Style. Along with Luke-Acts and some of the other “General Epistles,” this document displays the most sophisticated Greek style in the *New Testament; its author must have had sophisticated *rhetorical training and literary skills.
Date. Because Timothy was recently freed (Heb 13:23) and the work was apparently written from Italy (13:24), we may guess that Timothy was arrested in Rome during the Neronian persecution (probably some time after he came to see Paul—2 Tim 4:21) and freed when Nero (and his policy) died in A.D. 68. The mention of Timothy but not Paul, who died about A.D. 64, also would make sense about A.D. 68. At this time, when the outcome of the Roman war in Judea would have been assured from Rome’s vantage point, it would be quite appropriate to speak of the old temple system as “passing away” (8:13), even literally—a process completed in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the temple. That the writer cannot declare that temple sacrifices are no longer offered (which could have clinched his case if he could have claimed it) suggests a date before A.D. 70.
Authorship. From a stylistic perspective, it is impossible to attribute the letter to Paul; of other New Testament writers, it is closest to Luke’s literary abilities, but the style is not Lukan. The writer seems to be an influential person traveling in the same circles as Timothy (13:23) and well heeded by this audience, who are probably in the eastern Mediterranean. Silas would thus be a natural candidate (cf. Acts 16:37, in Rome about 64) and probably a *scribe (1 Pet 5:12) would have the educational level necessary for such a letter. It is more commonly suggested that the writer is Apollos, whose Alexandrian rhetorical and possibly philosophical training would have suited him especially well to write such a letter; he was certainly respected as Paul’s peer in the Pauline *churches. (He seems to have been moving from Rome toward the east or south a few years before Hebrews was written—Tit 3:13—but he could have returned.) Other suggestions, like Barnabas or Priscilla, are possible but have less evidence to commend them than the proposals of Silas and Apollos.
Audience. Although some scholars question this, the audience seems fairly obviously predominantly Jewish; they are apparently under pressure to give up their Christian distinctives (either from the *synagogue or from *Gentile persecution of Christians). Although the *Hellenistic Jewish thought in the letter would fit a number of locations including Corinth and Ephesus, the actual seizure of their property in earlier days (10:34) does not fit Corinth or Ephesus (against one commentator, who perhaps fancifully but nevertheless quite skillfully constructs a case for this letter being written to Corinth and 1 Corinthians responding to some features in it). But 13:23 suggests an audience in the Pauline circle (i.e., not in Alexandria, though Apollos was from there). The early persecution fits Thessalonica and possibly Philippi in Macedonia, although a community in Asia Minor or Syria with more ethnic Jewish representation might fit better. (Some have suggested a Roman audience on the basis of 10:32-34 and 13:23-24; the quality of Greek may fit an audience more to the east, but this argument would hardly be decisive. If we read 13:24 as suggesting a Roman place of origin, however, a Roman audience is unlikely.) Wherever the readers are located, they resonate with the intensely Greek rhetoric and interpretation of Judaism that come naturally to this author; the closest parallels are with *Philo of Alexandria. (That the letter also has parallels with the *Dead Sea Scrolls in Judea and *apocalyptic motifs should not be surprising; we must construct a composite picture of ancient Judaism based on as many diverse sources as possible. But the clear Philonic parallels point to *Hellenistic rhetorical training. The writer is not on the level of Philo but is clearly a Hellenistic Jew.)
Genre. Some scholars have suggested that this document is a homiletic *midrash on Psalm 110 (see Heb 13:22); one cannot deny that the interpretation of this psalm dominates the work. (The narrower suggestion that it was specifically a midrash on the readings for the Feast of Pentecost is not strictly impossible, but evidence for the triennial readings later adopted in Mediterranean synagogues is lacking in this period.) It is more like a treatise than a normal letter, apart from concluding greetings. But one ancient letter-writing form was the “letter-essay,” which in early Judaism and Christianity would naturally have resembled a written homily or sermon; Hebrews could be such a “letter-essay.”
Structure. Comparison was a central feature of much ancient argumentation. *Christ is greater than the angels (1:1-14) who delivered the *law (2:1-18); this contrast contributes to the writer’s argument that Christ is greater than the law itself. He is greater than Moses and the Promised Land (3:1–4:13). As a priest after the order of Melchizedek, he is greater than the *Old Testament priesthood (4:14–7:28) because he is attached to a new covenant (chap. 8) and a heavenly temple service (9:1–10:18). Therefore, his followers ought to persevere in faith and not go back, regardless of the cost (10:19–12:13). The writer follows his theoretical discussion, as many letters did, with specific moral exhortations tied into the same theme (13:1-17). Interspersed throughout the letter is the repeated warning against apostasy, noting that the penalty for rejecting the new covenant is greater than that for rejecting the old had been (cf. 2:1-4; 3:14; 4:1-2, 11; 6:1-8, 11-12; 10:26-31; 12:14-17, 25; though cf. expressions of confidence with reasons in 6:9-10; 10:39).
