The Epistle to the Hebrews

4. See Gordon, 177.

5. Ps 33:14 in the LXX (MT 34:14) reads, ζήτησον εἰρήνην καὶ δίωξον αὐτήν (“let him seek peace and pursue it”).

6. Thus, this “peace” and “holiness” are present realities rather than blessings received only at the end (deSilva, 459).

7. Johnson, 324.

8. μετά (“with”) followed by the genitive πάντων (“all”) indicates accompaniment. Cf. 2 Tim 2:22. “Peace” with someone would normally be expressed by πρός, not μετά. See Lane, 2:438b; Ellingworth, 661–62.

9. For this second meaning, see μετὰ πάντων (“with all”) in Rom 12:18 (cf. 1 Kgs 22:45 LXX). deSilva, 457–58, neglects the force of the immediate context when he opts for this interpretation.

10. Thus “with all” refers to all members of the believing community rather than to all people in general (Lane, 2:438b; Ellingworth, 662; Weiss, 661; Koester, 540). Pace deSilva, 457–58; Johnson, 323, Bruce, 348; Westcott, 405, and others who would extend the meaning of “all” to include the unbelieving world. It is true that in 1 Pet 3:11 the writer encourages persecuted believers to live in peace with unbelieving society. In Hebrews, however, the context indicates that the author is concerned with the harmony of the believing community. This is certainly true if we take “together with all” as qualifying “pursue.” The pastor is not urging his hearers to join with unbelievers in pursuing peace (Ellingworth, 662).

11. O’Brien, 472.

12. “Within the community of faith, there is to be no separation of peace and holiness. If ‘peace’ binds the community together as the achievement of Christ, ‘holiness’ is that quality which identifies the community as the possession of Christ” (Lane, 2:450).

13. Some have suggested that ἁγιασμός (“holiness,” 12:14) refers to a process of moral development since words ending in -μος often describe an action or process. However, “holiness” in Hebrews is always the gift of God through the work of Christ rather than a process of moral development (10:10, 14; cf. Lane, 2:450). Yet this action/process word is most appropriate in the immediate context. The “holiness” in question is not merely a one-time gift, but instead a continual living in the cleansing from sin and resultant access to God provided by Christ for the community of the faithful. This understanding is confirmed by the interpretation of vv. 15–16 given below.

14. In this verse “Lord” probably refers to God (7:21; 8:2, 8, 10, 11; 10:16, 30; 12:5, 6), though it could refer to Christ (1:10; 2:3; 7:14; 13:20). It makes little difference since Christ is seated at God’s right hand (8:1, etc.). Cf. Attridge, 367.

15. ἐπισκοποῦντες (“watching out for”) qualifies διώκετε (“pursue”) and could thus be translated as an imperative itself (Lane, 2:451; Weiss, 662). It seems better, however to take it as instrumental, describing how one “pursues” peace and holiness. Such a rendering does not denude it of imperatival force—the pastor urgently desires his hearers to “watch out for.”

16. ἐπισκοποῦντες μή (“watch that not”) is “an expression of apprehension.” The following subjunctives in vv. 15–16 denote that about which the author is concerned, and thus what he would have his hearers avoid. See Lane, 2:451; cf. Michel, 453; BDF §370(1).

17. Spicq, 2:399.

18. Compare μή τις ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ καὶ διʼ αὐτῆς μιανθῶσιν οἱ πολλοί (12:15b; “lest any bitter root springing up cause harm and through it many be defiled”) with μήποτε ἔσται ἔν τινι ὑμῶν καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος (3:12; “lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in turning away from the living God”) and μήποτε … δοκῇ τις ἐξ ὑμῶν ὑστερηκέναι (4:1; “lest any of you seem to have fallen short”) with μή τις ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς κάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ (12:15a; “lest any of you fall short of the grace of God). Cf. Johnson, 324.

19. Compare “lest any of you should come to lack the grace of God” (μή τις ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ, Heb 12:15) with “lest there be any among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart has turned away from the Lord your God” (μή τίς ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀνὴρ ἢ γυνὴ ἢ πατριὰ ἢ φυλή, τίνος ἡ διάνοια ἐξέκλινεν ἀπὸ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν, Deut 29:17). Words identical in the Greek text of both passages are underlined.

20. Compare Heb 12:15b with both the LXX text of Deut 29:17b found in A (B corrected) and with the text as found in most manuscripts.

μή τις ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ (Heb 12:15b)

μή τίς ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ (Deut 29:17 LXX, A text)

μή τίς ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν ῥίζα ἄνω φύουσα ἐν χολῇ καὶ πικρίᾳ (Deut 29:17 LXX, most manuscripts)

“lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble” (Heb 12:15b)

“lest there be among you any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble” (Deut 29:17 LXX, A text)

“lest there be among you any root springing up in gall and bitterness” (most manuscripts of Deut 29:17 LXX)

The text of Hebrews is in complete agreement with the A LXX text except for the omission of the underlined phrase ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν (“there be among you”). It has several other differences with the text found in most LXX manuscripts. These differences are represented by the second underlined phrase above, ἐν χολῇ καὶ πικρίᾳ (“in gall and bitterness”). First, instead of ἐν χολῇ (“in gall”) Hebrews reads ἐνοχλῇ (“cause trouble”). Second, instead of the locative πικρίᾳ (“in bitterness”) Hebrews has the genitive πικρίας (“of bitterness”) qualifying ῥίζα (“root”)—“root of bitterness.” Weiss, 664–65, has contended convincingly that the text represented by the majority of LXX manuscripts is original and that Hebrews has adapted this passage by introducing all of these changes. The key to his argument is the fact that the phrase ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν (“there be among you”) fits only very awkwardly with the following finite verb, ἐνοχλῇ (“cause trouble”) in the A text of Deut 29:17. Thus the A manuscripts appear to represent a text that has been partially conformed to Hebrews by changing ἐν χολῇ (“in gall”) to ἐνοχλῇ (“cause trouble”) and by adjusting the significance of πικρία (“bitterness”) but not yet by the omission of ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν (“there be among you”). Although under the influence of the LXX a few manuscripts of Hebrews read ἐν χολῇ (“in gall”), ἐνοχλῇ (“cause trouble”) is certainly original because it is well suited to the context and to the author’s purpose. The originality of ἐνοχλῇ (“cause trouble”) in Hebrews is confirmed by deSilva’s (457) observation that it is the opposite of pursuing peace just as being “defiled” is the opposite of holiness. It is possible that the τίς of Deut 29:17 should be translated as an interrogative (“who?”) instead of as an indefinite (“any”). However, we have retained the translation “any” above for ease of comparison with Hebrews.

21. ὑστερῶν “falling short,” may not be particularly common in descriptions of a race, but it has the idea of lagging behind or falling short of the goal (BDAG, 1043–44, 5). Thus it reminds us of the race imagery used earlier.

22. Pace Lane, 2:453; but see Ellingworth, 663.

23. Although Ellingworth, 664, prefers the translation “shoot,” Riggenbach, 404, believes the author is thinking of a poisonous “root” that causes sickness or death.

24. It is true that the pastor uses “the many” here because he wants to show the possible extent of the damage caused by one rebellious person (Attridge, 368). Yet “the many” can be used as a designation for the whole community (see Matt 24:12; Rom 5:15, 19; 12:5; cf. 1QS 6:8–21; 7:3, 10–16). Here and in earlier passages (3:12–13; 10:24–25) the pastor expresses his deep concern for the common life of the whole congregation. See Weiss, 662.

25. “… to be bébelos (“profane”) means precisely to be unconcerned with the demands of God’s holiness (Lev 10:10; 21:9; Ezek 4:14; 21:25; 22:26; 3 Macc 2:14, 17; Philo, Moses 2.158; Alleg. Interp. 1.62; Josephus, J.W. 6.271; Ant. 15.20; 1 Tim 1:9; 4:7; 6:19; 2 Tim 2:16)” (Johnson, 324).

26. On the immorality of Esau see Gen. Rab. 63:9, 12 (commenting on Gen 25:27, 29); Jub. 25:1–8; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (on Gen 25:27); and Philo, Virtues 208; Sobriety 26; Sacrifices 120; Alleg. Interp. 3.2; and QG 4.242. See also Thompson, 259–60; Attridge, 369, esp. n. 48; and Lane, 3:454–55.

27. Bénétreau, 2:188.

28. Westcott, 407–8.

29. See Philo, Spec. Laws 1.102 (cited by Attridge, 369, n. 45, and referenced by O’Brien, 475).

30. Johnson, 324. Cf. Lane, 2:451.

31. See Deut 31:16; Num 14:33; Hos 1:2; Jer 2:20. Cf. Attridge, 369, n. 50. This analogy is not surprising since idolatrous worship often involved sexually immoral practices. Hughes, 540, reminds us: “Licentiousness is the destroyer of holiness.”

32. Riggenbach, 405–6. However, Riggenbach’s further contention that Esau was not in a covenant is no barrier to his conduct’s being an example of covenant violation. He was heir to the promise of Abraham and the covenant God had made with him (cf. the comment on 11:20).

33. Riggenbach, 405–6, mentions the etymological meaning of πόρνος as one who sells himself for shameful purposes.

34. On the theme of “inheritance” see 1:2, 14; 6:17; 9:15; 11:7. The pastor assumes that Esau’s failure to inherit in Gen 27:1–40 was the result of having sold his birthright in 25:29–34. This connection is logical, though not explicitly stated in the Genesis text. What would selling one’s “birthright” mean but giving up the privileges of being the firstborn, including the blessing appropriate for that position? On this interpretation Isaac’s intention to bless Esau in Gen 27:1–40 was illegitimate.

35. Spicq, 2:402, suggests this interpretation. Cf. Bénétreau, 2:189–90; Montefiore, 225–26. Although μετανοία (“repentance”) can mean to change one’s mind, there is no linguistic evidence of its being used of one person trying to change another’s mind. See Lane, 2:440r; Ellingworth, 668.

36. For the phrase τόπος μετανοίας (“place of repentance”) as a set expression meaning “opportunity to repent” see Wis 12:10; 1 Clem. 7:5; 2 Clem. 8:2; 4 Ezra 7:82; 9:12 (cited, along with other references, in Lane, 2:440r). See also Koester, 533, and O’Brien 476, n. 163.

37. See Riggenbach, 409–10, and Moffatt, 212.

38. Thus, the pronoun αὐτήν (“it”—“though he sought it with tears”) could refer to either εὐλογίαν (“blessing”) or μετανοίας (“repentance”), but not to τόπον (“place”),

39. For this reason Attridge, 370, holds that “it” refers to “repentance.” Attridge fails to see that Esau’s seeking the “blessing” rather than a “place of repentance” is not only in accord with the OT account, but fits more appropriately with the other examples of apostasy in Hebrews and with the pastor’s overall purpose.

40. Lane, 2:440t. There is no evidence that confirms Weiss’s (666–68) assertion that Hebrews is drawing on an exegetical tradition that pictured Esau as seeking repentance.

41. Westcott, 409.

42. The LXX omits the reference to tears that is in the MT, but it does say that Esau “cried out with a loud cry and great bitterness” (Gen 27:34). Jub. 26:33; Josephus, Ant. 1.275; and Philo, QG 4.233, describe Esau as crying when he heard Jacob had received the blessing. Cf. Koester, 533.

43. Bruce, 351; Lane, 2:440t. Cf. NRSV, “though he sought the blessing with tears.” Lane argues that the contrast is not between “seeking for” (ἐκζητήσας) and “finding” (εὗρεν) the place of repentance, but between “begging for” (ἐκζητήσας) the blessing and being “rejected” (ἀπεδοκιμάσθη).

44. Hughes, 541, n. 148, although Hughes thinks it makes little difference what the antecedent of αὐτήν (“it”) might be.

45. Esau’s rejection by Isaac was confirmation of his rejection by God (pace Mitchell, 278).

1. The γάρ (“for”) in v. 18 connects vv. 18–24 with the warning of vv. 14–17 and with the example of Esau (Lane, 2:459; Weiss, 669; Pfitzner, 183; but pace Ellingworth, 670).

2. See the section entitled Second, the Intensified Urgency of Obedience on pp. 46–47.

3. Lane, 2:461, is typical of those who make such a comparison when he says, “It should be recognized that the writer compares two covenants under the imagery of two mountains in order to contrast the distance that separated the worshiper from God under the old covenant with the unrestricted access to God under the new covenant” Cf. Mitchell, 284. Hughes, 542, speaks of “the contrast between the imperfect and the perfect, the temporary and the permanent.…”

4. Pace both Johnson (329) and Koester (549), who fall into this trap.

5. Failure to see this difference is the fatal flaw in Kiwoong Son’s attempt to use 12:18–24 as the hermeneutical key to all the contrasts between the old and the new in Hebrews (Kiwoong Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18–24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle [Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2005]).

6. As contended by Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 46; Thompson, 261–62; Johnson, 329; Weiss, 671; and others. There is no correspondence between the details of the Sinai and Zion descriptions. See Hughes, 545; Riggenbach, 414; and Lane, 2:461.

7. Pace Gordon, 179.

8. J. M. Casey, “Christian Assembly in Hebrews: A Fantasy Island?” Theology Digest 30 (1982): 332–33, is correct when she says that 12:18–24 presents the hearers “with two scenes—two options as it were. Will they choose Sinai or Sion?” Even Weiss, 672–73, admits that the author constructs the description of fearful exclusion in vv. 18–21 in order to highlight the glad acceptance of vv. 22–24. Hebrews, however, is not indulging in mere rhetoric. Verses 18–21 set vv. 22–24 in bold relief because they describe a genuine alternative. By making this statement Weiss unwittingly concedes that the relationship between these two descriptions is not one of less-to-greater or copy-to-original but of opposites.

9. However, the pastor is not describing Sinai without God, as Casey, “Christian Assembly,” 332–33, contends (see also Weiss, 671, and Albert Vanhoye, “Le Dieu de la nouvelle alliance dans l’Épître aux Hébreux,” in Le notion biblique de Dieu, vol. 41, ed. J. Coppens [Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 41; Gembloux: Duculot, 1976], 320–21). The awesome phenomena betoken his presence, but also his inaccessibility.

10. Many have noted the climactic significance of this passage (Schierse, Verheissung, 171–72; A. Vögtle, “Das Neue Testament und die Zukunft des Kosmos: Hebr. 12:26f. und das Endschicksal des Kosmos,” Bibel und Leben 10 [1969]: 76; Ellingworth, 669; O’Brien, 477). For a fuller list of those affirming the climactic nature of this passage, see Son, Zion Symbolism, 78, n. 3.

11. See Casey, “Christian Assembly,” 332–33, and cf. Lane, 2:448.

12. See the comments on 1:5–14 and on 2:1–4, the introduction to 12:1–29 above (pp. 613–14), and the discussion of the rhetorical shape of Hebrews in the Introduction to this commentary (pp. 60–70). See also Son, Zion Symbolism, 111–23, for connections between 12:18–24 and 1:5–14.

13. Son, Zion Symbolism, 98–102, argues that because these descriptions of Sinai and Zion both end with speaking they are symbolic of the two revelations announced in 1:1–4. See also O’Brien, 480. Yet, as is argued above, these two descriptions represent the first revelation not as it was in itself, but as the word of judgment that it continues to be after its fulfillment by the second.

14. Thus, it is not surprising that the parallels suggested by Son, Zion Symbolism, 133–40, between 12:18–21 and the apostate wilderness generation of 3:7–4:11 are more convincing than the parallels he finds between 12:18–21 and many other passages.

