is probably correlative with ὅς (“who”). See Attridge, 217; Westcott, 213; and Spicq, 2:234. See also the comments on 7:26 above.
7. For a concise statement of the way Hebrews has used Ps 110:4 to interpret Ps 110:1 see Andrew T. Lincoln, “Hebrews and Biblical Theology,” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig Bartholomew et al. (Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 5; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 317. Cf. Weiss, 431–32; George Guthrie, 279. Thus it is a bit misleading to say that the author “resumes” the theme of the Son’s session (cf. Ellingworth, 400). All that he has been saying in chapter 7 enables him to explain the significance of the Son’s session (cf. Lane, 1:200ab).
8. Cf. the use of “throne” in 1:8–9. Attridge, 217, provides a number of references from later literature in which the heavenly throne was a standard feature of the heavenly temple.
9. The pastor omits the definite article before λειτουργός (“minister”) in order to emphasize this High Priest’s quality as “minister of the Sanctuary and true Tent.” He shares this ministry with no other.
10. λειτουργός (“minister”) is used of priests in Isa 61:6; Sir 7:30 and of those who serve in God’s house but not necessarily as priests in Ezra 7:24; Neh 10:39 (38). For related uses of λειτουργεῖν (“to minister”) see Exod 28:35; 39:30; and for λειτουργία (“ministry”) see Exod 37:19; Num 8:22. For the use of λειτουργός for priests in literature roughly contemporary with Hebrews see Letter of Aristeas 95; T. Levi 2:10; 4:2; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.135; Dreams 2.231 (Attridge, 217, n. 16).
11. Johnson, 198.
12. Cf. Pss 11:4; 18:7; 29:9; Isaiah 6; Mic 1:2; Hab 2:20 (Riggenbach, 221). Riggenbach admits that much other literature enlarged and furnished this heavenly Sanctuary in many ways, but contends that Hebrews uses it only to explain the true heavenly high priesthood of Christ.
13. G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 29–59. See also Aelred Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews (St. Meinrad, IN: Grail Publications, 1960), 9–46, who argues that the idea of a heavenly Sanctuary is Semitic in origin.
14. In Ant. 3.123 (cf. 180–81) Josephus calls the Tabernacle an “imitation and representation of the cosmos” (εἰς ἀπομίμησιν καὶ διατυπῶσιν τῶν ὅλων). Philo describes the Universe as the Temple of God in “the highest and truest sense” with heaven as its sanctuary, the stars as its votive offerings, and the angels as its priests. God has also ordained the one Temple made “with hands” as a place of worship (Spec. Laws 1.66–67). Thus Philo can give parts of the Temple cosmic significance. For instance, the material for the veil, curtain, and covering represents the four elements of the universe (earth, air, fire, water) in Moses 2.88. He says some hold the Cherubim to be the two hemispheres, but he prefers to understand them as God’s creative and kingly power (Moses 2.98). However, in Cherubim 23–26 he understands the Cherubim before the gate of the Garden of Eden as the two hemispheres. The candlesticks are the sun, and the lights are the planets (Moses 2.102–3).
15. Thus, in Planting 50 the whole world is God’s sanctuary “in the realm of sense perception,” a copy of the original and made ὑπὸ χειρῶν θεοῦ (“by the hands of God”). Again in Heir 75 Philo refers to two sanctuaries, the world represented by the sense-perceived order and the world discovered by the mind. In Dreams 1.185–87 he clarifies the relationship between these two “sanctuaries.” The sensible world, as God’s “house,” is the “gate” of the true “heaven” because, by contemplating this sensible world, one’s mind can comprehend the eternal forms that constitute that true “heaven.” There is nothing about the Tabernacle in these references. However, in Prelim. Studies 116–17, the Tabernacle is, in line with the above references, representative of both the world of our senses and of a house perceived by the mind. In QE 2.90–96 he appears to take a different approach, though the text is not always clear. The inner part of the Tabernacle represents the invisible world perceived only by the mind, and the outer part represents the world perceived by the senses. This last usage is hardly “Philo’s favorite temple symbolism,” as claimed by George W. MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Semeia 12 (1978): 185. On the relationship between Heb 8:1–5 and Philo see Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 158–64, and Williamson, Philo and Hebrews, 142–46, 157–59, 557–65.
16. See 1 En. 14:10–20 and T. Levi 3:2–4 (Attridge, 222) and the Qumran references cited by MacRae, “Heavenly Temple,” 183–84. Cf. Mitchell, 160–62.
17. Attridge, 218, 222–23; Michel, 310–11; Sabourin, Priesthood, 199–203; Hofius, Vorhang, 56–57; Nissilä, Hohepriestermotiv, 156–57; Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester, 163; Albert Vanhoye, “‘Par la tente plus grande et plus parfaite (He 9:11),’” Bib 46 (1965): 4; and P. Andriessen, “Das grössere und vollkommenere Zelt (Hebr. 9, 11),” BZ 15 (1971): 87–88.
18. So O’Brien, 288, n. 10. However, pace Lane, 1:200–201e, and others, the use of the feminine singular ἥν (“which”) in reference to the feminine singular σκηνῆς (“Tent,” “Tabernacle”) is no argument for the identity of “Tent” (σκηνῆς) and “Sanctuary” (τῶν ἁγίων). Verse 2 would be as grammatically appropriate if the “Tent” included the “Sanctuary” as it would be if the two were identical. See Attridge, 218, n. 22.
19. As noted above, Attridge, 222, mentions 1 En. 14:10–20 and T. Levi 3:2–4. However, in the first, though Enoch sees a two-house complex, outer and inner, with God on the throne in the inner, it is not called a Temple. In The Testament of Levi there is a lower heaven where angels dwell and a higher in which they exercise a priestly ministry in God’s presence. Neither of these clearly depicts a two-part heavenly sanctuary as a model for the earthly. Several Qumran documents appear to describe a Tabernacle in heaven with an angelic liturgy but without clearly distinguishing the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place. See MacRae, “Heavenly Temple,” 183–84.
20. It is very difficult to believe, as MacRae, “Heavenly Temple,” 186–88, would assert, that the pastor is thinking of the earthly Tabernacle as a copy of a multipart heavenly Sanctuary in 9:23 and then of heaven itself as the Sanctuary in 9:24.
21. See τὰ ἅγια or the genitive τῶν ἁγίων, “Sanctuary,” for the heavenly Most Holy Place in 8:2; 9:12, 24; and 10:19. The same term is used in 9:25 and 13:10 for the Most Holy Place entered by the Aaronic high priest in contrast to the heavenly Most Holy Place.
22. Some argue that “through a greater and more perfect Tabernacle” in 9:11 is a reference to an outer compartment of the heavenly Temple. However, the very elusiveness of this statement only reinforces the fact that an outer part of the heavenly Sanctuary plays no part in the thought of Hebrews. See Riggenbach, 220–21. According to Riggenbach, any seeming distinction between an outer and inner part of the heavenly Sanctuary in 9:11 is more of “word” than of “fact” (221). See the further discussion on 9:11 below.
23. Hughes’s comment (289) is compelling: “In fact, throughout these chapters our author’s perspective does not include the concept of a holy place above, as distinct from the holy of holies, precisely because, now that the curtain between the two has been abolished and the way opened up by him [Christ] for all into the heavenly holy of holies which is the sanctuary of God’s presence, the distinction no longer exists.”
24. A. P. Salom, “Ta Hagia in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” AUSS 5 (1967): 60–61, has analyzed the 170 times ἅγια/ἅγιον, “Sanctuary,” is used for the Tabernacle or Temple in the Greek OT. In 142 instances this term refers to the Tabernacle/Temple as a whole. More than two thirds of these 142 are in the plural, ἅγια, as in Hebrews. When the term is used specifically of either the outer Holy Place or inner Most Holy Place, it is usually singular, as in the Leviticus 16 description of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:2, 3, 16, 17, 20, 23, 27). See Salom, “Ta Hagia,” 62. According to Cosaert, the usage of ἅγια in Second Temple literature conforms to LXX usage (Carl P. Cosaert, “The Use of ἅγιος for the Sanctuary in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Philo, and Josephus,” AUSS 42 [2004]: 91–103). His findings show that ἅγια is used 44 times in this body of literature for the Sanctuary as a whole but never, by itself, for the Most Holy Place. Twenty-four of these occurrences are found in Josephus’s account of the Jewish war for independence.
25. Koester, 376, reminds us that Hebrews likes to use pairs of words: compare “transgression and disobedience,” 2:2; “glory and honor,” 2:9; “grace and mercy,” 4:16; “gifts and sacrifices,” 5:1; 8:3; “ignorant and erring,” 5:2; “prayers and supplications,” 5:7; and “faith and perseverance,” 6:12; with “the Sanctuary and true Tabernacle,” 8:2.
26. Cf. 9:12, 24, 25; 10:19; 13:11.
27. Compare τὰ ἅγια/τὸ ἅγιον with ἱερόν (“temple”) and νάος (“temple,” “sanctuary”). See Salom, “Ta Hagia,” 64 and cf. Koester, 375.
28. See ἀληθινῆς (“true”) in 8:2 and μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας (“greater and more perfect”) in 9:11. σκηνή without a qualifying adjective is used for the Mosaic Tent in 8:5; 9:8, 21; and 13:10. The pastor also uses σκηνή with the meaning of “tents” in 11:9 to describe the transitory earthly dwelling place of the patriarchs in contrast to their permanent home in the “city with foundations” made by God. Cf. Riggenbach, 220–21.
29. Bénétreau, 2:53, is not far off when he suggests that the first, τῶν ἁγίων, “sanctuary,” emphasizes the nearness to God described in v. 1 and the second, σκηνή, “tabernacle,” anticipates this High Priest’s sacrifice.
30. God “pitched” the tents of Israel in Num 24:6, and the “heavens” (sometimes thought of as a “tent”) in Isa 42:5. Noted in Koester, 376.
31. Contrast the Gospel of John where “truth” is the opposite of falsehood (John 8:32); the “true” light, of darkness (John 1:9); and the “true” God, of a false god (John 17:3).
32. Philo calls the sanctuary that is the world of ideas the “truly” (ἀληθῶς) invisible order in Heir 75. This is the closest he comes to calling this invisible sanctuary “true” (Planting 50; Dreams 1.185–87; Prelim. Studies 116–17).
33. Lane, 1:206.
34. Westcott, 214. See also Riggenbach, 220–31; Moffatt, 105; Spicq, 2:234; Michel, 288; Hughes, 289; Lane, 1:200e; Ellingworth, 402.
