The Epistle to the Hebrews

38. For example, water in Lev 15:10; fire in Num 31:22–23 (Montefiore, 158).

39. See the following tractates of the Babylonian Talmud, b. Yoma 5a; b. Zebaḥim 6a; b. Menaḥot 93b; and cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.205.

40. See Ellingworth, 472–73.

41. Compare αἱματεκχυσίας, “shedding of blood,” with αἷμα ἐκχεῖν, “to shed, pour out blood.” Since this phrase was used for pouring the remaining blood at the base of the altar, T. C. G. Thornton, “The Meaning of αἱματεκχυσία in Heb. IX.22,” JTS 15 (1964): 63–65, has argued that Hebrews uses αἱματεκχυσίας in reference to the application of the blood to the altar. However, Norman H. Young, “Αἱματεκχυσία: A Comment,” ExpTim 90 (1979): 180, has shown that the pouring of the blood on the base of the altar was distinct from sprinkling the atoning blood on the altar. Even the rabbinic tractate Thornton cites in support of his argument maintains this distinction (b. Zebaḥim 36b, 51ab). The pastor’s focus is on the death of Christ, not the application of his blood to a heavenly altar.

42. Cf. “release” in Luke 4:18.

43. See Johnsson, “Defilement,” 324–29, cited in Lane, 2:246–47. There is no “release” “without the shedding” of Christ’s “blood” (Pfitzner, 132).

44. “By expiation, appeasing the divine wrath, one is liberated from slavery to sin and the condemnation it entailed” (Spicq, 2:265).

45. “He, as their substitute, paid the covenant penalty of death due them” (Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff,” 48).

1. Guthrie, Structure, 121, entitles 9:1–10:18 “The Superior New Covenant Offering” and then divides it into three sections, 9:1–10; 9:11–28; and 10:1–18. However, the superiority of Christ’s offering is more clearly elucidated by the division suggested above.

2. There is widespread agreement that 10:1–18 forms a unit divisible into four subsections, vv. 1–4, 5–10, 11–14, and 15–18 (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 219). Most also recognize a paragraph break between 9:22 and 23 (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 208, 210, 218). However, the climactic nature of 9:22 (cf. 10:18) and the return to the theme of sanctuary in 9:23–24 (cf. 8:1–2; 9:1–10) indicate that the new section should begin with 9:23. Furthermore, the contrast in 9:24 supports the contrast in 9:23. Verses 25–28 return to the theme of the “once-for-all” sacrifice of Christ and thus should be joined with 10:1–4. See Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18,” 191–98, esp. 191–92.

3. Westfall is right when she argues that 10:1–18 is not a mere summary or recapitulation of what has gone before. See Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 229. The pastor has introduced new material. However, pace Westfall, new material does not preclude 9:23–10:18 from being the conclusion of this central section on Christ’s high priesthood.

4. Ellingworth, 489, says that 10:1–4, 5–10, and 11–14 form a “triptych” of three paragraphs of which the second, vv. 5–10, holds the central position. Our analysis would agree, except that we begin the first unit at v. 25: 9:25–10:4; 10:5–10; 10:11–14.

1. A literal translation of the Greek text would be, “Necessary therefore on the one hand the pattern of the things in the heavens to be cleansed by these.” A smooth English translation must supply a verb, either “It is necessary” (cf. NEB, NJB, Braun, Attridge) or “it was necessary” (NRSV, NIV, REB, Lane). See Ellingworth, 475–76.

2. Pace Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 154–55, these words referring to “heaven” are not catchwords that bind vv. 16–23 with vv. 24–28. They occur nowhere else in vv. 16–28. Their true significance is in showing the unity of vv. 23–24. George Guthrie, 314–15, treats vv. 23–24 as a unit in his commentary, though not in Guthrie, Structure, 121.

3. Compare ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, “in the heavens”; τὰ ἐπουράνια (v. 23), “the heavenly things”; and αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν (v. 24), “heaven itself,” with ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (8:1), “in the heavens.” Note also ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθιτῶν, “copies of the true,” in 9:24 and τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς, “the true Tent,” in 8:2.

4. See ἅγια in 9:24 and τῶν ἁγίων in 8:2. Compare χειροποίητα, “made by hand,” in 9:24 with οὐ χειροποιήτου, “not made by hand,” in 9:11.

5. ἀνάγκη, translated here “necessarily,” denotes logical necessity just at it did in v. 16 at the introduction of the last section.

6. The οὖν, “therefore,” that opens v. 23 shows that the pastor is drawing an inference from the previous discussion, especially from v. 22. καθαρίζεσθαι, “to be cleansed,” in v. 23 picks up καθαρίζεται, “are cleansed,” in v. 22a; and τούτοις, “by these,” in 23 refers to the sacrifices/rituals κατὰ τὸν νόμον, “according to the law,” in v. 22a. It is unclear why Ellingworth (477) thinks that τούτοις refers to the old tabernacle and its vessels.

7. For ὑποδείγματα as “pattern” see the comments on 8:5. On the positive typological significance of this term see Ellingworth, 475.

8. There is no reason to take the very general phrase αὐτὰ τὰ ἐπουράνια (“the heavenly things themselves”) as a reference to the heavenly archtypes characteristic of the Platonic worldview (Ellingworth, 477).

9. See Riggenbach, 283.

10. See Spicq, 2:266.

11. Thus, the pastor is describing the completed work of Christ, not the continual cleansing of God’s people as they approach the sphere of fellowship with God (pace David J. MacLeod, “The Cleansing of the True Tabernacle,” BSac 152 [1995]: 70–71).

12. On the other hand, Michel, 323–24, following Bleek, suggests that this cleansing refers to Satan’s being cast out of heaven, a theme popular in apocalyptic literature (12:7–9; cf. Luke 10:18; John 12:31). “Had the author wanted to introduce Satan at this point, he surely would not have been so obscure” (MacLeod, “Tabernacle,” 68).

13. Exod 30:10; Lev 16:16, 19; Riggenbach, 283.

14. Lane, 2:247. Cf. Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary, 81–91; Johnsson, “Defilement,” 256–61; Bénétreau, 2:92; Koester, 421; and Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18,” 192 n. 50.

15. As suggested by Attridge, 260–62 (cf. Montefiore, 160), on the basis of a supposed Philonic/Platonic background of the pastor’s thought. Not only is this Platonic frame of reference doubtful, but it is questionable whether Plato dissolved transcendence into interiority. Attridge’s suggestion sounds more modern or existentialist than Platonic. For critique of this position see Johnsson, “Defilement,” 94–95. Bruce, 228–30, and others have suggested that “the heavenly things themselves” is a reference to the church as the Body of Christ. However, the pastor shows no knowledge of the temple-equals-the-people-of-God imagery used elsewhere in the NT (see comments on “the greater and more perfect Tent” in 9:11 above). It seems clear that he identifies “the heavenly things themselves” and “heaven itself” as the “place” of God’s dwelling and the ultimate destiny of God’s people (11:8–10, 16; 12:22–29). See the thorough discussion of this issue in Hughes, 379–81.

16. “That the entrance to the sanctuary has been made possible not alone by the purification of those who are to enter, but also by an act of consecration in the heavenly Sanctuary itself, is the way in which not only the subjective but also the objective significance of the Atonement is brought to expression in the cultic terminology of Hebrews” (N. A. Dahl, “‘A New and Living Way’: The Approach to God according to Hebrews 10:19–25,” Int 5 [1951]: 404).

17. Some would solve the perceived difficulty of heaven’s cleansing by translating καθαρίζεσθαι in v. 23 as “inaugurate” instead of “cleanse” (Ellingworth, 477, Spicq, 2:267; and Dunnill, Covenant, 232). See 1 Macc 4:36–59 and Exod 29:36; Lev 8:15. It is true that the pastor has just described the inauguration of the Mosaic Tent in 9:18–22. However, “a dedication by means of sacrificial blood would still involve the notion of cleansing and atonement” (MacLeod, “Tabernacle,” 69). See Johnsson, “Defilement,” 95–96.

18. ἀντίτυπα, translated here as “representation,” may mean simply “copy,” or it may have the connotation of “prefiguration,” a “copy” that anticipates the reality to come. The parallel with ὑποδείγμα, “pattern,” in the previous verse (cf. 8:5; compare σκιά, “shadow”/“foreshadow” in 8:5; 10:1; Hurst, Background, 17–19) suggests “prefiguration.” However, the emphasis of the immediate context on the qualitative difference between the Sanctuaries suggests “copy” (“qualitative” difference is more accurate than “spatial” difference, pace Ellingworth, 479). Hebrews’ use of this word is no indication of dependence on Platonic thought. Neither Plato nor Philo used it to describe the “world of sense perception” in contrast to “the heavenly realm of ideas.” That meaning of the term is not found before Plotinus (Enn. 2.9, 6; see Hurst, Background, 17–19). In 1 Pet 3:21, the only other NT occurrence, the ἀντίτυπος is the reality prefigured by the τύπος (“type”). “Representation” (Lane, 2:248) maintains the contextual emphasis on inferiority without evoking the Platonic nuance that might be implied by “copy.”

19. This statement is definitive evidence that the pastor is not dealing with a two-part heavenly Sanctuary. Pace Attridge, 263, in the immediate context “heaven itself” clearly contrasts this sanctuary with the “representation of the true” and not with lower heavens. So Riggenbach, 284–85.

20. Koester, 422; Lane, 2:248. Compare ὀφθήσομαι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ, “I shall appear to the face of God” (Ps 42:3, cf. 17:15), with ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ, “to appear to the face of God,” in Heb 9:24. BDAG, 325, 1, gives the meaning of ἐνμθανίζω as “to make visible” and lists Heb 9:24 as an example of the passive used in the active sense of “to appear.” However, the first example of this usage given, Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.101, refers to God revealing himself and could be understood as a true passive: μὴ γὰρ ἐμφανισθείης μοι διʼ οὐρανοῦ ἢ ὕδατος … , “For I would not have you be manifested to me through heaven or water … [but directly through yourself].” Most of the other references in this category also refer to a supernatural appearance (Josephus, J.W. 47; Ant. 1.223; Wis 17:4; Matt 27:53). Christ’s appearance in heaven “to the face of God” is clearly a real but extraordinary event. The pastor’s point is his appearance to, and acceptance by, God, not his appearance in heaven to the eye of faith (Ellingworth, 480–81).

21. Attridge, 263.

22. Attridge, 263–64, affirms correctly that Christ’s intercession is based on his sacrifice. However, he misunderstands Hebrews when he says that “Christ’s sacrificial death is not an act distinct from his entry into God’s presence.” Beginning with Heb 1:3 Christ’s sacrifice has been the basis for his entrance.

1. Cf. Lane, 2:258: “The writer juxtaposes the single, unrepeatable nature of Christ’s offering (9:28) and the perpetual repetition of the sacrifices prescribed by the law (10:1).”

2. See κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν, “annually” or “year by year” (Ellingworth, 482), in 9:25 and 10:1, 3. The translation “year after year” brings out the Aaronic sacrifice’s perpetual repetitiveness, so important to the pastor’s argument.

3. See ἅπαξ, “once” or “once for all,” in 9:26, 27, 28 and 10:2.

4. Pace Riggenbach, 285, the pastor’s main thesis is found in v. 26b and not v. 25.

5. Thus 10:2–3 is not a parenthesis, as in Lane’s translation (2:253). Rather, v. 3 is the climax of the argument of vv. 1–3, just as v. 26b is the climax of 9:25–26.

6. For further justification of the unity of 9:25–10:4 see Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18,” 193–94. Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 215–19, followed by O’Brien, 335, argues that vv. 23–28 should be taken with vv. 15–22. The transition between vv. 22 and 23 is smooth. Moses’ sprinkling of the “Tent” and all associated with it (v. 22) anticipates the “sacrifices” by which the “pattern” was “cleansed” (v. 23). Yet return to the “pattern” in vv. 23–24 evokes the description in 9:1–10, the previous sanctuary section. On the distinct vocabulary of vv. 23–24 see pp. 414–15 above. Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 217, gives her case away when she says in regard to vv. 23–28: “Therefore, the fact that Christ appeared to do away with sins by the sacrifice of himself is the most prominent information in the paragraph.” This theme clearly ties these verses with the previous sacrifice section, 9:11–14 (15), rather than with 9:15–22.

7. One might diagram these relationship using italics and bold as follows: Heb 9:23–24; Heb 9:25–10:4; Heb 10:5–10: Heb 10:11–14; Heb 10:15–18. This arrangement underscores the centrality of Heb 10:5–10.

8. The pastor has no intention of identifying Christ’s self-offering with his entrance into heaven (Young, “Gospel,” 209). Christ’s offering is his death on the cross (Lane, 2:249). παθεῖν, “to suffer,” in v. 26 refers to his death (Ellingworth, 484). Note how vv. 27 and 28 pair the self-offering of Christ with the death of humanity. Heb 10:5–10 makes it clear that Christ’s offering was his life of obedience climaxing with his submission to death on the cross. See Westcott, 273–74, and Wilfrid Stott, “The Conception of ‘Offering’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” NTS 9 (1962): 64, n. 2. Christ’s suffering, death, and entrance into heaven form “a single course” that happened “once for all” (Weiss, 489). However, his self-offering on the cross is the basis of his entrance into heaven, and that entrance brings his offering to fulfillment, thus demonstrating its effectiveness. See Riggenbach, 286, and the comments on 9:12 above.

9. The ἐν in ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ may denote means, “by [means of] blood of another,” like διά in v. 12 above; or accompanying circumstance, “with the blood of another” (Ellingworth, 481). Christ enters heaven by means of his self-offering on the cross. As noted in the comments on v. 12 above, the fact that the old high priest carries the blood into the earthly Most Holy Place only indicates the insufficiency of his sacrifice.

10. Compare ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ, “with blood not his own” (or “with blood pertaining to another”), with the frequent use of θεοὶ ἀλλότριοι, “strange” or “foreign gods” in the Greek OT (Gen 35:2, 4; Deut 31:16, 18, 20; 32:12, 16; Josh 24:14, 20, 23; Judg 10:16; 1 Sam 7:3; 1 Kgs 9:9; 2 Chr 28:25; 33:15; 34:25; Pss 44:20; 81:9; Hos 3:1; Mal 2:11; Jer 1:16; 5:19; 7:6, 9, 18; 11:10; 13:10; 16:11; 19:4, 13; 22:9; 25:6). Compare also the expression πῦρ ἀλλότριον, “strange fire,” used to describe unauthorized fire offered in censers before the Lord (Lev 10:1; 16:1; Num 3:4; 16:37; 26:61).

11. ἐπεί is causal, “because.” Both here and in 10:2 it appears to precede the final “then” clause of a contrary-to-fact condition (Lane, 2:233k). The imperfect ἔδει, “it would have been necessary,” indicates this counterfactual significance even though the author has neglected to use the normal contrary-to-fact particle ἄν, which was sometimes omitted in Hellenistic Greek (Ellingworth, 483). To compensate for the missing “if” clause, ἐπεί should be translated “because otherwise.” This expression is shorthand for something like, “Because if repeated sacrifices had been necessary.”

12. Weiss, 489, points to the alternate reading of 1908 s a that substitutes ἀποθανεῖν, “to die,” for παθεῖν, “to suffer.”

13. ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, “from the foundation of the world” (Matt 13:35; 25:34; Luke 11:50; Rev 13:8; 17:8; cf. πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, “before the foundation of the world,” in Eph 1:4; 1 Pet 1:20; John 17:24), is a designation for the beginning of time taken from Jewish tradition (As. Mos. 1:14) and implying that God founded the world (Weiss, 489–91). Thus it implicitly affirms the sovereignty of God over his creation.

14. Pace Johnson, 244, this is no contrast between the Platonic “one” and “the many.” The “many” earthly sacrifices are not the dim reflection of “one” heavenly sacrifice existing from eternity. It is the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross that brings the “many” sacrifices to an end.

15. ἐπὶ συντέλειᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, “at the end of the ages,” is a variation of a common apocalyptic formula denoting the end of time (Gerhard Delling, “συντέλεια,” TDNT 8:64–66). See (ἡ) συντέλεια (τοῦ) αἰῶνος, “the end of the age,” in Matt 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20. The use of the plural “ages” (αἰώνων) in contrast with both “from the foundation of the world” and the “once-for-all” offering of Christ makes it clear that the pastor is not referring to a period of time at the end but to the climactic event of the ages (Delling, TDNT 8:64–66; cf. BDAG, 974). Christ’s sacrifice is the climax of the ages because it has brought the plan of the one who founded the world to its fulfillment (cf. Bruce, 231).

16. By being “made perfect” as our high priest (τετελειωμένον, 7:28) and source of salvation (τελειωθείς, 5:9) the Son “has perfected” (τετελείωκεν) God’s people so that they can come into God’s presence (10:14). Thus he has brought about the climax or “perfection” (συντέλεια) of the ages. See the comments on συντελέω, “complete” or “perfect,” in 8:8. Cf. Koester, 422.

17. εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας, “for the abolition of sin,” is a final clause denoting the purpose of Christ’s appearing (Weiss, 492).

18. If Christ’s sacrifice was truly the “climax” of the ages, then it also dealt with the sin that occurred before his coming but subsequent to the “foundation of the world” (v. 26). See Riggenbach, 287. Thus, the faithful of chapter 11 are ultimately saved through Christ (11:39–40). In the immediate context, however, the pastor is concerned with his hearers and their deliverance from sin.

19. With the singular [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας, “of sin,” contrast Christ’s atoning “for sins” (plural) in 1:3; 2:17; 9:28; 10:1. The idea of sin as a principle is reinforced if the article τῆς, missing in some manuscripts, is original. See Westcott, 276; Riggenbach, 288. Pace Ellingworth, 483, it was natural for the pastor to return to the plural in v. 28a because he is speaking of the “sins” of “many.”

20. ἀθέτησις, “abolition,” “removal,” cf. 7:18, is the opposite of βεβαίωσις, “confirmation,” in 6:16 (MM, 12; Weiss, 492, n. 67). Compare ἄφεσις, “release,” in 9:22 and 10:18. “Sin is vanquished, shewn in its weakness, ‘set at naught’ (Mk 7:9; Gal. 3:15)” (Westcott, 275).

21. Ellingworth, 482–83, seems to downplay the parallel with 7:18 and the legal sense of this term because he mistakenly equates “legal” with a mere change in the written code.

22. “It [sin] will never be able to regain its power, having been vanquished once for all by the blood of Christ. This inaugurates a purified universe (8:10–12). Thus the sacrifice of Calvary dominates the history of the world, from its origins until the end of time” (Spicq, 2:269). Cf. Bénétreau, 2:93.

23. “The cancelling of sin must in this context have primary reference to the purging of the ‘heavenly things’ mentioned in v. 23” (Lane, 249).

24. What Hebrews has described goes far beyond the anticipations of the last times in the following passages, cited by Michel, 326; Weiss, 492; Ellingworth, 483; and others: “In his priesthood sin shall cease and lawless men shall rest from their evil deeds, and righteous men shall find rest in him” (T. Levi 18:9; OTP, 1:795). “And he himself (will be) free from sin, (in order) to rule a great people. He will expose officials and drive out sinners by the strength of his word” (Pss. Sol. 17:36; OTP, 2:668). “He will lead them all in holiness [some manuscripts read “equality”] and there will be no arrogance among them, that any should be oppressed” (Pss. Sol. 17:41; OTP, 2:668).

25. Lane, 2:249.

26. Ellingworth, 484.

27. “Appeared” does not refer to Christ’s appearance before God in heaven (pace Weiss, 491) but to his appearance to humanity, first of all in the incarnation (Koester, 422, citing Grässer). Yet the pastor would keep the whole work of Christ from his past definitive sacrifice to his present intercession before his hearers (cf. Ellingworth, 483). Similar phrases in 1 Pet 1:20 and 1 Tim 3:16 suggest that Hebrews may be using common Christian tradition (Ellingworth, 483).

28. Weiss, 490, notes the connection between “he has appeared” and revelation, although he does not develop it in the same way as the commentary above.

29. Note the correlatives at the beginning of vv. 27 and 28 respectively: καθʼ ὅσον … οὕτως, “just as … so.” The validity of Christ’s work is substantiated by its correspondence to the human situation (see Riggenbach, 288). Compare the similar constructions in 3:3 and 7:20 (Ellingworth, 485).

30. The mortality of humanity was a common theme in the ancient world. Compare 4 Macc 8:11 and Josephus, J.W. 5.355. See further references in Weiss, 493, and Ellingworth, 486. Ellingworth, however, is correct when he says that this reference to death and subsequent judgment “strike[s] a distinctively biblical note.”

31. Ellingworth, 486; Westcott, 277; pace Attridge, 265. Elsewhere the pastor never mentions an immediate postmortem judgment. Pace Wilfried Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich: Die mittelplatonische Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 116; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 84–85, the second coming of Christ is not an individual “coming” of Christ to each believer at death. Christ’s second coming is as concrete and universal an event as his first coming with which it is parallel.

32. εἰς σωτηρίαν, “for salvation,” describes the purpose of ὀφθήσεται, “he will appear,” rather than the object anticipated by τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις, “those who await him” (Ellingworth, 487–88). Christ will appear “to those who await him” for the purpose of their “salvation,” rather than, “Christ will appear to those who are waiting for him” to bring their “salvation.” εἰς σωτηρίαν, “for salvation,” is reserved until the end of the sentence for emphasis.

33. The passive, προσενεχθείς, “having been offered,” “was offered,” strengthens the analogy between Christ’s death and the death of human beings (Riggenbach, 289; Ellingworth, 483). Strictly speaking, this is not a divine passive (Westcott, 277; pace Bénétreau, 2:95), for Hebrews never says that Christ was offered by God. Yet the passive does remind us that he offered himself in accord with the divine will (10:5–10; Riggenbach, 289; Ellingworth, 483). The fact that human beings die only once also makes the thought of his repeated dying ridiculous (Hughes, 387).

34. Compare εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, “in order to offer for the sins of many,” with καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν, “and he offered up for the sins of many” (LXX of Isa 53:12).

35. πολλῶν, “many,” is not in contrast to “all,” but to “one” (Hughes, 388).

36. ἀνενεγκεῖν (second aorist active infinitive of ἀναφέρω), by analogy with Isa 53:11, 12, means “bear” in the sense of “take upon oneself” (Spicq, 2:270; Ellingworth, 487; BDAG, 75, 4). “The burden which Christ took upon Him and bore to the cross was ‘the sins of many,’ not, primarily or separately from the sins, the punishment of sins” (Westcott, 277).

37. “His bearing of sin implies the removing of sin from others, and the consequent liberation of those who enter into the benefits of his self-oblation” (Bruce, 232).

38. ἀπεκδέχομαι is normally used in the New Testament of those who wait eagerly for the Christian hope because they are ready for it (Rom 8:19, 23, 25; 1 Cor 1:7; Phil 3:20).

39. Lane, 2:250–51; Hughes, 388–89; Westcott, 276; Spicq, 2:270–71. Bruce, 232, quotes the description of the return of the high priest Simon the Just on the Day of Atonement as found in Sir 50:5–10.

40. Lane, 2:251.

41. Bénétreau, 2:94–95.

42. Thus γάρ, “for,” at the beginning of 10:1, indicates that 10:1–4 supports 9:25–28 (see Ellingworth, 492). οὐδέποτε δύναται, “was never able” (v. 1), and ἀδύνατον γάρ, “for it is impossible” (v. 4), form an inclusion unifying this section (Weiss, 499) and setting it in contrast to the description of Christ’s sufficiency in 9:25–28.

43. Pace Ellingworth, 488, it is a misnomer to use “realized eschatology” for this description of sacrifices that did not produce salvation.

44. “Without the cultus, Hebrews would not have a canvas on which to paint the portrait of Christ—the eternal high priest who has sacrificed himself for the forgiveness and cleansing of God’s covenant people” (Joslin, Law, 254).

45. Weiss, 501, and somewhat begrudgingly Attridge, 270, admit the distance between the use of these terms in Hebrews and Philo. Weiss, 501–2, deconstructs Braun’s advocacy of Platonic dualism as the source of Hebrews’ usage by pitting Braun’s statements against each other. Contrast, “The background of 10:1 is near Plato” with “This terminology is foreign to normal Greek usage.”

46. See σκιά (“shadow”) and εἰκῶν (“image”) in Plato, Republic 509E–510E; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.96; Decalogue 82; Migration 12; Heir 72. At times εἰκών may be used somewhat more positively than σκιά to denote a clearer rather than a “shadowy” copy of heavenly realities (see Bruce, 235, n. 10, citing Plato, Cratylus 306E, and Philo Moses 1.51). However, εἰκών is still a “copy” and not the “reality” itself, as here in Hebrews.

47. The contrast with σκιάν, “shadow”—introduced by οὐκ (“not”) plus the intensive αὐτήν (“itself,” “the reality itself”)—indicates that εἰκών should be translated as “reality” instead of the more usual “image” (Lane, 2:260; cf. Attridge, 270). ⁴⁶ removes this contrast by omitting οὐκ αὐτήν, thus identifying εἰκών with σκιά: “for since the law has a shadow (σκιά) of the good things to come, the image (εἰκών) of the things.” The generally received reading is well supported. Desire to remove the unusual contrast between these terms may have given rise to the variant. Lane, 2:254b, argues that the very structure of this sentence implies a contrast. However, even if the alternate reading were original, these terms would still not be used for temporal “copies” of eternal things as in Philo. Ellingworth, 490, is mistaken when he says that Philo contrasts these two terms in Dreams 1.7 and Alleg. Interp. 3.96. The latter of these two references reads, … τῆς εἰκόνος, ἣν σκιὰ νυνὶ κέκληκεν, “… of the Image, to which the title of Shadow has just been given” (Coleson and Whitaker, LCL).

48. See Lane, 2:253–54a, 259; Ellingworth, 490–91; cf. Weiss, 500.

49. Koester, 431. An attempt to discern a three-way distinction between “shadow,” “image” of the reality, and the “reality” itself is oversubtle and unsupported by the rest of Hebrews (Ellingworth, 490). See the discussion in Hughes, 390, n. 48.

50. The participial phrase that opens this verse is causal: “Because the law has a shadow … and not the reality …” (cf. RSV, NRSV, ESV, etc.).

51. εἰς τὸ διηνεκές probably qualifies the preceding verb, προσφέρουσιν (“offer”), as in 7:3, instead of the following verb δύναται (“is able”), as in 10:11–12 (Ellingworth, 492; pace Westcott, 303–4). Thus “which are offered continuously” instead of “is not able to perfect forever.” This phrase is used for “forever” elsewhere in the Greek Bible but for “continuously” in other literature. The previous use of this phrase to describe the duration of the Son “forever” (7:3) only makes its use for the perpetual offering of the old sacrifices more pungent. Ellingworth (492) cites Bleek, Riggenbach, Spicq, Moffatt, Héring, Buchanan, Hughes, Braun, Attridge, and Lane in support of the former position; Westcott, Peake, Michel, Montefiore, and Morris of the latter.

52. Compare the final τελειῶσαι, “to perfect,” at the end of v. 2 with ἅπαξ κεκαθαρισμένους, “once having been cleansed,” at the climax of v. 3.

53. See the comments on 2:18; 5:9; 7:19, 28.

54. Peterson, Perfection, 146–47.

55. According to Ellingworth, 491, the plural, δύνανται (“they are [never] able”), has a bit better textual support than the singular accepted by the UBS⁴/NA²⁷ text, δύναται (the law “is [never] able”). The plural is perhaps the more difficult reading because it leaves the singular ὁ νόμος (“the law”) hanging. On the other hand, such awkward construction would not be characteristic of Hebrews. The plural verb προσφέρουσιν (“they are offering”), may have influenced a scribe to alter the singular to a plural (Ellingworth, 491–92).

56. κεκαθαρισμένους, “having been cleansed.” See Lane, 2:255i.

57. See συνείδησις in BDAG, 967; Ellingworth, 494; Lane, 2:255j. If one translates συνείδησιν as “consciousness,” then the following ἁμαρτιῶν is an objective genitive, “consciousness of sin.” If one takes συνείδησιν as “conscience,” then the following genitive must be descriptive—“sinful conscience.”

58. Note the ἀλλʼ, “but,” that joins vv. 2 and 3.

59. Westcott, 305, argues that the pastor is not thinking exclusively of the Day of Atonement but is referring “to the whole sacrificial system of the Law, completed in a yearly cycle.” On the character of these sacrifices as an outward “memorial” to sin see Weiss, 504 (cf. Bruce, 237).

60. At least in Planting 108 Philo is speaking of a “remembrance” (ὑπόμνησις) by God rather than by the sinner. In the other references it is not clear who remembers the sins. Hebrews uses ἀνάμνησις, “memorial,” instead of the ὑπόμνησις employed by Philo. Bénétreau, 2:98, n. 1, rightly criticizes those like Héring, Spicq, and Moffatt who find an allusion to the remembrance of sin brought by the offering of jealousy as described in Num 5:15.

61. The repetition of the old was a remembrance of guilt, the “once-for-all” offering of the new a remembrance of grace (Hughes, 394).

62. The alternate reading τράγων καὶ ταύρων (“goats and bulls”) instead of ταύρων καὶ τράγων (“bulls and goats”) is probably assimilation to 9:13 (Ellingworth, 498).

63. ἀδύνατον γάρ resumes the οὐδέποτε δύναται of v. 1.

64. See 1 Sam 15:22–23; Hos 6:6; Isa 1:10–12; Mic 6:6–9; Jer 6:20; 7:21–23; Ps 40:7–10. This criticism continued in Hellenistic Judaism: Letter of Aristeas 234; Philo, Planting 107–8, Moses 2.108, Spec. Laws 1.271–72; Josephus, Ant. 6.141–43. Yet such tradition always considered the offerings necessary (Weiss, 505, n. 32).

65. Spicq, 2:303. Ellingworth (497–98) misses the radical nature of this statement when he says that Hebrews goes little further than the critiques of sacrifice in the prophets and contemporary Judaism. Thus he mistakenly argues that the old sacrifices atoned for unintentional sin, Christ’s sacrifice for intentional sin, with no sacrifice for sin after baptism. Hebrews clearly says that the old sacrifices provided nothing more than outward, ritual cleansing (9:13). They could do nothing for actual sin but remind sinners of the way it dominated their lives.