Argumentation. The writer argues from Scripture the way a good Jewish interpreter of his day would; his methods have parallels in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the *rabbis and especially the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher-interpreter Philo. His arguments sometimes confuse or fail to persuade modern readers, but he is making a case first of all for his original readers, who would be accustomed to the kinds of arguments he makes. Given the forms of argumentation he must use to persuade readers in his own cultural context, he argues his case brilliantly, although some of the arguments would have to be restructured to carry the same conviction in our culture. Because the writer’s arguments are often complex, this volume’s comments on Hebrews are necessarily more detailed than the comments on many other New Testament books.
Commentaries. Commentaries useful for background include William Lane, Hebrews, WBC 47 (Waco, TX: Word, 1991); Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989); F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); James W. Thompson, Hebrews, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). On a less technical level, see, e.g., D. A. Hagner, Hebrews, NIBC (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990); Victor C. Pfitzner, Hebrews, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997).
Christ’s superiority to the angels made him greater than the *law, which was said to have been mediated by angels (2:2-3). The writer may also offer this comparison to argue against toning down Christ’s divinity to mere angelic status, a position the readers may have been allowing to appease non-Christian Jewish critics.
1:1-2. These two verses represent some of the most articulate, Atticizing Greek prose in the New Testament and include literary devices such as alliteration (five Greek words beginning with p in v. 1). The author also appears to model some of his language on the opening of the prologue to Sirach, a Jewish wisdom book in wide circulation by this period and almost certainly familiar to his readers (also called Ecclesiasticus and available to modern readers in what is usually called the *Apocrypha).
*Christ is probably presented here as the ultimate Word of God; ancient Judaism identified God’s Word with his Wisdom (cf. Sirach 24:1, 23; Baruch 3:28–4:1). That God had created all things through Wisdom or his Word was noted in the *Old Testament (e.g., Prov 8:30; Ps 33:6, alluding to Gen 1) and developed further in Judaism. As the fullness of the Word, Christ was superior to the authentic but partial revelation of God in the law.
“Last days” was Old Testament language for the time of the end (Is 2:2; Ezek 38:16; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1; cf. Deut 4:30, 32; 8:16), now inaugurated in Christ. An “heir” held title to the property of the one who appointed him heir; cf. comment on “inherit” in verse 4.
1:3. The term for his “brightness” appears elsewhere in the *New Testament or *Septuagint only at Wisdom of Solomon 7:26, describing Wisdom as reflecting God’s light, a mirror revealing his image (the term applies to the Logos in *Philo, Creation 146). Jewish authors writing in Greek sometimes said that divine Wisdom was the exact “image” (so KJV here) of God, the prototypical stamp by which he “imprinted” (cf. NRSV here) the seal of his image on the rest of creation (the way an image was stamped on coins). Sitting down at the right hand of the supreme king was an image of the ultimate honor and alludes to Psalm 110:1, cited explicitly in Hebrews 1:13. “Purification” of sins was the work of priests; mention of it here anticipates a theme that appears later in the book.
1:4. Some *Diaspora Jewish writers attributed to the angels a role in creation, but early Christian writers routinely denied them such a role (Col 1:16), as did many Judean teachers. Here Jesus’ exaltation grants him a title that entitles him to much more status than the angels: Son (1:5). (Although some Jewish teachers said that God honored Israel more than the angels by giving Israel the law, something greater than comparison with Israel is in view here, because Jesus himself is identified with the divine Word in 1:1-3, and is “son” in a sense in which the angels are not; the title is applied to angels generally [e.g., Job 1:6], but Jesus is distinguished as the Son. Those original hearers who wished to compromise their divine view of Jesus but to retain him as superhuman may also have wished to identify him as an angel, as some second-century Jewish Christians did, but if this is the case, the writer rejects this compromise as inadequate—2:5-18.)
1:5. The author cites Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14, contexts that had already been linked in speculations about the coming *Messiah (4Q174 f1 2i11, 18-19 in the *Dead Sea Scrolls). Jewish interpreters often linked texts on the basis of a common key word; the word here is “Son.” Like several other messianic texts, Psalm 2 originally celebrated the promise to the Davidic line in 2 Samuel 7; the “begetting” referred to the royal coronation—in Jesus’ case, his exaltation (cf. similarly Acts 13:33). The repetition of this verse’s *rhetorical question in verse 13 suggests an inclusio, or framing device, that brackets off verses 5-14 as a united thought (though Diaspora Jews often introduced quotations from Scripture with rhetorical questions).