35. See ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργός, literally, “in the heavens, of the Sanctuary a Minister.” With ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (“in the heavens”) in 8:1 compare ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (“in the heavens”), τὰ ἐπουράνια (“the heavenly things”) and αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν (“heaven itself”) in 9:23–24.
1. See on δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας (“gifts and sacrifices”) in 5:1.
2. Compare ὅθεν (“therefore”) in 8:3 with 2:17; 3:1; 9:18; and esp. 7:25. Six of the fifteen NT occurrences of this word are in Hebrews. Compare ἀναγκαῖον (“necessary”) with ἐξ ἀνάγκης (“of necessity”) in 7:12 and ἀνάγκη (“necessity”) in 9:23. These terms underscore the logical and rhetorical nature of the pastor’s argument.
3. Thus, the pastor does not intend his readers to fill this “something” with content. Riggenbach, 222–23, is overly subtle in his insistence that this “something” does not refer to Christ’s death per se but to his self-presentation in the heavenly Sanctuary that validated his self-offering in death. Spicq, 2:235, seems to have a similar view. In light of the further developments in 9:11–14 and 10:5–10, it is unnecessary to insist that this sacrifice had to take place “in” the heavenly Sanctuary. It pertained to the heavenly Sanctuary and brought about Christ’s entrance as high-priestly representative of his people.
4. Koester, 377; Lane 1:201–2; cf. Hughes, 291; Bruce 182, n. 20; Bénétreau, 2:54, n. 1. Compare the aorist of προσενέγκῃ (“that he might offer”) with the present προσφέρειν (“to offer”).
5. Vanhoye contends that “to offer gifts and sacrifices” (8:3) and “gifts and sacrifices are offered” (9:9) stand in contrast to “he offered himself” (9:14) and “offer himself” (9:25). He uses these observations to support his theory that 8:1–9:10 is chiastically parallel to 9:11–28 (Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 139). However, the progress from “something” to “himself” to “the body of Christ,” outlined above, is more significant for grasping the pastor’s thought. The pastor also indicates the crescendoing nature of his argument by the way he refers to Christ in the sacrifice section of each movement. Compare no designation for Christ in 8:3–6 with “Christ” (9:11)//“the blood of Christ” (9:14) in 9:11–15 and “Christ” (9:28)//“through the offering of the body of Christ” (10:10) in 9:25–10:14. For critique of the way Vanhoye uses the names of Jesus in this section to support his chiastic structure see Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18,” 184, n. 22.
6. The pastor uses the verb λατρεύω for the “ministry” of earthly priests here in 8:5, and also in 9:6 and 13:10. He employs this term for the worship of Old Covenant people in 10:2, and uses the related noun, λατρεία, for the worship of the old Tabernacle in 9:1. Although he can use λατρεύω for the worship of New Covenant people (9:14; 12:28), he never uses it for the ministry of Christ. On the other hand, Hebrews never dignifies the priests of the earthly Tabernacle by calling them λειτουργοί, “ministers,” the term used for Christ in 8:2, or by describing their ministry as λειτουργία (8:6). See Ellingworth, 406. The reserving of λειτουργός for Christ owes something to the dignity associated with this word in the Hellenistic world (see p. 352, nn. 9, 10, and esp. 11) and cannot be adequately explained by reference to the LXX, as Weiss, 432, n. 16, would contend. The very fact that λατρεύω is similar in meaning to λειτουργέω, the verb cognate with λειτουργός (Koester, 377), makes this distinction in usage significant.
7. However, the positive function of these terms described below is obscured if we take them as a hendiadys, “shadowy sketch,” as Lane, 1:201i, suggests.
8. L. D. Hurst, “How ‘Platonic’ Are Heb. Viii. 5 and Ix. 23f.?” JTS 34 (1983): 157–63. Cf. BDAG, 1037. Weiss, 436; Braun, 232; and Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 106, overlook the full connotation of the word ὑπόδειγμα (“pattern”) when they assume that it only denigrates the earthly sanctuary. Hebrews’ use of this word is not influenced by Philo. Philo uses ὑποόδειγμα only four times. In three of these instances he uses it in the sense of a moral example (Posterity 122 is the only exception). See Hurst, “‘Platonic,’” 157.
9. “Shadow” was widely used by contemporaries in a general and nontechnical sense (Hurst, “‘Platonic,’” 163–64).
10. Williamson, Philo and Hebrews, 157–59; L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought (SNTSMS 65; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990), 13–17.
11. The word translated “copy” (τύπον) is not used here as a technical term and thus should not be translated “type.” Riggenbach, 225, says that v. 5b can substantiate v. 5a only if τύπος here means something like “copy” or “model.” The “copy” that Moses saw was constituted a pattern for his work by the fact that he was told to copy it (Ellingworth, 408).
12. Lane (1:201j) calls κεχρημάτισται (“solemnly instructed”) a “narrative perfect,” but this perfect emphasizes the lasting relevance of the warning. None should consider the Tabernacle either more or less than a “copy and shadow.”
13. See also Exod 25:9; 26:30; and 27:8. Cf. Num 8:4. D’Angelo, Moses, 205–22, and deSilva, 282, suggest that the pastor has included “all” because the details of the old priestly system foreshadow fulfillment in Christ. They fail to adequately note the use of these details for demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the old order.
14. Lane, 1:206.
15. Pace Moffatt, xxxiii–xxxiv; Héring, 66; Sowers, Hermeneutics, 107. See Ronald Williamson, “Platonism and Hebrews,” SJT 16 (1963): 415–24; Williamson, Philo and Hebrews, 142–46; Ellingworth, 408; and especially the extended discussion in Hughes, 293–95. Gilbert claims that Exod 25:40 in Heb 8:5 was “a happy opening by which the Platonic speculation enters our epistle” (G. H. Gilbert, “The Greek Element in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” American Journal of Theology 14 [1910]: 528, cited in deSilva, 283). If so, very little speculation took advantage of this “opening.”
16. One might say there were three “Temples” in Philo: the world of ideas perceived only by the mind, the world accessible to the senses, and the Tabernacle. See references and discussion in nn. 14 and 15 on p. 353. The Tabernacle was an image of both of these other “Temples” (Prelim. Studies 116–17). Thus, Philo could allegorize the parts of the Tabernacle as parts of the cosmos perceptible to the senses. However, in his discussion of Exod 25:40, it is the Tabernacle’s role as a concrete copy of the world of ideas that is in view.
17. Pace Attridge, 223, n. 95, this distinction between “altar” (βωμός) and inner “tabernacle” (σκηνή) is hardly support for a two-part heavenly Sanctuary in Hebrews. Worse 160–61 shows how natural it was for Philo to allegorize the Tabernacle as human and divine “virtue.” In this passage the Tabernacle (σκηνή) of Witness (Exod 33:7) set up outside the camp represents human virtue (ἀνθρώπου ἀρετή) as a copy of divine virtue (τῆς θείας ἐκείνης).
18. Nor is it a copy of the Universe.
19. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 140–41, identifies “minister” (λειτουργός) in v. 2 and “ministry” (λειτουργίας) in v. 6a as an inclusion. By introducing vv. 7–13 in support of v. 6a, v. 6b provides a smooth transition between these sections (Koester, 378).
20. The δέ of v. 6 sets up a contrast with the μέν of v. 4. See Lane, 1:208 (cf. Ellingworth, 409). This contrast shows that v. 6 should be joined to vv. 3–5. Furthermore, νυνὶ δέ (“but now”) is inferential (Hughes, 295), indicating that v. 6a is the logical conclusion of vv. 3–5. However, νυνί (“now”) is also temporal (Koester, 378; Bénétreau, 2:57–58; and Ellingworth, 408–9): Christ has obtained this “most excellent ministry” in these “final days” (1:2; cf. 9:26) of fulfillment. This is the priest we “now” have.
21. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 139, 143–44, ignores the importance of v. 6 and thus misses the pastor’s emphasis in this section on the excellency of Christ’s priesthood. Thus he argues that 8:1–9:11 does nothing but demonstrate the inferiority of the old priesthood and sacrifice. See Gourgues, “Remarques,” 29–30.
22. Hughes, 296, n. 16.
23. The clause which begins with ὅσῳ (“by how much”) supports the previous clause: his ministry is superior to the degree that he has become “Mediator of a better covenant.” Elsewhere in Hebrews ὅσος is always the supporting clause (1:4; 3:3; 7:20, 22; 10:25). Thus the NRSV is mistaken when it reverses the role of these clauses: “But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant.”
24. ἐπί followed by the dative case ἐπαγγελίαις (“promises”) means “on the basis of” (BDF §235, 2; Gutbrod, “νομοθετέω,” TDNT 4:1090; Lane, 1:201q). κρείττονος διαθήκης (“better covenant”) and κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις (“better promises”) have shorn νενομοθέτηται (“was legitimately established”) of the negative overtones it received in 7:11 by association with νόμος (“law”) and ἐντολή (“ordinance”).
25. Spicq, 2:239, locates the superiority of these promises in their certainty, effected only through the work of Christ. However, their superiority is also in what they promise, their content, which the Old Covenant did not provide.
26. Bénétreau, 2:58; cf. Weiss, 441–42. Thus Christ is “Guarantor” because, as a result of his effective once-for-all self-sacrifice, he now sits at God’s right hand mediating the New Covenant benefits. His ministry as “Guarantor” is not based on his having become the “Testator” of a “new will” or “testament,” as suggested by Riggenbach, 227.
1. George Guthrie, 281–82.
2. Weiss, 445.
3. For the people of Qumran “to enter the new covenant” was equivalent to entering the Qumran community. Their “new covenant” was a restoration of the old, which included a renewed earthly Temple and ritual. No reference to Jer 31:31–34 has been found in their extant writings. See the excursus in Hughes, 303–4; cf. Bénétreau, 2:63–64; Bruce, 193–94; and Weiss, 446. The Last-Supper traditions recorded in Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25 also speak of a “new” covenant without reference to Jeremiah (cf. Weiss, 445–46). The pastor’s use of Jer 31:31–34 is in full agreement with the way he uses other Scripture (see the discussion on pp. 45–46 in the Introduction to this commentary; cf. Weiss, 446).
4. France, “Biblical Expositor,” 259, 264–65; Joslin, Law, 190–92, esp. n. 68; 226–27; cf. G. B. Caird, “Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Canadian Journal of Theology 5 (1959): 44–51, and Walters, “Rhetorical,” 59–70; but pace Weiss, 446, and Grässer, 2:101.
5. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 143, is followed by many (cf. Bénétreau, 2:59) in noting this inclusion. Pace Riggenbach, 229, vv. 7–13 are no “excursus.”
6. For contrary-to-fact conditions cf. 4:8; 7:11; 8:4, 7; 10:2; 11:15.
7. With ἄμεμπτος (“without blame”) compare ἄκακος (“without evil”) and ἀμίαντος (“without blemish”) in 7:26; ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος (“without father, without mother, without genealogy”) in 7:3a; and ἀθέτησις, ἀσθενές, ἀνωφελές (“abolition,” “weakness,” “uselessness”) in 7:18. The pastor’s fondness for words beginning with alpha-privative matches his penchant for argument based on conditions contrary to fact.
8. The adjective ἄμεμπτος (“blameless”) in v. 7 is cognate with the participle μεμφόμενος (“finding fault”) in v. 8.
9. Thus not “blameless” is, in this context, a way of restraining criticism of the Old Covenant rather than, as Bénétreau, 2:59, has asserted, “a vigorous way of affirming that the criticisms [of the Old Covenant] are justified.”
10. Although the manuscript evidence is fairly evenly divided between the accusative αὐτούς and the dative αὐτοῖς, TCGNT, 597, gives the accusative a “B” rating as “almost certainly correct” because it is the more difficult reading. Since the participle μεμφόμενος, “finding fault,” can take either the accusative or dative as object, there need be no difference in meaning: μεμφόμενος γὰρ αὐτοὺς/αὐτοῖς λέγει, “for finding fault with them, he says.” On the other hand, the dative offers the possibility of taking αὐτοῖς, “them,” as the indirect object of λέγει: μεμφόμενος γὰρ αὐτοῖς λέγει, “for finding fault, he says to them.” Lane, 1:202s; Hughes, 298–99; Johannes L. P. Wolmarans, “The Text and Translation of Hebrews 8:8,” ZNW 75 (1984): 139–44, and others who accept the dative as original, argue that this “finding fault” (μεμφόμενος) was not with the people but with the covenant that, according to v. 7, was not “without blame” (ἄμεμπτος). However, desire for superficial logical consistency and the propensity to use a dative with λέγει (“he says”) probably account for the change from the accusative αὐτούς to the dative αὐτοῖς (Attridge, 225, n. 2; cf. Ellingworth, 415). In fact, in the opening verses of the quotation from Jeremiah God does “find fault,” not with those to whom his speech is addressed but with the wilderness generation (vv. 8–9). Furthermore, the pastor does not use a dative of indirect object when introducing the words of Scripture elsewhere (2:6, 12; 3:7, 15; 4:3, 7; 6:14; 9:20; 10:5, 15; 12:5, 26; see Koester, 385). See the comments in the text above for the significance of God’s “finding fault” with the people rather than directly with the Old Covenant. The accusative is to be preferred, but on either reading God is finding fault directly with the people and thus only indirectly with the old way of approaching God.
11. Note God’s warning, “do not harden your hearts” (μὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, 3:8) as the wilderness generation did, for they “always go astray in heart” (ἀεὶ πλανῶνται τῇ καρδίᾳ, 3:10).
12. Literally, ἐζητεῖτο τόπος, “an occasion was being sought” by God (divine passive, Ellingworth, 412; cf. O’Brien, 296).
13. “God’s words concern ‘the house of Israel’ and ‘the house of Judah,’ but Hebrews brings the oracle to bear on the listeners’ situation, since they belong to God’s ‘house’ (Heb 3:6)” (Koester, 389).
14. The LXX’s “and so I showed no concern for them” (κἀγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν) differs from the standard translation of the Hebrew, which reads “for I was a husband to them” (Koester, 391). The pastor uses the same word when he says that God “showed no concern” (ἠμέλησα) for those who would not persevere that he used when warning his hearers against “neglecting” (ἀμελήσαντες) the “great salvation” (2:3) provided by Christ (Koester, 390). God will “show no concern” for those “neglecting” his provision.
15. In the references below we have maintained the numbering of the Hebrew and English Old Testaments. However, in the LXX this New Covenant passage occurs in Jer 38:31–34 instead of 31:31–34. Hebrews substitutes λέγει (“he says”) for its synonym φησίν (“he says”) before κύριος each time it occurs—once each in Jer 31:31, 32, and 33 (Heb 8:8, 9, and 10). This substitution is not surprising since Hebrews normally uses λέγει for God’s speaking (1:1–2, 6, 7; 2:5, 12; 3:15; 6:14; 7:21), but see φησίν in 8:5. Hebrews uses the compound κἀγώ (“and I”) for the καὶ ἐγώ in Jer 31:32. Instead of the literal rendering of the Hebrew, διδοὺς δώσω (“putting I will put”) in Jer 31:33, Hebrews has simply διδούς (“putting”). Hebrews has ἐπιγράψω (“I will write upon”) in v. 10 for the simpler γράψω (“I will write”) in Jer 31:33. Some manuscripts of Hebrews read γράψω, probably under the influence of the LXX text, and some of Jeremiah read ἐπιγράψω, perhaps influenced by Hebrews (Ellingworth, 417). Finally, Heb 8:11 abbreviates the ἀπὸ μικροῦ αὐτῶν καὶ ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν, “from the least of them even until the greatest of them” in Jer 31:34 to ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν, “from the least until the greatest of them.” For other variations in the manuscript tradition see Weiss, 445. These stylistic variations have no semantic significance.
16. Thus, in Jer 31:31 διαθήσομαι (“I will covenant”) … διαθήκην (“a covenant”).
17. συντελέσω (“I will fulfill or perfect”) … διαθήκην (“a covenant”). The use of this word accounts for the change from Jeremiah’s dative τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ιουδα, “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31) to Hebrews’ ἐπί with the accusative, ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον οἶκον Ἰούδα (Heb 8:8), without change of meaning.
18. Compare the word used here, συντελέσω (“I will fulfill, perfect”), with τελειόω (“to perfect”) in 2:10; 5:9; 7:19; 9:9; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:23; τελείωσις (“perfection”) in 7:11; εἰς τὸ παντελές (“to the uttermost,” “completely”) in 7:25; τελειωτής (“perfecter”) in 12:2; and τέλος (“end”) in 3:14; 6:8, 11; 7:3. Cf. Mitchell, 168; O’Brien, 297.
19. Compare Jer 31:32: τὴν διαθήκην (“the covenant”), ἣν διεθέμην (“which I covenanted”) with Heb 8:9: τὴν διαθήκην (“the covenant”), ἥν ἐποίησα (“which I made”).
20. See Kenneth J. Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” NTS 11 (1965): 310.
21. Forgiveness or the removal of sin anticipates and opens the way for God’s law written on the heart. See Joslin, Law, 190–92; France, “Biblical Expositor,” 259, 264–65; and Fred A. Malone, “A Critical Evaluation of the Use of Jeremiah 31:31–34 in the Letter to the Hebrews” (Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989), 175, 193.
22. Following Ellingworth, 417–18; France, “Biblical Expositor,” 259, 264–65; and Joslin, Law, 191, n. 68. Pace Grässer, 2:101 (cf. Weiss, 446), who appears to think that the Jeremiah passage is quoted merely to establish the antiquity of the Old Covenant without regard for the actual quality of the New.
23. While the distinction between καινός, “new” and superior (8:13; 9:15), and νέος, “new,” young, and recent (12:24), may have been disappearing (Bénétreau, 2:65), the very passage quoted from Jeremiah shows that this “new” covenant is superior because it is “not like” the first covenant. The pastor is aware of this superiority in 8:13 even if he postpones its discussion until 10:15–18.
24. Compare 1:11.
25. Ellingworth, 419; Attridge, 229; and O’Brien, 303. Thus, pace Gordon, 113–14, and others, this is no reference to the imminent destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.
1. Note the inclusion formed by δικαιώματα, “regulations,” in vv. 1 and 10 (Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 144–45). The pastor shows the unity of the whole by using λατρεία (“worship”) and κατασκευάζω (“prepare”) in vv. 1–2 and then by repeating them at the crucial transition point in v. 6 (Weiss, 449).
2. For δικαιώματα as “regulations” see the examples given in Attridge, 231, n. 15.
3. Westcott, 242; cf. Lane, 2:217; Attridge, 231.
4. See Koester, 400; but pace Vanhoye, Old Testament, 181, who thinks that the Holy Place was “a rough sketch of the ‘new and living way’ that Christ was to inaugurate (10:20).”
5. Note μέν in v. 1 and δέ in v. 11—“on the one hand,” “on the other” (Johnson, 218; Koester, 393; Weiss, 449). The pastor contrasts the insufficiency of the old (vv. 1–10) with the full sufficiency of the fulfillment in Christ (vv. 11–14).
6. εἶχε, “was having,” the imperfect tense of ἔχω, is in accord with the continuous existence of “the earthly sanctuary” up until the time of its supersession by Christ (see Weiss, 450, n. 4; Riggenbach, 237; Moffatt, 112). If καί is retained in v. 1, it underscores the parallel nature of the Covenants. Both Covenants have a sanctuary and regulations for worship (Westcott, 243; cf. Moffatt, 112).
7. See “true Tent” (8:2) and “greater and more perfect Tent” (9:11).
8. Instead of putting “earthly” (κοσμικόν) in the attributive position, “the earthly sanctuary” (τὸ κοσμικὸν ἅγιον or τὸ ἅγιον τὸ κοσμικόν), the pastor has used the predicate position, τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν (Riggenbach, 238–39; Moffatt, 113; Westcott, 244; cf. Lane, 2:219; Hughes, 306).
9. The pastor follows neither Josephus nor Philo in his use of this word κοσμικός, “cosmic,” “pertaining to the cosmos,” “earthly.” With this adjective Josephus (J.W. 4.324) affirmed that the ministry of the priests had “cosmic” or “universal significance.” According to Philo (Moses 2.108; cf. 2.48), those who worship rightly partake of “the eternal life of … the whole kosmos” (Koester, 402).
10. In 9:23–24 see τοῖς οὐρανοῖς τούτοις (“these heavens”) and τὰ ἐπουράνια (“the heavenly things”) as well as αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν (“heaven itself”).
11. Thus, see the plural with the article, τὰ ἅγια or τῶν ἁγίων, in 8:2; 9:8, 12; 10:19, but the singular with the article, τὸ ἅγιον, in 9:2. The plural without the article is used in 9:24 for the χειροποίητα … ἅγια, “the sanctuary made by hand,” and for the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place in 9:2–3.