66. ἀφαιρεῖν (present infinitive of ἀφαιρέω), “to take away,” is similar to περιελεῖν in v. 11 (aorist of περιαιρέω) and an appropriate companion for other words the pastor uses for the complete removal of sin: ἀθέτησις, “abolition” (9:26); ἀνενεγκεῖν (aorist of ἀναφέρω), “to bear” (9:28); and ἄφεσις, “release” (10:18). “ἀφαιρεῖν is used of taking away sins only in Rom. 11:27—Isa. 27:9; cf. Sir. 47:11, but it occurs frequently in this sense in the OT, with a variety of words for wrongdoing and shame (Nu. 14:18, ἀφαιρῶν ἀνομίας καὶ ἀδικίας καὶ ἁμαρτίας; cf. Lv. 1:17; Is. 6:7, 17:9; Je. 11:15; Ezk. 45:9)” (Ellingworth, 498). The pastor is referring to the removal of sins with their attendant guilt, pollution, and dominion over the person.

1. Riggenbach, 299.

2. See the discussion of the significance of Christ’s blood in Hughes, “Blood,” 99–109, and the definitive argument that his sacrifice was offered on earth in Hughes, “Sacrifice,” 195–212. “The blood of Christ is not understood here materially: how could it be? It denotes the offering up in death of a life wholly dedicated to the will of God, a life characterized by unspotted holiness” (F. F. Bruce, “‘A Shadow of Good Things’ [Hebrews 10:1],” in The Time Is Fulfilled: Five Aspects of the Fulfillment of the Old Testament in the New [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 86).

3. Thus this section brings clarity to 5:7–10 as well as to 9:14. D. Hamm, “Faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Jesus Factor,” CBQ 52 (1990): 285, notes that δεήσεις (“prayers”) and εἰσακουσθείς (“having been heard”) in Heb 5:7 echo the opening verse of Psalm 40.

4. The offering of Christ’s body in v. 10 is “the author’s goal in the Christological interpretation of this psalm” (Weiss, 507).

5. On διό, “therefore,” see Ellingworth, 499; Attridge, 273, n. 59. We cannot give unqualified assent to Weiss’s assertion (507) that the impotence of animal sacrifices in v. 4 was a “Christologically grounded judgment.” The pastor may not have perceived their lack without Christ. However, he argues that this lack is evidenced by what is said in the OT text itself: first, those sacrifices were offered by sinful priests (5:1–3; 9:7–10); second, they pertained to an earthly Tent and could provide only ritual cleansing (9:1–14); and third, they had to be repeated (10:1–4).

6. While “coming into the world” may have been a Jewish way of referring to birth (Str-B 2:358), the pastor is describing the Son’s incarnation (Riggenbach, 300; Michel, 336; Koester, 432; and Kistemaker, 274). See John 1:9; 6:14; and especially 11:27, where “the one who is coming” is virtually a title for Jesus (Ellingworth, 500; cf. Attridge, 273, n. 63). Lane, 2:262, calls this phrase distinctly “incarnational” language.

7. For other aspects of Psalm 40 that find echoes in Hebrews’ portrayal of Jesus see Johnson, 250–51.

8. Riggenbach, 304–5.

9. Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis (vol. 10 of Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 143. In the LXX Ps 40:6–8 is Ps 39:7–9.

10. Compare the singular, ὁλοκαύτωμα (“whole burnt offering”), found in most witnesses to the LXX text of Ps 40:6b, with the plural, ὁλοκαυτώματα (“whole burnt offerings”), found in Heb 10:6. Codex Alexandrinus is one prominent manuscript that has the plural in Ps 40:6b.

11. Compare ᾔτησας “you requested,” with εὐδόκησας, “you were pleased with.”

12. Compare the τοῦ ποιῆσαι ὁ θεὸς τὸ θέλημά σου of Hebrews with the τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημά σου, ὁ θεός μου, ἐβουλήθην of the psalm.

13. See ὠτία, “ears,” instead of σῶμα, “body,” in Rahlfs, Septuaginta Gottingensis, 143. For argument defending this reading see Pierre Grelot, “Le texte du Psaume 39, 7 dans la Septante,” RevBib 108, no. 2 (2001): 210–13, and Karen H. Jobes, “Rhetorical Achievement in the Hebrews 10 ‘Misquote’ of Psalm 40,” Bib 72 (1991): 387–96. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus all read σῶμα. Riggenbach, 301, n. 27, argues that the infrequent use of ὠτία (“ears”) in the LXX makes its appearance here very unlikely. According to his investigations, the LXX normally uses οὖς, ὠτός for “ear” (180 times) instead of the diminutive ὠτίον, ὠτίου (only sixteen times). Furthermore, outside of Sirach and a variant of Isa 55:3 ὠτίον is only used in the singular.

14. Ellingworth’s statement made in reference to the plural ὁλοκαυτώματα (“whole burnt offerings”) is more appropriate concerning σῶμα: “Nowhere does the author base an argument on a text which he has significantly changed” (501).

15. Pace Grelot, “Le texte du Psaume 39, 7 dans la Septante,” 210–13, and Jobes, “‘Misquote,’” 387–96.

16. Alexandrinus does have the plural, ὁλοκαυτώματα, “whole burnt offerings,” found in the Heb 10:6 citation of the psalm.

17. An original LXX ὠτία (“ears”) may have become σῶμα (“body”) through a misreading that mistook the final sigma of ἠθέλησας (“you did not desire”) at the end of the previous line for the beginning of ὠτία. Thus ὠτία would become σωτια and then became σῶμα. Such mistakes could easily occur when copying an exemplar without space between words. See Koester, 433, citing Bleek.

18. See Heb 10:30, where the pastor uses a version of Deut 32:35a that differs from the received LXX (Lane, 2:295; Attridge, 295). See also the comments on Heb 1:6 above.

19. Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC 19; Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 313, n. 7a.

20. So Lane, 2:255m; Bruce, 240; Ellingworth, 500; Riggenbach, 301; F. Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (BU 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 1968), 174; and many others.

21. “… if the Hebrew wording had been reproduced literally by the Greek translator, it would have served [the author’s] purpose equally well, for the ears are the organs of hearing, and hence of obeying” (Bruce, “‘A Shadow of Good Things’ [Heb 10:1],” 84). See Attridge, 274.

22. See Jobes, “‘Misquote,’” 387–96, and Karen Jobes, “The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5–7,” TJ 13 (1992): 181–91. She has shown how the last three syllables of the plural ὁλοκαυτώματα (“whole burnt offerings”) in v. 6a (LXX 7a) achieve phonetic assonance with σῶμα δέ (“but a body”) in Ps 40:5c. Furthermore, οὐκ εὐδόκησας (“you were not pleased with”) later in v. 6 achieves a similar effect with οὐκ ἠθέλησας (“you did not desire”) at the end of v. 5b. Because of the adaptations in the last line of this quotation the σου (τὸ θέλημα σου, “your will”) at the end of this line balances the ἐμοῦ (περὶ ἐμοῦ “concerning me”) at the end of the previous. Jobes contends that the author of Hebrews is responsible for substituting σῶμα (“body”) for ὠτία (“ears”). However, it is more likely that he changed ὁλοκαύτωμα (“whole burnt offering”) into ὁλοκαυτώματα (“whole burnt offerings”) to achieve phonetic assonance with a σῶμα that was already in his text. After all, according to Jobes, he changed οὐκ ᾔτησας (“you did not request”) into οὐκ εὐδόκησας (“you were not pleased with”) in order to conform to οὐκ ἠθέλησας already present at the end of v. 5b. The textual evidence makes it very unlikely that the LXX manuscripts have been conformed to Hebrews (Koester, 433).

23. However, Ellingworth, 500–501, thinks that the LXX text received by Hebrews already had the plural, as does Codex Alexandrinus, a manuscript with which Hebrews is often in agreement.

24. Attridge, 274.

25. Pace Ellingworth, 501, who thinks the author has deemphasized this phrase by moving it.

26. The pastor’s interpretation below shows clearly that he took the clause “in the scroll of the book it is written concerning me” as parenthetical: “Behold, I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written concerning me) to do your will” (Attridge, 274; Ellingworth, 501; Riggenbach, 303; cf. NKJV, NASB, NIV, and NRSV). Pace Lane, 2:263, who would make “to do your will” the complement of “it is written concerning me”—“it is written concerning me to do your will.”

27. The omission of “my” before “God” (“O God” instead of “O my God”) does little more than streamline the quotation. In the light of “your God” in 1:9, the pastor could have had no objection to the Son’s referring to God as “my God.”

28. The literal meaning of κεφαλίς, found in the phrase ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου (“in the scroll of the book”), is “knob.” It was the knob at the top of the stick around which the scroll was wrapped. It is used here as a figure of speech for the scroll itself. Thus “the scroll of the book” means “the book in scroll form” (Bruce, 242, n. 44). See Ezek 2:9; 3:1–3; 2 Esd 6:2, cited by Koester, 433.

29. Attridge, 275; Hughes, 397–98.

30. Lane, 2:263; Attridge, 275; Hughes, 397–98; Bénétreau, 2:101.

31. Riggenbach, 302; Schröger, Der Verfasser, 175. The OT is “a prophecy for the Messiah” (Michel, 337) or a “Christbook” (Weiss, 509, n. 45).

32. ἀνώτερον (“above”) “was a common way of referring to something earlier in a document (Josephus, Ant. 19.212; Ag. Ap. 2.18). Yet here it marks an antithesis in the two portions of the psalm” (Koester, 434). See also Michel, 338; Weiss, 507; and Ellingworth, 503.

33. Compare the present participle, λέγων, “saying,” at the beginning of v. 8, with the emphatic perfect indicative, εἴρηκεν, “he has said,” at the beginning of v. 9 (Ellingworth, 503).

34. θυσίας (“sacrifices”), προσφοράς (“offerings”), ὁλοκαυτώματα (“burnt offerings”), and περὶ ἀμαρτίας (“sin offerings,” literally, “for sins”).

35. For distinctions between these words and the Hebrew words they often translate see Attridge, 274, or Ellingworth, 502.

36. Kistemaker, 279, suggests that the indefinite relative αἵτινες (“which”) can be concessive: Cf. “though they are required by the law of Moses” (NLT) instead of “which are offered according to the law.” αἵτινες refers to all of the sacrifices mentioned above, though its grammatical antecedents are θυσίας (“sacrifices”) and προσφοράς (“offerings”), the two nouns in the list that the pastor uses elsewhere. This relative clause is no parenthesis or distraction from the argument (Ellingworth, 504). Although κατὰ νόμον (“according to law”) may echo the legal and therefore ineffective (cf. 7:19) character of these sacrifices (Westcott, 312), it also identifies them as part of the Mosaic law. It would be wrong to make too great a distinction in this passage between κατὰ νόμον (“according to law”) and κατὰ τὸν νόμον (“according to the law”) (Ellingworth, 504).

37. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 216–17.

38. See Jer 7:21–23; Isa 1:12–17; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21. “What was in the prophetic texts an attempt to safeguard the integrity of the sacrificial system becomes in Hebrews a declaration of the inefficacy of the system itself” (deSilva, 320). Ellingworth, 497–98, misses the radical nature of this rejection. He simply misreads the text of Hebrews when he argues that the OT sacrifices dealt with “accidental pollution” while Christ’s sacrifice deals with “deliberate sin” (Ellingworth, 498, italics added). The contrast is not between “accidental” and “deliberate” but between outward ceremonial “pollution” and the sin that taints the heart, the essence of the human person (9:11–14). The OT sacrifices dealt with ritual pollution and were a pointer to Christ’s sacrifice which atones for all sins.

39. See Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 227. The NA²⁷ edition of the Greek NT does not italicize τότε εἴρηκεν (“then he said”) and thus excludes it from the psalm quotation. UBS⁴ italicizes τότε (“then”) but leaves εἴρηκεν (“he said”) unitalicized, no doubt because Ps 40:7 uses the first person aorist εἶπον (“I said”) instead of the third person perfect εἴρηκεν. Nevertheless, it is clear that the pastor’s τότε εἴρηκεν is dependent on the psalm’s τότε εἶπον (“then I said”). See Ellingworth, 504. It would be awkward in this context to express the difference between these two tenses in English translation.

40. “Ἀναιρεῖ is the strongest negative statement the author has made or will make about the OT cultus” (Ellingworth, 504). For examples of ἀναιρέω, “abolish,” used for the annulment of laws see Koester, 434; Michel, 338, n. 2; and BDAG, 64, 1. The strength of this word is demonstrated by its frequent use for “kill” or “destroy” (BDAG, 64, 2). ἵστημι (στήσῃ), “establish,” was used for making (Gen 6:18; 17:7; Exod 6:4) and adhering to (1 Macc 2:27; cf. Rom 3:3, 31) covenants (BDAG, 482, 3). Compare the cognate noun στάσις, “validity,” in 9:8. The sacrifices prescribed by the law could not “take away” (ἀφαιρεῖν, 10:4) sin, so Christ “abolished” (ἀναιρεῖν) them (Koester, 439).

41. It is important to remember that Hebrews rejects the sacrifices of the Mosaic system in favor of Christ’s sacrifice, not the need of sacrifice per se (Vanhoye, Old Testament, 218). Nor is this a rejection of “material” sacrifices in favor of an internal or “spiritual” sacrifice. Christ’s willing obedience was carried out in his “body.” Furthermore, the old system continues to be, what it always has been, a type and foreshadowing of the adequate means of atonement effected by Christ.

42. “This comment [the final statement in v. 9] reminds us of the author’s interpretation of the Jer 31:31–34 passage in Heb 8:13” (Johnson, 252).

43. Thus, the bond forged between Ps 40:6–8 and Jer 31:31–34 is one of theological congruence rather than mere “verbal analogy.” However, this congruence is sustained by the verbal analogies suggested by George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 977. Guthrie notes that both passages use “behold” (ἰδού), and that both refer to God (θεός), sin (ἁμαρτία), something “written,” and the internalization of the law. He admits that in the case of Psalm 40 the pastor terminates the quotation just before the reference to the law’s internalization.

44. ἐν ᾧ θελήματι, “by which will,” is “God’s will as done by Jesus” (Ellingworth, 505).

45. In 8:1–10:18 the pastor reserves the first person plural for affirmation of the benefits received by “we” the people of God. His usage confirms the division of this “symphony” into three movements: “The New Foretold” (8:1–13); “The Old Antiquated”/“The New Foreshadowed” (9:1–22); “The New Explained” (9:23–10:18). As noted above, in the first movement the pastor used OT prophecies to indicate that something better was coming, without describing its quality. Thus, after the introduction in 8:1, he had no occasion to describe the benefits that “we” receive. In the second, the pastor describes the inadequate and anticipatory nature of the old Tent (9:1–10) and Covenant (9:16–22), but begins to describe the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice in 9:11–15. Thus, he says that Christ’s blood “cleanses our conscience from dead works” (9:14, italics added). The third and final movement describes the full glory of the new. Thus, the pastor uses the first person plural at crucial points in all three sections of this movement (sanctuary, 9:23–24; sacrifice, 9:25–10:14; covenant, 10:15–18): Christ has “entered heaven itself to appear before the face of God for us” (9:24); “the Holy Spirit bears witness to us” (10:15), and, at the center of all, “we are made holy” (10:10, all italics added). Thus, use of the first person plural confirms the importance of 10:5–10 as the heart of this symphony.

46. See Weiss, 511. The perfect periphrastic, ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν (“we have been made holy”) allows the pastor to bring the noun for “will” and the perfect passive participle translated “having been made holy” into the closest conjunction: θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι. Thus, he joins Christ’s obedience and our sanctification.