15. For them “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin. Instead there is a certain terrifying prospect of judgment and a fury of fire about to consume the adversaries” (10:26–27).

16. Lane, 2:447–48, 461. As an example of the traditional use of Sinai and Zion in Jewish literature see Jub. 4:26: “this mountain which you are upon today, Mount Sinai, and Mount Zion, which will be sanctified in the new creation for the sanctification of the earth.” Cf. Gal 4:21–31. Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 44–47, argues that the pastor has reshaped an apocalyptic tradition that emphasized future judgment in terms of his own Platonic distinction between the spiritual and material worlds. Weiss, 673–75, on the other hand, thinks that he began with a tradition drawn from Hellenistic dualistic eschatology that affirmed a presently existing heavenly world. Into this tradition he has introduced apocalyptic eschatological elements that looked for the future coming of this world. Both of these approaches arbitrarily impose a supposed religious background upon both the specific language used by Hebrews and the larger context provided by the epistle itself. This combination of both present realized and future eschatology is native to both the biblical and apocalyptic traditions, and thus is no evidence of influence from Platonic dualism (see O’Brien, 484; and the Introduction to this commentary, pp. 24–34).

17. Heb 12:18 and 22 use the perfect προσεληλύθατε (“you have come”). The verses mentioned above (4:16; 7:25; 10:1, 22; 11:6) use a present tense of the same verb (προσέρχομαι, “I come to”). The usage of Hebrews reflects the way this term was employed for approaching God in worship. See Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 148–49.

18. Most commentators note the importance of the perfect tense, προσεληλύθατε (“you have come to”), though they give different explanations of its significance. See, for instance, Attridge, 372; Ellingworth, 671; and Weiss, 670. The explanation given above fits well with the overall interpretation of this passage advocated by this commentary.

19. As found in Exod 19:15–21; 20:18–21; Deut 4:11–12; 5:22–27; and 9:19. See Ellingworth, 671.

20. The unusual nature of this omission is confirmed by the fact that ὄρει (“to a mountain”) occurs in the majority of manuscripts, attesting the need felt by copyists to supply this lack. Cf. Koester, 543. Riggenbach’s contention (411–12) that ὄρει was omitted from the best manuscripts through a primitive scribal error is unconvincing.

21. The only places where γνόφος (“darkness”) and θυέλλα (“storm,” “whirlwind”) appear in the Greek Bible are the descriptions of Sinai recorded in Deut 4:11 and 5:22–23. Deuteronomy uses the synonym σκότος (“darkness”) for ζόφος (“gloom”). Thus it is not surprising that σκότος occurs in some manuscripts of Heb 12:18 (including ⁴⁶, but not א, A, D, or C).

22. Ellingworth, 672; Attridge, 371.

23. See Ellingworth, 672. The REB loses this rhetorical effect by making both participles modify πυρί—“to a tangible, blazing fire,” and by making the following datives accompaniment—“they do not come to this tangible, blazing fire … with its darkness, gloom, and whirlwind.” This makes the fire the central object of the picture.

24. According to Weiss, 672, the pastor describes Sinai as a “fear-engendering event.”

25. ψηλαφωμένῳ is clearly a substantive participle—“to what can be touched.” Interpreters are divided on how to construe the second participle, κεκαυμένῳ (“having been burning”), and its accompanying noun πυρί (“with/to fire”). Most English translations take the participle as parallel with the previous participle and therefore substantive—“to what has been burning.” They render πυρί as an instrumental of manner: “to what has been burning with fire.” Others take the participle as attributive and the noun πυρί as parallel to the following three nouns: “to a burning fire” or “to a fire that has been burning” (NRSV; NASB; Riggenbach, 411; Weiss, 668). However, as noted in the text above, the pastor has used this participle/noun combination in order to make a smooth transition from his initial participle to the following three nouns. We have tried to help the English reader see and hear this transition by taking the noun “fire” in apposition to the participle—“to what has been burning, fire.”

26. See Westcott, 410–11. Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 46 (Thompson, 261–62); Johnson, 329; Hermut Löhr, “Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel: Beobachtungen am himmlischen Heiligtum im Hebräerbrief und in den Sabbatopherliedern aus Qumran,” in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, ed. M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer (WUNT 55; Tübingen: Siebeck, 1991), 198; and others are led astray by reading Platonic assumptions into this text when they interpret “to something that can be touched” as indicative of the inferiority and unreality of the earthly material Sinai. The author of Hebrews is making a point diametrically opposed to their interpretation. He is using this expression to emphasize the reality of the judgment on sin and exclusion from God that he is about to describe. Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 45, surrenders his case when he admits that, although the author refers to the phenomena of Sinai as “that which can be touched,” he “uses no terms suggesting intangibility for the Christian experience at Zion.” How could he? Those realities are, if anything, more concrete than the earthly realities.

27. γνόφος (“darkness”) and θυέλλα (“storm”) occur nowhere in the Greek Bible except in the descriptions of Sinai recorded in Deut 4:11 and 5:22–23. Deuteronomy uses the synonym σκότος (“darkness”) for ζόφος (“gloom”). Thus it is not surprising that σκότος occurs in some manuscripts of Heb 12:18 (including ⁴⁶, but not א, A, D, or C).

28. Philo is troubled by the very concrete reality of the events at Sinai which the writer of Hebrews emphasizes. In QE 2.47 (commenting on Exod 24:17) he says that the fire was not real but only appearance. Philo also calls God’s voice at Sinai the “invisible voice” (Decalogue 33). Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 47.

29. The “sound of the trumpet” (σάλπιγγος ἤχῳ) comes from Exod 19:16 (φωνὴ τῆς σάλπιγγος ἤχει μέγα). Both the sound of God’s spoken voice and the sound of the trumpet were awesome, but the sound of the trumpet contained no intelligible content. φωνῇ ρημάτων—“voice of words”—is also found in Deut 4:11 (cf. φωνὴ μεγάλη in Deut 5:22–23).

30. These last two features are associated structurally as well as conceptually. Note their chiastic arrangement: καὶ (A) σάλπιγγος, (B) ἤχῳ καὶ; (B¹) φωνῇ, (A¹) ῥημάτων: (A) “of a trumpet,” (B) “a sound”; (B¹) “a voice,” (A¹) “of words.”

31. Even in Deut 4:12 φωνῇ ῥημάτων (“voice of words”) is used to emphasize that they heard God speak but could not see him.

32. Although many English translations render παρῃτήσαντο as “begged” here in 12:19 (“begged that no further,” NIV, so also NRSV, NKJV, NASB; Ellingworth, 673; Lane, 2:462–63), many interpreters would translate it as “deny” or “refuse” (Spicq, 2:403–4; Thompson, 262; Koester, 543; Johnson, 327). If the stronger meaning is the author’s intention, then the following μή, “that not,” is pleonastic (BDF §429). Johnson, 327, notes that μή is missing from א and a few other manuscripts, indicating that copyists took this term in the negative sense of “refuse” as in 12:25. We have retained the word “beg” in the translation above both because it is most natural with the following μή and because there is no indication that the pastor intended to contradict the OT text. On the other hand, we believe that he used such a strong word intentionally in order to emphasize how unbearable the people found God’s voice. Translation into English forces upon us a choice that the pastor’s hearers did not have to make.

33. Ellingworth, 674–75; Weiss, 673.

34. The γάρ (“for”) of v. 20 refers to the whole preceding scene (Ellingworth, 674).

35. ἔκφοβος is the word here translated “full of fear.” It is related to φοβερόν (“terrifying”) used to describe the fearfulness of τὸ φανταζόμενον, the awesome “appearance” on Mount Sinai. φοβερόν has already been used for God’s judgment in 10:26–31 (Lane, 2:463). Attempts to derive these words from Moses’ experience at the burning bush (Hughes, 543), or from a Jewish homiletical tradition, are unnecessary. See Lane, 2:464.

36. Deut 9:19, διὰ τὴν ὀργὴν καὶ τὸν θυμόν (“on account of wrath and anger”).

37. Pace Koester, 550, the author is not using a lesser-to-greater argument: if even God’s most faithful servant was frightened, how much more others should be. Moses’ fear indicates the inability of the rebellious to approach God because of the terrible sentence of judgment under which they stand.

38. Nevertheless, the pastor’s emphasis is not on the inadequacy of the old, but on God’s judgment of the disobedient.

39. Taking “Mount Zion, and the City of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem” as one, we have (2) “myriads of angels,” (3) “the assembly of the firstborn,” (4) “God,” (5) “the spirits of the righteous,” (6) “the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus,” and (7) “the blood of sprinkling.” Weiss, 674, is correct when he contends that unusual vocabulary and poetic style are no reason to believe that the author has here incorporated a preexistent piece of liturgy. Pace Theissen, Untersuchungen, 64–66; Grässer, Glaube, 182–83; Rissi, Theologie, 101–2; cf. Käsemann, Wandering, 54–55.

40. See the comments on προσεληλύθατε (“you have come”) in v. 18 above.

41. The following quotation from Johnson, 330, appears to reveal either an undue dependence upon Platonic dualism in interpreting Hebrews or a modern reluctance to accept the concrete reality of God’s destiny for his people, or perhaps both: “I put quotation marks around the word ‘place’ as a reminder that this is entirely an imaginative evocation. If the author is truly speaking about entry into God’s life, as I think he is, then there is no more place with God than there is time. Spiritual realities are by definition not local. Imagination is therefore also required of the reader” (Johnson, 330). Did not the author of Hebrews believe in the concrete reality of “the City with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (11:9–10)? Can we really describe as “spiritual” in the sense of ethereal what is left after all that can be shaken has been removed (12:25–29)? Was the “home” Abraham sought (11:13–16) part of an “imaginative evocation”? I suggest that the writer of Hebrews believed that the “City of the living God” was more real or “concrete” than the present world. Our present understanding can go little further than this. Johnson’s quotation above causes us to imagine a less real or concrete existence. The statement that “spiritual realities are by definition not local” is misleading and not in harmony with biblical faith in the bodily resurrection. Yet on 349 he can say, “In his imaginative evocation of their approach to God in 12:18–24, the author spoke of the City of the living God. It is real. But the author and his hearers are not yet there in their mortal bodies” (italics added).

42. Bénétreau, 2:194.

43. Ps 74:2; Isa 8:18; Joel 3:17, 21; Ps 2:6 (cf. Riggenbach, 414–15).

44. For the translation of καί as “even” instead of “and,” see O’Brien, 483, n. 202.

45. This is the “living God” whom Christians worship (9:14) and from whom the author fears his hearers will fall away (3:12; 10:31). Christ brings access to him and to his City through the “new and living way” (10:20) and “by the power of an indestructible life” (7:16).

46. “Mount Zion represents the strong divine foundation of the new Order, while the City of the Living God represents the social structure in which the Order is embodied” (Westcott, 413).

47. For Jerusalem as the “city of God” see Pss 48:9; 46:5; Ellingworth, 677.

48. Rev 3:12; 21:2, 10 describes the new Jerusalem as a present reality that will be the final abode of the blessed.

49. On the integral link between land, city, and Temple in Judaism see Peter Walker, “Jerusalem in Hebrews 13:9–14 and the Dating of the Epistle,” TynBul 45 (1994): 50 Even before the exile Jerusalem had become the symbol and essence of God’s promise of land (David E. Holwerda, Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 96). In the NT the Temple has become the quintessence of Jerusalem as it had become the embodiment of the land (W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974], 150–52; cf. Holwerda, Covenant, 107). The NT, however, is not concerned with Jerusalem as an earthly reality, but as the heavenly dwelling place of God and the destiny of God’s people (James Calvin De Young, Jerusalem in the New Testament: The Significance of the City in the History of Redemption and in Eschatology [Kampen: Kok, 1960], 97–99, 116).

50. Thus, “Mount Zion” brings together the “Most Holy Place” entered by the faithful while on their journey, with the “City” that is their final destination. See Son, Zion Symbolism, 91–93; Beale, The Temple, 301–3 (cited by O’Brien, 483).

51. Thus this passage assumes both the present privileges available in Christ and the ultimate goal to which he gives access, as described throughout Hebrews (Bénétreau, 2:194; Ellingworth, 670–71). In my judgment it is misleading when Weiss, 674, says that the pastor has incorporated apocalyptic motifs into a Hellenistic dualistic eschatology as if such speculations were the source of the pastor’s thought. Such an already/not yet eschatology is characteristic of the NT. Furthermore, it is artificial to divide sharply between those who believed in a heavenly Jerusalem to be revealed at the judgment (apocalyptic thought) and those who believed in a presently existing heavenly Jerusalem (Hellenistic dualistic thought). Most who believed in such a future revelation of the heavenly City also believed in its present existence (Rev 21:9–22:5). We agree with Weiss (675), however, in his opposition to Theissen, Untersuchungen, 8–88, who contends that the author of Hebrews is correcting his hearers’ overrealized eschatology with a futuristic eschatology. Furthermore, M. Thiessen’s contention that Hebrews envisions God’s people between the literal exodus from Egypt and entrance into the heavenly promised land overlooks the Christology of Hebrews (Thiessen, “Exodus,” 367–69). It is not the literal exodus but the work of Christ that puts God’s people in their present position.

52. Attridge, 374–75 (esp. nn. 56 and 57); Lane, 2:467; cf. Dan 7:10 LXX; Rev 5:11; 1 En. 1:9; 14:22. See also Thompson, 263.

53. πανηγύρει (“festal gathering”) has the connotation of a joyful plenary gathering for worship (Ezek 46:11; Amos 5:21; Hos 2:14; 9:5; see also Josephus, J.W. 5.230). Ellingworth, 679; cf. Weiss, 679; Thompson 263. Thus its use here emphasizes the joyful worship of the heavenly City and reminds us of the festive “Sabbath rest” (σαββατισμός) that remains for God’s people (4:9; Lane, 2:467). This term was also used to describe international festivals and athletic contests in the Greco-Roman world (Isocrates, Panegyricus 43, 46; Philo, Embassy 12; cited by Koester, 544). Thus, Spicq, 2:407, suggests that the angels are celebrating the triumph of Christ.

54. There are three main possibilities for the construal of μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων: 1. “to myriads of angels in festal gathering” (μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει) “and to the assembly of the firstborn” (καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων); 2. “to myriads of angels” (μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων), “a festal gathering” (πανηγύρει), “and to the assembly of the firstborn” (καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων); 3. “to myriads of angels” (μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων), “to a festal gathering and assembly of the firstborn” (πανηγύρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων). In the first alternative the term πανηγύρει qualifies the “myriads of angels” as being “in festal gathering.” In the second, it stands in apposition to the “myriads of angels”—“to myriads of angels, a festal gathering.” In the third, it goes with “assembly” in reference to the “firstborn”—“to a festal gathering and assembly of the firstborn.” Dumbrell argues for the third, contending that πανήγυρις is a more appropriate description of the people of God than of the angels (W. J. Dumbrell, “The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect,” EvQ 48 [1976]: 156–58). Weiss, 678–80, concurs, arguing that “festal gathering” (πανηγύρει) and “assembly” (ἐκκλησία) describe the cultic and political aspects of God’s people, respectively. However, the first or second alternative fits best with the way the author appears to have separated each of these phrases with a καί (“and”). See Lane, 2:441–42jj, 468; Ellingworth, 678–79; Westcott, 414–15; cf. Riggenbach, 416. The second is to be preferred because it recognizes that “festal gathering” goes with the “myriads of angels” and yet suggests most clearly the festal tone of all in the heavenly City. Cf. the interpretation of κεκαυμένῳ πυρί (“to that which is burning, a fire”) in v. 18 above. Cf. Attridge, 375.