12. Compare χειροποίητα (“made by hands”) in 9:24. Westcott says that the aorist κατεσκευάσθη, “has been established,” shows that “the writer is considering the Mosaic system in its divine constitution” (243).
13. There is no indication that the pastor is influenced by cosmic speculations that understood the “first” Tent as the created universe and the “second” as heaven (Weiss, 450). Nor is there reason to believe that he is following an exegetical tradition that understood the Mosaic shrine as composed of two separate tents. Heb 8:5; 9:21; and 13:10 demonstrate clearly that the author knew there was one Tent with two parts (Otfried Hofius, “Das ‘erste’ und das ‘zweite’ Zelt: Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung von Hbr 9 1–10,” ZNW 61 [1970]: 271–72). See also Weiss, 453.
14. Riggenbach, 240. Cf. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 184. Josephus, J.W. 5.184, 186, provides an interesting parallel to the pastor’s use of σκηνή (“Tent”) in Heb 9:2–7. Josephus uses ἱερόν (“Temple”) for the whole Temple, τὸ πρῶτον ἱερόν (“the first Temple”) for the outer court open to the Gentiles, and τὸ δεύτερον ἱερόν (“the second Temple”) for the inner court reserved only for Jews. See Lane, 2:219.
15. In accord with LXX usage, the pastor uses ἅγια and ἅγια ἁγίων to distinguish between the outer “Holy Place” and the inner “Most Holy Place” of “the earthly sanctuary” (τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν). This use of these words without articles is distinct from his normal use of τὰ ἅγια (with the article; 8:2; 9:8, 12, 24; 10:19) for the heavenly Sanctuary entered by Christ. 46 reverses these two terms in 9:2, 3, reading ἅγια ἁγίων in v. 2 for “the Holy Place” but ἅγια in v. 3 for the “Most Holy Place.” A, the original hand of D, and some Vulgate manuscripts conform to 46’s ἅγια ἁγίων in v. 2, but none follow 46’s ἅγια in v. 3. Attridge (230, 233–34) argues that the reading of 46 was original. He claims that the usage of ἅγια ἁγίων for the Holy Place corresponds to the multiplicity of rituals performed there. Furthermore, ἅγια for the “Most Holy Place” is in agreement with the use of τὰ ἅγια elsewhere for the heavenly Most Holy Place entered by Christ. This suggestion conforms to Attridge’s contention that the τὰ ἅγια Christ has entered is not “heaven itself,” as we have suggested above, but the inner sanctuary of a two-part heavenly Temple. However, the external evidence for this alternate reading is very weak. There is no reason to think that the original recipients of Hebrews would have understood ἅγια ἁγίων (“Holy of Holies” or “Most Holy Place”) as indicative of the multiple rites repeatedly performed in the Holy Place.
16. “Second” distinguishes this “veil” from the curtain that separated the “First” tent or Holy Place from the outer court (Exod 26:36; Bénétreau, 2:68).
17. Ellingworth, 422.
18. The Altar of Incense was about three feet (.8 meter) high and about one and one half feet (.5 meter) in length and width (Exod 30:1–6). The Ark of the Covenant, on the other hand, was about three and three-fourths feet (1.1 meters) long and two and one-fourth feet (.7 meter) in both width and height. See Kistemaker, 237, 293.
19. See esp. Riggenbach, 241–46, followed by Bénétreau, 2:69.
20. Attridge, 232–37.
21. The instructions for the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, the Table, and the Lampstand are given in Exodus 25, but those for the Altar of Incense are delayed until Exodus 30.
22. “Thus Exodus 30:6 says it was to be placed ‘before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony’ (cf. 40:26), and Exodus 40:5 requires it to be situated ‘before the ark of the testimony,’ without even mentioning the curtain. In the description of Solomon’s temple, indeed, the altar of incense is spoken of as ‘belonging to the inner sanctuary’ (1 Ki. 6:20; 22)” (Hughes, 310).
23. Attridge, 235, refers to 2 Macc 2:4–8; Bar 6:7; and Rev 8:3 as attesting an exegetical tradition that located the Incense Altar in the Most Holy Place. However, he is forced to admit the ambiguity of these passages. Although they associate the Incense Altar with the Most Holy Place, they do not necessarily locate it within that sanctuary. Dependence on these passages borders on explaining the unclear by the unclear. At the very least their lack of clarity should caution us against insisting that Hebrews has located the Altar of Incense within the Most Holy Place.
24. So, most recently, Mitchell, 174; Gordon, 116; and O’Brien, 308–9.
25. See θυμιατήριον as “Altar of Incense” in Philo, Heir 226; Moses 2.94; Josephus, J.W. 5.218; Ant. 3.147, 198, but as “censer” in 2 Chr 26:19; Ezek 8:11; and 4 Macc 7:1. The LXX uses (τὸ) θυσιαστήριον (τοῦ) θυμιάματος, (“altar of incense”) in Exod 30:1, 27; Lev 4:7; 1 Chr 6:49 (cf. Luke 1:11) and the closely related τὸ θυσιαστήριον τῶν θυμιαμάτων (“altar of incenses”) in 1 Chr 28:18; 2 Chr 26:16, 19. These expressions represent a literal translation of the Hebrew. See (τὸ) θυσιαστήριον (τοῦ) θυμιάματος and 
in Exod 30:1. The Greek θυσιαστήριον (“altar”) is equivalent to the Hebrew 
(“altar”); the Greek θυμιάματος (“of incense”), to the Hebrew 
(“of the burner of incense”). See Westcott, 247. Symmachus and Aquila insert θυμιατήριον into the text of Exod 30:1 without removing θυσιαστήριον—θυσιαστήριον θυμιατήριον θυμιάματος (literally, “altar incense altar of incense”).
26. The various features Attridge, 232–37, attributes to exegetical tradition are not found together but are located in diverse sources. This fact demonstrates that the author of Hebrews is not slavishly following a given exegetical tradition. Even when drawing from others, he selects what suits his purpose. Thus Hebrews agrees with both Philo (Heir 226; Moses 2.161–64) and Josephus (J.W. 1.7.6; 5.5.5; Ant. 3.6.6–8) in describing the lampstand before the table, although the OT follows the reverse order. However, neither Philo nor Josephus associates the Incense Altar with the Most Holy Place. Sometimes there are no known parallels to the way Hebrews describes these furnishings. No other available source separates the “presentation of the bread” from the Table as in Heb 9:2. See Hughes, 313–15.
27. Westcott, 247. Moffatt, 115, disagrees with this distinction between “in which” (ἐν ᾕ) and “having” (ἔχουσα), but cites Delitzsch, Zahn, Peake, and Seeberg in its support. While “having” could denote location, the contrast with “in which” suggests a broader meaning in this context. In v. 1 the pastor has just referred to the “First Covenant” as “having” (εἶχε, imperfect of the same verb used for “having” in v. 4) a sanctuary and regulations for worship. Bruce, 201, is too quick to call this distinction “special pleading.” See A. Ito, “Concerning the θυμιατήριον (Heb 9:4) [in Japanese],” Exegetica 10 (1999): 149–65.
28. Westcott, 247.
29. See Bruce, 201–2. Furthermore, when regular priests offered incense on this altar, they were as close as they ever came to the Most Holy Place.
30. See the brief discussion in Gordon, 116.
31. Hughes, 315, refers to Delitzsch as saying that the presence of these items within the Ark was a natural deduction from the OT language.
32. Lane, 2:221.
33. See 1 Kgs 8:9; 2 Chr 5:10; and Hughes, 315.
34. Thus “Cherubim of Glory” does not mean “glorious Cherubim” but the “Cherubim” between whom the “Glory” of God dwelt. See Koester 396, REB. So also Kistemaker, 240; Westcott, 249.
35. Cf. Koester 402.
36. For the rhetorical use of such phrases as “we are not now able to speak in detail” compare 2 Macc 2:20–32; Philo, Heir 221.
37. The perfect participle κατεσκευασμένων, “having been prepared,” refers to the “abiding system” that resulted from the “historical foundation” of the Mosaic sanctuary at Sinai described by the aorist form of the same verb (κατεσκευάσθη) in v. 2 (Westcott, 250; cf. Riggenbach, 247).
38. See διὰ παντός, for “repeatedly” or “regularly” in Exod 25:30; 27:20; and 30:8. See Dennis Hamm, “Praying ‘Regularly’ (not ‘Constantly’): A Note on the Cultic Background of διὰ παντός at Luke 24:53, Acts 10:2, and Hebrews 9:6, 13:15,” ExpTim 116 (2004): 50–52.
39. Heb 9:6 uses εἰσίασιν (εἴσειμι) for the priests’ entrance into the Holy Place. Elsewhere Hebrews uses εἰσέρχομαι for Christ’s entrance into the Most Holy Place (see 9:12, 25; cf. 6:19–20). Although εἰσέρχομαι had largely replaced εἴσειμι in Hellenistic Greek, εἴσειμι was used for the high priests entering the Most Holy Place in Exod 28:29, 35 and in Josephus, J.W. 5.5.7 (see Ellingworth, 433).
40. Herodotus, Hist. 2.63; 4.26; Philo, Dreams 1.214–15; Josephus, Ant. 4.123; 9.273.
41. See BDAG, 383 and the comments on the use of ἐπιτελέω in 8:5 above.
42. Hebrews uses the term προσφέρω, “offer,” for Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (9:14, 25, 28; 10:12; see also the cognate noun προσφορά, “offering,” in 10:10, 14), and, in this verse, for the high priest’s presentation of blood in the Most Holy Place (v. 7). This last usage is striking because it lacks OT precedent. Thus it appears that the pastor is drawing a parallel between Christ’s self-offering on the cross and the high priest’s presentation of the blood: “the repeated entrance followed by a repeated blood sprinkling in the old order is now in the new age a once-for-all sacrifice-cum-sprinkling followed by a once-for-all entrance” (Norman H. Young, “The Gospel according to Hebrews 9,” NTS 27 [1981]: 209; see also 207–9).