47. The term for “make holy” (ἁγιάζω) is closely related to cleanse/purify (καθαρίζω). The pastor introduces this term in 2:11 where the Son is described as “the one who makes holy” and his people as “the ones who are being made holy.” While this term may denote consecration to God (BDAG, 10, 2), it is a consecration brought about by cleansing from sin. This is evidenced clearly by its use in 9:13, where the old sacrifices “make holy” for the “cleansing of the flesh” in contrast to Christ who by his sacrifice “cleanses” the conscience. Hughes, 395, confirms this interpretation: “… in the terminology of this epistle sanctification, involving the purging away of sin and access into the holy presence of God himself, is synonymous with the whole experience of salvation (see commentary above on 2:11).” Bénétreau, 2:102, agrees with Hughes, whom he names saying that this holiness consists of purification from sin and restoration to the sphere of divine favor.

48. διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος (“through the offering of the body”) gives specificity to ἐν ᾧ θελήματι (“by which will”) at the beginning of the verse. See Spicq, 2:306. Spicq is not quite correct, however, when he calls the “will” of God the “efficient” cause (following ἐν) and Christ’s sacrifice the “instrumental” cause (following διά). As noted above, the “will” of God to which reference is made is the “will” of God fulfilled by Christ.

49. By offering his “body” (σῶμα) Christ offered the life of obedience that he had “learned” (5:6–8) in one final act of obedience. His human body was the vehicle of his obedient life and the means of offering it to God on the cross. Thus, his earthly obedience was both preparation for and an essential part of that final act of sacrifice. See Westcott, 313; Ellingworth, 499; and Hughes, 399. Christ’s obedience was as integral to his sacrifice as physical perfection was to the sacrifices of the Old Covenant (see the comments on 9:14).

50. Attridge, 276.

51. See the comments above on 2:9; 3:1; 4:14; 6:20; and 7:22.

52. Compare the more emphatic ἐφάπαξ, “once for all,” in 7:27; 9:12; and 10:10 with ἅπαξ, “once,” or “once for all” in 9:26, 27, 28; and 10:2.

53. Thus ἐφάπαξ goes with the verb ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν (“we are made holy”), as argued by Bénétreau, 2:102; Braun, 299; Michel, 339; and Weiss, 511; and not with the noun προσφορᾶς (“offering”), as Lane 2:256v; Hughes, 399; Héring, 96; Spicq, 2:306; Koester, 434; and others contend. ἐφάπαξ is normally used with a verb (7:27; 9:12). That the pastor used it to describe the offering of Christ in 7:27 (where it qualified the verb ἐποίησεν, “he did”) does not require that he use it in the same way here. After all, in 9:12 he used it for Christ’s entrance into heaven. He achieves the greatest emphasis by putting ἡγιασμένοι (“made holy”) right after θελήματι (“will”) and reserving ἐφάπαξ for the final position. ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν is still the closest verb.

54. “The offering of Jesus was complete, involving his entire somatic existence. Therefore, the ‘cleansing’ accomplished by Jesus was complete” (Johnson, 253).

55. See the comments on 2:10–18.

56. See Attridge, 279.

1. Ellingworth, 507, notes this shift from focus on Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice itself to focus on the present time in which Christ sits at God’s right hand.

2. Attridge, 279, misses the import of this passage when he argues that it is a mere résumé or summary of what has gone before.

3. Compare the κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν (“year by year”), ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις (“the same sacrifices”), and οὐδέποτε δύναται … τελειῶσαι (“never able to perfect”) of 10:1 with καθʼ ἡμέραν (“day by day”), τὰς αὐτὰς … θυσίας (“the same … sacrifices”), and οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν (“can never remove utterly”) as given in Lane 2:266.

4. With πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκεν καθʼ ἡμέραν (“every priest has stood daily,” v. 11a) compare οὗτος δὲ … εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ (“but this one … has sat down forever at the right hand of God,” v. 12b). With λειτουργῶν καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκις προσφέρων θυσίας, αἵτινες οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας (“ministering and offering the same sacrifices which are never able to take away sins,” v. 11b) compare μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν (“having offered one sacrifice for sins,” v. 12a).

5. Note that the only finite verb in v. 11 is ἕστηκεν, “has always stood,” and in v. 12 ἐκάθισεν, “has sat down.”

6. “The verb ἕστηκεν, though perfect in form, has, as is normal, the force of a present: he ‘has taken his stand’ and therefore ‘is standing.’ Hence ἕστηκα is described as a present perfect by J. H. Moulton, Blass-Debrunner, and Nigel Turner” (Hughes, 400, n. 63).

7. “In the OT, to stand in God’s presence was considered an honour; but the exalted Jesus sits as a sign that he shares the authority of God himself” (Ellingworth, 508).

8. Cf. Vanhoye, Old Testament, 174.

9. Many translations (NIV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV) and interpreters (Bruce, 244, n. 57; Westcott, 314; Peterson, Perfection, 148–49) mistakenly take εἰς τὸ διηνεκές (“forever”) with the participle προσενέκγας (“having been offered”) since it qualifies the verb it follows in 7:3 and 10:1. However, the parallel between εἰς τὸ διηνεκές (“forever”) and καθʼ ἡμέραν (“daily”) shows clearly that εἰς τὸ διηνεκές (“forever”) goes with ἐκάθισεν (“he has sat down”) just as καθʼ ἡμέραν (“daily”) qualifies ἕστηκεν (“has always stood”). See Riggenbach, 308; Bénétreau, 2:103; Braun, 301; Michel, 340–41; Attridge, 280; Ellingworth, 509–10; and Weiss, 512–13. Furthermore, since the phrase ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέκγας (“having been offered for sin”) comes between μίαν (“one”) and θυσίαν (“sacrifice”), it is closely bound to the latter and consequently separated from εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. Finally, this is the climax of the pastor’s interpretation of the first and fourth verses of Psalm 110. His whole purpose has been to explain God’s invitation to “sit” at his right in v. 1 in light of God’s declaration of perpetual priesthood in v. 4. Thus, as a result of his offering Christ “has sat down” as High Priest “forever.” The pastor has already used εἰς τὸ διηνεκές (“forever”) to explain the εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (“forever”) of Ps 110:4 in Heb 7:3. Here, as in 7:3 and 10:1, the pastor uses this phrase to qualify the main thought expressed by the finite verb. Weiss, 512–13, however, seems to think that the pastor has put this phrase between the participle and finite verb to create an intentional ambiguity. A “forever” sacrifice leads to a “forever” session.

10. See εἰς τὸ διηνεκές in both verses. With the iterative present, ἃς προσφέρουσιν, “which they offer” (10:1), εἰς τὸ διηνεκές signifies perpetual repetition, “continuously” or “perpetually.” However, with the aorist ἐκάθισεν, “he has sat down” (10:12), εἰς τὸ διηνεκές affirms the finality of an action not subject to change: “He has sat down forever.”

11. Pace Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old, 978, who says, “Specifically, the psalm verse serves here to emphasize the sacrifice of Christ as decisive.”

12. ἐκδεχόμενος, “eagerly awaiting,” indicates eager expectation (cf. 7:28; 11:10; Ellingworth, 510) without the least anxiety about the outcome, for Christ waits in triumph (Hughes, 402).

13. Peterson, Perfection, 149; Riggenbach, 308. Cf. Weiss, 513.

14. See Vanhoye, Old Testament, 219–22. Vanhoye, however, overstates the case for the parallel between the “perfection” of Christ and of believers when he says: “In 10:14 the participation of all believers in the priesthood of Christ is therefore affirmed” (220). He corrects this overstatement on 222, where he admits that mediation, “the most specific characteristic of the priesthood,” belongs to Christ alone. Thus, “The only priest, in the full sense of the term, is Christ himself.”

15. Riggenbach, 309.

16. Weiss, 514, notes the parallel between τετελείωκεν (“he has perfected”) in v. 14 and (ἁγιασμένοι ἐσμέν (“we have been made holy”) in 10:10.

17. Riggenbach, 309, suggests that, in 10:1 and 14, where “perfecting” (τελειόω) refers to the effect of sacrifice, “the thought seems to be mainly about the perfecting of the relationship with God.” So also Peterson, Perfection, 151–52, who describes this having been perfected as “The consummation of man in a direct and lasting personal relationship with God …” (italics original).

18. Peterson, Perfection, 149.

19. Bruce, 247; George Guthrie, 329; and O’Brien, 357, contend that “those who are being made holy” is a timeless description. This interpretation reduces this statement to near tautology: “he has perfected those who are holy.”

20. Pace D. Guthrie, 208.

21. Bénétreau, 2:105, seems to think that “those who are being made holy” refers to progress in sanctification. Cf. Michel, 341.

22. Compare 2:11, where Christ is ὁ ἁγιάζων, “the one who makes [them] holy.” See Lane, 2:268. We agree with Attridge’s (281) statement that the present tense of τοὺς ἁγιαζωμένους, “those who are being made holy,” “nuances the relationship suggesting that the appropriation of the enduring effects of Christ’s act is an ongoing present reality.” Pace O’Brien, 357, Attridge is not talking about progressive sanctification, but about continuous dependence on the benefits of Christ’s high priesthood for perseverance. While ἁγιάζειν (“to make holy”) may imply separation to God (Bruce, 247), it is a separation that includes “cleansing” (καθαρίζειν) from sin (see 9:13–14; 10:29; 13:12).

23. “The writer locates the decisive purging of believers in the past with respect to its accomplishment and in the present with respect to its enjoyment” (Lane, 2:267).

24. Weiss, 514, describes v. 14 as a “statement of the goal” of 10:1–18. This verse corresponds to the statement of the pastor’s main point in 8:1–2 and is thus the goal of 8:1–10:18. In fact, one might claim it as the goal of the pastor’s entire explanation of Christ’s high priesthood.

1. Koester’s statement (441), “The effects of the new covenant are not fully realized, of course,” is misleading. The New Covenant is not to be equated with the fullness of blessing at Christ’s return. It is adequate provision for perseverance. To deny its present realization would be to deny the adequacy of Christ’s sacrifice.

2. One may call this return to Jeremiah 31 an inclusion (Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old, 978–79), but it is no mere mechanical device. The pastor’s return to this New Covenant passage is integral to the progress of his argument. Cf. Bruce, 248: “In Heb. 8 the oracle of Jer. 31:31–34 was quoted in order to prove the obsolescence of the old economy; now it is quoted again in order to establish the permanence of the era of ‘perfection’ inaugurated under the new covenant. ‘God has spoken in his Son’; and he has no word to speak beyond him.” One might add, “until the Judgment” (12:25–29). See also Attridge, 281, and Lane, 2:268.

3. See pp. 45–46 in the Introduction to this commentary. See also the introductions to 1:1–2:18 (pp. 85–86) and 4:14–10:18 (pp. 218–20).

4. O’Brien, 358.

5. Cf. Riggenbach, 311.

6. Thus ὑμῖν (“to us”) includes both the pastor and his hearers within the contemporary people of God to whom the following exhortations apply (Lane, 2:268; cf. Ellingworth, 512).

7. Riggenbach, 309–10.

8. Emmrich, “Pneuma in Hebrews,” 60–63, correctly draws a parallel between the Spirit as the one who directly addresses God’s people with Scripture in both 3:7 and 10:15. However, pace Emmrich, the fact that Hebrews paraphrases the Jeremiah passage to facilitate its application is no evidence that attribution to the Holy Spirit makes this prophecy a new oracle separate from that given Jeremiah. The pastor regularly paraphrases OT quotations not attributed to the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the pastor believes that Scripture once addressed to the people of God is relevant to the contemporary people of God. Thus, he has no need for such a device to contemporize its message. There is no reason to think that his hearers would have accepted the authority of Jeremiah except for their belief in its Scriptural authority. See the footnote on 9:8.

9. See ὕστερον λέγει (“later he says”), or τότε εἴρηκεν (“then he said”) at the beginning of v. 17 in manuscripts 104, 323, 945, 1739, 1881, and 1505 respectively. It is unnecessary, with Lane, 2:256–57dd, to posit a primitive corruption of the text that a later copyist attempted to restore. Although Ellingworth, 514, does not think the text has been corrupted, he argues that the καί at the beginning of v. 17 indicates that the quotation should be divided at this point. Westcott, 316; Spicq, 2:310–11; and Bénétreau, 2:106, are among those who also think “he said” should be supplied at the beginning of v. 17.

10. Johnson, 254; deSilva, 326; Braun, 304; Weiss, 516; Attridge, 281, n. 44, and many others.

11. Even the faithful under the Old Covenant only looked forward to the intimacy with God now provided by Christ (11:39–40).

12. Attridge, 281.

13. The pastor refers to the “law” as a historical entity in 10:28. Cf. 9:22.

14. Pace Joslin, Law, 243–44. Cf. Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 224, who refers to “the shadow law of sacrifices” and “the law of voluntary obedience.”

15. Hebrews quotes Jeremiah without change in 8:10: εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν (“in their minds”) and ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν (“upon their hearts”). In 10:16, however, the pastor not only reverses these two expressions but changes the εἰς (“in”) of εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν to the ἐπί (“upon”) of the now first expression, ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν. This change only underscores the intentional emphasis put on ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν (“upon their hearts”).

16. Compare ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν (“their unrighteous deeds”) in 8:12a with τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν (“their lawless deeds”) in 10:17b.

17. Compare the aorist μνησθῶ in οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ἔτι (8:12) with the future indicative μνησθήσομαι in 10:17 (οὐ μὴ μνησθήσομαι ἔτι). This change is intentional (see Attridge, 281; Guthrie, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old, 979); pace Ellingworth, 514, who makes no distinction between these expressions.

18. Cf. Weiss, 517, who argues that οὐκέτι (“no longer”) in v. 18 is the foundation for the fact that no “sin offering” remains for the apostate (v. 26).

19. Ellingworth, 515 (citing BDF §456, 3), rightly contends that here ὅπου, “where,” is as much logical as local, giving the circumstances that will result in what is described in the main clause.

20. Matt 26:28; Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; etc. But contrast Luke 4:18.

21. Rudolf Bultmann, “ἀφίημι, ἄφεσις, παρίημι, πάρεσις,” in TDNT 1:510.

22. See Lane, 2:269, citing Johnsson, “Defilement,” 349–51. See also O’Brien, 359–60.

1. For the division of this section into vv. 19–25; 26–31; and 32–39 see Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 172–81; Guthrie, Structure, 117, 127, 131; and Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 239–40, 243–49. Compare UBS⁴, NA²⁷, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, and NKJV. Vanhoye also divides between vv. 32–35 and 36–39. Cf. NIV’s division between vv. 32–34 and 35–39.