55. This verse echoes the way God’s people were described when he delivered them from Egypt. They were called the ἐκκλησία (“assembly,” “congregation”) in Deut 4:10 and 18:16 (cf. Acts 7:38). Deut 4:10; 9:10; and 18:16 call the time when God addressed them from Sinai ἡμέρα ἐκκλησίας (“the day of the assembly”). The title πρωτότοκος (“firstborn,” singular) was given to the Israelites when God brought them out of Egypt in order to lead them to Sinai (Exod 4:22–23; cf. Jer 31:9; Sir 36:11). God’s people are often described as registered in heaven (Exod 32:32–33; cf. Ps 69:29; Isa 4:3; Dan 12:1; Luke 10:20; Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12; cf. Jub. 2:20; 1 En. 47:3–4; 104:1; 108:3). Lane, 2:468; O’Brien, 485.

56. L. R. Helyer, “The Prōtotokos Title in Hebrews,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 6 (1976): 15; Lane, 2:469; Hughes, 547–49; Bruce, 358–59; Westcott, 415; Attridge, 375. Spicq’s objection (2:407) that this means Christians “have come” to Christians is of no force. The pastor is simply saying that his hearers join all the faithful by their coming to “Mount Zion.”

57. Pace Käsemann, Wandering, 50; Spicq, 2:407–9, Montefiore, 231.

58. Cf. Löhr, “Thronversammlung,” 200.

59. Lane, 2:468; Michel, 464; Dumbrell, “Spirits,” 157.

60. Helyer, “Prōtotokos,” 15.

61. Pace Casey, “Christian Assembly,” 329. The use of “firstborn” (singular) for the people of Israel as a whole in Exod 4:22–23 (cf. Sir 36:17) is no indication that the use of “firstborn” (plural) here should be restricted to those who lived before Christ (Riggenbach, 416).

62. Pace Riggenbach, 416; Michel, 464.

63. Attridge, 375.

64. Compare τὰ πρωτοτόκια (“birthright”) in v. 16 above with πρωτοτοτόκων (“firstborn”) in this verse.

65. See Koester, 551.

66. Lane (2:469) quotes Peterson (Perfection, 282), “‘the ultimate, completed company of the people of God, membership of which is now enjoyed by faith.’”

67. Weiss, 681; Attridge, 376, esp. n. 80; Riggenbach, 417–18.

68. Schierse, Verheissung, 173, n. 26, notes the importance of the theme of judgment throughout this section. Cf. also Delitzsch, 649, n. 114; Peterson, Perfection, 277, n. 98; and Löhr, “Thronversammlung,” 201, n. 126.

69. See Lane, 2:470–72.

70. Hagner, 226; Riggenbach, 418; Attridge, 376. See Jub. 23:30–31; 1 En. 22:9; 102:4; 103:3–4; 2 Bar. 30:2 (cited in O’Brien, 487, n. 221, referencing Lane, 2:470).

71. George Guthrie, 421. See also Gordon, 180. Koester, 546, notes that some sources believed the righteous entered heaven immediately after death (Wis 3:1); others, that their spirits were “specially preserved until the last judgment (1 En. 22:3–7; Rev 6:9; 4 Ezra 7:99).” He is unduly skeptical, however, when he says, “Hebrews provides no clarity about a person’s state between death and final judgment” (546; citing Peterson, Perfection, 162–65). Since the coming of Christ the righteous dead are with God in the heavenly Jerusalem awaiting the soon-to-be described last Judgment (12:25–29). The author of Hebrews is preaching, not speculating. He has neither occasion nor need to tell his hearers where the righteous dead were before the coming of Christ. Cf. Hermut Löhr, “Anthropologie und Eschatologie im Hebräerbrief: Bemerkungen zum theologischen Interesse einer früchristlichen Schrift,” in Eschatologie und Schöpfung: Festschrift für Erich Grässer zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, vol. 89, ed. M. Evang, H. Merlkein, and M. Wolter (BZNW 89; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1997), 194, n. 81.

72. Hughes, 550–51; Riggenbach, 418.

73. Pace Attridge, 376; Weiss, 681; Casey, “Christian Assembly,” 329; Dumbrell, “Spirits,” 154–59, and Silva, “Perfection,” 69.

74. See the comments on 11:39–40. Cf. Lane, 2:471; Ellingworth, 680–81; and esp. Löhr, “Anthropologie,” 194.

75. Thus Riggenbach, 418, is mistaken when he defines the being “made perfect” of the departed saints as their ultimate entrance into fellowship with God. Löhr may be correct when he says that 12:22–24 says nothing about a greater fulfillment of salvation yet to come. However, he is mistaken when he contends that the “spirits of the just made perfect” have thus entered into the final state of blessedness (Löhr, “Anthropologie,” 192–93). The writer of Hebrews has made it clear that Christ will return for the “salvation” of his own (9:28). Christ’s return is implicit in the pastor’s use of Ps 110:1, first alluded to in 1:3 and cited in 1:13. It is confirmed by his interpretation of Ps 8:4–6 in 2:8–9. He affirmed Christ’s role in the consummation of all as early as 1:11–12. Furthermore, 12:22–24 leads naturally, as Löhr admits, into the description of the last Judgment in 12:25–29. Finally, the interpretation of 11:17–19 and 11:35 given above confirms the pastor’s belief in the resurrection of the body. The pastor assumes that his hearers have heard what he has already said, and will hear his coming description of the last Judgment. As affirmed above, Heb 12:22–24 is a description of the present blessedness experienced by the people of God—both living and dead—that provides a glimpse into the final blessedness God has for his own.

76. The pastor called the covenant established by Christ κρείττων (“better”) in 7:22; 8:6, καίνη (“new”) in 9:15, and now νέας (“new”) here in 12:24. He probably intends no technical difference between these last two near-synonymous words (Ellingworth, 681). Nevertheless, the use of three different terms to describe the New Covenant only serves to underscore its superior quality.

77. ⁴⁶, supported by a few Latin manuscripts, makes this understanding explicit by reading τὸ Ἅβελ instead of τὸν Ἅβελ. τὸ is the accusative neuter article referring to αἵμα, blood, followed by Ἅβελ, now understood as a genitive: “the [blood] of Abel” (Johnson, 328k). The “speaking” of Abel’s blood is not to be identified with Abel’s speaking in Heb 11:4. In 11:4 Abel testified to faith in a God who would raise the dead. Here in 12:24 his blood calls down condemnation on the guilty. Smillie’s contention that “to the blood of sprinkling” is one thing and “to the one speaking better than Abel” is another cannot be sustained (G. Smillie, “‘The One Who is Speaking’ in Hebrews 12:25,” TynBul 55 [2004]: 279–81). First of all, the pastor does not divide these two with καί (“and”) as he does the other items in this series. Second, it is almost impossible to mention “blood” and “speaking” in context with Abel and not recall Abel’s “blood” crying out from the ground in Gen 4:10.

78. Bruce, 361; Hughes, 552; Lane, 2:473; George Guthrie, 422; Weiss, 682–83; Riggenbach, 420; Westcott, 417; and most interpreters (cf. Spicq, 2:409–10). None of the other interpretations of Abel’s blood adequately account for the context in Hebrews. Son, Zion Symbolism, 100–102, has suggested that Abel’s blood represents the ineffective blood of the old sacrificial system. Attridge, 377, has proposed that Abel’s blood had limited atoning power because Abel was the first martyr. His blood’s limited ability to cleanse foreshadowed Christ’s complete sufficiency to remove all sin. Spicq (2:409–10) appears to have some sympathy with this second proposal. According to Grässer, 3:324 (cited by Mitchell, 284), Abel’s blood cried only from “the ground,” but Christ carried his blood into the heavenly Sanctuary where he perpetually intercedes. The first suggestion fails because neither the account of Abel in Genesis nor the immediate context in Hebrews is concerned with the inadequacy of the old sacrifices. Hebrews has already settled that issue. The second suggestion fails because Hebrews affirms that Christ’s blood alone can cleanse the conscience from sin (9:11–15). See further criticism of this second alternative in Bénétreau, 2:199, n. 1. Finally, Hebrews nowhere indicates that Christ carried his blood into the heavenly Sanctuary (see on 9:11–14). Nor is anything said here about Abel’s blood crying from “the ground.” The immediate context in Hebrews is concerned with God’s judgment on sin. This emphasis is in full accord with what Genesis says about Abel’s blood.

79. For the eschatological use of κρείττων see 1:4; 7:22; 8:6; 9:23.

80. Ellingworth, 683.

81. Cf. Lane, 2:474.

1. The pastor anticipated this last Judgment in his description of Noah (11:7) at the climax of the opening section of this history (11:1–7). Noah escaped God’s judgment and obtained “salvation” (σωτηρίαν) because of his faith. So the readers of Hebrews are to escape judgment by their faith and receive the “kingdom that cannot be shaken” (βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον, v. 28). God’s word to Noah was a warning (χρηματισθείς), just as God’s speaking from Sinai and Zion is a warning (χρηματίζοντα, v. 25). The faithful are to be motivated by “godly fear” (εὐλαβείας, v. 28), just as was Noah (εὐλαβηθείς).

2. Johnson, 333–34.

3. God is “the one who warns on earth,” “the one who is speaking” (from heaven), and the one who will speak “once” more at the Judgment (Hughes, 555; Lane, 2:475; Johnson, 334; Westcott, 418–20; Spicq, 2:410; O’Brien, 492). Lane, 2:475, shows this identity of speakers by a careful structural analysis of the text. This is not a contrast between speakers but between the “modes” of God’s speech (Attridge, 380) or the “agents” of his speaking (Johnson, 334). The God who spoke at Sinai now speaks through his eternal Son seated at his right hand. See the fine discussion of this issue in Smillie, “‘The One Who Is Speaking’ in Hebrews 12:25,” 283–87.

4. Smillie, “‘The One Who is Speaking’ in Hebrews 12:25,” 291–92.

5. “For if the word spoken through angels proved valid, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward” (2:2); “For if those people did not escape when they refused the One who warned on earth” (12:25).

6. “Then how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” (2:3); “How much less shall we escape who turn away from the One who speaks from heaven?” (12:25).

7. Ellingworth, 684, admits that “the broader context would suggest that ἐκεῖνοι [those] are the ἀκούσαντες [ones who heard] of v. 19.” Thus, “those who refused the One who warned them on earth” refers to that prototype of all the disobedient, the wilderness generation (3:7–19), who stood before Sinai and later experienced its judgment because of their rebellion. Ellingworth, 684, however, misses the significance of his own observation because he fails to see that “those who heard” in v. 19 were transgressors.

8. The verb παραιτέομαι was used in v. 19, followed by an infinitive, in its weaker sense of “beg,” “request” (BDAG, 764, 1b). The people “begged” that God not speak directly to them again. Here in v. 25, followed by a substantive participle denoting a person, it is used in the stronger sense of “refuse” or “reject” (BDAG, 764, 2bα). Do not “refuse” the one who is speaking. See Lane, 2:475. Their request not to hear more of God’s word presaged their refusal to obey God’s word. Cf. Hughes, 556; Johnson, 334; Weiss, 686; and Westcott, 418.

9. ἐπὶ γῆς “is slightly emphatic by its position; the normal order would be τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς χρηματίζοντα (BDF §474.5c, as in ⁴⁶ א^c K L P Ψ)” (Ellingworth, 685).

10. It is the work of Christ, and not some matter/spirit dualism, that makes this revelation “from heaven” superior to the on-earth Sinai revelation. Cf. Ellingworth, 685; Lane, 2:477.

11. Both ἀποστρέφομαι (v. 25b, “turn away”) and παραιτέομαι (v. 25a, “refuse”) refer to a deliberate, culpable rejection of God’s address. Nevertheless, ἀποστρέφομαι is probably the stronger. “Refusal” has led to a definitive “turning away” (see Lane, 2:475; cf. BDAG, 123, 3; O’Brien, 492–94; Mitchell, 287). The pastor puts great emphasis on ἀποστρεφόμενοι by making it attributive (“we … who turn away,” Attridge, 378, n. 4) and by reserving it for the end of the sentence. Though missing in ⁴⁶, the article οἱ (“the”) before this participle (οἱ … ἀποστρεφόμενοι, “[we] the ones who turn away”) is probably original (pace Lane, 2:443ww).

12. The pastor, who often used conditional sentences in his earlier warnings, has reserved this more forceful substantive for the conclusion of his argument (Smillie, “‘The One Who Is Speaking’ in Hebrews 12:25,” 288–89).

13. According to Weiss, 684–85, the possibility of the hearers “turning away” and suffering judgment shows that the Sinai theophany in vv. 18–21 is not merely a past event, but a present possibility for the pastor’s hearers. Thus he confirms the interpretation of those verses given above.

14. The one whose voice shook the earth τότε (“then”) has νῦν δέ (“but now”) promised that he will ἔτι ἅπαξ (“yet once”) again shake the earth and heaven.

15. God’s future final Judgment has been promised by God through the prophet. Weiss, 687.

16. Compare ἐσάλευσεν (“shook,” from σαλεύω) in 12:26a with σείσω (“I will shake,” from σείω) in the Hag 2:6 quotation. See Josephus, Ant. 4.44; Matt 21:10; 27:51.

17. Lane, 2:481. See Pss 14 [MT 15]:5; 17 [MT 16]:8; 55 [MT 55:22]:23; 61 [MT 62:2]:3; 65 [MT 66]:9; 111 [MT 112]:6; 120 [MT 121]:3; 124 [MT 125]:1.

18. Spicq, 2:412.

19. “The announcement of this final catastrophe of the world, however awful in itself, is a ‘promise,’ because it is for the triumph of the cause of God that believers look” (Westcott, 419).

20. Haggai 2:22–23 is very similar to vv. 6–7 and, therefore, reinforces this understanding of the text.

21. Spicq, 2:411–12.

22. For the use of this verse as descriptive of the final eschatological earthquake, see 2 Bar. 59:3 and 4 Ezra 6:11–17; 10:25–28 (cited by Thompson, 263).

23. So Mitchell, 288; Braun, 443; Weiss, 689–91; and Grässer, 3:331–35.

24. Note ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (“on earth”) in 11:13 and ἐπουρανίου (“heavenly”) in 11:16. Cf. 9:24.

25. So Koester, 547.

26. Lane’s attempt (2:480) to equate “heaven” with the New Covenant and “earth” with the Old cannot be sustained. The pastor is affirming the finality of this judgment, not merely the truism that God will judge the people of both covenants.

27. With the ἔτι ἅπαξ (“once more”) of this verse compare the ἅπαξ (“once”) of the Son’s appearing (9:26) and sacrifice (9:28; 10:10) and the ἐφάπαξ (“once for all”) of his sacrifice (7:27) and entrance into God’s presence on our behalf (9:12). Cf. Michel, 473; Johnson, 335.