43. Compare “sins of ignorance” (ἀγνοήματα) with “sins” (ἁμάρτιαι). See Weiss, 455, n. 28. Moffatt, 117, notes that the LXX of Judg 5:20; Sir 23:2; Tob 3:3; and 1 Macc 13:39 use the two terms together. If there is any difference, “sins of ignorance” may refer to the perversity of the people in their refusal to know God’s law: “but they did not know (ἔγνωσαν) my ways” (Heb 3:10). The pastor does not use this term in reference to the “unintentional” (ἀκούσιος) sins described in Lev 4:1–5:19 and Num 15:22–31 (pace Attridge, 239). He does not believe that the old high priest’s offerings atoned for unintentional sins but Christ’s for all sins (pace Ellingworth, 435; Gordon, 117–18). Instead, he states clearly that the former brought only the ceremonial cleansing “of the flesh,” while the latter effected cleansing of the “conscience” or “heart” (9:13–14).
44. Weiss, 454–55. Compare “once a year” (ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ) with “once for all” (ἐφάπαξ) in 9:12.
45. Bruce, 208; Vanhoye, Old Testament, 186, and others affirm that 9:8 refers to the Spirit’s work in inspiring Scripture (cf. Riggenbach, 249). However, Emmrich, “Pneuma in Hebrews,” 63–64, contends that this verse refers to the Spirit’s giving a new revelation through Scripture in light of Christ’s coming. The two other references to the Spirit as the source of Scripture (3:7; 10:15) do not support Emmrich’s conclusion. Since the pastor regularly paraphrases Scripture, his paraphrases of Psalm 95 in 3:7–11 are no indication that these words, spoken by the “Spirit” (3:7), are a “new oracle” of God (pace Emmrich, “Pneuma in Hebrews,” 57–58). Psalm 95 is relevant to the hearers because they, like the wilderness generation, are part of the one people of God. The pastor cites Jeremiah 31 in 10:15–18 as Scriptural support for the conclusion reached in 10:14. The Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture now “bears witness” to the veracity of what he inspired (10:15). The present participle δηλοῦντος, “revealing,” is not indicative of new revelation but underscores the pastor’s sense of the immediacy of Scripture (cf. 1:6, 7; 2:11–12; 3:7; 5:6; 7:21; 8:8; and 10:5). The Spirit who inspired Scripture enables the pastor to understand the meaning inherent in the text from the beginning (cf. Koester, 397; Lane, 2:223; and Attridge, 240; cf. O’Brien, 312).
46. Riggenbach, 249.
47. See Westcott, 252; Moffatt, 118; Riggenbach, 249; Buchanan, 144; Ellingworth, 437; Attridge, 240; George Guthrie, 299–300; deSilva, 297, 302; O’Brien, 313; Vanhoye, Old Testament, 185–86; Theissen, Untersuchungen, 69; Hofius, Vorhang, 61; Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester, 163–64; Laub, Bekenntnis, 193. “The Holy Place portrays a barrier space separating the people of God from the presence of God” (George Guthrie, 300).
48. For the temporal understanding see Hughes, 323; Kuss, 115; Héring, 74; Michel, 307; Bruce, 208–9; Kistemaker, 243–44; Schierse, Verheissung, 30–34; Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary, 145; and Peterson, Perfection, 133.
49. According to Steve Stanley, “Hebrews 9:6–10: The ‘Parable’ of the Tabernacle,” NovT 37 (1995): 385–99, the “First Tent” refers to both the Holy Place and the whole earthly sanctuary: as the earthly Holy Place (“First Tent”) was to the earthly Most Holy Place (“Second Tent”), so the whole earthly sanctuary, including both parts (“First Tent”), was to the heavenly Sanctuary (“Second Tent”). This suggestion betrays a fundamental misunderstanding because it makes the distinction between the old order/earthly sanctuary and the new order/heavenly Sanctuary one of degree instead of kind. Note Stanley’s statement in n. 42 on p. 397: “The term ‘better’ implies that the old did have some value, albeit a lesser value, and 9:11 uses the comparative forms μείζωνος and τελειοτέρας, indicating that the old had the positive qualities of greatness and perfection (perfection understood in a relative sense).” Compare this statement with 7:19: “For the law perfects nothing.” It is true that both have value, but they differ in kind rather than degree. The old has typological value; the new, salvific. Thus it would be impossible for the first part of the old sanctuary to have the same relationship to the second as the whole would have to the heavenly Sanctuary.
50. Attridge, 240.
51. In this sense there is truth in Westcott’s statement: “Thus the outer sanctuary was the representative symbol of the whole Tabernacle as the place of service” (252).
52. BDAG, 940, 1, suggests that στάσις may mean place or position rather than existence. This understanding makes better sense of the context in Heb 9:1–10, as long as the First Tent had place, position, or validity. Hughes (322, n. 71) and Lane (2:216t) support this understanding.
53. Koester (397) is surprised that the text says “was not manifested” because he fails to note that it was the way into the heavenly Sanctuary that was hidden. Cf. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 186: “A tent which leads to another tent is obviously not the way to the true Sanctuary. But no other way was known.” However, as in the text above, we would alter Vanhoye to read: “A tent which did not even lead to another tent is obviously not the way to the true Sanctuary.”
54. τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς (“the first tent”) is the antecedent of the feminine singular ἥτις (“which”) at the beginning of v. 9. The pastor is careful about agreement between pronouns and their antecedents (cf. 2:3; 8:6; 9:2; 10:9, 11, 35; 12:5; Young, “Gospel,” 201; George Guthrie, 300). Thus, there is no reason to think that ἥτις has been attracted to the feminine by παραβολή (pace Hughes, 323–25, esp. n. 73). It is “the First Tent” in particular and not everything the pastor has said in general that is a “parable.”
55. Riggenbach, 249–51, cites those who hold such a position. deSilva, 302, proposes a variation on this theme: as the Holy Place covered the Most Holy Place, so in the present age the physical universe hides the true heavenly dwelling place of God. This position is based on the doubtful assumption that cosmic speculations about the Mosaic shrine are determinative for Hebrews’ thought. Nowhere does Hebrews suggest that the “Holy Place” represents the created universe. Furthermore, any proposal that understands the “First Tent” as a “parable” for limitations on access to God still in force is inadequate because it must take this statement as a parentheses devoid of connection with vv. 9b–10. Verses 9b–10 diagnose the problem of the First Tent as the inadequacy of its sacrifices. The present time, however, is the time characterized by Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice.
56. Attridge, 241–42, takes the εἰς of εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα as an adverbial accusative of reference—“in reference to the present age.”
57. Ellingworth (440–41) takes the εἰς of εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα as “until” instead of “for” and makes καιρόν an adverbial accusative showing extent of time—“until the present time.”
58. See William Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1951), 132 (cited in Bruce, 209); Emmrich, “Pneuma in Hebrews,” 64–66, and Riggenbach, 249–50.
59. George Guthrie, 300. Thus παραβολή (“parable”) is not a technical term for a “type” that foreshadows the future (pace Weiss, 458). “The parable suggests thoughts: the type points to a direct fulfillment” (Westcott, 253). See Stanley, “‘Parable,’” 390–91.
60. However, we cannot press “the (then) present time” and the “age of correction” into the mold of the two ages of Jewish apocalyptic, as Ellingworth, 440–41; Vanhoye, Old Testament, 186–87; Koester, 398; and O’Brien, 314–15, have done. Hebrews may exhibit features of this two-age approach, but it does not describe the era of the Old Covenant per se as an age characterized by the lack of God’s presence and the dominion of evil. Hebrews conceives of the Old Covenant age as a time that foreshadowed and typified the fulfillment that would come in Christ. God was active in that time of foreshadowing (1:1–2), and obedience was possible (11:1–40). Thus, it is inaccurate to speak of the times of the Old and New Covenants as overlapping (pace Koester, 398; O’Brien, 314–15, and others). With fulfillment in Christ the time of foreshadowing has come to an end. See the section entitled “The Pastor and the Heavenly/Futuristic Eschatology of Apocalyptic Writings” on pp. 25–28 of the Introduction to this commentary.
61. Taking καθʼ ἥν, “according to which,” as referring to τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς, “the First Tent” (Riggenbach, 252; cf. Lane and Weiss). However, Koester, 398, is correct when he argues that there would be little difference in meaning if this phrase were taken as referring to παραβολή (as argued by Attridge, 241, and Stanley, “‘Parable,’” 397).
62. As noted above, all the “gifts and sacrifices” pertained to the First Tent or Holy Place because they did not provide access into the second. Stanley’s suggestion that the lesser sacrifices were to the Day-of-Atonement sacrifice as all the sacrifices together were to Christ’s sacrifice introduces needless complexity unsupported by the text (Stanley, “‘Parable,’” 398).
63. Weiss, 460.
64. Lane, 2:225, says, “… the ‘conscience’ is directed toward God and embraces the whole person in his relation to God (9:9, 14; 10:2, 22; 13:18).” συνείδησις (“conscience”) describes an awareness of sin before God in writers such as Plutarch, Philo, and Josephus as well as in the NT (cf. Heb 9:14; 10:2, 22; 13:18).
65. These sacrifices could not cleanse κατὰ συνείδησιν, “in respect to the conscience,” but ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, “in relation to the realm of food and drink and various washings.” The change from κατά to ἐπί is purposeful. These sacrifices did not cleanse the worshipers in regard to food and drink, but they “related to” (cf. NASB) the same outward sphere as the regulations concerning food, drink, and ritual washings (Ellingworth, 443; Riggenbach, 252–55; cf. Bénétreau, 2:75, and Koester, 399, 406). Westcott, 254, cites 1 Thess 4:7; 1 Cor 9:10; 2 Cor 9:6; Gal 5:13; Eph 2:10; 2 Tim 2:14 in support of ἐπί as expressing “accompanying circumstances or conditions.” He also invites comparison with Heb 9:15, 17; 8:6; and 10:28.
66. This description includes the laws of purity regulating everyday life as well as those pertaining to the food and drink offerings at the Mosaic sanctuary. See the references in Koester, 399, 406. It was natural to refer to the Levitical code as regulating “food and drink,” as evidenced by references in the Letter of Aristeas: περί τε τῶν βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν (“concerning both food and drink,” 128); διὰ βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν (“through food and drink,” 142); ἐπὶ τῶν βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν (“in regard to food and drink,” 158). Cited by Moffatt, 119.
67. Koester, 399–400.
68. Attridge, 231.
69. It is better to take this present participle ἐπικείμενα as middle, “incumbent upon,” instead of making it a divine passive, “laid down” (by God), as argued by Bénétreau, 2:76. Thus ἐπικείμενα, “incumbent upon,” is equivalent to ἐχούσης στάσιν, “having legal standing,” in v. 8 (Hughes, 325, n. 75). Both expressions are legal terms describing a system that is “in force.”