2. Some would join 10:19–25 to 4:14–10:18 (Koester, 454; cf. Guthrie, Structure, 117, 136, 144; Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 238–44). Others recognize that 10:26–31 also applies the preceding discussion of Christ’s high priesthood (cf. Lane, 2:279, 290–91; Attridge, 19; Buchanan, 1–2, 92; Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 173–82) and that 10:32–39 introduces the following chapter. They would include both vv. 19–25 and 26–31 with the previous section, but join vv. 32–39 to 11:1–40 (Thompson, 200–201; C. Rose, Die Wolke der Zeugen: Eine exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 10, 32–12, 3 [WUNT 60; Tübingen: Siebeck, 1994], 34). Both of these suggestions recognize important features of the text but fail to fully grasp its essential unity as a bond joining the preceding and following sections. This second way of segmenting the text (vv. 19–25 and 26–31 with the previous section, vv. 32–39 with the following) gives too little weight to the contrast between the faithfulness of the hearers in vv. 32–34 and the apostasy of unbelievers in vv. 26–31. Furthermore, vv. 35–39 extend the exhortations to perseverance found in vv. 23–25. The first way of dividing the text given above (vv. 19–25 with the previous section) rests on the obvious parallels between 10:19–25 and 4:14–16. However, as the exposition below will show, 4:14–16 is tailored to bring the hearers into Christ’s high priesthood, but 10:19–25 is shaped in order to direct them from that high priesthood to faithful endurance. This purpose is best served by recognizing the relationship that 10:19–25 has with what has gone before, but at the same time letting it begin the introduction of what is to follow. All of these features of the text are best accounted for when one takes 10:19–39 as the chain that joins the life of faith described in the following section with the work of Christ expounded in the preceding. Rose, Die Volke, 24–25, is correct when he insists that the author’s exhortation to faithfulness cannot be separated from the high-priestly work of Christ.

3. Wayne Gordon McCown, “Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΣΕΩΣ: The Nature and Function of the Hortatory Sections in the Epistle to the Hebrews” (Th.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1970), 50, 69, 158, 299, quoted by Lane, 2:279–80.

4. Thus 5:11–14 describes their present inadequacy, but 10:19–25, the privileges they now have in the all-sufficient Christ.

5. Wolfgang Nauck, “Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefes,” in Judentum—Urchristentum—Kirche: Festschrift für J. Jeremias, ed. Walther Eltester (Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1960), 200–203; Guthrie, Structure, 79–82; and Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 237–39. See the comments on 4:14–16 above, and the comparison of these passages in the exposition of 10:19–25 below.

6. See “The Sermon’s Rhetorically Effective Structure,” subsection entitled “Heb 3:1–4:13 and Heb 10:19–12:3: On Pilgrimage to the Promised Home,” pp. 65–67 in the Introduction to this commentary.

7. Guthrie, Structure, 136, shows the parallels between 3:7–19 and 11:1–40; 4:3(?)–11 and 10:32–39; 4:12–13 and 10:26–31. He confirms his argument by showing the parallel between 3:1–6 and 12:1–2. See on 12:1–2 below.

1. Weiss, 520; Riggenbach, 313; and most commentaries (cf. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 175–77) recognize the structural arrangement of this passage as based on the causal participle ἔχοντες (“having,” v. 19), followed by three hortatory subjunctives: προσερχώμεθα (“let us draw near,” v. 22); κατέχωμεν (“let us hold fast,” v. 23); and κατανοῶμεν (“let us pay attention,” v. 24).

2. Westcott, 322; Spicq, 2:314; Vanhoye, Old Testament, 222–27; Lane, 2:280.

3. Lane, 2:280 (cf. Swetnam, “Hebrews 7–13,” 333–48), contends that “faith” anticipates 11:1–40; “hope,” 12:1–13; and “love,” 12:14–13:2. The pastor, however, does not make such a clear distinction between “faith” and “hope.” His exhortations to love clearly begin at 13:1. Pace Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 244–53, the exhortation toward love and mutual concern, which comes third in this list, does not introduce the theme of 11:1–12:2.

4. Ellingworth, 517; see Lane, 2:282; Michel, 343; Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 125 (cited by O’Brien, 362, n. 104).

5. deSilva, 336. For παρρησία (“boldness”) as the mark of a clear conscience see Philo, Heir 5–21. See also the discussion in Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 32–33.

6. O’Brien, 362–63.

7. Weiss, 520–21; cf. Lane, 2:274b; Ellingworth, 517; Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 126; Vanhoye, Old Testament, 222–23; and, most recently, Thompson, 202.

8. Weiss, 520–21, calls this boldness “Ermächtigung” (“empowering”).

9. Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 185–200, has shown clearly that Christ’s “perfecting” his own refers to their present privilege of access to God.

10. See Westcott, 319; Weiss, 521–22.

11. ἥν (“which”) is feminine singular, in agreement with εἴσοδον (“entrance”). See Westcott, 319.

12. According to 9:18, the first Tent “was inaugurated” (ἐγκεκαίνισται) not “without blood” (χωρὶς αἵματος). Note the close proximity in 10:19–20 between “by means of his blood” (ἐν τῷ αἵματι Ἰησοῦ) and “which he inaugurated” (ἣν ἐνεκαίνισεν).

13. Koester, 443, reminds us that ἐνκαινίζω (“inaugurate,” “consecrate”) contains the adjective καινός, meaning “new.” καινός, however, is not the same word used for “fresh” or “new” (πρόσφατον) in this verse.

14. ἐνεκαινίζω is used for inauguration and ratification through consecration in Deut 20:5; 1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5; and 1 Macc 4:36, 54; 5:1 (cited by Johnson, 256). The cultic connotation of this term used in contexts such as these demonstrates that “it was by his blood, and not simply by his ascent, that Christ opened (or, rather, consecrated) the entrance to the sanctuary as ‘a new [fresh] and living way through the curtain’” (N. A. Dahl, “A New and Living Way,” Int 5 [1951]: 403–4). Furthermore, this opening of the way to God was “a cultic act of consecration, identical with the ratification of the new covenant” (Dahl, “A New and Living Way,” 405).

15. Lane, 2:274f, 283; BDAG, 886.

16. Ellingworth, 519; cf. Lane, 2:275g, 283–84.

17. Certainly, with Weiss, 523, this is an “enduring” way. If, however, that was all the pastor wanted to say, a form of μένω (“remain,” “endure,” 7:3, 24; 10:34; 12:27; 13:14; cf. 7:23) would have been more appropriate than ζῶσαν, “living.”

18. However, Westcott, 318–19; Bruce, 250; Spicq, 2:315–16; and others go beyond the evidence when they identify this way with Christ himself, citing John 14:6 as a parallel. See Ellingworth, 518. Pace Vanhoye, Old Testament, 225, esp. n. 37, the “new and living way” cannot be equated with Christ’s resurrected body.

19. For “the veil” as that which prevented entrance into God’s presence see Weiss, 523; Riggenbach, 315; Spicq, 2:316. Pace Braun, 307–9; Käsemann, Wandering, 209–10; Schierse, Verheissung, 36–37; and Grässer, Glaube, 110–11, this “veil” cannot be traced to Philo’s veil that divided the world of sense from the world of ideas (Moses 2.74–76) or from the Gnostic “cosmic, demonic barrier” between the earthly and heavenly worlds. There is no evidence for a “school tradition” using this concept in (Christian) Gnostic circles. Furthermore, the references to such a barrier in the Gospel of Philip are probably dependent on Hebrews. Hebrews says nothing about the Redeemer breaching such a barrier. See Weiss, 524; Koester, 444; and Ellingworth, 519.

20. Philo distinguished between the curtain before the Holy Place and the one before the Most Holy Place by using κάλυμμα for the former (Moses 2.101) but καταπέτασμα, as here, for the latter. See Bruce, 199, n. 14; 250, n. 87. Cf. also Philo, Giants 53, “the inmost curtain” (τὸ ἐσωτάτω καταπέτασμα).

21. διὰ (“through”) τοῦ καταπετάσματος (“the veil”), τοῦτʼ ἔστιν (“that is”) τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ (“of his flesh”).

22. See N. H. Young, “Τοῦτʼ ἔστιν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ (Heb. x.20): Apposition, Dependent or Explicative?’” NTS 20 (1973–74): 101–4. In Heb 7:5 there is no ambiguity concerning the referent of the word in apposition. The factors noted in the text above make it unlikely that “flesh” should be taken as a genitive qualifier of the accusative noun “way”: “a new and living way [that consists] of his flesh.” Westcott, 319–21, is the classic advocate of this view. See also Spicq, 2:316.

23. The pastor cannot mean that human “flesh” in general is this barrier, for he is speaking specifically of Christ’s “flesh.” Furthermore, there is no basis in Hebrews for Käsemann’s distinction between Christ’s “body” as the instrument of, but his “flesh” as a hindrance to, salvation (Käsemann, Wandering, 225–26).

24. Bruce, 252. Such positive assessment of the “veil” in 10:20 comes close to identifying it with the “new and living way” (Johnson, 257).

25. Thus, as Young, “Τοῦτʼ ἔστιν,” 101–4, suggests, the solution is to be found in the pastor’s rhetorical intent, not in speculation. Such speculation is evidenced by those who argue that the “veil” represents Christ’s “flesh” in 6:20 as well as in 10:20. While he was on earth, Christ’s “flesh” was “the veil” that “hid” God, but when he passed through his flesh by his death it revealed the way to God (Attridge, 286–87; Johnson, 257; and esp. Dahl, “A New and Living Way,” 405; cf. Bénétreau, 2:111). Westcott, 319–20, describes, but then rejects, this view. The pastor, however, provides no clue that would enable his hearers to identify the “veil” of 6:20 with Christ’s flesh. Furthermore, the “veil” not only hid but blocked entrance into God’s presence. It was typified by the Mosaic Tent (9:3) and thus existed before the incarnation.

26. εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον (“into the entrance,” v. 19) parallels ὁδὸν πρόσφατον καὶ ζῶσαν (“a way new and living,” v. 20); τῶν ἁγίων (“of the Most Holy Place,” v. 19) parallels διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος (“through the veil,” v. 20), and ἐν τῷ αἵματι Ἰησοῦ (“by the blood of Jesus,” v. 19) parallels [διὰ] τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ (“[through] his flesh,” v. 20). In addition to Young, “Τοῦτʼ ἔστιν,” 202; Otfried Hofius, “Inkarnation und Opfertod Jesu nach Hebr 10, 19f,” in Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde: Festschrift Jeremias, ed. E. Lohse (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 132–43; and J. Jeremias, “Hebräer 10:20: τοῦτʼ ἔστιν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ,” ZNW 62 (1971): 131. See Lane, 2:275–76j, and Koester, 443–44.

27. Hofius, “Inkarnation und Opfertod,” 132–43; Jeremias, “τοῦτʼ ἔστιν,” 131. Cf. Spicq, 2:316 and Young, “Τοῦτʼ ἔστιν,” 202. διά (“through” or “by,” when followed by a noun in the genitive) is the preposition in question.

28. For two different uses of the same preposition in close proximity, see the comments above on 9:11–12 and the examples there given. The fact that the second διά (“through”) must be supplied before τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ (“his flesh”) causes hesitation before giving it a different significance (Young, “Τοῦτʼ ἔστιν,” 100–104). Yet on any interpretation “through his flesh” cannot have the literal local sense of “through the veil” (cf. Attridge, 286). The difference in objects is also significant—“veil” or “curtain” is a place that can be passed through; “flesh” is not.

29. Moffatt, 143.

30. See the LXX of Lev 21:10 and Num 35:25, 28, where it uses this more literal ἱερεὺς μέγας (“great priest”) instead of ἀρχιερεύς (“high priest”). Westcott, 321. See the comments on 4:14.

31. There is no reason to take God’s “House” in 10:21 as anything other than what it was in 3:6 (Weiss, 527; Bénétreau, 2:111): the whole people of God for whom Christ is High Priest (cf. Westcott, 321). Pace Spicq, 2:316, the “House of God” is not a reference to the heavenly Sanctuary.

32. “Identifying the community with ‘the house of God’ (10:21) also offers listeners the dignity of belonging to God’s own household in a society dominated by prestigious households” (Koester, 449).

33. Lane, 2:286–87. Dahl, “A New and Living Way,” 408, is correct to emphasize that this “drawing near” includes both private and community worship. Hebrews gives no indication, however, that the primary reference is to approaching God through the eucharist.

34. The articles τάς (“the”) before καρδίας (“hearts”) and τό (“the”) before σῶμα (“body”) suggest the possessive: “our hearts,” “our body.”

35. Lane, 2:276n.

36. Rissi, Theologie, 99. It makes little difference whether one translates πληροφορία “fullness” (Lane 2:276o) or “full assurance” (Ellingworth, 523).

37. Cf. Westcott, 322; George Guthrie, 343; Lane, 2:286. “If πληροφορία τῆς ἐλπίδος [6:11, “fullness of hope”] is the goal of the Christian, πληροφορία πίστεως [“fullness of faith”] is the condition or means of it” (MacRae, “Heavenly Temple,” 193).

38. With Heb 9:14 compare Heb 9:19, Num 19:13, and Ps 50:9. Rissi, Theologie, 99.

39. With λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ (“having the body washed with pure water”) compare λούσεται ὕδατι πᾶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ (“he shall wash all his body with water”) in Lev 16:4. Cf. also Exod 29:4. Dahl, “A New and Living Way,” 406–8; Bénétreau, 2:115–16; Moffatt, 146. P. J. Leithart, “Womb of the World: Baptism and the Priesthood of the New Covenant in Hebrews 10.19–22,” JSNT 78 (2000): 50–51, claims that by giving God’s people the right of priestly entrance, this “washing” (which he identifies with baptism) has taken the place of ordination and thus made all God’s people priests. In fact, God’s people are “now in the position of the High Priest” (Leithart, “Womb of the World,” 62). This last statement reveals the fallacy of his argument. It was not the priests of the old order but the high priest whose function typified entrance into the divine presence. Yet Hebrews is clear that Christ is the only sufficient High Priest. Priesthood consists not merely of entrance but of atonement and mediation.

40. Rissi, Theologie, 100; cf. Attridge, 289.

41. Compare the underlined wording in Heb 10:22 with the underlining in Ezek 36:25–26a.

Heb 10:22: προσερχώμεθα μετὰ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως ῥεραντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς καὶ λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ

(“Having hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and having bodies washed with pure water”).

Ezek 36:25–26a: 25 καὶ ῥανῶ ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς ὕδωρ καθαρόν, καὶ καθαρισθήσεσθε ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν ἀκαθαρσιῶν ὑμῶν.… 26 καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν καρδίαν καινήν

(“And I will sprinkle upon you pure water, and you will be purified from all your uncleanness … 26 and I will give you a new heart”).

42. “In our particular passage, then, the author would not only say that we need no longer have a bad conscience because of our past sins. He would probably say as well that we have been made free from an evil attitude of mind, a consciousness full of evil inclination” (Dahl, “A New and Living Way,” 408). Dahl cites 1 Pet 3:21 as a parallel.

43. Thus the cleansing of “heart” and “body” represents complete cleansing that changes motive, attitude, and behavior. See Bénétreau, 2:116.

44. Rissi, Theologie, 99.

45. See Bruce, 255; Attridge, 289; Lane, 2:287; Weiss, 530; Spicq, 3:217; Ellingworth, 523–24; Vanhoye, Old Testament, 228; Dahl, “A New and Living Way,” 408; and Peterson, Perfection, 155. Even on this view, however, the pastor is not distinguishing the “washing” of baptism as an outward Christian ritual from “sprinkling” as inward cleansing (see Spicq, 2:317; Bruce, 255). The two expressions both refer to the “event” of baptism when cleansing was experienced. This approach interprets the clear reference to cleansing in both “sprinkling” and “washing” by the supposed allusion to baptism in “washing” (Bénétreau, 2:114).

46. Rissi, Theologie, 100, rightly contends that the text is using OT imagery rather than referring to baptism. See also George Guthrie, 344, 348; Bénétreau, 2:115–16; O’Brien, 367–68.