28. Weiss, 690–93; Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 45–51; Theissen, Untersuchungen, 108. Thompson thinks that the author began with a Jewish apocalyptic tradition that emphasized a coming final Judgment, but that he has reworked this tradition in terms of Platonic dualism. He wrongly attributes the devaluation of the Sinai revelation to this dualism rather than to the pastor’s commitment to the finality of Christ. Weiss, on the other hand, believes the author has introduced futuristic elements from Jewish apocalyptic into a Hellenistic tradition that emphasized the ontological difference between the heavenly and earthly worlds. For instance, Weiss (693–94) thinks the expression “Unshakable Kingdom” has been derived from such apocalyptic speculation on future judgment (Dan 6:1, 29; 7:18; 2 Macc 4:7; 10:11; Letter of Aristeas 36; Josephus, Ant. 15.16), but he contends that it has lost its apocalyptic force by being integrated into the author’s Hellenistic-dualistic eschatology (693–94). For both Weiss and Thompson the dualistic view is the author’s primary frame of reference. Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 133, goes further than either. He attempts to dissolve any reference to the temporal/eschatological when he says, “… there exists a clear order of being which is characterized by the distinction between earth and heaven, the shakable (Erschüttertem) and the unshakable (Unerschüttertem), the set aside (Beseitigtem) and enduring (Bleibendem), the transient (Vergänglichem) and the intransient (Unvergänglichem), the changeable (Veränderlichem) and the unchangeable (Unveränderlichem)” (italics added). Thompson can find only rather remote parallels in dualistic sources to τῶν σαλευομένων (“the things that can be shaken”) and τὰ μὴ σαλευόμενα (“the things that cannot be shaken”).

29. With the T/NIV we have taken τῶν σαλευομένων (“the things that are shaken”) and τὰ μὴ σαλευόμενα (“the things that are not shaken”) as potential: “the things that can be shaken,” “the things that cannot be shaken.” We have argued above that the “heaven” of v. 26 is indeed the true dwelling of God, that is, the home of the things “that cannot be shaken.” This puts us in the position of saying that at the Judgment God will “shake” the “unshakable” heaven. The contradiction is only apparent. God will “shake” heaven in that it too is subject to his judgment. It is, however, “unshakable” in that it will withstand his judgment.

30. Attridge, 381; Lincoln D. Hurst, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984), 41–74. The “things that cannot be shaken” have been described in vv. 22–24 and do not constitute an ethereal world of ideas. Furthermore, the pastor gives no indication that the “things that can be shaken”/ “things that have been made” are, in the Platonic sense, a copy of the unshakable realities. Nor does the pastor share the Platonic view that this created world is eternal (contrast 1:10–11 with Philo, Decalogue 58; cf. Bruce, 365).

31. BDAG, 639, 2, gives this meaning for μετάθεσις in Heb 12:27.

32. See the comment above on μετάθεσις at 7:12, a contrast to ἀθέτησις (“abolition”) in 7:18.

33. Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 118, admits that this “once-for-all,” final shaking of the created order is parallel to Christ’s “once-for-all” sacrifice. After this admission, however, he proceeds to argue that the emphasis in this final, “once-for-all” shaking is not on the specific final temporal occurrence of this event but on “the final end of an ongoing process” (Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 124). Hebrews knows nothing of such a process. The parallel with Christ’s first coming forbids separating the temporal specificity and the eschatological finality of this event. Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 124, admits the weakness of this argument by saying that “it is at least worth suggesting.”

34. Thus, one might change Ellingworth’s statement, “total annihilation probably lies beyond the author’s horizon” (688) to something like “total annihilation is not what the author is emphasizing.” The question as to whether the eternal abode of the blessed is heaven or a renewed earth would probably have seemed strange to the author of Hebrews. It is clear that the temporal passes away. On the other hand, this eternal abode is a “home,” a “city,” a true Mount Zion. It is “real” not in the abstract Platonic sense of a world of ideas, but in the concrete sense of those who have been raised from the dead. Since it is identified with the “rest” of God at the climax of creation, it is already in existence, just as the “Jerusalem” that comes down out of heaven from God in Rev 21:10 is already in existence. The “removal” of creation in Heb 12:27 reminds one of the way Rev 20:11; 21:1 refer to the heaven and earth fleeing away before the face of God (Bruce, 365). Cf. Rev 6:12–14; 18:18–20; 2 Pet 3:10; 1 En. 60:1; 2 Bar. 59:3.

35. Pace Attridge, 381. Though Attridge goes on to say, “All these things, Christ’s priesthood and the eschatological inheritance of his followers, are unshakable and abiding because they are grounded in the reality of God and God’s immutable will” (Attridge, 381–82, italics added).

36. “But for our author, the distinction is not between matter and spirit as such, but between that which is created and that which participates in God. What ‘remains’ (meinē) therefore is not the mental as opposed to the physical, but what ‘receives a share in God’s holiness’ (12:10), as opposed to things that do not enter into the ‘city of the living God’” (Johnson, 335–36). This quotation is the more significant because Johnson often attributes the contrast between the heavenly and the earthly in Hebrews to Platonic dualism.

37. “What cannot be shaken” refers to the “heavenly Jerusalem” as the “home” of God’s people (11:13–16), God’s eternal “rest” (3:7–4:11), and the “City whose architect and builder is God” (11:9–10). By implication, all who dwell within this city, and everything Christ has done to bring them thereunto, are also included within what cannot be shaken.

38. Compare μένουσαν πόλιν (“remaining city,” “enduring city”) in 13:14; ὕπαρξιν … μένουσαν (“remaining possession,” “enduring possession”) in 10:34 with ἵνα μείνῃ τὰ μὴ σαλευόμενα (“in order that what cannot be shaken might remain”) here in 12:27. Cf. 7:3, 24. In the LXX μείνω (“remain”) “is used frequently in reference to the enduring, unchangeable character of God, of reality like the new heaven and earth, and of persons who are rightly related to God (e.g., Ps. 102:25; Isa. 66:22; Zech 14:10 …)” (Lane, 2:482–83).

39. Compare ὧν ἐποίησε (“which he made”) from Gen 2:2 with πεποιημένων (“things which have been made”) in Heb 12:27 (cf. also ποιέω in 1:2 for God’s creating). The perfect participle, πεποιημένων, implies that these things are established, they have been made and are still in existence. This word is used repeatedly in Gen 1:1–31 to describe God’s creating the world (1:1, 7, 11, 12, 16, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31). In Gen. 2:4 God is described as the one who “made” (ἐποίησε) “the heaven and the earth” (τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν).

40. O’Brien, 496. Cf. Lane, 2:482, but with different arguments.

41. Notice how the pastor ends v. 27 in Greek with τὰ μὴ σαλευόμενα (“the things that cannot be shaken”) and then begins v. 28, after the initial διό (“therefore”), by describing essentially the same reality as βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον (“a Kingdom Unshakable”). The “things that cannot be shaken” (τὰ μὴ σαλευόμενα) probably includes the “Unshakable Kingdom” (βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον), as well as those who will receive it and all Christ has done to provide it (see Lane, 2:484).

42. See O’Brien, 498; Son, Zion Symbolism, 195, n. 127.

43. Johnson, 336, reminds us that this emphasis on the enthronement of Christ shows that “Hebrews shares the common Christian understanding of the ‘rule of God’ (basileia tou theou) established through Jesus (Matt 4:17; 26:29; Mark 1:15; 14:25; Luke 4:43; 22:16; John 3:3; Acts 14:22; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 6:9; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Col 4:11; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 4:1; Jas 2:5; 2 Pet 1:11; Rev 1:9).” For refutation of Stedman’s contention that the “Unshakable Kingdom” is the millennial kingdom, compare Ray C. Stedman, Hebrews (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 14, 37, 123, 133, 144 with deSilva, 471–72, n. 69.

44. See 2 Macc 10:11 (cf. Thompson, 269). Cf. also Dan 7:18, where God’s “holy ones” will receive and perpetually possess the “kingdom.”

45. Cf. Ellingworth, 689–90.

46. The term “Unshakable Kingdom” may have been suggested to the author of Hebrews by Hag 2:6 and related passages. Compare the LXX translation of Hag 2:6–7 with the closely related Hag 2:21b–22a: “For this is what the Lord Almighty says, Once again I will shake the sky and the earth and the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all the nations, and the choice things of all the nations shall come, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the Lord Almighty” (Hag 2:6–7). “I am shaking the sky and the earth and the sea and the dry land, and I will overthrow thrones of kings and destroy power of kings of the nations …” (Hag 2:21b–22a). Note that in these passages God’s shaking of sky (heaven), earth, sea, and dry land entails the shaking of the nations, the overthrowing of kings, and the bringing of the choice things of the nations to Jerusalem. Thus, it implies the establishing of God’s rule. With these verses the prophet Haggai was encouraging God’s people to rebuild the Temple. Thus, it would have been natural for the pastor to associate Psalm 96 LXX (97 MT) with Haggai because in the LXX this psalm bears the title, “When the house was being rebuilt after the captivity.” Ps 96:9–10 reads, “Do obeisance to the Lord in his holy court; let all the earth shake from before him. Say among the nations, ‘The Lord became king!’ Indeed, he set right the world, which shall not be shaken. He will judge peoples with forthrightness.” In Haggai God said he would shake the earth. Here the psalmist calls on the earth to “shake from before” God. Then he declares, “‘The Lord became king! Indeed, he set right the world (οἰκουμένη; cf. Heb 1:6; 2:5), which shall not be shaken.” Taken together, these verses suggest that after judgment God will rule an unshakable dominion. The italics have been added to the quotations above for emphasis. See Lane, 2:485; Albert Vanhoye, “L’οἰκουμένη dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” Bib 45 (1964): 248–53.

47. The word for “gratitude” (χάρις) in ἔχωμεν χάριν (“let us have gratitude”) is the word translated “grace” elsewhere in Hebrews (2:9; 4:16; 10:29; 12:15; and 13:9). Indeed, ἔχωμεν χάριν (“let us have gratitude”) here in 12:28 forms an inclusion with τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ (“the grace of God”) in 12:15 (Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 209, cited by Ellingworth, 690). Spicq, 2:412–13, is representative of those who would translate χάρις as “grace” here in 12:28 as well: “let us have grace” (NKJV) so that we can live a life of obedience. However, the translation “gratitude” is to be preferred for several reasons. First, the pastor normally describes the benefits provided by Christ as something the faithful already “have” and upon which they should act (4:14–16; 10:19–25). In 4:16, which might be thought of as an exception to this statement, “grace” does not refer to these benefits in general but to God’s specific help to meet a particular situation. Second, the fact that the pastor has used the term elsewhere with the meaning “grace” does not prevent his using it here in a different way. The hearers would not miss the inclusion formed by the use of this word in vv. 15 and 28, even if it has a different meaning in the later verse. Third, the combination ἔχωμεν χάριν is an idiom that normally means “let us have gratitude” (see BDAG, 1080, 5). This idiomatic combination and the immediate context are determinative. See deSilva, 473–76.

48. According to deSilva, 473, “let us have gratitude” becomes “the basic summons of the whole letter.” It is the appropriate response to the “gift” of the “Unshakable Kingdom.”

49. For λατρεύω as approaching God in worship or as priestly service, see 8:5; 9:1, 6, 9; 10:2; 13:10.

50. Lane, 2:487: “The life that is appropriate worship expresses fear and awe, because it recognizes the certainty of the promised eschatological shaking.” See also Thompson, 269, and Weiss, 695.

51. Thompson, 269; deSilva, 469.

52. See Thompson, 270. On “consuming fire” as an expression of God’s judgment, see Ellingworth, 692, and Michel, 478. Cf. Isa 33:14; Deut 4:24; 9:3.

53. Note the emphasis achieved through the initial καί in v. 29: “Even our God is a consuming fire” (italics added).

54. Weiss, 696–97.

55. Note the γάρ (“for”) at the beginning of v. 29.

56. See deSilva, 477.

57. Attridge, 379; Thompson 269; deSilva, 469.

1. According to the segmentation apparatus in the UBS⁴ Greek text, one can find some Greek edition or modern language translation that makes a paragraph break after each of the following verses: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

2. Most recently, A. J. M. Wedderburn, “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter,” NTS 50 (2004): 395–99.

3. C. C. Torrey, “The Authorship and Character of the So-Called ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’” JBL 30 (1911): 137–56.

4. The integrity of chapter 13 has been challenged by, among others, G. A. Simcox, “Heb. XIII; 2 Tim IV,” ExpTim 10 (1898–99): 430–32; Torrey, “Authorship,” 137–56; E. D. Jones, “The Authorship of Hebrews XIII,” ExpTim 46 (1934–35): 562–67; Buchanan, 229–45, 267–68; and, most recently, Wedderburn, “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter,” 390–405.

5. Héring, 126, proposes that chapter 13 was added by Paul in order to recommend the Letter of Hebrews, written by his friend Apollos.

6. For the former suggestion see Wedderburn, “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter,” 403–5; for the latter, Buchanan, 229–45, 267–68.

7. See R. V. G. Tasker, “The Integrity of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” ExpTim 47 (1935–36): 136–38; Floyd V. Filson, “Yesterday”: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 (London: SCM, 1967); Jukka Thurén, La Das Lobopfer der Hebräer: Studien zum Aufbau und Anliegen vom Hebräerbrief 13 (Åbo: Akademi, 1973), 57–70; Albert Vanhoye, “question littéraire de Hébreux XIII.1–6,” NTS 23 (1977): 121–39; and esp. the thorough discussion in Lane, 2:495–507.

8. See Vanhoye, “Hébreux XIII.1–6,” 121–27, esp. 127; Thurén, Lobopfer, passim. Nevertheless, Thurén’s hypothesis that chapter 13 was composed before the rest of Hebrews and served as the inspiration for the earlier chapters cannot be sustained (Thurén, Lobopfer, 53–55, 108, 246–47). This chapter does not have the marks of an independent document. The exhortation to brotherly love in 13:1 is too limited to provide an introduction for the entire chapter. See Vanhoye, “Hébreux XIII.1–6,” 130–32, 135–36. Chapter 13’s diverse sections find their unity only as the “peroration” of the sermon begun in the previous chapters.

9. Filson, “Yesterday,” 27–84; Thurén, Lobopfer. Vanhoye, “Hébreux XIII.1–6,” 128–30, compares love in 13:1–3 with 6:10; 10:24; 12:14; solidarity with prisoners in 13:2 with 10:34; 11:36; judgment in 13:4 with 6:2; 9:27; 10:30–31; and confidence in God’s help in 13:6 with 2:18; 4:16. Weiss, 699, demonstrates that 13:10–14 assumes the Christological development of the central section and serves as warrant for the exhortations in 13:13 and 13:15.

10. Vanhoye, “Hébreux XIII.1–6,” 129, shows that while 13:1–6 has sixteen words not found elsewhere in Hebrews, 12:18–21 and 12:14–17 each have fourteen words elsewhere absent from this book. Weiss, 698, suggests that the unique vocabulary of this chapter, with its “Paulinisms,” is due to the author’s use of traditional parenetic material. He reminds the reader that this traditional language of moral instruction has already been used in such places as 12:14. Furthermore, the terms used in 13:1–6 for “reminding” (μιμνῄσκομαι, 13:3; 2:6; 8:12; 10:17) and “remaining” (μένω, 13:1, 14; 7:3, 24; 10:34; 12:27; cf. διαμένω in 1:11) are characteristic of the earlier chapters.

11. Pace Spicq, 2:415; Montefiore, 237; and others.

12. See “The Sermon’s Rhetorically Effective Structure,” pp. 60–77 in the Introduction to this commentary, and esp. pp. 74, 76.