70. For examples of διόρθωσις (“correction”) in this sense see Attridge, 243, n. 165; cf. Bénétreau, 2:76. Compare the μετάθεσις (“change”) of 7:12 and the stronger ἀθέτησις (“abolition”) of 7:18.
71. With Riggenbach, 255–56, the “time of correction” refers to the event of Christ’s coming, not to the present time of salvation subsequent to his coming. Cf. Weiss, 461–62.
72. The fact that this section describes only the inadequacy of the old system in the Mosaic Tent to achieve access prevents giving it the definitive place claimed by Cortez, “Transition,” 527–47. Cortez shows some valid connections between this section and what follows. However, his argument does nothing to remove the clear way in which 9:11–14 describes Christ’s sacrifice as the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement sacrifice. The pastor’s use of other images and typologies detracts nothing from the central importance of this analogy.
73. Lane, 2:225. Attridge’s acknowledgment (242) that Christ’s cleansing includes the inscribing of God’s law on the heart as promised in the New Covenant seems inconsistent with his restriction of this cleansing to the guilt of sin.
74. “Thus, although the perfecting of believers does not involve a moral development in our writer’s perspective, it has its proper outworking in a life of obedience to God’s will and perseverance in hope. The cleansing of the conscience leads to a decisive change in a person’s heart with respect to God and enables that person to serve God as he requires.” Peterson, Perfection, 140.
1. δέ (“but,” “on the other hand”) in v. 11 indicates sharp contrast. It is probably the complement of μέν (“on the one hand”) in v. 1 above (Johnson, 218; Koester, 393; Weiss, 449).
2. Weiss, 471.
3. Weiss, 472.
4. Weiss, 463, n. 3, compares 9:11 with 4:14; 9:12 with 2:17; 5:1; 7:27; and 8:2; finally, 9:13–14 with 4:16; 7:25; and 10:22.
5. The way in which Hebrews establishes Christ’s mediatorship on his sacrifice indicates that διὰ τοῦτο (“on account of this”) should be taken with what goes before instead of what follows. The parallel often cited from Xenophon, Cyr. 2.1.21 offers no evidence to the contrary (Gabriella Berényi, “La portée de διὰ τοῦτο en He 9:15,” Bib 69 [1988]: 108–12). See also Weiss, 474–76; Braun, 272; Lane, 2:241; Johnson, 239; Kistemaker, 254; Westcott, 263; Spicq, 2:261; S. W. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15–22,” CBQ 66 (2004): 420; and John J. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff. and Galatians III 15ff.: A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure,” NovT 21 (1976–77): 33. Pace Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 205, 207. O’Brien, 327; Lane, 2:241; and Ellingworth, 459–60, also affirm the close connection between v. 15a and vv. 11–14.
6. Note αἷμα (“blood”) in vv. 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22. Note especially διʼ αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων (“through the blood of goats and calves”) in v. 12 and τὸ αἷμα τῶν μόσχων (“the blood of calves”) in v. 19. See also αἱματεκχυσίας (“shedding of blood”) in v. 22. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 152, notes the recurrence of “blood” in vv. 18–22 but thinks διαθήκη and its related verbal forms in vv. 15 and 16–17 indicate that v. 15 should be joined to these verses.
7. The position taken above on the unity of v. 15 with vv. 11–14 is more nuanced than that argued in Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18,” 188.
8. Note the pastor’s strategic use of Χριστός (“Christ”). He uses it here in 9:11 to introduce this crucial central section of the second movement and to underscore the contrast with vv. 1–10 (see Weiss, 462–63). He also uses it in 10:10 to conclude the final explanation of Christ’s sacrifice, found in 10:5–10. Thus, the pastor introduces his initial (9:11–15) and concludes his final (10:5–10) explanation of Christ’s death with “Christ.” Cf. Ellingworth, 448. Johnson, 233, thinks that the pastor uses “Christ” here to show that he is speaking of the “messianic priest.” This suggestion, however, lacks substantiation. Hebrews appears to use “Christ” as a general designation that neither emphasizes nor excludes the deity implied by “Son” or the humanity underscored by “Jesus.” For “Christ” see on 3:6, 14; 5:5; 6:1; for “Jesus,” 2:9; 3:1; 4:8, 14; 6:20; 7:22.
9. Contrast 1:3, where Christ’s achievement, his session at God’s right, was affirmed by a finite verb (ἐκάθισεν, “he sat down”), and the means, purification for sins, by a participle (ποιησάμενος, “having made”).
10. There can be no doubt that the pastor is speaking of Christ’s arrival in heaven (Attridge, 245; Ellingworth, 448–49; Weiss, 464; Koester, 407, 412; O’Brien, 319; and Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 91). The noun ἀρχιερεύς, “high priest,” clearly qualifies the manner of his arrival. See Ellingworth, 449.
11. “Arrived” reminds the hearers that the Son did not seize this priesthood for himself (5:4–6; Koester, 412).
12. γενομένων, “having come”; and μελλόντων, “about to come,” or “to come.”
13. Though γενομένων, “having come,” has a slight advantage in diversity of evidence: (46), B, D*, 1739, Itd, syrp, h, pal, Origen, etc. See TCGNT, 598.
14. Riggenbach, 256–57; Montefiore, 151. The participle παραγενόμενος, “having arrived,” is a compound form of the participle γενομένων, “having come.”
15. Lane, 2:229b; Hughes, 327; Bénétreau, 2:76–77; Weiss, 464, Gordon, 119; most recent commentaries. See τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, “the good things about to come” or “the good things to come,” in 10:1. In that verse, however, the author is speaking from the point of view of the Old Covenant, not the New.
16. See ἀγαθά, “good things,” in Exod 3:8; 10:12; Num 14:7; and Deut 1:25; 8:1. Cf. Ellingworth, 450. Bénétreau, 2:76–77, identifies these “good things” with “the world to come” (1:6; 2:5), though he would probably include present as well as future benefits within this description.
17. See κατεσκευάσθη (“constructed”) in v. 2 and compare 8:4–5.
18. τελειοτέρα, “more perfect,” reminds the hearers that Christ has obtained τελειότης, “perfection,” or access to God, which the faithful enjoy in this heavenly “Tent.” See Ellingworth, 450. Koester, 413, is misguided when he takes these terms as true comparatives and thus asserts that “the Mosaic sanctuary had a degree of greatness and perfection.” According to 7:19, “the law made nothing perfect.” This “Tent” is “greater and more perfect” in the same sense that Christ’s sacrifice was “better” (κρείττοσιν, 9:23) because it provided what the old could not, a way to live in fellowship with God under a “better” (κρείττονος) Covenant (7:22). See Attridge, 247.
19. Following Ellingworth, 447–48; cf. also Davidson, 174; but pace Lane, 2:236–38; Attridge, 247–48; and O’Brien, 320, who think that this “greater and more perfect tent” is the outer part of a two-part heavenly sanctuary instead of a reference to heaven itself. However, even Attridge (247–48) concludes by saying, “Hebrews will finally be concerned not so much with a realistically conceived heavenly journey made by Christ as with the significance of entry into the realm where God is truly worshiped.” Philip E. Hughes, “The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews, Part III: The Meaning of the ‘True Tent’ and ‘the Greater and More Perfect Tent,’” BSac 130 (1973): 313–14, agrees that the effective work of Christ leaves no room for a heavenly Holy Place distinct from the Most Holy Place.
20. This “Tent” is superior not merely, as Koester, 413, suggests, because “heaven is superior to earth,” but because heaven is the place where God dwells.
21. See Riggenbach, 258; Andriessen, “Zelt,” 76–92; and Peterson, Perfection, 143–44. Cf. also the discussions in Héring and Spicq.
22. Andriessen, “Zelt,” 76–92.
23. See Andriessen, “Zelt,” 91–92. Andriessen’s argument that Christ has a present ministry in the heavenly Holy Place as well as the Most Holy Place is contrary to Hebrews’ assertion of Christ’s session. Furthermore, his suggestion that the heavenly Holy Place is the present place where the people of God dwell is in plain contradiction to the assertions of Hebrews that believers have continual access to the very presence of God (4:14–16; 10:19–21). See the criticism of Andriessen in Vanhoye, Old Testament, 191–92.
24. Riggenbach, 258–59, agrees that the author of Hebrews believes Christ has entered heaven as a whole. Thus although he thinks “tent” refers to an intermediate heavens, he concedes that the author uses this expression only by analogy with the old.
25. Cf. Montefiore, 153.
26. Hughes, “Tent,” surveys the different ways in which the “true Tent” of 8:2 and the “greater and more perfect Tent” of 9:11 have been understood as Christ’s “body”: his human body (Owen, Bengel, Calvin, Chrysostom, etc.), his body the church (Cornelius à Lapide; Westcott), or the human person (Ambrose; Gregory of Nazianzus; F. F. Bruce). One must also add the eucharistic body of Christ (J. Swetnam, “‘The Greater and More Perfect Tent’: A Contribution to the Discussion of Heb. 9:11,” Bib 47 [1966]: 91–106).
27. The question is whether διά followed by the genitive case should be understood as local or instrumental—a reference to motion “through” or to “by means of.” Those like Young (“Gospel,” 202–3), who insist on the instrumental, make much of the parallel between “through [διά] the greater and more perfect Tent” in v. 11 and “by [διά] his own blood” in v. 12. Although Lane (2:229c, 236–38) defends the local significance of διά, he lays out the chiastic parallels between vv. 11 and 12 with clarity: [Α] διὰ τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς (“through the greater and more perfect Tent”); [Β] οὐ χειροποιήτου, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως (“not made with hands, that is, not of this creation”); [Β1] οὐδὲ διʼ αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων (“not by means of the blood of goats and calves”); [Α1] διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος (“but by means of his own blood”). Young’s defense of the instrumental is linked with his argument that “the greater and more perfect Tent” is a reference to the whole new order by which Christ has brought salvation (Young, “Gospel”). The immediate context gives little indication that the pastor intends such a metaphor. This interpretation fits poorly with the parallel reference to the “true Tent” in 8:2.
28. See John 1:14; 2:19–22; Mark 14:58; 15:29; 1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; 2; Eph 1:22–23. See also Hughes, “Tent,” 313.
29. Weiss (465, n. 12) and Bénétreau (2:77, citing Braun) also mention 2:14–16; 10:20; and 13:21–22. The parallels between vv. 11–12, outlined above by Lane, provide this passage with cohesion and a pleasing rhythm. However, they afford no basis for insisting that the first use of διά conform to the two following—especially since the object of the first διά is a place, but of the second and third, a thing.