47. Those who argue for a reference to baptism implicitly acknowledge this fact. They assume that the hearers would have made this connection because they had themselves been baptized (Moffatt, 144; Westcott, 323; Spicq, 2:317; Weiss, 530; Attridge, 289; Lane, 2:287; and Dahl, “A New and Living Way,” 406–8).

48. Weiss, 528, sees clearly that the pastor encompasses the whole life of faith within the parameters of “draw near.” He is mistaken, however, when he deduces from this fact that the pastor is no longer using “draw near” in terms of priesthood and worship. The opposite is true: the whole life of faith is now enclosed within the context of approach to God through Christ the High Priest. Heb 13:1–17 will show that the life of drawing near to God through faith expressing itself in love is the “sacrifice” of praise that pleases God.

49. Thus, in agreement with Dahl, “A New and Living Way,” 409, when the hearers draw near, they partake proleptically of their ultimate entrance.

50. The pastor strengthens the theme of endurance. Compare the following: “If we hold (κατέχω) the boldness and boasting of our hope” (3:6); “If we hold (κατέχω) the beginning of our reality firm until the end” (3:14); “Let us hold (κρατέω) to the confession” (4:14; cf. 6:18); and “Let us continue to hold (κατέχω) the confession of the hope firm” (10:23). There is little more than stylistic difference between κρατέω in 4:14 and κατέχω in this verse (see the comments on 4:14).

51. Thus the usage of ὁμολογία in this passage parallels its usage in 4:14 and draws on the foundation laid in 3:1. See Ellingworth, 525, and Laub, Bekenntnis, 10–13. Since, however, the reference to baptism in v. 19 is less than clear, the contention that the pastor is referring to a fixed baptismal confession remains speculative. For those who advocate such a position see, among others, Dahl, “A New and Living Way,” 410; G. Bornkamm, “Das Bekenntnis im Hebräerbrief,” Theologische Blätter 21 (1942): 56–66; Westcott, 323; Spicq, 2:318; and Braun, 313.

52. The pastor is not merely speaking of a “hopeful confession” but of a “confession” that has reference to a specific hope (see Lane, 2:276q; Michel, 347). Ellingworth, 525, takes τῆς ἐλπίδος (“of the hope”) as an appositive genitive identifying the content of the confession.

53. Johnson, 259; Attridge, 289; Braun, 313; Weiss, 532, n. 46; Bruce, 256; deSilva, 340; Bénétreau, 2:115–17; and others argue that ἀκλινῆ is an adjective, “firm,” agreeing with ὁμολογίαν (“confession”) rather than an adverb, “unwaveringly,” qualifying κατέχωμεν (“let us continue to hold”). Attridge cites the similar usage of βέβαιος (“firm”) in 3:6, 11 and refers to Philo, Spec. Laws 2.2; Heir 87, 95; Rewards 30, where ἀκλινῆ is used as an adjective synonymous with βέβαιος. While the lack of an article before ἀκλινῆ does not require it to be adverbial (pace Koester, 445), it does make the adjective predicate. Thus, “hold the confession firm” or “hold the confession unshaken” is a better translation than “the secure confession of hope” (Johnson, 259) or “the confession of hope, the confession that is secure” (deSilva, 340). See Bénétreau’s insightful comments (2:115–17). ἀκλινῆ (“firm,” “unwaveringly”) is used only twice in the LXX (4 Macc 6:7; 17:3) and nowhere else in the NT. However, it is often used by Philo for the immutability of God (Alleg. Interp. 2.83; Confusion 96; Names 176; Posterity 23) or the stability of God’s friends (Giants 49, 54; Abraham 170). Lane, 2:288–89, takes ἀκλινῆ as adverbial, qualifying κατέχωμεν (“let us continue to hold”), because he denies the objective sense of ὁμολογίαν (“confession”).

54. Such an interpretation does not obligate us to follow Braun, 313, who thinks the author is advocating a rigid adherence to the formulas of a received confession (see the critique in Attridge, 289).

55. Here in 10:19–25, where the pastor is urging his hearers to appropriate the benefits of Christ’s high priesthood, this exhortation to mutual concern is vital. It would, however, have been rhetorically inappropriate in 4:14–16, where he was whetting their appetites for his teaching on that subject.

56. deSilva, 341.

57. Lane, 2:276s; Koester, 445. See 1 Cor 13:5; Acts 15:39; 17:10. This predominantly negative connotation is valid even if there were occasionally other examples of its positive use (cf. Johnson, 259, citing Xenophon, Mem. 3.3.13).

58. Johnson, 259, calls “love and good works” a hendiadys.

59. Bénétreau, 2:117. The pastor uses καλός (“good,” “beautiful,” “appropriate”) rather than ἀγαθός (“good”). Westcott, 325, provides an extensive list of references contrasting καλὰ ἔργα (“good,” “beautiful,” “appropriate works”) and ἀγαθὰ ἔργα (“good works”).

60. “The totality of Christian conduct willed by God is summarized in these few words” (Bénétreau, 2:117).

61. Weiss, 534, n. 56, cites comparative exhortations in Did. 16:2; Barn. 4:10; and Herm. Sim. 9.6.3, though these sources postdate Hebrews. He also notes similar concerns in Judaism (Str-B 3:743).

62. Bruce, 259.

63. Cf. BDAG, 382. With the noun ἐπισυναγωγή compare the related verb ἐπισυνάγω in Matt 23:37 (cf. Luke 13:34); Matt 24:31 (Mark 13:27); and Luke 17:37.

64. Ellingworth, 529, notes that ἑαυτῶν could be either “ourselves” in dependence on the previous cohortative, κατανοῶμεν (“let us give attention to”); or “yourselves,” in dependence on the following βλέπετε (“you see”). The former, however, is to be preferred, especially since the participles ἐγκαταλείποντες (“abandoning”) and παρακαλοῦντες (“exhorting”) both qualify the previous verb.

65. Koester, 446, and Spicq, 2:319, suggest contrast with Jewish assemblies; Moffatt, 148, with various heretical groups influenced by the mystery religions. See Wolfgang Schrage, “συναγωγή, ἐπισυναγωγή, ἁρχισυνάγωγος, ἀποσυνάγωγος,” TDNT 7:843, nn. 11–15.

66. Cf. Ellingworth, 529; Bruce, 257–58; and Riggenbach, 323, n. 6.

67. Schrage, TDNT 7:840, 4, Compare ἐπισυναγωγή (“assembly”) with συναγωγή (“synagogue”).

68. Weiss, 533–34. In light of 1:13; 2:5–10; 9:27–28; 10:38–39, there is no reason, pace Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 89–90, to understand this approaching “day” as the day of one’s death rather than the Day of Judgment. It appears to be the same “Day” for all.

69. It was common in early Christianity to use expressions like “the Day” (1 Thess 5:4; 1 Cor 3:13), the “Day of God” (2 Pet 3:12; Rev 16:14), or the “Day of the Lord” (1 Cor 1:8; 5:5; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2; 2 Cor 1:14; 2 Pet 3:10) in reference to the Judgment. Such usage had OT precedents (cf. Amos 5:18–20; 8:9–14; Isa 2:12–22; Zeph 1:12–18; Joel 1:15; 3:14; Zech 14:1). ἐγγίζω, the verb used here for “drawing near,” occurs in Rom 13:12 of “the Day,” in Jas 5:8 of the Lord’s second coming, and in 1 Pet 4:7 of the “end of all things.” Cf. Luke 21:8, 20, 28.

70. Bruce, 259; Spicq, 320, and others think that the pastor may have been referring to certain ever-more-visible signs of the end, like the persecutions described in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse or the impending destruction of Jerusalem. Westcott, 326, goes so far as to say, “The beginning of the Jewish war was already visible to the Hebrews.” The pastor, however, provides no clear reference that would substantiate these speculations.

1. Note the parallels with 6:4–8. Both passages refer to those who have experienced the Christian life (6:4–5; 10:26) and then apostatized (6:6; 10:29). Both recognize that renewal is impossible (6:4, 6; 10:26), for the curse of the covenant is imposed on the apostates (6:8; 10:27). See Lane, 2:291.

2. τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας (“those who have once been enlightened”); γευσαμένους τε γῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου (“and have tasted the heavenly gift”); καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου (“and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit”); καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους ῥῆμα θεοῦ δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος (“and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the coming age”).

3. ὁ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καταπατήσας (“the one who has trampled under foot the Son of God”); καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος (“and accounted the blood of the covenant common”); καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος ἐνυβρίσας (“and insulted the Spirit of grace”).

4. Compare “If we neglect …” in 2:3.

5. See the comments on 6:4–8 and Thompson, 124.

6. Koester, 451; Bénétreau, 2:119–20; Ellingworth, 532; and many others (cf. Kistemaker, 293). The implied negative with the present conditional participle ἁμαρτανόντων, “sinning,” may imply the cessation of action that had been in progress—“Do not continue sinning after receiving.…”

7. See Koester, 451, for non-Jewish sources.

8. Spicq, 2:322, is representative of many who take this OT distinction as a primary source for understanding Hebrews.

9. Num 15:22–31 uses ἀκουσίως (15:24, 28, 29) and words from the same root to describe sinning “unintentionally.” Compare the ἑκουσίως (“willfully,” “intentionally”) used in Heb 10:26. However, Numbers describes the opposite of such unintentional sin as sin ἐν χειρὶ ὑπερηφανίας (“with a haughty hand”).

10. In Posterity 8–11 Philo uses ἑκούσιος/ἀκούσιος to distinguish between sinful acts that are voluntary and involuntary. He contrasts Adam being driven out by God and Cain going out “willingly.” Adam received another seed, Seth, showing that involuntary sin could receive healing. For Cain, however, there was no remedy, demonstrating that sin committed with “desire and forethought” (βουλῇ και προμηθείᾳ) incurs woes “forever” (εἰς ἀεὶ). On the other hand, according to Spec. Laws 2.196, the Day of Atonement provides remission for both voluntary and involuntary sins (ἁμαρτημάτων ἑκουσίων τε καὶ ἀκουσίων). Furthermore, in Spec. Laws 1.234–38 the voluntary (ἑκούσιος) sins against people in Lev 6:1–7 are equivalent to involuntary sins (ἀκούσιος) against God, because both require the same sacrifice. Cf. also Unchangeable 48; Alleg. Interp. 3.141; and Cherubim 75.

11. Thompson, 208, 211.

12. Pace Spicq, 2:322; Ellingworth, 532–33; Weiss, 537–39, and Johnson, 261. Weiss does refer to a baptismal confession of Jesus as the Son now augmented by the author’s teaching on Christ’s high priesthood.

13. ἐπίγνωσις, “knowledge” (10:26a), is more solemn than γνῶσις and refers to both the intellectual grasp and the experience of the truth. See Ellingworth, 532–33; Attridge, 293.

14. A literal rendering of the Greek word order would be, “No longer for sins remains there a sacrifice.”

15. Hebrews uses the plural περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν (“for sins”) although the OT usually described the “sin offering” by the singular, περὶ ἁμαρτίας (cf. 10:18). This difference, according to Ellingworth, 533, implies not merely that there was “no further sin offering” but that there was “no further sacrifice to take away sin.”

16. For the indefinite τις (“a certain”) as emphatic see Ellingworth, 534, and compare Acts 8:9 and Jas 1:18.

17. Morris, 108–9; Ellingworth, 534.

18. Note the parallel between the underlined words in “a fury of fire about to devour the enemies” (πυρὸς ζῆλος ἐσθίειν μέλλοντος τοὺς ὑπεναντίους) in Heb 10:27 and “Fury will seize an undisciplined people, and now a fire will devour the enemies” (ζῆλος λήμψεται λαὸν ἀπαίδευτον, καὶ νῦν πῦρ τοὺς ὑπεναντίους ἔδεται) in Isa 26:11. See also Ps 78:5, “will your fury burn like a fire” (ἐκκαυθήσεται ὡς πῦρ ὁ ζῆλός σού) and the reference to the world being consumed “by the fire of [God’s] fury” (ἐν πυρὶ ζήλους) in Zeph 1:18; 3:8. God’s judgment was commonly associated with “fire” (Matt 3:10–12; 5:22; 7:19; 13:42; 25:41; John 15:6; 1 Cor 3:13; 2 Thess 1:8; 1 Pet 1:7; 2 Pet 3:7; Rev 17:16; 18:8; 20:14).

19. The “fire” has the ζῆλος, “zeal,” “ardor,” of such an animal. See BDAG, 427, 1. Ellingworth, 535, suggests that, in the phrase “zeal of fire,” “of fire” is a genitive of apposition: “zeal that is fire.”

20. Cf. Weiss, 539.

21. Lane, 2:293.

22. Johnson, 262.

23. Deut 17:2–6 describes the death penalty due to one who breaks the covenant through idolatry. Deut 13:6–10 prescribes the same penalty for one who entices someone else to commit idolatry. The requirement of two or three witnesses is drawn from Deut 17:6; “without mercy” summarizes the instructions of Deut 13:8. The pastor appears to evoke Deut 17:2–6 in its entirety with its prohibition against idolatry (Johnson, 264; Attridge, 295; cf. Westcott, 329).

24. This term (here the participle ἀθετήσας) was often used for rejecting God or his law (Mark 7:9; Luke 7:30; 10:16; John 12:48; Gal 2:21; 1 Thess 4:8; cf. Ezek 22:26). Compare this participle with the related noun ἀθέτησις used in 7:18 for the “abolition” of the “former commandment” and in 9:26 for the “setting aside”/“annulling” of sin.

25. Lane, 2:277dd. Ellingworth, 537, suggests that the present signifies the permanent record of the Scriptural injunction.

26. For τιμωρία (“punishment”) as retributive see Aristotle, Rhet. 1369B, and the uses in Euripides, Orestes 400, 425; Wis 19:13; 2 Macc 6:12, 26; 4 Macc 4:24 (Johnson, 264). Thus, such punishment must not be confused with the παιδεία (“discipline”) of Heb 12:7–11 that marks the true children of God. The later is temporal and corrective; the former, final and retributive.

27. ἀξιωθήσεται, “will be considered worthy,” is a divine passive (Ellingworth, 539). See McKnight, “Warning Passages,” 35–36.

28. Ellingworth, 538.

29. ὁ … καταπατήσας … καὶ … κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος … καὶ … ἐνυβρίσας, “the one who … tramples … and … considers common … and … insults.…” All three participles are, of course, substantive.

30. Weiss (540) contends that “Son of God” must have come from the community’s confession because there is nothing that anchors it in the immediate context. This contention, however, is without merit. As noted in the text above, the pastor has prepared for this use of “Son of God” by everything that he has said about the “Son” in previous chapters.

31. This is only the fourth time the pastor has used the full expression “Son of God” (4:14; 6:6; 7:3). Cf. Johnson, 264.

32. For trampling underfoot as an expression of utter contempt and disdain see esp. Matt 5:13; 7:6 (cf. Mic 7:10; Isa 26:6; Pss 56:2–3; and Dan 8:10). Homer (Iliad 4.157) uses this expression for the scorning of oaths, and Plato (Laws 714A; Gorgias 484A) for disdain toward laws (Johnson, 264).

33. Thompson, 209.

34. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 128.