13. See Koester, 555–56.

14. Filson, “Yesterday,” 22–25, and Thurén, Lobopfer, 55–70, have attempted to show that the end of Hebrews reflects a literary structure common to other NT letters. Vanhoye, “Hébreux XIII.1–6,” 132–34, however, has shown that, while these letter endings share many of the same themes or motifs, they do not represent a common literary form. On p. 132 he cites Thurén’s own admission that, when compared with these other letters, the ending of Hebrews has many gaps, and that the author felt free to vary the order in which he considered the motifs common to others.

15. The life of faith is living as if God’s promises for the future are certain and his power in the present is real (see on 11:1–7). This same life can be described as one that expresses the deepest, awe-filled gratitude for what God has done in Christ: delivering his people from judgment and providing them with the hope of an “Unshakable Kingdom” (12:28). The person who lives from such motives is certainly living in dependence on God’s power and promises in the truest sense. Both descriptions are ways of depicting the person who lives as if God is God.

16. Lane, 2:497–98; O’Brien, 503; Thurén, Lobopfer, 234–35; and Filson, “Yesterday,” 28. Koester, 554–56, goes so far as to make 12:28–29 the introduction to 13:1–21 instead of the conclusion to 12:25–29. Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 295, passim, recognizes this dual role by including these verses both with what precedes and what follows.

17. These are the divisions suggested by Weiss, 700.

18. Although v. 7 begins with another second plural imperative, it should not be joined with vv. 1–6 for several reasons (pace Johnson, 337): v. 7 lacks the economy of style present in vv. 1–6; v. 6 is a fitting conclusion to what has gone before; and, finally, the mention of leaders in v. 7 forms an inclusion with v. 17. It is even less likely that vv. 7–9a should go with vv. 1–6, as Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 284, 295, suggests. Verse 9a is closely connected with vv. 9b–11.

19. Westfall’s suggestion that the final section begin with v. 17 spoils the inclusion with v. 7 (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 291–95). Vanhoye’s attempt to include v. 18 with vv. 7–17 is awkward because of the close connection between vv. 18 and 19 (Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 211–16). Lane, 499–500, following Guthrie, Structure, 134, makes a plausible case for including both vv. 18 and 19 with vv. 7–17. He argues that vv. 17–19, which refer to the recipients’ present leaders and to the author himself, parallel vv. 7–9, which refer to their past leaders, to the finality of Christ, and to false teaching. These two sections frame vv. 10–16, which differs from them in that it develops exhortation based directly on Scriptural interpretation. Lane would also include the benediction in vv. 20–21 with what has gone before as a further development of the life of gratitude and godly fear. See also McCown, “Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΣΕΩΣ,” 145–49, and Thurén, Lobopfer, 71. Attridge, 390, takes vv. 7–19 as a unit, but joins vv. 20–21 to vv. 22–25 as the letter ending. See the comments on vv. 18–25 below.

20. Thurén, Lobopfer, 74–90, 105–82, 187–245; Lane, 2:497–98; Weiss, 699; Koester, 557; Thompson, 276–77; and many others. Note the inclusion between εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ θεός (“God is well pleased,” 13:16) and εὐαρέστως τῷ θεῷ (“well pleasing to God,” 12:28). Note also v. 21, εὐάρεστον ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, “what is well pleasing before him”). The hearers already know that it is only the people who live “by faith” who are able “to please” (εὐαρεστῆσαι, 11:6) God.

1. Marie E. Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16 Revisited,” NTS 43 (1997): 270–72.

2. Note γάρ (“for”) in vv. 2b, 4b, and 5b; ὡς (“as”) twice in v. 3.

3. Note the present imperatives μενέτω (“let … continue,” v. 1), ἐπιλανθάνεσθε (“forget,” v. 2), and μιμνῄσκεσθε (“remember,” v. 3); the predicate adjectives τίμιος (“honored,” v. 4), ἀμίαντος (“undefiled,” v. 4), and ἀφιλάργυρος (“free from love of money,” v. 5); and the present participle used as an imperative (ἀρκούμενοι, “be content,” v. 5).

4. On the four pairs of exhortations in this passage, see Michel, 479. Thurén, Lobopfer, 208, 220–21, divides these exhortations into two pairs, as we have done, but separates the Scriptural citations in vv. 5b–6. He recognizes that the first pair enjoin conduct that expresses brotherly love by calling them “admonitions.” He acknowledges that the second are concerned with behavior that violates brotherly love by calling them “warnings.” Vanhoye is correct in criticizing Thurén for separating the Scriptural quotations (Vanhoye, “Hébreux XIII.1–6,” 122). These quotations serve as the direct motivation for the final pair of exhortations. He is mistaken, however, in separating the last pair of exhortations with their motivation in vv. 5–6 from the third pair in v. 4 (Vanhoye, “Hébreux XIII.1–6,” 123–24). As the exegesis below will show, these two pairs belong together both conceptually and structurally. He is also mistaken in objecting to Thurén’s classification of the first two pairs as “admonition” and the second two as “warning” (Vanhoye, “Hébreux XIII.1–6,” 122–23). The negative admonition in v. 2, “do not forget,” is a reminder, not a warning. On the other hand, the two negative admonitions at the heart of vv. 4–5 are clear warnings: “let the marriage bed be undefiled,” “let your conduct be free from the love of money” (notice the two alpha-privatives, ἀ-μίαντος (“undefiled”), ἀ-φιλάργυρος (“without love of money”). Furthermore, according to v. 4c, violators of the marriage bed are subject to God’s judgment.

5. See Thompson, 272–73; Johnson, 339–44, and the notes on individual exhortations below for Jewish, Christian, and pagan parallels to these admonitions.

6. Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16,” 270–72; pace Weiss, 700–701, the traditional nature of these admonitions is no reason to deny their relationship to the concrete situation of the readers.

7. Thompson, 277.

8. See the discussion of Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1161b30–35, and Plutarch, Mor. 478C–E, 480B–C (cited by deSilva, 486–87). Cf. 4 Macc 13:23, 26; 14:1; Philo, Embassy 87; Josephus, Ant. 4.26; cited in Attridge, 385, n. 17. On “brotherly love” as a pattern for the Christian life, see Rom 12:10; 1 Thess 4:9; 1 Pet 1:22; 2 Pet 1:7.

9. Hughes, 562, along with many others, misses the fine nuance of Hebrews when he says “it is through union with him [Christ] that we participate in the grace of sonship.” As we have seen in the analysis of 2:10–18, God’s people were already his “children” before the incarnation. It is for this reason that the Son assumes their humanity in order to bring them into their destiny as God’s “sons and daughters.”

10. Cf. Rom 12:10; 1 Thess 4:9; 1 Pet 1:22; 2 Pet 1:7; 1 Clem. 1:2; and Herm. Mand. 8:10. See Attridge, 385, n.18.

11. μενέτω (“let … continue”) in 13:1 is the third, singular, present, active imperative of μένω while μένουσαν, (“remains”) in 13:14 is the present participle of the same verb. “Brotherly love, then, that ‘remains’ has a future in the kingdom with God’s Son who continues forever (12:27; 13:14)” (O’Brien, 506).

12. The wordplay on and close connection between φιλαδελφία (“brotherly love”) and φιλοξενία (“hospitality”) is, pace Weiss, 701, much more obvious and intentional here than elsewhere in traditional Christian parenesis (see Rom 12:10, 13; cf. also 1 Pet 4:8–9, where the related adjective φιλόξενος (“hospitable”) is associated with ἀγαπή, “love.” φιλόξενος also occurs in 1 Tim 3:2 and Tit 1:8.

13. Compare the article/noun/imperative of ἡ φιλαδελφία μενέτω (“let brotherly love continue”) with the same order in τῆς φιλοξενίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε (“hospitality do not forget”).

14. Lane, 2:511–12.

15. See Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:8; 1 Pet 4:9; cf. 1 Cor 16:5–6; Phlm 22; 3 John 5–10. For the virtue of hospitality in Hellenistic Judaism, see Philo, Abraham 114; Josephus, Life 142. See also Ellingworth, 694; deSilva, 487; and J. H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 146. Lucian, Peregr. 11–13, suggests that some may have taken advantage of Christian hospitality. See also the instructions in Did. 11:4–6 that prohibit an “apostle” from staying in the same home for more than one or two days.

16. This translation takes τινες (“some”) as the subject of the third person plural second aorist ἔλαθον (“did not recognize,” “did not take notice”) and ζενίσαντες (“having entertained,” “having shown hospitality”) as temporal or circumstantial—“when they entertained” angels. This classical usage of λανθάνω (“not recognize,” “not notice”) in an adverbial sense with a complementary participle occurs nowhere else in the NT (Attridge, 386, n. 33).

17. The διά is instrumental, and ταύτης refers back to φιλοξενίας: “by means of practicing hospitality.”

18. Both Philo, Abraham 107, 113, and Josephus, Ant. 1.196, understood the three “men” who visited Abraham and Sarah in this passage as angels. For other examples of entertaining angels, see Judg 6:11–21; 13:3–10; and Tob 3:17; 5:4–16; 12:1–20.

19. φιλοξενίας (“hospitality”) at the beginning is balanced by ξενίσαντες ἀγγέλους (“having entertained angels”) near the end; ἐπιλανθάνεσθε (do not “forget”) corresponds to ἔλαθον τινες (“some did not notice”). See Lane, 2:507c.

20. τῶν δεσμίων (“those in prison”); συνδεδεμένοι (“imprisoned with them”). One might translate, “remember the prisoners as fellow imprisoned.”

21. On the condition of prisons, see Koester, 564–65; C. S. Wansink, Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonments (JSNTSup 130; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 27–95; Rapske, Book of Acts, 195–225; and the primary sources cited in these references.

22. Compare τῶν κακουχουμένων (“those who are tortured”) in 13:3 with κακουχούμενοι (“suffering ill treatment”) in 11:36–37 and συγκακουχεῖσθαι (“to suffer ill treatment with”) in 11:25.

23. Ellingworth, 696. Those who supply “their,” “as if you were in their bodies” (Attridge, 387, n. 42; cf. Koester, 558) would make this second “as” (ὡς) unreal like the first on the basis of Philo, Spec. Laws 3.161, which refers clearly to “their bodies.” This suggestion, however, unduly weakens the pastor’s statement and obscures the echo of Christ’s assuming human corporeality and vulnerability (10:5–10; 2:14–18). See Bénétreau, 2:210–11.

24. καί (“also”) strengthens the identity of the hearers with those suffering as does αὐτοί used as second person plural intensive, “yourselves.” The present participle ὄντες (“being”) also adds emphasis. See Lane, 2:508–9.

25. This is no reference to the people of God as the “body” of Christ or to the “body” as the source of moral evil (Ellingworth, 696).

26. Thus, the implied verb is not ἔστι (ν) (“is”), the third singular present indicative of εἴμι, but the third person singular imperative, ἔστω (“Let … be”). See Lane, 2:508i; Attridge, 387; Ellingworth, 697.

27. By “marriage” and “marriage bed” the pastor can be referring to nothing other than the bond between a man and woman established by God in the opening chapters of Genesis. There is absolutely no warrant for the following statement by Johnson (342): “We cannot conclude that the readers of Hebrews did not have or honor other expressions of sexuality beside marriage.”

28. If πᾶσιν is taken as masculine, then ἐν πᾶσιν can be understood as local, “among all” (NKJV, NASB) or as instrumental of agency, “by all” (NIV, NRSV). There is little difference in meaning (Attridge, 387). If πᾶσιν is neuter, then the phrase is instrumental of manner, “in every way.” None of the parallels Ellingworth (697) cites in support of this last interpretation is exact—ἐν παντί (v. 21), διὰ παντός (2:15), and κατὰ πὰντα (4:15). The second (2:15) is a fixed idiom for “always” or “perpetually.”

29. On the “marriage bed” as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, see Lev 15:21–26; Wis 3:13, 16.

30. Josephus, Ant. 2.55 uses the language of defilement for the marriage bed (cf. Gen 49:4; Wis 14:24; T. Reu. 1:6; Attridge, 387; Koester, 558; Johnson, 341). However, the pastor’s use of ἀμίαντος (“undefiled”) is most appropriate in light of his presentation of Christ as the High Priest who cleanses his people from the defilement of sin. The moral nature of this defilement is confirmed by the judgment of God, pronounced upon those who indulge in such behavior. Notice the word μιανθῶσιν (“be defiled”) near the end of 12:15 and πόρνος (“sexually immoral”) near the beginning of 12:16.

31. Attridge, 388.

32. “As in the case of Esau [12:16–17], to be subject to the sexual appetites is the epitome of an existence oriented to the present moment rather than to the unseen world” (Thompson, 279).

33. Cf. Sir 23:16–21.

34. For πόρνος in the sense of persons who commit any kind of sexual immorality, see 1 Cor 5:9–11; 6:9; Eph 5:5; 1 Tim 1:10; Rev 21:8; 22:15. Cf. Sir 23:16–21.

35. See Lane, 2:508l.

36. Luke 16:9–18; 1 Cor 5:1–6:11; Eph 5:3–5; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3–7. Cf. also Philo, Abraham 133–34; and references in Attridge, 387, nn. 45–47.

37. See Lane, 2:517–18.

38. Note also how the first word in the exhortation of v. 5, ἀφιλάργυρος (“without love of money”), echoes the alpha-privative from the last word of the exhortation in v. 4, ἀμίαντος (“without defilement”). Vanhoye recognizes this wordplay and the chiastic structure that binds vv. 4–5a (Vanhoye, “Hébreux XIII.1–6,” 122), but then separates these two verses in his structural analysis of this section (Vanhoye, “Hébreux XIII.1–6,” 122–24).

39. We are not suggesting that etymology is the primary guide to the meaning of ἀφιλάργυρος (“not love of money,” v. 5), φιλαδελφία (“brotherly love,” v. 1), and φιλοξενία (“love of hospitality,” v. 2), but that the author of Hebrews is intentionally employing a wordplay by using these three terms. For the “love of money” (φιλαργυρία) as a fundamental vice see Luke 16:14, 2 Tim 3:2, and esp. 1 Tim 6:10: “The love of money is the root of every kind of evil.” Cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 4.65, and the many secular sources cited in Johnson, 343.

40. Thus, pace Ellingworth, 699, it is misguided to argue that this participle has imperatival force and thus does not qualify the previous clause. The pastor avoids using a straight imperative, which he could easily have done, because he wants to do both.

41. Ellingworth, 698; deSilva, 491.

42. “If Stoics counseled people to be content for the sake of self-sufficiency, Hebrews urges them to be content for the sake of serving others in the confidence that God will give them a future reward (Heb 10:35; 11:26)” (Koester, 559). See Attridge, 388, n. 62, for examples of pagan teaching on contentment; n. 63, for Christian.

43. On this use of αὐτός (“himself”), see Ellingworth, 699.

44. Lane, 2:519; Ellingworth, 699–700.

45. See οὐ and μή (both meaning “not”) in the first statement, οὐδʼ (“neither”) connecting the two, and οὐ μή again in the second.

46. Ellingworth, 700.

47. The underlined words below highlight the similarities between Heb 13:5, Deut 31:6, 8, and Josh 1:5.

Heb 13:5: οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ οὐδʼ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω (“I will never leave you, nor will I ever forsake you”).

Deut 31:6 οὐ μή σε ἀνῇ οὔτε μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ (He will never leave you, nor will he ever forsake you”).

Deut 31:8: οὐκ ἀνήσει σε οὐδὲ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃ σε (“He will not leave you, nor will he ever forsake you”).

Josh 1:5: ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε (“I will also be with you, and I will not forsake you nor will I reject you”).

The above comparison shows that Heb 13:5 is identical to Deut 31:6 except for the substitution of οὐδʼ οὐ for οὔτε between the clauses and for the first/third person variation.