1:6. “Firstborn” specified further the inheritance rights of the oldest son, who received double the portion of any subsequent son (Deut 21:17); it is a title of the Davidic king of Psalm 89:26-27. To Jesus’ coronation as king and consequent superiority to the angels the author applies a text from the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32, a favorite mine for texts among early Christian writers and a text Diaspora Jews used for worship alongside the Psalms. (Although these words are not in the Hebrew manuscripts preserved in the later Masoretic text, their presence in a *Qumran Hebrew copy of Deuteronomy shows that the line was in some Hebrew manuscripts, from which the Greek translation may have derived it.)
The author might read the text according to Jewish interpretive practice: attending to grammatical details, he might distinguish “God” from “him.” (Some of his hearers might have also recalled a Jewish tradition in which God ordered his angels to honor Adam at his creation, because he was God’s image.)
1:7. Although Psalm 104:4 could mean that God uses winds and fire as his messengers, Jewish writers in the first century commonly took the text the other way and often thus suggested that angels were made of fire (for angels and fire, cf., e.g., *1 Enoch 17:1; 2 Enoch 1a5 [Rec. A]; 20:1; 29:3 [Rec. A]; *3 Enoch 47:4; *4 Ezra 8:22). (This notion also fit some Greek speculations about the elements. For many, the soul was made of fire—like the stars—or breath; for *Stoics, the whole world would be resolved back into the primordial fire from which it had come.) The writer’s point is simply that angels are subordinate to God in character, in contrast to the Son (1:8).
1:8-9. Psalm 45 may have been composed for a royal wedding celebration, but part of it speaks of God’s blessing on the king and probably (certainly in the Greek version cited here) addresses God directly. Jewish interpreters read as much literal significance into a passage as they could, hence the writer of Hebrews invites his fellow Jewish-Christian readers to recognize the plain language of this psalm. Because God is addressed in Psalm 45:6 (cited in Heb 1:8), it is natural to assume that he continues to be addressed in Psalm 45:7 (cited in Heb 1:9). (Later *rabbis applied this text to Abraham, and a later *targum applied an earlier verse to the Messiah; but probably neither tradition was known to the writer of Hebrews, and the former one may have represented anti-Christian polemic.) But Psalm 45:7 distinguishes this God from a God he worships, so that one may distinguish God the Father from God the Son. The writer of Hebrews explicitly affirms Christ’s deity in this passage.
1:10-12. Both Jewish and Greek writers sometimes separated quotations with “And he said” or “and.” Interpreters often linked texts by means of a common key word or concept, and the writer cites Psalm 102:25-27 on the basis of God’s throne being “forever” in Hebrews 1:8 (in context this Old Testament passage also promised God’s faithfulness to his covenant people, even though individuals were mortal).
1:13. It is natural for the author to cite Psalm 110:1 because God’s “right hand” is envisioned in terms of a place beside his throne (1:8; cf. possibly Wisdom of Solomon 9:4; 18:15). The full citation also includes God addressing the priest-king (see comment on Heb 5:6) as Lord, similar to the citation in 1:8-9. The writer shows himself a master of Jewish exegetical technique.
1:14. He already proved to his readers that angels were “ministering spirits” in 1:7. That they minister not only on behalf of the one who inherited a greater name (1:4) but also for those who inherit salvation (v. 14) would resonate with Jewish readers, who would be familiar with the concept of guardian angels assigned to the righteous by God (e.g., Tobit 5:22; *Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 59:4; Tosefta Avodah Zarah 1:17).
According to common Jewish thought, any Israelite who willfully rejected the *law was excluded from the world to come; according to some teachers, this sin was even unpardonable. In Judaism, deliberate acts always carried more liability than inadvertent ones.
In a widely recognized Jewish tradition, God had given his law through angels (Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19; *Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 15.136; and *Jubilees 1:27). (The rabbis preferred to emphasize Moses’s mediation and the great number of angels present for the Israelites.) The tradition may have some basis in the interchange between God and his angel in Exodus (cf. Ex 3:2), the association of Psalm 68:17 with the Sinai tradition, and especially Deuteronomy 33:2 (more so in the *LXX, which declares that his angels were with him on his right).
Because *Christ is greater than the angels (Heb 1:1-14), rejecting his word is a more serious offense than rejecting the word said to have been mediated through the angels (2:2). This is a natural Jewish qal vahomer, or “how much more” argument: if the lesser point applies, then how much more does the greater point apply. Some scholars have suggested a nautical image (a drifting ship) in verse 1, as well as significant juridical language in verses 2-4.