35. Hebrews’ use of κοινός cannot be restricted to the meaning “common” or “ordinary” (Aristotle, Rhet. 1355A). The contrast with “by which he was sanctified” shows that it must also include the more specific connotation of “unholy,” “desecrated,” or “defiled” (Ellingworth, 540–41). κοινός often had this latter significance in Judaism and the NT (Letter of Aristeas 315; Josephus, Ant. 12.112; Mark 7:2; Acts 10:14, 28; Rom 14:14; Rev 21:17; see Johnson, 265). By considering Christ’s blood as nothing more than “ordinary” blood, the apostate has desecrated it. The translation “profane” best encompasses both “common” and “defiled.”

36. The aorist tense of ἡγιάσθη (“sanctified”) shows that the pastor is referring to a definite past event (Westcott, 331), the initial act by which the hearers were cleansed from sin and thus given access to God through Christ at their conversion. Cf. Morris, 107. While their conversion was no doubt accompanied by and included baptism, there is no reason, pace Weiss, 540, to think that the pastor is referring specifically to baptism as distinct from conversion as a whole. Pace Theissen, Untersuchungen, 60–61 (cf. Hughes, 423; Montefiore, 179), the aorist tense makes reference to the eucharist unlikely.

37. Lane, 2:294, calls this contrast “rhetorically forceful.”

38. Hughes, 422–23.

39. If possible, what the pastor is describing is even worse than the sin against the Holy Spirit described in Matt 12:31–32; Mark 3:28–30; and Luke 12:10, because the person he is describing has actually been a “partaker of the Holy Spirit” (6:4).

40. BDAG, 342, translates ἐνυβρίζω as “insult,” “outrage.” It refers to the manifestation of ὕβρις—“arrogance,” “insolence,” “pride”—toward someone. While this verb is not used elsewhere in the NT, such ὕβρις is characteristic of those who assert themselves against God’s will (1 Macc 3:20; 2 Macc 8:17; 3 Macc 6:12; cf. Rom 1:30; 1 Tim 1:13) and deserve his judgment (Prov 16:18; cf. Isa 13:11). Even the Greeks recognized the propriety and indeed the inevitability of punishment upon those who showed ὕβρις, especially toward the gods (see references in Koester, 453).

41. “The emphasis is not on the Spirit becoming ‘outraged’ (NRSV) but on the sinner’s hybris or outrageous behavior (NIV; NAB²; NJB; REB)” (Koester, 453).

42. “One cannot make a more striking contrast than the contrast between ὕβρις [“hubris,” “arrogance”] and χάρις [“grace”]” (Spicq, 2:325; cf. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 128; O’Brien, 379–80). The genitive “of grace” expresses that which comes to expression through the Spirit (Westcott, 331; cf. “spirit of slavery” in Rom 8:15, and esp. “Spirit of wisdom” in Eph 1:17).

43. Pace Lane, 2:294.

44. For other references to the Song of Moses see Rom 10:19 (Deut 32:21); 1 Cor 10:20, 22 (echoing 32:16–17); Rom 15:10 (32:43); Phil 2:15 (echoing 32:5); Heb 1:6. Cf. Deut 32:28 in CD 5:17. For use in Jewish apologetic see Justin, Dial. 20, 119, 130. Bruce, 264, nn. 149, 150.

45. Compare “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” (ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω, Heb 10:30; Rom 12:19) with “On the day of vengeance I shall repay” (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως ἀνταποδώσω, Deut 32:35 LXX) and “Vengeance is mine, and recompense” (; Deut 32:35 MT). Cf. J. Proctor, “Judgement or Vindication? Deuteronomy 32 in Hebrews 10:30,” TynBul 55 (2004): 76. The emphasis in Hebrews and Romans is on the initial ἐμοί (“mine”)—“mine” is vengeance (Spicq, 2:325). Targum Onqelos (“Before me is punishment, and I will dispense it”); Targum Neofiti (“Vengeance is mine, and I am he who will repay”); and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (“Punishment is before me, and I will repay”) support the reading found in Hebrews and Romans. Fragmentary Targum is closer to the MT: “Vengeance and retribution are his” (Proctor, “Judgement or Vindication?” 77).

46. ἐκδίκησις “vengeance,” is used for exacting vengeance for a wrong and is often associated with God (Exod 7:4; 12:12; Num 31:2; 33:4; Judg 11:36; 2 Sam 4:8; Pss 17:47; 93:1; Luke 18:7–8; Acts 7:24). ἀνταποδίδωμι (“I will repay”) and its related noun ἀνταπόδοσις (“repaying”) are often used for God’s “paying back” the punishment due wrongdoers (Lev 18:25; Deut 32:6, 41, 43; Judg 1:7; Pss 7:4; 30:23; 40:10). Johnson, 266. Randall C. Gleason, “The Eschatology of the Warning in Hebrews 10:26–31,” TynBul 53 (2002): 97–120, has argued that the author of Hebrews is encouraging his hearers to leave Jerusalem so that they will not suffer the judgment that God will bring in its soon-to-occur destruction by the Romans. For a definitive refutation of his position see Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 129–32.

47. See Ellingworth (542), who confirms that “and again” puts emphasis on the second quotation and especially on “his people.” Thompson (209) notes that the author uses “and again” to join the first lines of Deut 32:35 and Deut 32:36 for rhetorical effect.

48. Although κρίνω usually means “judge”; Pss 7:9b; 25:1; 34:24; 42:1; 53:3; 71:4; 81:3; 134:14 (Deut 32:36); Prov 31:8, 9; and Isa 51:22 attest the meaning “vindicate.” Cf. also T. Jud. 24:6 and Proctor, “Judgement or Vindication?” 71–73.

49. Note Westcott, 332: “The two quotations establish two facts with regard to the divine judgment. It will carry with it strict requital; and it will extend to all those who stand to God as His people.” We would modify the last part of this statement as follows: “and it will fall on all those who abandon the people of God.”

50. Thus, we agree with both Swetnam and Proctor (cf. also Hughes, 425) that κρίνει should be understood as “vindicate” rather than “judge”—but for different reasons. See J. Swetnam, “Hebrews 10, 30–31: A Suggestion,” Bib 75 (1994): 388–94; and Proctor, “Judgement or Vindication?” 65–80. When we recognize that Deut 32:36a both clinches the pastor’s warning and anticipates his encouragement, it is unnecessary to follow Swetnam’s suggestion that the words of comfort begin with “and again” at the middle of v. 30 instead of at the beginning of v. 32. His argument that φοβερόν (“terrifying”) at the beginning of v. 31 should be taken positively as “awesome” is unconvincing. Proctor uses the first person plural in vv. 26 (“if we sin”) and 30 (“we know”) to disassociate these verses from the “impersonal” way of speaking in vv. 27–29 so that he can interpret v. 30 in light of the comfort in vv. 32–34. Such disassociation is hardly permissible. Certainly, “if we sin willfully” in v. 26 implies that there will be a “certain fearful prospect of judgment” (v. 27) for us. For further criticism of Proctor, see Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 128–29. The approach we have advocated necessitates neither rearrangement nor unnatural division of the text. The fact that the Targums understand Deut 32:36a as vindication substantiates the interpretation given above as much as it supports either Swetnam or Proctor. It is questionable, however, whether we can argue that the Targums represent an interpretive tradition also shared by Hebrews, since they simply take the OT text at its face value and interpret it in a literal, forthright fashion. Attridge, 296, is clearly unjustified when he says: “As usual in Hebrews, the original context does not determine the application of the text.”

51. Lane, 2:296.

52. φοβερόν (“terrifying”) at the beginning of v. 31 forms an inclusion with the same word, φοβερά, at the beginning of v. 27 (Weiss, 542). The terror of God’s judgment introduced in v. 27 is now fully described. This term occurs nowhere else in the NT, except in Heb 12:21 (cf. Westcott, 332).

53. For “falling into the hands of” as coming under the complete power of someone see Judg 15:18; Sir 8:1; Susanna 23; Luke 10:36; cf. Deut 32:39; 2 Macc 6:26; 7:31; and Acts 13:11.

54. Thus, the fact that falling into God’s hands usually refers to reliance on his mercy (see Ellingworth, 543) is no evidence that this passage should be interpreted as words of comfort (pace Swetnam, “Suggestion,” 390). The use of such a phrase to describe the judgment of apostates only emphasizes the terror of their situation.

1. The aorist verb φωτισθέντες, “having been enlightened,” refers “to the saving illumination of the heart and mind mediated through the preaching of the gospel” (Lane, 2:298) at their conversion (cf. 6:4) rather than to their baptism as distinct from the conversion event (Bénétreau, 2:123). This verb is a divine passive—they were “enlightened” by God (Ellingworth, 545).

2. See N. C. Croy, Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12:1–13 in Its Rhetorical, Religious, and Philosophical Context (SNTSMS 98; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 43, and the references cited in Thompson, 217–18.

3. Epictetus, Diatr. 1.24.1; 3.15.1–7; 3.22.51; 3.24.113; 4.4.30; Seneca, Ep. 1.7.1; 34.2; 109.6 (cited by Thompson, 217).

4. Alleg. Interp. 1.98; 3.14, 72; Migration 27; Sobriety 65 (cited by Thompson, 217).

5. deSilva, 361–64; Koester, 464–65.

6. Both Hebrews and 4 Macc 17:11–16 use ὑπομονή (“endurance”). Heb 10:32 uses ἄθλησις for “contest.” 4 Macc 17:11–16 uses the related ἀθλητής (“prize fighter,” “athlete”), ἐναθλέω (“bear up bravely under”), and ἀθλοθετέω (“offer a reward”).

7. F. Hauck, “ὑπομένω, ὑπομονή,” TDNT 4:582. “Where a philosopher would say that true good is discerned by reason, … Hebrews would say that it is given through the promises of God and discerned by faith” (Koester, 466).

8. The translation of ἀφθαρσία ἐν ζωῇ πολυχρονίῳ (4 Macc 17:12) in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint, and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 540.

9. Hauck, “ὑπομένω, ὑπομονή,” TDNT 4:584.

10. Hauck, “ὑπομένω, ὑπομονή,” TDNT 4:582.

11. Westcott, 333; Spicq, 2:328. πολύς in this context has both the connotation of “much,” “extensive” (BDAG, 848, 2, a, א) and “great” (BDAG, 849, 3, a).

12. Cf. πάθημα (“suffering”), θλῖπις (“tribulation”), and ὀνειδισμός (“reproach”) in 1 Pet 1:6; Jas 1:2, 12; Matt 5:11–12. Weiss, 544, following W. Nauck, “Freude im Leiden: Zum Problem einer urchristlichen Verfolgungstradition,” ZNW 46 (1955): 68–80, esp. 72, thinks this language representative of an early Christian “persecution tradition.”

13. Lane, 2:299.

14. Pace Koester, 459; Lane, 2:299; Weiss, 545; Riggenbach, 331–32; and Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 179. See Ellingworth, 546, who affirms that τοῦτο μέν/τοῦτο δέ (“on the one hand”/“on the other”) is a classical idiom showing correspondence between the two clauses (Ellingworth, 546).

15. θεατριζόμενοι, “being made a spectacle,” is related to the word θέατρον, “spectacle,” “theater.” Compare 1 Cor 4:9, in which Paul says that he and his coworkers “have become a spectacle (θέατρον) to the world.” Sometimes Jews (Philo, Flaccus 74–75, 84–85, 95, 173; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.43) or Christians (Acts 19:29) were denounced publicly in theaters (Koester, 459). The present tense of θεατριζόμενοι is in accord with the duration of their earlier time of persecution and adds vividness to its description.

16. Koester prefers the translation “denunciations” because Roman officials depended on citizens to “denounce” those who broke the law (C. R. Koester, “Conversion, Persecution, and Malaise: Life in the Community for Which Hebrews Was Written,” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 61 [2005]: 238–39).

17. Note how Paul persecuted those who followed Jesus (Acts 8:1–3) and then how he in turn after his conversion was persecuted by his fellow Jews at such places as Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9), Corinth (Acts 18:12–17), and finally Jerusalem (Acts 21:27–36).

18. On Jews and Christians under the Roman Empire see Koester, “Conversion, Persecution, and Malaise,” 243, and the literature there cited.

19. It is clear that the pastor is referring to a particular time of persecution in his hearers’ past (Koester, 464; cf. Bruce, 267–68, but pace Grässer, 3:58–65). Yet the available knowledge precludes identification of this persecution with persecutions known from other sources (Bruce, 267–70; Bénétreau, 2:124; Riggenbach, 333–34; etc.). The fact that the community who received Hebrews had suffered no martyrdoms (12:4) precludes reference to persecutions in Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen in A.D. 33 (Acts 8:1–3), under Herod Agrippa I in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), after the stoning of James the Just in A.D. 62 (Josephus, Ant. 20.200), or in Rome under Nero in A.D. 64–65 (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.6). Nor is there positive evidence that would identify these sufferings either with the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius in A.D. 49 (Seutonius, Claud. 25.4) or with the confiscation of the resources of wealthy Christians under Domitian in A.D. 81–95 (pace Weiss, 545–46).

20. Johnson, 271, and the references there cited.

21. For plundering during outbreaks of violence see Josephus, J.W. 3.177; 4.168; 4 Macc 4:10; Polybius, Histories 4.17.4 (cited by Koester, “Conversion, Persecution, and Malaise,” 240, n. 10).

22. See Philo, Flaccus 54, 76–77; Josephus J.W. 2.275; 305–6; 4.335.

23. On first-century punishments in the Roman world see B. Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 10–20 (cited in Koester, “Conversion, Persecution, and Malaise,” 239).

24. Johnson, 269–70, is correct when he takes ἀναστρεφομένων as middle, “those who conducted themselves thus,” rather than as passive, “those so treated” (Attridge, 200, n. 27).

25. See BDAG, 553, 1, a, β. As Christ became a partaker of human suffering by sharing the human condition (2:14), so these faithful became “partners” (κοινωνοί) with suffering believers.

26. On Christians caring for their imprisoned brothers and sisters see Phil 2:25; 4:14–18; Lucian, Peregr. 12–13; Ign. Eph. 1:2; Magn. 2; Trall. 1–2; Phld. 11:1–2; Tertullian, Mart. 1 (Koester, 460).

27. Ellingworth, 548.

28. The phrase “with joy” confirms the fact that προσεδέξασθε means “welcome” (Luke 15:2; Rom 16:2; Phil 2:29) and not just “accept” (Johnson, 271). For joy amid persecution, see Matt 5:11–13; Acts 5:41; 2 Cor 6:10; 7:9; 8:2; Phil 2:17; Col 1:24; 1 Thess 1:6; and 1 Pet 4:14.

29. Compare the plural τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, “property,” “things existing,” with the singular ὕπαρξιν, “possession.” Cf. Weiss, 546. ὕπαρξιν is without the article because the pastor would emphasize its superior quality.

30. Hebrews uses “better” (κρείττων) to describe Christ and his work (1:4; 9:23; 12:24), the salvation he provides (7:19, 22; 8:6), and, as here, the ultimate destiny of God’s people. All that God has prepared for his people is “better” (11:40) because it is eternal life in fellowship with God in the “better” country (11:16) for those who enjoy the “better” resurrection (11:35) and the “better” things of salvation (6:9).

31. The participle μένουσαν, “enduring,” “remaining,” occurs again in 13:14. Cf. μένει (“he remains”) in 7:3 and μένειν (“to remain”) in 7:24.

32. deSilva, 365–66; Bruce, 271; and others distinguish between παρρησία as confidence in approaching God (4:16; 10:19) and as courage before unbelievers (10:35; cf. 3:6). Weiss, 546–47, emphasizes the relationship between the two uses of this term. Cf. Ellingworth, 551.