48. There is little or no contextual reason for thinking that these words are addressed to Jesus, the supposed new Joshua (Lane, 2:519–20).

49. ὥστε (“so”) shows that this is a response to what God has said. The infinitive λέγειν (“to say”) with the first person plural subject ἡμᾶς (“we”) is not merely a quotation formula (cf. Ellingworth, 700). It is hortatory, and thus an invitation: “let us say.” The participle θαρροῦντας indicates how the hearers should respond to God by affirming this Scripture, “being confident,” or, more smoothly, “confidently.” Weiss, 707, notes how this verse ties this parenetic section back into the author’s concern for perseverance in faith throughout the book. Verse 8 reprises the book’s Christology.

50. See the section entitled “The Psalms and Related Passages—‘God has Spoken,’” pp. 45–47 in the Introduction to this commentary.

51. The pastor quotes Ps 117:6 in the LXX (118:6 in the MT) without variation except for the textually questionable καί (“and”), which appears between κύριος ἐμοὶ βοηθός (“the Lord is my helper”) and οὐ φοβηθήσομαι (“I will not fear”) in some manuscripts of Hebrews.

52. Compare οὐ φοβηθήσομαι (“I will not fear”) with μὴ φοβοῦ (“do not fear”) twice in Deut 31:6–8. Also compare τί ποιήσει μοι ἄνθρωπος (“What can a human being do to me?”) in v. 6 with οὐκ ἀντιστήσεται ἄνθρωπος κατενώπιον ὑμῶν (“No human being will be able to stand before you”) in Josh 1:5.

53. It is less likely, though possible, that the pastor thought of Jesus as the “Lord” who is “our Helper.” Compare βοηθός (“helper”) in this verse with βοηθεῖν (“to help”) in 2:18 and βοήθεια (“help”) in 4:16.

1. Attridge, 391, calls this section “a forceful synthesis of the doctrine and paraenesis of the whole text.” See also Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16,” 272–73.

2. See Bruce, 374–75.

3. The substantive participle ὁ ἡγούμενος was a general term for political (Deut 1:13; Sir 17:17; 41:17) or military (1 Macc 9:30; 14:16) leaders. The related term προηγούμενοι was used as a technical term for church leaders in documents associated with Rome (1 Clem. 1:3; 21:6; Herm. Vis. 2.2.6; 3.9.7; Attridge, 391, n. 18). However, it is doubtful, pace Weiss, 710, whether ἡγούμενος already has the character of a title in Hebrews. Thus Weiss’s attempt, 710–12, to locate the ecclesiastical development of the community addressed in Hebrews somewhere between the Pauline communities, where leaders were described by function rather than by title, and the hierarchy of postapostolic times, is purely speculative. See Weiss’s discussion and the literature there cited. The pastor claims neither the apostolic authority of a Paul (Rom 1:1; Gal 1:1; etc.), nor the authority of ecclesiastical appointment (Phil 1:1; cf. 1 Tim 1:6), for either himself or these founding leaders of the community to which his hearers belonged. The authority of these leaders rests on the proclamation of God’s word as fulfilled in Christ (1:1–4).

4. Hughes, 569, n. 18, reviews the usage of ἔκβασις (“outcome”) elsewhere and comes to the conclusion that it should be understood as the “achievement” or “accomplishment” of their lives, the sum total of their daily living in faith until the end. Cf. Ellingworth, 703. “How they suffered, how they died, and how they found a place in the city of the living God (12:2; see also 11:4, 5, 7, 21, 22)” (Johnson, 345–46).

5. O’Brien, 517.

6. See the comments on 10:10.

7. Koester, 560, likens this formula, “indicating that God was, is, and will be” to similar descriptions in various sources. See Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5 (Johnson, 346; Weiss, 715). “Forever” confirms the Son’s eternal being (1:8), his perpetual priesthood (5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 28), and the unchanging efficacy of the salvation he has accomplished (5:9; 9:12). See Johnson, 346.

8. See Bauckham, “Divinity,” 34–36.

9. Ellingworth, 704. “Yesterday,” as part of this formula underscoring divine perpetuity, refers to the indeterminate past. However, in light of v. 7, it also evokes the recent past or the hearers’ deceased leaders. Cf. Riggenbach, 434–35. There is little contextual reason to identify “yesterday” with Christ’s incarnation or suffering (pace Attridge, 393; Thompson, 281; Bruce, 375).

10. See Hughes, 570, citing Peter Lombard.

11. Thus, the perpetual effectiveness of Christ not only undergirds faith but, pace Weiss, 714–16, is its object—anticipated by those who lived before Christ, embraced by those who would live faithfully since.

12. Cf. Johnson, 346.

13. This phrase may have been a confession of faith drawn from the teaching of these early leaders (Lane, 2:502) and now adapted to the pastor’s purpose within this immediate context (Weiss, 716–17).

14. On the progression—faithful leaders (v. 7); their teaching (v. 8); false teaching (v. 9)—see Lane, 2:526–28; Hughes, 570; Attridge, 392–93; and O’Brien, 517.

15. παραφέρεσθε (“do not allow yourselves to be carried away”) is permissive middle. Cf. Col 2:6–8; Eph 4:14–16. For this expression in the context of being misled by error see Plato, Philebus 38D; Phaedrus 265D (Johnson, 346). Compare μήποτε παραρυῶμεν (“lest we drift away”) in 2:1. This “being carried away” is also the opposite of τὴν τελειότητα φερώμεθα (“let us go on to maturity,” “let us allow ourselves to be borne on to maturity”) in 6:1. For other παρα-terms used in Hebrews with a negative connotation see παρακοή (“disobedience,” 2:2); παραπικραίνω (“rebel,” 3:16); παραπικρασμός (“rebellion,” 3:8, 15); παραπίπτω (“fall away,” 6:6); παραιτέομαι (“beg,” “refuse,” 12:19, 25).

16. Cf. Rom 16:17–18; 2 Thess 3:13–18; 1 Tim 6:20–21; Tit 3:9–11; Jas 5:19–20; 2 Pet 3:17; 1 John 5:16–17; Jude 22–23 (cited by Weiss, 717, n. 37).

17. Koester, 567; Thompson, 281–82; Johnson, 347; Weiss, 716–22; Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16,” 280–81; and D. Lührmann, “Der Hohepriester ausserhalb des Lagers (Heb 13, 12),” ZNW 69 (1978): 178, represent those who follow this interpretation.

18. “Teachings diverse and strange do not be carried away with” is an awkward translation, but it represents the Greek word order and shows the emphasis put on “teachings.”

19. This is no contrast between Christ and the OT priests; it is between “us” and the people “who worship in the Tent.” See on v. 10 below.

20. The writer would have seen nothing wrong with “worshiping in the Tent” before the coming of Christ. Thus there is no reason to suppose that he was speaking of those who were unfaithful during that earlier era.

21. Weiss, 718–19, contends that the pastor has no specific false teaching in mind because he is concerned about “confirming the heart” of his hearers rather than correcting their thinking. Yet he admits that the “grace” by which hearts are confirmed has a Christological foundation (719).

22. The earlier chapters of Hebrews provide no support for the suggestion that the hearers were attracted by Gnostic or pagan mystical practices (Lane, 2:532–35; Attridge, 394–96; Hughes, 572–74). Hughes notes that since these teachings involved participation in “foods,” they could not be Gnostic doctrines that taught abstention from food.

23. Lane, 2:532–35. Goulder, “Ebionites,” 393–406, contends that Hebrews is a sustained apologetic against teachings like those held by the early Jewish Christians called Ebionites. According to the Ebionites Christ was an angel who came upon Jesus at his baptism and left before his crucifixion. N. H. Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13:9–14),” NTS 48 (2002): 253–55, attests the Jewish character of these teachings but puts more emphasis on social pressure to identify with the synagogue and less emphasis on the influence of aberrant beliefs. He envisions a situation in which the recipients of Hebrews have not yet made a clean break with their former congregation.

24. These teachings were “diverse” (ποικίλαις), while the gospel is one (Johnson, 346). Compare the πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως (“at various times and in various ways”), the very first words of this book, which the pastor used to emphasize the incompleteness—though not the perversity—of the old order.

25. BDAG, 842, 2b.

26. Attridge, 393; Ellingworth, 706; Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13:9–14),” 254–56.

27. This delay is one of the factors that has led some to believe that this is a stylized reference, rather than a real refutation of false teaching (see Koester, 567; Thompson, 281–82; Johnson, 347; Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16,” 280–81).

28. Writers like Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13:9–14),” 258–59, and esp. Goulder, “Ebionites,” 393–401, greatly exaggerate the polemical character of chapters 1–12 because they fail to note both this lack of direct opposition to contemporary Judaism and the strong sense of continuity between the people of God past and present.

29. Goulder, “Ebionites,” 393–406, falls into this error. Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13:9–14),” 243–61, is more balanced.

30. Compare βεβαιοῦσθαι (“to be confirmed”) in this verse with βεβαίαν, used in 3:14 for holding the beginning of one’s confession “firm” until the end.

31. Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16,” 281, and Johnson, 347, would limit “foods” to the sacrifices, etc. of the Old Covenant without reference to any contemporary practice. It is not clear why Johnson would translate “foods” as “dietary laws” if these foods are a metaphor for “foods” offered as sacrifices under the Old Covenant (Lev 3:1–17; 7:11–21; Ezek 44:30–31). It appears that his translation is determined by conflict over dietary laws mentioned elsewhere (Mark 7:1–8; Acts 10:1–11:30; 1 Corinthians 8–10; Rom 14:1–23; Rev 2:14, 20) rather than by the contextual concerns of Hebrews. Bruce, 377, tends to fall into the same error.

32. See the argument in Lane, 2:532–35. There is nothing in the context that suggests the pastor is referring to pagan sacrifices (pace Moffatt, 233). Gnosticizing teachings usually required abstention from certain foods rather than participation in ritual meals (Hughes, 572–74; pace Bruce, 377). The pastor cannot be referring to the eucharist or the Lord’s Supper since the meals he opposes belong to the old era (Attridge, 394–96; thus, pace Braun, 461–62, he is not combating a false or “magical” view of the eucharist). Lührmann, “Der Hohepriester,” 178–80, suggests that “foods” represents not merely the “Jewish cult” but the earthly cult as contrasted to the heavenly. Hebrews acknowledges that the old sacrificial system was earthbound and dependent on mortal, sinful humanity. However, it never portrays the old as representative of anything but itself.

33. Note forms cognate with ὠφελέω (“to profit”) in 4:2 and especially in 7:18 where the related term ἀνωφελές describes the “uselessness” of the “former commandment” to cleanse and bring into God’s presence (cf. Lane, 2:535). Pace Riggenbach, 438, these “unprofitable” practices and Christ are mutually exclusive.

34. The perfect tense of βεβαιοῦσθαι (“to be confirmed,” “to have been confirmed”) is in accord with the continuing validity and effectiveness of this heart-confirming grace.

35. Pace Thompson, 282; Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 146; and Filson, “Yesterday,” 48–50; cf. Lührmann, “Der Hohepriester,” 179. Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16,” 275, notes that even in the OT the altar of sacrifice was outside the sanctuary and the means of its entrance, a fact overlooked by Ronald Williamson, “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” NTS 21 (1975): 309.

36. Pace P. Andriessen, “L’eucharistie dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” NRTh 94 (1972): 269–77; J. Swetnam, “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Bib 70 (1989): 74–94. See the evaluation of this position by Williamson, “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 300–312; Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16,” 277–80; Lane, 2:538–39; and Weiss, 723–29. The pastor, who has compared the old as outward ritual to the new as inner transformation (9:11–14), would hardly compare the “foods” of the old with the “food” of the eucharist. The first possible use of “altar” for the eucharist comes from Ignatius of Antioch (Philadelphians 4; cf. Magn. 7:2; Trall. 7:2; Eph. 5:2). However, one must also be skeptical of Williamson’s speculative suggestion that the writer of Hebrews represented a noneucharistic Christianity.

37. For “this altar” as a metaphor for Christ’s suffering and death on the cross see Attridge, 396; Hughes, 575; Lane, 2:538; Montefiore, 244; Spicq, 2:425; O’Brien, 521; and Mitchell, 299.

38. Lane, 2:538; Ellingworth, 711; Weiss, 724.

39. See Spicq, 2:415.

40. See Attridge, 397.

41. The pastor is not referring to the Temple or to a literal “Tent” but to the “Tent” worship described in 8:5; 9:1–10. The words τῇ σκηνῇ (“the tent”) without a preposition can be understood as a locative of sphere—those whose worship is in accord with the Tent-system of the old order. “Worship” (λατρεύω in 13:10) is used once for the ministry of priests (8:5), but four times for lay worshipers (9:9, 14; 10:2; 12:28).

42. “The true Tent” (8:1) and “the greater and more perfect Tent” (9:11).

43. The phrase “those who worship in the Tent” does not refer to the priests alone, nor does it refer to all who worship in a material, ritual, sacramental cult but, as stated above, to the people as a whole who continue to worship according to the Old Covenant since Christ has come. This position is substantiated in several ways. First, the pastor contrasts the priests with Christ (5:1–10; 7:10–25; 8:1–10:18), but “those who worship in the Tent” with his hearers who are followers of Christ (priests/Christ//“those who worship in the Tent”/the followers of Christ). See above on v. 9. Second, the metaphorical use of “eating” for receiving personal benefit from a sacrifice is analogous to the “peace” offerings (Lev 7:11–18) from which all could eat rather than to the sin offerings. Although the priests could eat the sin offerings of others (Lev 6:19, 22 [LXX 26, 29]; 7:6; 10:17–18; Num 18:9–10), neither priests nor people could eat their own sin offerings. Nor is the eating metaphor derived from the Day of Atonement sacrifices from which none could eat (pace Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16,” 281; Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ [Heb 13:9–14],” 246–47; and others). There is no indication that the pastor is using the inability of the priests to eat the Day of Atonement sacrifices as a type of their inability to “eat” from the “altar” that “we have” (pace Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ [Heb 13:9–14],” 246–47; L. Paul Trudinger, “The Gospel Meaning of the Secular: Reflections on Hebrews 13:10–13,” EvQ 54 [1982]: 236; cf. Bruce, 378; Bénétreau, 2:221). Since Hebrews never uses the old earthbound sacrificial system as typical of all that is earthbound, it would be inappropriate to include all who participate in a material, ritual, sacramental cult among these “Tent worshipers” (pace Moffatt, 234; Lührmann, “Der Hohepriester,” 178–80; and Braun, 463). Cf. O’Brien, 519, 522.

44. Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13:9–14),” 255–56; cf. Goulder, “Ebionites,” 395, n. 6.

45. Ellingworth, 712, senses this apparent abruptness, but misses the connection between vv. 10 and 11–13 when he says that γάρ (“for”) connects v. 11 only loosely with v. 10.

46. Weiss, 729.

47. ζῴων, the genitive plural of ζῴα (“animals”), replaces καὶ τὸν μόσχον … καὶ τὸν χίμαρον (“both the bull … and the goat”) in Lev 16:27. ζῴων appears to be used absolutely in the genitive case, perhaps attracted to that case by the relative pronoun ὧν (“whose”). This word for “animals” is emphasized by being given a rather odd location, several words after this relative pronoun of which it is the antecedent—ὧν γὰρ εἰσφέρεται ζῴων τὸ αἷμα (literally, “of whom for is brought in of animals the blood …”; underlining added). By omitting the definite article before ζῴων the pastor emphasizes the “animal” quality of these sacrifices.