30. As argued by Vanhoye, “Tent.” See also Vanhoye, Old Testament, 189–96, for a summary in English. This position also suffers from a lack of clear contextual support.
31. ἰδίου, “his own,” is stronger than αὐτοῦ would have been (Spicq, 2:257).
32. Riggenbach, 260–61, n. 19. Weiss, 467, agrees that Christ’s “blood” refers to the giving up of his life as an offering in death. See Johnson, 237, and O’Brien, 321. Note the association of Christ’s blood with his death in the traditions of the Last Supper (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:25, 27). The NT often associates blood with Christ’s death (Matt 27:24–25; John 19:34; Acts 20:28; Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:14, 20; 1 Pet 1:2, 9; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11; 19:13). For a thorough refutation of Westcott’s argument (294) that shed “blood” represents the life of the victim made available for others see Philip E. Hughes, “The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews, Part I: The Significance of the Blood of Jesus,” BSac 130 (1973): 99–109, and Leon Morris, “The Biblical Use of the Term ‘Blood,’” JTS 3 (1952): 216–27, esp. 223, 227.
33. Stökel Ben Ezra, Yom Kippur, 189.
34. See on 9:7 above, where the verb προσφέρω, “offer,” is used of the high priest’s carrying the blood into the Most Holy Place.
35. Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 108, says, “The language throughout Chap. 9 indicates that the blood of Jesus was actually offered in the heavenly tabernacle.” However, neither he nor Mitchell, 185, who affirms the same position, provides any support for this statement. The NRSV, “with his own blood,” is misleading. The pastor intentionally uses διά (“by means of”) his own blood instead of μέτα (“with”) or ἐν (“in,” “with”). See Riggenbach, 260; Bruce, 212–13; O’Brien, 321; and Gordon, 120. Walter Edward Brooks, “The Perpetuity of Christ’s Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JBL 89 (1970): 205–14, argues that Christ has carried his blood into the Sanctuary, where he continually offers it before the throne of God. For a thorough refutation of this position see Hughes, “Blood,” 99–109, and Hughes, “Sacrifice,” 195–212.
36. See O’Brien, 321 n. 89, “by virtue of … his death he entered the heavenly sanctuary” (italics original).
37. Pace Johnson, 237; Koester, 406; and Attridge, 244. The aorist participle εὑράμενος, “having obtained,” denotes action logically, if not temporally, prior to the main verb “entered.” Hughes, 328, n. 84, has clearly demonstrated that Christ obtained this redemption by his sacrifice before and in order to enter God’s presence. See Hughes’ excursus, “The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood,” 329–54; and Hughes, “Sacrifice,” 210. Cf. Ellingworth, 452–53.
38. Thus we would heed Riggenbach’s warning (259–62) not to separate the two but avoid Koester’s (415) confusion of the two as both part of Christ’s sacrifice.
39. See λύτρωσις (“redemption”) in Lev 25:29, 48; Pss 48:8; 111:9; 129:7 (Johnson, 236).
40. Exod 6:6; 13:15; 15:13; Deut 7:8; 9:26; 13:5 (Johnson, 236). See also Ellingworth, 453, and Pss. 59:1; 77:15.
41. Pace Weiss, 468, n. 21. This “eternal redemption” certainly includes forgiveness for sins, but, in light of v. 14 below, it should not be limited to forgiveness in a narrow sense, as O’Brien’s discussion of this subject (322) might suggest.
42. The finality of a “once-for-all” sacrifice results in the finality of an “eternal redemption” (Weiss, 468; Riggenbach, 262). It was possible only for one who was the eternal Son to obtain such “eternal” redemption (Johnson, 236).
43. Riggenbach, 263–65.
44. “The death of Christ accomplishes this cleansing from sins (1:3) and liberation from sinful impulses (9:14: νεκρὰ ἔργα, which defile as contrasted with those done in the service of God). It thus gives access to holiness and enables man truly to live in the presence of God.” Friedrich Hauck and Rudolf Meyer, “καθαρός, καθαρίζω, καθαίρω, καθαρότης,” TDNT 3:426.
45. Thus it is strange when Witherington, 269, says that Hebrews’ criticism of the old system was “less severe” than that voiced against the Temple by such sources as 1QpHab 12:8–9; T. Mos. 6:1; and Sib. Or. 4.8.27.
46. Ellingworth, 454. Heb 9:13 uses ταῦρος (“bull”); Heb 9:12 and Lev 16:11–19, μόσχος (“calf”).
47. Later rabbinic tradition asserted that the water produced with these ashes was used to purify the high priest before the Day of Atonement. However, pace W. Horbury, “The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JSNT 19 (1983): 51–52, who is followed by Stökel Ben Ezra, Yom Kippur, 188, there is no indication that Hebrews was drawing on a tradition that already associated these two rituals.
48. O’Brien, 323; cf. Mitchell, 183. Although ῥαντίζουσα (“sprinkling”) agrees with the feminine singular σποδός (“ashes”), it is probably also meant to qualify the αἷμα (“blood”) of “bulls and goats” (Ellingworth, 455).
49. Thus, Weiss, 469, is correct in asserting that the water-of-purification ritual was introduced to strengthen the typological relationship between old and new—ritual cleansing/inner cleansing. See Lane, 2:239. Hughes’s suggestion (462–63) that the author may have mentioned this ritual because it was practiced at Qumran is gratuitous.
50. The pastor does not compare the blood of animals to the blood of a human being or a martyr (cf. 4 Macc 6:29; 17:22), but to the blood of Christ, the obedient incarnate Son of God (Koester, 415).
51. O’Brien, 323, citing Michel, 314; Lane, 2:240; Ellingworth, 456; Peterson, Perfection, 138.
52. Albert Vanhoye, “Esprit éternel et feu du sacrifice en He 9, 14,” Bib 64 (1983): 263–74; followed by Weiss, 473, and Koester, 415, thinks “eternal Spirit” is the typological fulfillment of the “perpetual fire” (see Lev 6:5–6) upon which the old sacrifices were burned. For critique see M. Emmrich, “‘Amtscharisma’: Through the Eternal Spirit (Hebrews 9:14),” BBR 12 (2002): 18; Attridge, 250. The pastor has hardly given his hearers sufficient contextual clues to make this identification.
53. Advocates of Christ’s divine nature include Westcott, 262; Riggenbach, 266–67; Moffatt, 124; Spicq, 2:258–59; Montefiore, 154–55; and Hughes, 358–59. Bruce, 216–17; Lane, 2:240; Ellingworth, 456–57; Weiss, 472–73; Witherington, 270–71; George Guthrie, 312; Emmrich, “‘Amtscharisma,’” 22–25; Vanhoye, “Esprit Éternel”; and many others identify the “eternal Spirit” with the Holy Spirit. A few, such as Bénétreau, 2:82, and Johnson, 238, appear to take “eternal Spirit” as Christ’s own spirit. Taken this way, the phrase reinforces the voluntary nature of Christ’s “blameless” obedience. As Bénétreau himself admits, this position is difficult to reconcile with the use of “eternal.” Westcott, 262, almost joins this last position to the first when he argues that Christ’s “eternal Spirit” (his divine nature) includes his more limited “human” spirit (cf. Attridge, 251). Pace Grässer, 2:159, there is nothing to indicate that “the eternal Spirit” who was the means of Christ’s effective offering is a synonym for “the heavenly realm” in which his sacrifice was supposedly offered. See critique in Emmrich, “‘Amtscharisma,’” 22, n. 25.
54. The Latin Vulgate also reads “Holy Spirit” (Hughes, 358).
55. See Emmrich, “‘Amtscharisma,’” 17–32. Emmrich is able to show that Jewish tradition affirmed the necessity of the Holy Spirit for the work of the high priest as well as for the office of prophet or king. However, he has not been able to demonstrate close verbal or conceptual connection between Hebrews and any of these Jewish sources.
56. Compare the pastor’s purposeful description of the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of Grace” in 10:29.
57. The omission of the definite article before “eternal Spirit” (πνεύματος αἰωνίου, instead of τοῦ πνεύματος αἰωνίου, “the eternal Spirit”) is no objection to the Holy Spirit as the referent of this phrase. The pastor uses the definite article before “Holy Spirit” in 3:7; 9:8; and 10:15 when the Holy Spirit is the subject of the sentence. He uses the article with the direct object “Spirit of Grace” in 10:29. However, he omits the article in 2:4 and 6:4, where “Holy Spirit” is the genitive qualifier of a noun. The grammatically subordinate place of “through the eternal Spirit” in 9:14 is closer to these two passages.
58. While “by the power of an indestructible life” in 7:16 does not refer directly to Christ’s self-offering, it does refer to his becoming the all-sufficient (High) Priest (cf. γέγονεν, “he has become”). Since entering into his effective high priesthood and his self-offering are co-terminus (5:7–10; 7:26–28), this phrase is, pace Emmrich, clearly relevant to our understanding of “by the eternal Spirit” in 11:14. Emmrich seems to be so afraid of reading later Christological developments back into Hebrews that he fails to grasp what Heb 7:1–25 is affirming. It is the eternal nature of the Son and not merely the unending duration of his priesthood that qualifies him as effective (High) Priest. See Emmrich, “‘Amtscharisma,’” 20–21. Ellingworth, 457, and Attridge, 251, evidence a similar fear that prevents them from acknowledging Hebrews’ clear affirmations of the Son’s deity.
59. Pace Riggenbach, 267, and many others, it is not likely that the pastor is thinking primarily of Christ’s resurrection when he says he offered himself “by means of eternal Spirit.” If Christ’s sacrifice was his life of obedience culminating in the cross (see also 10:5–10), then it would be natural to say that he accomplished this “by means of the eternal Spirit.” This interpretation fits well with the following adjective “blameless.” There is nothing in the context about resurrection.
60. “The statement in Hebrews is a logical deduction from the gospel portrait of Jesus” (Donald G. Guthrie, New Testament Theology [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981], 568), cited by Kistemaker, 251–52.
61. An important aspect of the pastor’s thought is lost if “eternal” is reduced to mere “eschatological,” as suggested by Werner Bieder, “Pneumatologische Aspekte im Hebräerbrief,” in Neues Testament und Geschichte (Festschrift for O. Cullmann), ed. H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1972), 251–60, cited in Emmrich, “‘Amtscharisma,’” 22, n. 26. The “eternal salvation” (5:9) that Christ brings is “eschatological” in the sense that it is God’s final and fully sufficient salvation. It is this, however, because it is based on the power of the eternal God.