33. In agreement with Bénétreau, 2:124–25, the pastor is thinking of the final recompense at journey’s end.

34. On the balance between “great reward” (μεγάλην μισθαποδοσίαν) and “great contest” (πολλὴν ἄθλησιν, v. 32) see Johnson, 272. Compare also “such a great salvation” (τηλικαύτης ἀμελήσαντες σωτηρίας) in 2:3. Among NT books only Hebrews uses the term μισθαποδοσία (“recompense,” “reward”). In 2:2 it was used for the “recompense” or punishment of those who neglected what God has done in Christ. Here, in 10:35, and in 11:26, it describes the ultimate “reward” of the faithful. The very use of this term mirrors what the pastor would accomplish in his hearers. He would move them from threat of eternal loss (2:2) to possession of eternal gain (10:35; 11:25).

35. The term “rewarder” (μισθαποδότης) in 11:6 is related to the word Hebrews uses for “reward” (μισθαποδοσία) in 2:2; 10:35; and 11:26.

36. The aorist tense of ποιήσαντες, “having done,” refers to the completion of the life of faith. Cf. Koester, 461.

37. Weiss, 548; Riggenbach, 335.

38. See πίστις (“faith”) in 10:38, 39; 11:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 39; ὑπομονή (“endurance”) in 10:36; 12:1; and ὑπομένω (“to endure”) in 12:2, 3, 7.

39. Note ἀπειθέω (“disobey”) in 3:18; ἀπείθεια (“disobedience”) in 4:6, 11; and ἀπιστία (“unbelief”) in 3:12, 19.

40. The pastor is not referring to the reception of the promise itself but to what has been promised (Hughes, 433, n. 32; Lane, 2:303).

41. The pastor uses κομίζομαι (middle) in 10:36 and 11:39 when he refers to receiving the “promise” (ἐπαγγελίαν, singular) of eternal blessing. Cf. 11:19. See κομίζεσθαι μισθόν in 2 Macc 8:33. On the other hand, he uses ἐπιτυγχάνω (6:15), λαμβάνω (11:13), and τυγχάνω (11:33) when referring more generally to the reception of God’s “promises” (plural). It is not surprising, however, that some manuscripts, including א, have κομίζομαι in 11:13. Although the object of this verb is the general plural, “promises,” it appears to encompass the promise of eternal reward. Weiss, 548 (esp. n. 21), claims that κομίζεσθαι (“receive”) is a technical term in early Christianity for experiencing the reward of the end time (2 Cor 5:10; Col 3:25; Eph 6:8; as also 1 Pet 1:9; Heb 11:39).

42. Affirmation that the Lord would soon return is not indication that the hearers were discouraged by a delay in Christ’s second coming (cf. Weiss, 549).

43. One is reminded of the way Heb 4:14–6:20 prepared for the exposition of Ps 110:4 in Heb 7:1–25, although in this case the OT passage was cited much earlier (5:5–6) and expounded line by line. Cf. Koester, 464. The pastor’s use of Hab 2:3–4 is, perhaps, more suggestive, less controversial, and not in need of as much clarification. See “The Rhetorical Shape of Hebrews and Its Use of the Old Testament,” pp. 72–76 in the Introduction to this commentary.

44. Spicq, 2:331, and Riggenbach, 335–36, are less than convincing when they suggest that the pastor used no formula because the quotation was familiar. His audience was certainly familiar with many of the Scriptures that he used a formula to introduce. “My soul” leaves no doubt that God is the speaker.

45. Pietersma and Wright, A New English Translation of the Septuagint, 808.

46. O. Palmer Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 172–73; O’Brien, 389. See R. Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews (WUNT 2/160; Tübingen: Siebeck, 2003), 216–18, for a discussion of whether or not the LXX translator intended to heighten the eschatological or Messianic significance of the Hebrew text.

47. Lane, 2:304; Bruce, 273; Bénétreau, 2:127–28; Spicq, 2:332, and others. Bruce, 273, is so thoroughly convinced that the LXX is Messianic that he can write: “Our author, then, is but dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s of the Septuagint interpretation when he applies Hab 2:3b to the second coming of Christ.” The “coming” one was a designation of the Messiah (Matt 3:11; 11:3; 21:9; Mark 11:9; Luke 7:19; 19:38; John 1:15, 27; 11:27; Koester, 462).

48. Gheorghita, Septuagint, 223; O’Brien, 389.

49. See the discussion in Gheorghita, Septuagint, 220–23, cited and affirmed by O’Brien, 389.

50. Cf. Hughes, 435, n. 38.

51. Pace Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old, 982, the author of Hebrews does not join Isa 26:20 to Hab 2:3–4 on the basis of verbal analogy. The two Greek texts do not even use the same words for “coming.” The author joins them because they both deal with the same theme—the imminent arrival of God’s coming Judgment. See Hughes, 434; Gheorghita, Septuagint, 182.

52. In Isa 26:20 the prophet urges those addressed to hide themselves for “a very little while,” until God’s judgment on the wicked has passed. T. W. Lewis, “‘And If He Shrinks Back …’ (Heb. 10:38b),” NTS 22 (1975–76): 88–94, has argued on the basis of this allusion to Isaiah that those addressed by Hebrews were applying this verse to themselves. Instead of boldly professing Christ, as the pastor would encourage them to do, they were “hiding” until the end. However, in the absence of other evidence, the reference to Isaiah is too elusive to sustain this thesis. Kistemaker, 302, even questions whether the pastor is intentionally referring to Isa 26:20. It is true that Isaiah 26:9–20 (entitled προσευχὴ Ἰσαίου, “prayer of Isaiah”) was also the fifth ode attached to the psalms and used in the prayers of the early church (Lane, 2:303–4). When, however, one considers the absence of an introductory formula and the brevity of the reference, inclusion in the prayers of the church need mean no more than that the language of the Isaiah passage was familiar and ready to hand in contexts speaking of judgment. The pastor’s other exhortations make it clear that his hearers were not hiding but were in danger of denying Christ and severing their relationship with the community of his followers (e.g., 6:4–8; 10:26–31). The pastor’s positive use of this allusion is no indication of misuse by his hearers. For further criticism of Lewis’s suggestion, see Rose, Die Volke, 57–59.

53. For “the coming one” as a reference to Jesus see Matt 3:11; Luke 7:19; John 1:9; 3:31; and 6:14. For the Messianic significance of this expression, see the references given above. ἤκω (“arrive”) is used in reference to Christ’s second coming (Matt 24:50; Luke 12:46; 13:35; Rom 11:26; Rev 2:25; 3:3; Koester, 463). Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 112, argues that this verse does not refer to the second coming. Since the faithful enter their reward at death, it refers to Christ’s coming to each believer at that time. There is no evidence, however, that Hebrews locates entrance into salvation at the point of death. It would be much more natural to say that believers go to Christ at death rather than that he comes to them. Thus, this interpretation is without precedent in other sources and without support in either the immediate or larger context of Hebrews.

54. See “The Rhetorical Shape of Hebrews and Its Use of the Old Testament,” pp. 72–76 in the Introduction to this commentary.

55. According to Spicq, 2:332, the life of the Israelites rescued from the Chaldean threat was “a type of the eternal life” that the pastor’s hearers “are tempted to abandon.”

56. Here the Greek pronoun has been translated unambiguously as “him” on the assumption that the LXX translator intended and the author of Hebrews understood this verse as referring to a person.

57. If one understands the “coming one” in the unreordered clauses of Hab 2:3–4 (LXX) as a potential Messianic figure, then “if he turn back” might be taken as evidence that a particular Messianic claimant was false. See T. W. Manson, “The Argument from Prophecy,” JTS 46 (1945): 129–36, esp. 134 (followed by Lane, Bruce, and Bénétreau). There is no other convenient way to understand this verse as it stands in the LXX as Messianic (cf. Riggenbach, 336–39).

58. See Gheorghita, Septuagint, 213–18, 221–24, cited in O’Brien, 390, n. 249. There is no way to coherently understand “if he draw back” as a reference to the Lord himself, who surely will not “draw back.”

59. Note the adversative καί, “but,” at the beginning of the second half of Heb 10:38.

60. The translation of Hab 2:4a is difficult, as the translator of the LXX discovered. See Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old, 982, and the sources he cites. For suggestions on the Hebrew text used by the Greek translator and the way he construed his text, see Bruce, 272–73, n. 195.

61. Westcott, 337, says that Hab 2:4a, “His soul is puffed up with pride; it is not right within him,” refers to the Chaldeans. Note, however, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: “Behold, the wicked say to themselves, ‘None of these things is happening’; but the righteous will be established by their truth” (Bruce, 272, n. 194).

62. Lane, 2:305; Bénétreau, 2:128.

63. Hughes, 436.

64. In 1QpHab 8:1–3 “the righteous shall live by his faith” is applied to “all the doers of the law in the house of Judah, whom God will save from the place of judgment because of their toil and their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness” (Bruce, 274, n. 202). Thus, the people of Qumran also gave this passage an eschatological interpretation by applying it to faith in their “Teacher of Righteousness.” On Paul’s use of “the righteous shall live by faith” in Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:11, see Koester, 467–68, and Bruce, 274–75.

65. Compare vav (ו) with yodh (י), “by his faith” () with “by my faith(fulness)” ().

66. D. A. Koch, “Der Text von Heb. 2.4b in der Septuaginta und im Neuen Testament,” ZNW 76 (1985): 76–78, 84–85.

67. Cf. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old, 983.

68. Cf. Riggenbach, 338.

69. Lane, 2:307; Riggenbach, 338. Rose, Die Volke, 70–77, argues that in Hebrews “will live by faith” refers primarily if not solely to obtaining eternal life by faith. He notes the parallel between “will live by faith” and “through faith for the preservation of the soul.” Since “preservation of the soul” stands in contrast to “destruction,” it is obviously a reference to eternal life. He also supports this position by noting the way in which “the righteous one will live by faith” was used in Jewish tradition to refer to eternal life. Nevertheless, “will live by faith” also refers to a course of life or conduct that is the opposite of “turning back.” The examples below will show how the pastor uses this phrase in both senses.

70. Weiss, 551.

71. The genitives ὑποστολῆς (“of turning back”) and πίστεως (“of faith”) describe what marks the two classes of people. Compare χαρᾶς (“of joy”) and λύπης (“of grief”) in 12:11. Westcott, 338, cites 1 Thess 5:5; 1 Cor 14:33; Luke 9:55; and Acts 9:2 as other examples of this usage.

72. Pace Weiss, 552, who cites various non-Christian sources (n. 36) in support of his contention that Hebrews has here adapted “Hellenistic” eschatology. Attridge, 304, calls this expression “classical,” citing Xenophon, Cyr. 4.4.10 and Isocrates, Epistulae 2 in n. 104. There is no indication here that the pastor is separating body from soul.

73. Pace Koester, 463.

74. This contrast with “destruction” shows clearly that “preservation” (BDAG, 804, 1) is the appropriate translation of περιποίησιν rather than, pace Johnson, 274, “obtain” (BDAG, 804, 2). Cf. Spicq, 2:333; Riggenbach, 339; and Luke 17:33.

75. Thus, taking ψυχή (“soul”) as “the seat and center of life that transcends the earthly” (BDAG, 1099, 2, d).

76. See the comments on 11:17–19, 35.

77. The pastor uses the warning example of Esau in 12:14–17 to introduce the present blessedness of the faithful in 12:18–24. The contrasting description of judgment in 12:18–21 reinforces the beauty of the blessedness described in 12:22–24. See the comments on these verses below.

1. Rhee, Faith in Hebrews, 180–81, recognizes the unity of 11:1–12:29. However, because he has not noted the transitional nature of 10:19–39, he does not see the close connection between this history and the exposition of Christ’s high priesthood in 7:1–10:18. Thus, despite his insistence on the Christological nature of faith in Hebrews, he fails to see how closely the “faith” of 11:1–40 is related to the high-priestly work of Christ.

2. While deSilva, 377, argues that 12:1–3 is the conclusion to the list of testimonies in 11:1–40, he also recognizes its significance for what follows. Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 242–43, 264, rightly includes 12:1–2 (we would add v. 3) with both the preceding and following sections.

1. See Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 183; and Michael R. Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11 in Light of Example Lists in Antiquity (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988), 88–89. Cf. Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 247; Guthrie, Structure, 87–88.

2. Weiss, 553–54; A. Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Subsidia Biblica 12; Rome: Editrice Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 1989), 29–30.

3. Such as Windisch, 98–99; Michel, 422–23; or Gottfried Schille, “Katechese und Taufliturgie: Erwägungen zu Hbr 11,” ZNW 51 (1960): 112–31.

4. “The number of example lists of famous people in the literature of antiquity that have been cited as parallels to Hebrews 11 is actually quite modest, and they are of sufficiently different composition and function that it is doubtful that their authors were following a set pattern when composing them” (Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11, 12). For a summary of such lists, see Thompson, 226–27.

5. Because of his focus on the Greco-Roman world, Croy, Endurance, fails to grasp the character of 11:1–40 as a community-forming historical narrative. He is also misled when he argues that Hebrews follows the Greco-Roman pattern of using examples only as a supplement following logical discourse (cf. Croy, Endurance, 70–76). This assertion misses the parallel between 11:1–40 and 3:7–19. It also obscures chapter 11’s unique contribution to the pastor’s sermon.

6. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 56–57. Eisenbaum is mistaken, however, when she says that Hebrews follows the Greco-Roman example in mitigating the esteem shown to the chosen heroes (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 84). For her comparison of these two kinds of lists and their relationship to Hebrews, see Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 73–84.

7. The evidence that Eisenbaum gives to support her contention that Hebrews presents a “denationalized” (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 3, 7) version of Israel’s history substantiates this affirmation. While she does not develop the significance of Christology for Heb 11:1–40, she does acknowledge its role: “The author’s understanding of Christology and the new covenant … cause him to value the heroes of the Jewish Bible for reasons different from those that had traditionally been employed” (Pamela M. Eisenbaum, “Heroes and History in Hebrews 11,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders [JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], 394).

8. Cosby has emphasized that Hebrews, along with other such example lists, used the praise of past heroes (epideictic rhetoric) in order to encourage the action exemplified by these heroes (deliberative rhetoric). See Michael R. Cosby, “The Rhetorical Composition of Hebrews 11,” JBL 107 (June 1988): 257–73 as well as his full-length book cited on p. 516, n. 1. Yet, as Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 56–59, has so clearly demonstrated, the Jewish lists with which Hebrews has the closest affinity were also used to reinforce community identity. However, pace Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 87, there is no tension between inculcating community solidarity and encouraging faith. The latter, properly understood, finds its expression in the former.

9. Pace Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 84, and many places. Eisenbaum’s attempt to demean the OT personages in Hebrews appears to be the result of her contention that Hebrews considers the narrative of the OT less authoritative than the OT “oracles” used as direct quotes. See the section on Hebrews’ use of the OT in the Introduction to this commentary (pp. 41–59).

10. Guthrie, Structure, 40, categorizes chapter 11 as exhortation, while Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 51, 59, considers it doctrinal, though he recognizes that the pastor’s parenetic purpose is near at hand. Cf. Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 242. Rose, Die Volke, 80–81, argues that 10:32–39 and 12:1–3 are exhortation, while 11:1–40 is theological. Rhee, Faith in Hebrews, 28, agrees, labeling 10:19–39, 12:1, and 13:1–21 “exhortation,” but 11:1–40 “exposition.”