48. Cf. John 19:20: “the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city.” The pastor may or may not be recalling a specific reference within the tradition used by the Gospels, but he is recalling the historical reality of Jesus’ crucifixion (cf. 7:14).

49. It is not so much, as Lane, 2:540, and Hughes, 574–78, have suggested, that the burning of these sacrifices outside the camp prevented the worshipers from eating them and thereby from partaking of their benefit. If anything, this burning reinforced the demonstration (in 9:1–10 above) that these sacrifices provided no true cleansing from sin and access to God. Pace Attridge, 397, the pastor is not alluding to the unavailability of Christ’s body.

50. Thus, it is not necessary, with Bénétreau, 2:222, to explain the “tension” between the death of Jesus “outside the gate” and the burning of the sacrifices “outside the camp” as due to the partial nature of all biblical types. This disposal outside the camp both anticipated Jesus and demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the old sacrifices. Koester, 576, n. 480, correctly notes that the Day of Atonement sacrifice concluded with these burned bodies, Christ’s began by his being taken outside the city.

51. Attempts by Thompson (283), Lührmann, “Der Hohepriester,” 184, and others to identify the place of suffering and reproach with the heavenly world lead to numerous inconsistencies. This interpretation is usually bolstered by the way Philo explains Moses’ setting up his tent “outside the camp” (according to Exod 33:7–10) as his leaving the material, temporal, bodily world in order to contemplate God and teach others about him (Giants 50–55). Pace Lührmann, “Der Hohepriester,” 181–82, Philo’s explanation of this passage is no witness to an interpretive tradition that saw “outside the camp” as a place of purity. Rather, what Philo says here is in complete accord with his normal methods of allegorical interpretation. The argument presented by Thompson and Lührmann is a classic example of interpreting an expression in Hebrews on the basis of its use in Philo rather than on the basis of its use in Hebrews. See Johnson, 349; Weiss, 734; and Bénétreau, 2:223–25. Furthermore, pace Ellingworth, 714, 717; Hughes, 578–83; Lane, 2:543–44; and those cited by Lane, there is little evidence for an allusion to Exod 33:7–10 in Heb 13:11–13. Aside from the phrase “outside the camp” (ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς), which Hebrews borrows from Lev 16:27, there is no verbal or conceptual reminiscence of the Exodus passage. See Attridge, 399, n. 119.

52. Cf. 9:18–20; 10:10, 14, 29; and Lane, 2:541, citing Andriessen, “L’eucharistie,” 276.

53. Compare διό (“therefore”) at the beginning of v. 12 with τοίνυν (“therefore”) at the beginning of this verse.

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

55. When the pastor focuses on the suffering of Christ, he tends to think of him as sacrifice rather than as High Priest (Bénétreau, 2:221–22), though the two are so intimately connected that they can hardly be separated.

56. Pace Trudinger, “Gospel Meaning,” 237, the pastor is not here calling the faithful to serve the world. He is calling them to bear the rejection of the world because of their faithfulness to Christ.

57. “The location, ‘outside the camp,’ does not mark the place where Jesus now is; rather it signifies the manner in which the readers are to approach the exalted Christ” (Mitchell, 304).

58. The consistency of direction and careful arrangement of the pastor’s exhortations to “go out” (ἐξερχώμεθα, 13:13; cf. 11:8 and κατέλιπεν, “abandon,” in 11:27), to “go toward” (or “draw near,” προσερχώμεθα, 4:15–16; 10:22; cf. 7:25), and to “go into” (various forms of εἰσἑρχομαι in 4:1, 3, 6, and 11) provide further evidence of his consummate skill as a persuasive preacher. When the pastor presented his hearers with examples of the unfaithful, he urged them to “go into” that final “rest” forfeited by the disobedient (4:1, 3, 6, 11). On the other hand, when he urged them to follow the examples of the faithful, he encouraged them to “go out” (11:8; cf. 11:27) from the unbelieving world and bear its scorn. In between he directed their attention to the sufficiency of Christ as the means by which they could “go toward” or “draw near” to God for necessary grace (4:15–16; 7:25; 10:22). This arrangement has the salutary effect of focusing their attention first on the glorious goal to be attained and then on the all-sufficient means of attaining it before addressing the difficulties to be overcome. Pace Attridge, 398–99, who seems to think this variety of directions a bit bewildering.

59. See Attridge, 399; Hughes, 580.

60. Attridge, 399, contends that the “camp” has nothing to do with Jewish tradition but signifies “the realm of security and traditional holiness, however that is grounded or understood.” This position strains such expressions as “those who worship in the Tent” (13:10) and is difficult to maintain in light of Hebrews’ comparison of the old and new priesthoods, sacrifices, and covenants.

61. Compare παραφέρεσθε (“let yourselves be borne about,” v. 9, from παραφέρω) and φέροντες (“bearing,” v. 13, from φέρω).

62. γάρ (“for”) at the beginning of v. 14 confirms the fact that the hope of the “enduring City” is strong motivation for bearing Christ’s reproach as advocated in v. 13.

63. Ellingworth, 718–19, is misled when he says that ὧδε (“here”) in v. 14 broadens the metaphorical meaning of “camp” from “the old cultic dispensation” to “this world in contrast to heaven.” It is not a matter of broadening but of reference to two different things. The “camp” represents unbelieving society. “Here” is a reference to this present world.

64. On μένουσαν (“enduring”) see the comments on μείνῃ (“might remain”) in 12:27. Both words are forms of the μένω (“remain”). Even if ἐπιζητοῦμεν (“we are seeking”) echoes ἐπιζητουμένη πόλις (“a city sought”) in Isa 62:12, as Ellingworth, 719, suggests, it is doubtful that the pastor intends to evoke that passage. A reference to πᾶς ὁ ζητῶν κύριον (“everyone seeking the Lord”) in Exod 33:7 is even more tenuous.

65. Compare ἐξεδέχετο (“expect,” “anticipate”) in 11:10 with ἐπιζητοῦμεν (“earnestly seek”) here in 13:14. “Seek to get” (BDAG, 302, 2) is a more appropriate translation for ἐπιζητοῦμεν in this verse than the “seek out, search for” under which BDAG lists this passage (302, 1). The pastor is not concerned with discovery of the eternal City but with earnest striving for entrance thereunto. Such striving is more than mere intense expectation (pace Lane, 2:523x; cf. Ellingworth, 719).

66. Lane, 2:548, cites De Young, Jerusalem, 108–9.

67. Note Lane’s chiastic analysis of vv. 15–16: (A) Δἰ αὐτοῦ [οὖν] ἀναφέρωμεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως διὰ παντὸς τῷ θεῷ (“through him let us offer a sacrifice of praise perpetually to God”) (B) τοῦτʼ ἔστιν καρπὸν χειλέων ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ (“that is, fruit of lips that acknowledge his name”). (B¹) τῆς δὲ εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε? (“do not forget doing good and sharing”), (A¹) τοιαύταις γὰρ θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ θεός (“for with such sacrifices God is well pleased”) (Lane, 2:504). Ellingworth, 719, misses the point here when he says, apparently on the basis of δέ in v. 16, that vv. 15 and 16 are not closely bound to each other.

68. Although οὖν (“therefore”) in v. 15 is textually suspect, it is clear that believers offer this sacrifice of praise and good works in response to what they “have” in Christ, and in anticipation of that for which they hope.

69. Contrast διʼ αὐτοῦ (“through him,” i.e., Jesus Christ) with διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως (“through the high priest”) of v. 11. See Lane, 2:548. Thus διʼ αὐτοῦ is mediatorial (Ellingworth, 720). The pastor gives cohesion to his train of thought by using three words based on the root φέρω (“bear,” “carry”): παραφέρεσθε (“don’t let yourselves be carried about,” v. 9), φέροντες (“bearing,” v. 13), and ἀναφέρωμεν (“let us offer,” v. 15).

70. See Lane, 2:548; Spicq, 2:429.

71. See Lane, 2:549.

72. For moral virtue and praise as the sacrifices pleasing to God in Greco-Roman and Jewish piety, see Epictetus, Enchiridion 31.5; Apollonius of Tyana, Letter 26; Sir 34:18–35:11; Pss. Sol. 15:3; T. Levi 3:5–6; 1QS 9:4–5 (Johnson, 349). Yet these sources do not necessarily oppose the offering of animal sacrifices in principle (cf. 1QS 9:4–5). While Philo emphasizes the importance of thanksgiving and good deeds, he never suggests that the sacrificial ritual should cease (see Migration 89–93). Hebrews gives a thorough rationale for an understanding of sacrifice that is implicit elsewhere in the NT. Cf. Rom 12:1–2; Phil 2:17; 4:18; 1 Pet 2:5; John 4:24.

73. Compare διὰ παντός (“perpetually,” “continuously,” “continually”) in 13:15 with the same expression in 9:6. διὰ παντός was often used in the LXX of the perpetual repetition of the sacrifice, but here of the permanent validity of the sacrifice of praise given in response to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. Lane, 2:548–49, shows how the language of this verse is related to various OT and contemporary Jewish writings.

74. Compare ὁμολογία (“confession”) in these verses with ὁμολογέω (“confess”), used here in 13:15 and in 11:13.

75. αἰνέσεως (“of praise”) is an attributive genitive, defining the nature of this θυσίαν (“sacrifice”). See Lane, 2:549. In Lev 7:12–15; 2 Chr 29:31; 33:16 (LXX); and 1 Macc 4:56, animals offered in thanksgiving for what God has done are called “sacrifices of praise” (θυσία [τῆς] αἰνἐσεως). In Ps 50:14, however, God tells his people to offer “a sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows to the Most High” instead of offering animal sacrifices (cf. Ps 50:23). This psalm verse is the only place in the Greek OT where θυσίαν αἰνέσεως (“sacrifice of praise”) and θεῷ (“to God”) are used together as they are here in Heb 13:15 (Lane, 2:549). Ps 50:14 in our English Bibles equals Ps 49:14 in the LXX. Hughes (583–84) thinks Heb 13:15 is referring to the Greek translation of Hos 14:2: “we will render the fruit of our lips.” Compare the MT of this verse: “we will render the bullocks of our lips.”

76. See Pfitzner, 201.

77. Thus Weiss, 741, is mistaken when he refuses to see a connection between “confessing” (ὁμολογέω, 13:15) his name and the “confession” (ὁμολογία) of the community (3:1; 4:14; 10:23).

78. The term here in Hebrews is ὁμολογέω (“confess”). The LXX uses the compound ἐξομολογέω followed by a dative referring to God with the meaning “praise” or “give praise to”—Pss 6:5; 7:17; 9:1; 17:49; 21:25; 27:7; 29:4, 9, 12; 32:2 (all of these references represent the LXX numbering). Thus some would translate Heb 13:15 as “the fruit of lips that praise his name” (BDAG, 709, 4c; see also Lane, 2:550–51, and Attridge, 400–401). This translation, however, misses the connection between ὁμολογέω (“confess”) and ὁμολογία (“confession”). It also overlooks the fact that even within the OT God’s people “praised” him by “confessing” his mighty and gracious acts of redemption. The TNIV translation is, on the other hand, most appropriate: “the fruit of lips that profess his name.”

79. A few manuscripts, including ⁴⁶, have a second article (τῆς, “the”) before κοινωνίας (“sharing”).

80. Weiss, 742, says that εὐποιΐα is equivalent to φιλαδελφία in v. 1. He also cites the following words as near synonyms: ἀγαθοποιΐα (“doing good”), 1 Pet 4:19; 1 Clem. 2:2, 7; 33:1; 34:2; its equivalent verb, ἀγαθοποιεῖν (“to do good”), 1 Pet 2:15, 20; 3:6, 17; εὐεργεσία (“doing of good”), Acts 4:9; 1 Tim 6:2; 1 Clem. 19:2; 21:1; 38:3; and ἀγαθοεργεῖν (“to do good”), 1 Tim 6:18.

81. Lane, 2:552.

82. Ellingworth, 721.

83. Weiss, 741. Cf. Ellingworth, 722.

84. γάρ (“for”), in “for with such sacrifices God is well pleased,” shows that his pleasure is the motivation for this life.

85. Attridge, 391.

86. Weiss, 744, contends that this exhortation is more like the firm authority given to leaders in 1 Clem. 1:3; 21:6; 37:2; Did. 15:2; 4:1 than the “respect” enjoined by Paul in 1 Thess 5:12. Such arguments are largely speculative.

87. Ellingworth, 723.

88. In order to distinguish πείθεσθε (“obey”) from ὑπείκετε (“submit”) and thus to avoid tautology, Johnson, 350a, translates πείθεσθε by “depend on” or “put trust” in (see Heb 2:13; 6:9). See Lane, 2:554–55, and the discussion in BDAG, 792, 3, a–c. Note the examples there presented.

89. BDAG, 1030, defines ὑπείκω as “to yield to someone’s authority, yield, give way, submit.”

90. γάρ (“for”) introduces these reasons.

91. ἀγρυπνοῦσιν (“watch over”) describes the leaders’ “care for” the hearers (BDAG, 16, 2), but it also suggests vigilance against “threatening peril” (BDAG, 16, 1). The pastor has shown obvious concern lest his hearers fall away from Christ. See Lane, 2:555.

92. Lane, 2:55, points out that this word is always used in the NT in contexts which denote eschatological vigilance (Mark 13:33; Luke 21:36; Eph 6:18). See Ellingworth, 723, for the idea that ἀγρυπνοῦσιν (“watching over”) suggests that these leaders are undershepherds of the “Great Shepherd” in v. 20.

93. “No separation of soul and body is implied, but the author’s concern is clearly the spiritual good of the community” (Ellingworth, 723). Cf. Weiss, 745.

94. It is possible to take the future tense of ἀποδώσοντες (“going to give”) in ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες (“as going to give an account”) as a future of obligation: “as having to give an account” (Matt 12:36; Rom 14:12; 1 Pet 4:5). Lane, 2:556, however, argues that, following ὡς (“as”), this phrase implies intent. This understanding fits better with the pastor’s emphasis on the integrity of the leaders’ character as expressed in their ministry. The term λόγος (“word”) is used here for the accountability of leaders as it is in 4:12–13 for the accountability of all believers.

95. “In order that with joy they might do this (τοῦτο) and not with groaning.” τοῦτο (“this”) probably refers to their “giving account” (Hughes, 587), rather than to their “keeping watch” (Ellingworth, 724), though the pastor makes no sharp distinction between the two.

96. For στενάζω (“to groan,” “to sigh”) and its related noun στεναγμός (“groaning,” “sighing”) see Job 23:2; Pss 6:6; 30:11; 37:9; 78:11 (these psalm references represent the LXX numbering); Rom 8:22–27; and 2 Cor 5:2.

97. Koester, 572; cf. Johnson, 351. Notice how στενάζοντες (“groaning”) is followed immediately by ἀλυσιτελές (“unprofitable”).

98. Lane, 2:556. Weiss, 746, misses the rhetorical impact of what the pastor says by attributing “without profit” to conditions within the immediate community life of the church rather than to the Judgment.

1. Hebrews parallels the ending of 1 Peter more closely than the endings of the Pauline letters (cf. Weiss, 760–61). Compare the blessing and ascription of praise in Heb 13:20–21 with 1 Pet 5:10–11. Compare the profession of brevity and the mention of Timothy in Heb 13:22–23 with the mention of Silas and a similar profession of brevity in 1 Pet 5:12. Both Heb 13:22–23 and 1 Pet 5:12 are the respective authors’ final appeal for compliance with the messages they have sent. In Heb 13:24 and 1 Pet 5:13–14 both exhort the recipients to offer greetings and relay the greetings of others. Both texts conclude with a benediction (Heb 13:25; 1 Pet 5:14b).