62. The use of αἰώνιος (“eternal”) in v. 14 is particularly appropriate because of its occurrence in v. 12 (“eternal redemption”) and its pending reuse in v. 15 (“eternal inheritance”). Cf. also 5:9 and 13:20.
63. Emmrich, “‘Amtscharisma,’” 25–27.
64. See ἄμωμον, “without blemish,” in Exod 29:1; Lev 1:3; Num. 6:14; 19:2; and Philo, Dreams 1.62; Sacrifices 51 (Lane, 2:240; Johnson, 238).
65. ἄμωμον, “without blemish,” was also used for the moral integrity of human beings in Pss 18:23, 30; 37:18; Prov 11:5 (Lane, 2:240; Johnson, 238).
66. Ellingworth (458) is correct in saying that this word refers to the moral purity of Christ which is the basis of his effective sacrifice and not to something he obtained in heaven, although he of course maintains this purity there. See also Hughes, 357, n. 4; Lane, 2:240.
67. William G. Johnsson, “Defilement/Purification and Hebrews 9:23,” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), 79–103, esp. 88–89. See also William G. Johnsson, “Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews,” Ph.D. dissertation (Vanderbilt University, 1973); and Peterson, Perfection, 140. This last reference is cited approvingly by O’Brien, 326.
68. “‘Conscience’ (συνείδησις) is the human organ of religious life embracing the whole person in relationship to God.… It is the point at which a person confronts God’s holiness” (Lane, 2:240–41).
69. Attridge, 252; Ellingworth, 459; and Gordon, 121–22; cf. deSilva, 307, but pace Johnson, 239; Lane, 2:240; and others.
70. On “dead works” and idolatry see deSilva, 307.
71. λατρεύειν, “to serve” or “to worship,” is used for all God’s people and not just for the service of priests (cf. 9:9; 10:1; 12:28). Riggenbach, 269; Attridge, 252.
72. “The new internal and spiritual relation of man to God established by Christ involved of necessity a New Covenant” (Westcott, 263). “Thus the death of Christ appears under a twofold aspect. His blood is the means of atonement and the ratification of the Covenant which followed upon it” (Westcott, 264). Cf. Riggenbach, 270.
73. Pace Ellingworth, 461, within the immediate context this “eternal inheritance” is something to be received in the future (note the aorist subjunctive of λάβωσιν, “take,” “receive”) through the present mediation of Christ.
74. The way Spicq, 2:261–62, restricts these “transgressions” to the pre-Christ era seems to limit Christ’s mediatorial work to the past. See also Koester, 417.
75. ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ means “on the basis of the first covenant”; contrast ἐπʼ αὐτῆς, used for the Aaronic priesthood in 7:11 (cf. 9:10, 17) (Johnson, 239)
76. Rather than the “outward” and “legal” aspect of these offenses, as advocated by Johnson, 239.
77. Westcott, 264. Pace Ellingworth, 461, the immediate context forbids locating this “redemption” in the future. The pastor has just described the benefits that Christ’s death has already provided and called them “eternal redemption” in v. 12 above.
78. Cf. Lane, 2:241–42.
79. Thus the perfect tense of the substantive participle οἱ κεκλημένοι, “those who have been called,” indicates that they have been called and continue to live in the effect of that calling—that is, as the “called ones.” See Riggenbach, 271–72, and Spicq, 2:261. They are “the ‘called-elect’ of all time” (Bénétreau, 2:86).
80. “And ‘those who have been called’ are not distinguished as a separate population from those who may have transgressed under the Sinai covenant” (Johnson, 240).
81. See Hughes, 367.
1. For extensive bibliography on the theme of covenant see Bruce, 221–24, nn. 115–33.
2. Bénétreau, 2:85–87; Moffatt, 127–28; Spicq, 2:260, 262; Wilson, 158; J. S. Wiid, “The Testamental Significance of διαθήκη in Hebrews 9:15–22,” Neotestamentica 26 (1992): 149–56; Montefiore, 156–57; and Johnson, 240. Montefiore and Johnson appeal to the language of inheritance in support of “testament,” but inheritance language is at home in a “covenant” environment (Bruce, 223).
4. Cf. Attridge, 255; deSilva, 308–9.
5. On the conceptual unity of Hebrews see Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 425–26.
6. See the definitive defense of “covenant” instead of “will” for διαθήκη in John J. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff and Galatians III 15ff.: A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure,” NovT 21 (1976–77): 27–66. His arguments are summarized and augmented in Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 416–26.
7. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff,” 61–63; Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 418.
8. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff,” 43–47; Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 417–18.
9. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 421–22. See 1:3; 2:9; 9:11–12; 10:10–13.
10. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 421–25. “The mediation of both covenants is primarily cultic, the sacred realm of liturgy not the secular realm of law” (Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 424).
11. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff,” 33–34, 63; Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 420–21.
12. Lane, 2:242–43; Westcott, 265–66; George Guthrie, 313; G. D. Kilpatrick, “Διαθήκη in Hebrews,” ZNW 68 (1977): 263–65.
13. See also L. Lincoln, “Translating Hebrews 9:15–22 in Its Hebraic Context,” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 12 (1999): 1–29.
14. For an evaluation of this position see Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 426–31.
15. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 426–36. See also Scott W. Hahn, “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death: Διαθήκη in Heb 9:15–22,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Biblical Interpretation Series 75; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 65–88.
16. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 431. Thus, these verses are an explanation of θανάτου γενομένου, “a death having occurred” (v. 15), or, as above, taking the participle as causal, “because a death has occurred.”
17. ὅπου in v. 16 reinforces the general reference to covenant, “wherever” (Ellingworth, 463). But see Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 432, who argues for a causal significance here on the basis of Heb 9:16; 10:18 (cf. 1 Cor 3:3; 4 Macc 14:11, 14, 19; BDAG 576a, def. 2b).
18. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 433.
19. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 432. Most interpreters espouse a translation something like the NRSV’s “be established.” Attridge, 256, confesses the difficulty felt by virtually all who accept such a translation when he admits that “the sense of φέρεσθαι is somewhat uncertain.” Hahn’s comment is telling: “The idiosyncrasy of the phrase is demonstrated by the way lexicographers treat it as a special case, being unable to produce analogous citations” (Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 419). He references BDAG 855b; LSJ, 1923a; and L&N 1.§70.5.
20. See φέρω (“bring,” “bear”) in Heb 9:16 and Isa 53:3–4. See Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 433.
21. See ἀναφέρω for “bearing” sin in Heb 9:28 and Isa 53:11, 12. Isa 53:1–12 shares other significant terms with Heb 9:15–22: θάνατος (“death,” Heb 9:15, 16; Isa 53:8, 9, 12); κληρονομία (“inheritance,” Heb 9:15; Isa 53:12); καθαρίζω (“cleanse,” Heb 9:22–23; Isa 53:10); λάος (“people,” Heb 9:19; Isa 53:8). See Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 433, n. 75.
22. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 433–34. The plural, “on the basis of deaths,” would be a very awkward and unusual way of referring to the time of a will maker’s death (Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff,” 44). O’Brien, 332, agrees with Hahn that vv. 16 and 17b refer to the death of the covenant maker brought about by the breaking of the covenant. Yet he thinks “on the basis of deaths” in v. 17a refers to the sacrificial animals by which a covenant was inaugurated and which symbolized the fate of the covenant maker if the covenant was broken. If one accepts this revision of Hahn’s thesis, then “covenant” would mean “broken covenant” in v. 16; “covenant” in v. 17a; and “broken covenant” again in v. 17b. There is, however, no reason why the pastor should not have been thinking of the “deaths” of the disobedient wilderness generation as well as of other covenant breakers.
23. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 434. Cf. Ezek 17:15: “Can he break the covenant and yet escape?”
24. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant,” 434, argues that ὅθεν, “therefore,” “that is why,” shows the close connection between vv. 18–22 and vv. 16–17. When vv. 16–17 are rightly understood, there is no reason for ὅθεν to refer back to v. 15, as Ellingworth, 465–66, contends, especially since, as Ellingworth admits, Hebrews habitually uses ὅθεν in reference to what immediately precedes.
25. ἐγκεκαίνισται refers to the inauguration of the Old Covenant in this verse and to the inauguration of the New in 10:20. The perfect tense reminds us that the inauguration of the Old Covenant is permanently recorded in Scripture (Ellingworth, 466, citing Riggenbach and Michel).
26. Hughes, 376, citing Delitzsch. Water was used in the purification of lepers (Lev 14:5–9) and of cultic officials and people (Num 19:7–10). For scarlet wool see Lev 14:4; for hyssop, Lev 14:4–5; Num 19:6; Ps 51:7; and John 19:29. See Ellingworth, 468.
27. Hughes, 376.
28. Pace Ellingworth, 468, and others.
29. Note how Moses warns the people in Deut 32:45–47 to obey “all the words” he has declared to them. Cf. Ellingworth, 467.
30. Westcott, 266.
31. Hebrews uses the stronger ἐνετείλατο, “complete,” in place of the LXX διέθετο, “make a covenant.” See on the related συντελέσω in 8:8 above.
32. The LXX puts κύριος (“Lord”) right after διέθετο (“was made”), but Hebrews substitutes ὁ θέος, “God,” and withholds it until the end of the sentence. See Lane, 2:245, and Ellingworth, 469–70, for other suggestions concerning the altering of these words.
33. The parallels are even more striking in Greek: λαβὼν τὸ αἷμα … πάντα τὸν λαὸν ἐρράντισεν, 20 λέγων? τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης (Heb 9:19b–20). καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον … ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων?… τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης (Matt 26:27–28).
34. Compare τὸ αἷμα … ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (“the blood … poured out for the forgiveness of sins”) in Matt 26:28 and χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις (“without shedding of blood there is no release”) in Heb 9:22. αἱματεκχυσία (“shedding of blood”) is compounded from the words used in Matthew for αἷμα (“blood”) and ἐκχέω/ἐκχύννω (“pour out”). See BDAG, 26–27, 312. The word translated “forgiveness” in Matthew is the same word we have translated “release” in Hebrews (ἄφεσις).
35. Ellingworth, 469. See Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff,” 52–57. Cf. Spicq, 2:264; Michel, 317–18; Grässer, Bund, 111–12; Theissen, Untersuchungen, 72–75. Bénétreau, 2:88, shares Braun’s doubts as to this allusion.
36. καὶ … δέ mark the continuity with v. 19 and may indicate emphasis, “moreover; what is more” (Ellingworth, 470).
37. See references in Hughes, 377.