2. 1 Thess 5:25 is the only inclusion of a prayer request within the closing of a Pauline letter. See, however, Rom 15:30; 2 Thess 3:1; and Col 4:3. Note also Phlm 22, where Paul expresses the hope that he will be restored to them in answer to their prayers.

3. Paul pronounces a blessing/benediction at the end of both 1 and 2 Thessalonians (1 Thess 5:23–24; 2 Thess 3:16). Neither of these blessings, however, ends with an ascription of praise to God and a concluding “amen” as do both Heb 13:20–21 and 1 Pet 5:10–11. For a simple ascription of praise to God with “amen” see Phil 4:20 (cf. Rom 16:25–27).

4. For the identical concluding blessing see Tit 3:15: ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν (“grace with you all”). Col 4:18; 1 Tim 6:21; and 2 Tim 4:22 omit the πάντων (“all”): ἡ χάρις μετὰ ὑμῶν (“grace with you”).

5. See Übelacker, Appell, 223–27. Hughes (588–89) thinks that the benediction in vv. 20–21, ending with the final “amen,” is the true conclusion of the sermon. Weiss suggests that vv. 22–25 are even more personal in nature than vv. 18–21.

6. With his first person singular address, the requests for prayer, benediction, greeting, and final blessing Weiss, 747, says that the author has changed from the “speech” style evident until now to an “epistolary” style at v. 18. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 219, on the other hand, contends that the pastor passes from “the solemnity of the oratorical style” to “the simplicity of the epistolary style” at v. 22. Weiss also acknowledges the even more personal nature of vv. 22–25.

7. Grässer, 3:411–12, argues that vv. 22–25 were added later in order to conform Hebrews to the Pauline epistles. On the integration of these verses with the rest of Hebrews see Attridge, 405. In addition, the parallels with the endings of Paul’s letters lack the exactitude of a forgery (Spicq, 2:434–35).

8. Koester, 582.

9. See the discussion in Weiss, 747.

10. For appeal to one’s own character, request for help, and deference as means of obtaining an audience’s favor at the conclusion of an address, see deSilva, 509.

11. It would be natural for those who received a letter to understand περὶ ἡμῶν (“for us”) in a closing prayer request as a reference to the writer and his associates. We know that Timothy, though temporarily absent (v. 23), was associated with the author. The switch to the singular in v. 19 confirms this understanding. See Ellingworth, 724–25. Without further contextual indication there is no reason that the hearers would have taken this term as inclusive of the leaders of their own local congregation mentioned in v. 17, as suggested by Lane, 2:556.

12. γάρ (“for”) indicates that the hearers should pray for the pastor because he has a good conscience. Ellingworth, 725, argues that such an idea has little biblical precedent. Perhaps not, but it is in perfect accord with the pastor’s larger concern that his hearers help each other to persevere. Note the connection between “conduct” and “conscience” in 2 Cor 1:12 and 1 Pet 3:16.

13. Weiss, 749.

14. See Attridge, 403.

15. πειθόμεθα (“we are persuaded”) is the perfective use of the present tense of πείθω (Ellingworth, 725). This is the same word that was translated “obey” at the beginning of v. 17 (πείθεσθε).

16. Compare the participle θέλοντες in v. 18, which we have translated “determining,” with its noun cognate θέλημα (“will”) in 10:7, 9, 10 and 13:21. Clearly the pastor means more than “desiring,” a translation followed by various versions. Cf. Johnson, 353. The translation “willing to conduct ourselves well” would also be misleading because it might imply agreement but not intention (e.g., “He was willing to go if others were going”).

17. The Patristic writers tended to take ἐν πᾶσιν as “among all people” (Ellingworth, 726), though most modern interpreters construe it as “in everything,” “in every way.” Spicq’s argument (2:433) that “among all people” means among both Jews and pagans reads more into this expression than the context warrants.

18. The word for “good” (καλήν) conscience is from the same root as the word for conducting oneself “well” (καλῶς).

19. This is the author’s first use of the first person singular, a usage continued in 13:22. Weiss, 746, says that until now he has used the “ecclesiastical we” when referring to himself.

20. Since περισσοτέρως, “all the more,” is first for emphasis, it is closest to the verb παρακαλῶ (“I urge”; Ellingworth, 726). However, the pastor’s habit of putting the word to be emphasized first suggests that it should be taken with ποιῆσαι, “to do.” Thus, not “I urge you all the more to do this,” but “I urge you to do this all the more.”

21. Pace Johnson, 354. For ἀποκαθίστημ, “restore,” as returning to one’s former condition, see 2 Sam 9:7; Job 8:6; 2 Macc 11:25; Josephus, Ant. 15.195; Matt 12:13; 17:11; Mark 3:5; Luke 6:10; and Acts 1:6.

22. Lane, 2:560, suggests that the δέ in the first line of this benediction ties it closely to the prayer request in vv. 18–19.

23. Johnson, 354.

24. “Lord” is normal in statements about the resurrection (e.g., Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Johnson, 355). See the use of “Lord” for Christ in Heb 1:10; 2:3; 7:14.

25. For similar benedictions, see Rom 16:20; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Cor 13:11; 1 Pet 5:10.

26. After all, in 12:14 the faithful are to pursue “peace,” and in 4:14/10:21 Jesus is called the “Great” (high) priest.

27. Weiss’s comparison (752) with 1 Pet 5:12–14 shows both the traditional nature of this blessing and the way the pastor has adopted it for his own purposes.

28. On the traditional nature of the expression “God of peace,” see Attridge, 405. God shows that he both is “peace” and creates “peace” by raising Jesus from the dead (Weiss, 752–53).

29. Hughes, 588–89. Why Hughes thinks that it cannot also be an appeal for harmony and submission in the community is not clear.

30. Lane, 2:560; Attridge, 405.

31. The pastor uses ἀνάγω (“brought up”) for Christ’s resurrection rather than the more commonly used ἐγείρω (11:19). Yet ἀνάγω can also be used for Christ’s resurrection (Rom 10:7). The pastor used the simple ἄγω for God’s bringing “many sons and daughters to glory” in 2:10. See Attridge, 405–6. “From the dead” makes reference to the resurrection unambiguous. See Ellingworth, 729.

32. ὁ ἀναγαγών σε ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτων (“the one who brought you out of the land of Egypt,” Ps 81:10) (Weiss, 755; cf. Lev 11:45; 1 Sam 12:6; Jer 2:6; 26:14).

33. See 1 Sam 16:11; Mic 5:2–4; Zech 11:4–17; Isa 40:11; 63:11; Ezek 34:1–31; and Pss. Sol. 17:40, cited by Johnson, 355.

34. Compare ὁ ἀναγαγὼν ἐκ νεκρῶν τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν (“the One who brought up from the dead the Great Shepherd of the sheep”) with ὁ ἀναβιβάσας ἐκ τῆς γῆς τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων (“the One who brought up from the land the shepherd of the sheep”) in Isa 63:11. Emphasis on Christ’s ascension may explain the pastor’s substitution of ὁ ἀναγαγών (“the One who brought up”) for Isaiah’s ὁ ἀναβιβάσας (“the One who brought up”). See notes 31–33 above. The shorter ὁ ἀγαγών (“the One who led”) occurs in Isa 63:12. See Lane, 2:560–62. Ellingworth, 728, accepts this reference to Isa 63:11, but Attridge, 406, thinks it faint.

35. Weiss, 755–57, sees a Moses typology here. The “great” shepherd is greater than the shepherd Moses. On Moses as shepherd see Philo, Moses 1.60; Str-B 1:755, 972; 2:209; 536 (cited in Weiss, 756, n. 35).

36. Spicq, 2:436.

37. Compare τὸν ποιμένα … τὸν μέγαν (“the great shepherd,” 13:20; ἱερέα μέγαν (“great priest,” 10:21); ἀρχιερέα μέγαν (“great high priest,” 4:14).

38. Attridge, 406, grasps this nuance of present help when he suggests that the shepherd imagery has replaced the high-priestly imagery to emphasize Christ’s present intercession. “The Great Shepherd,” however, should be associated, as noted in the text above, with “Pioneer” and “Forerunner.” “Great Shepherd” assures the hearers that he is presently leading them to the place he has already entered as “Forerunner.”

39. Cf. O’Brien, 535.

40. Ezek 34:1–16 describes God as the one who will punish the unfaithful “shepherds” of his people. 1 Pet 5:4 affirms that faithful “shepherds” will receive their eternal reward at the return of Christ, the “Chief Shepherd” (ἀρχιποίμενος).

41. See 5:9; 6:2; and 9:12, 14, 15 for other relevant uses of the adjective αἰώνιος (“eternal”) in Hebrews. See Isa 55:3; 61:8; Jer 32:40; and Ezek 16:60; 37:26 for promises of an “eternal covenant.” These references are listed in Attridge, 407, nn. 30, 31.

42. Compare “who brought up from the dead the Great Shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant” (ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης αἰωνίου) with the LXX of Zech 9:11: “You also, by the blood of the covenant (ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης), have sent forth your prisoners from the pit that has no water.” Lane, 2:562–63, argues that “by the blood of the covenant” is causal in Hebrews in accord with its causal use in this Zechariah quotation from which it is drawn. More pertinent, however, is the context of Hebrews. Beginning from Heb 1:3 Christ’s self-offering has been presented as the cause of his saving effectiveness. For further discussion, see Lane, above; Weiss, 757; and Thurén, Lobopfer, 226.

43. καταρτίσαι (“equip”) is the optative of wish appropriate for a prayer (Ellingworth, 730). The pastor uses the same word here for God’s “equipping” his people to do his will as he did in 10:5 for God’s “preparing” (κατηρτίσω) the body through which Christ accomplished the divine will. This double usage is appropriate, since it is the obedience of Christ that empowers the obedience of his people. See Johnson, 356, and O’Brien, 536.

44. Cf. Lane, 2:564.

45. By switching from the “you” plural of v. 20 to “us” in v. 21 the pastor includes himself among those “equipped” to do God’s will.

46. “Romans 12:1–2 provides an especially close parallel: Paul tells his readers to offer their ‘bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, your spiritual worship,’ and spells this out in terms of a renewal of the mind that enables them to do ‘what is good (agathon) and acceptable (euareston) and perfect (teleion)’” (Johnson, 356).

47. The instrumental “through Jesus Christ” is comprehensive—means, manner, and cause (cf. Weiss, 759).

48. Thus, Weiss, 758–59, need not be surprised that an epistle urging endurance would conclude by reminding its recipients that such endurance is possible only by the work of God.

49. Ellingworth, 731; Lane, 2:565; Bruce, 389; Braun, 480; Thurén, Lobopfer, 230–33; and deSilva, 513 attribute this ascription of praise to God. Lane bases his judgment on a structural analysis of vv. 20–21. Attridge, 408, n. 43; Bénétreau, 2:235; Spicq, 2:437; Hagner, 251; and others argue that it applies to Christ. See 2 Tim 4:18; 2 Pet 3:18; Rev 1:6; 1 Clem. 20:12; and Mart. Pol. 22:3. See Ellingworth, 731, for a further list of those who support each of these positions. Johnson, 356, suggests that the ambiguity is intentional.

50. For personal comments at the end of letters, see Rom 15:15–16:23; 1 Cor 16:1–21; Phil 4:21–23; Col 4:7–18; 1 Thess 5:26–28; 2 Thess 3:17–18; 2 Tim 4:19–22; Tit 3:12–15; Phlm 22–24; and 1 Pet 5:12–14.

51. “I exhort (παρακαλῶ) you, brothers and sisters, pay attention to my word of exhortation (παρακλήσεως).”

52. On the literary genre of Hebrews see pp. 11–16 in the Introduction.

53. Bénétreau, 2:236; Weiss, 762; Johnson, 357.

54. For παράκλησις (“exhortation”) as inclusive of both strong appeal and encouragement see BDAG, 766.

55. For the conventional nature of “brief” see Lane, 2:568–69. Cf. 1 Pet 5:12; Barn. 1:5. Hebrews should be distinguished from Barnabas, where this expression occurs at the beginning of a letter twice as long as Hebrews, and from 1 Peter, where it concludes a truly brief letter (deSilva, 513–14).

56. For ἐπιστέλλω as “inform/instruct by letter” see BDAG, 381. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.50; 18.300; Acts 21:25; 1 Clem. 62:1; MM, 245–46 (cited by Weiss, 762). The author of Hebrews never uses γράφω (“write”), γραφή (“writing”), or any word related to this root.

57. Johnson, 352.

58. Weiss, 763, n. 66.

59. Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφός, “Timothy, the brother” could, of course, signify either “Timothy, my brother” or “Timothy, our brother.”

60. The absence of ἡμῶν (“our”) from τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν Τιμόθεον (“our brother Timothy) in some manuscripts (א², D², ψ) of Heb 13:23 may reflect the influence of 2 Cor 1:1; Col 1:1 and Phlm 1, where Timothy is simply called ὁ ἀδελφός (“the brother”).

61. “If he comes quickly” (13:23) recalls 2 Tim 4:9 (“be diligent to come to me quickly”).

62. Weiss, 763. For the proposal that Heb 1:1–13:21 was written by Timothy and that Paul appended vv. 22–25 as a note of recommendation, see John D. Legg, “Our Brother Timothy: A Suggested Solution to the Problem of the Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” EvQ 40 (1968): 220–23.

63. Rom 1:7; 16:15; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:1–2; 14:33; 16:15; 2 Cor 1:1; 13:12; Eph 1:1; 6:18; Phil 1:1; 4:22; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 5:27; Phlm 7; etc.

64. Moffatt, 246; Spicq, 2:438; Lane, 2:570.

65. Pace Attridge, 409; deSilva, 514–15.

66. Compare ἀσπάσαθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλάματι ἁγίῳ (“Greet each other with a holy kiss”) in Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; and 2 Cor 13:12; and ἀσπάσαθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλάματι ἁγάπης in 1 Pet 5:14 with ἀσπάσασθε πάντας τοὺς ἡγουμένους ὑμῶν καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους (“greet all your leaders and all the saints”) in Heb 13:24.

67. “To the Hebrews written from Rome” (A; P has “from Italy”); “To the Hebrews written from Italy through Timothy” (1739; 1881; many others); “To the Hebrews written from Rome by Paul to those in Jerusalem” (81); “To the Hebrews written by a Hebrew from Italy … through Timothy” (104); “The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews written from Italy through Timothy” (probably 0285). See NA²⁷, 587.

68. Matt 21:11; Mark 15:43; John 1:44; 21:2; Acts 6:9, cf. 21:27; 14:18; and especially the reference to Priscilla and Aquila in Acts 18:2. Weiss, 765; Moffatt, 246–47; and Lane, 2:571, identify “those from Italy” as Italians living outside Italy. Spicq, 2:439, on the other hand, argues that if the writer were writing outside Italy he would send greetings from others and not merely from those with him who were from Italy.

69. Koester, 581.

70. Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 16:23; 2 Cor 13:13; Gal 6:18; Eph 6:24; Phil 4:23; Col 4:18; 1 Thess 5:28; 2 Thess 3:18; 1 Tim 6:21; 2 Tim 4:22; Tit 3:15; and Phlm 25.