Recognizing Jesus as suprahuman but not wishing to offend their Jewish colleagues who protested that God’s oneness disallowed Jesus’ divinity, some second-century Jewish Christians portrayed Jesus as a chief angel. The temptation to such a path was probably already present among the audience of this letter (see comment on Gal 1:8; 4:14), so the writer warns forcefully against such a view. *Christ was divine and became human as well; but he was never an angel.
2:5. The *Old Testament and Jewish teaching declared that God’s people would reign with him in the world to come, just as Adam and Eve had been designed to reign for him in the beginning. The writer proceeds to prove this point by appealing to a specific Old Testament text, Psalm 8:4-6, in Jewish *midrashic style.
2:6-7. “One has testified somewhere” (NASB) does not mean that the writer has forgotten what part of Scripture he is quoting; this was a way of expressing confidence that the important issue was that God had inspired the words. *Philo used similar phrases in this manner. The writer can introduce Psalm 8:4-6 naturally on the basis of the Jewish interpretive rule, gezerah shavah, the principle by which one was permitted to link key words or phrases. This text speaks of everything subdued under someone’s feet, as had the text he had cited most recently (1:13).
Psalm 8:4-6 declares that although humanity is nothing in itself, God appointed humans as rulers over all his creation, second only to himself (alluding to Gen 1:26-27). The *Septuagint interprets this passage as “a little lower than the angels” instead of “a little lower than God” (the Hebrew word used there,’elohim, sometimes did mean angels instead of God). That angels were more powerful than people in this age was true, but the writer of Hebrews is going to make a different point. In the verses that follow, he expounds the version of this passage with which his readers are familiar in traditional Jewish interpretive style. (“*Son of Man” was simply a Semitic way of saying “human being,” and the writer here does not seem to try to get more out of it than this, although he could have had he wished to do so, because he applies the whole text to Jesus. Some scholars have also connected this passage with the binding of Isaac, the tradition known as the Aqedah, but the evidence cited may be too sparse and late for the points of contact here.)
2:8. Jewish interpreters often established that a text could not mean what it seemed to mean on face value (or could not mean only that) before proceeding to argue what they believed that it did mean. Here, because the creation is not currently subject to humanity, the author can argue that God’s original intention in Adam will be fulfilled again for all the righteous only in the *age to come (2:5)—a doctrine shared with the rest of Judaism. But he can also argue that one representative man has already gone ahead for all humanity, as a sort of new Adam (2:9).
2:9. In Jewish thought, angels ruled the nations in this age. Jesus had obviously been made lower than God and the angels, but after death he was crowned with glory (1:13); therefore this text was not only true of the past Adam and God’s people in the future but also had been fulfilled in Jesus. (The author may read “a little lower” as “for a little while lower,” which was an acceptable way to read the *LXX of Ps 8; he also distinguishes “a little lower” from “crowned with honor,” though the lines are parallel in Hebrew. Ancient Jewish interpreters generally read passages whatever way fit best with their views.)
2:10. That Christ had been made lower but then exalted shows him as the forerunner of the righteous who would inherit the coming world (1:14; 2:5). The term archegos, translated “pioneer” (NIV) or “captain” (KJV), means “pioneer” (NRSV), “leader” (cf. GNT), “founder” or “champion.” The term was used for both human and divine heroes, founders of schools or those who cut a path forward for their followers and whose exploits for humanity were rewarded by exaltation. “For whom . . . and through whom are all things” was a phrase *Stoics used to describe the supreme God, but the idea fit Jewish thought about God and divine Wisdom and was widely used by *Diaspora Jewish writers, including Paul (1 Cor 8:6). The Septuagint uses the author’s term for “perfect” for the consecration of a priest; some contemporary Jewish texts also speak of a righteous person’s life crowned with martyrdom as being “perfected” thereby.
2:11. Again the idea is that the text has been fulfilled in Jesus, who has gone on ahead, but will yet be fulfilled in the rest of the righteous; he is the “firstborn” (1:6) among many brothers.
2:12. To prove the thesis of verse 11, the writer cites Psalm 22:22, which can be applied to Jesus the one who suffered because it is a psalm of the righteous sufferer (the Gospels apply some of its verses to Jesus’ crucifixion).
2:13. Here the author cites Isaiah 8:17-18. Isaiah 8:17 refers to the Lord who was a sanctuary to the righteous and a stumbling block to the rest of Israel (8:14-15), a text that, when linked with other “stone” texts by the Jewish interpretive principle gezerah shavah (linking of texts with the same key word, e.g., Is 28:16; Ps 118:22), could apply to the *Messiah. In Isaiah 8:18 the prophet explains that his own children have symbolic names to signify things to Israel. The writer can cite it because it immediately follows 8:17 and perhaps because its wording matches his point (see comment on Heb 2:12). He may also make the link, however, because one of Isaiah’s children pointed toward Immanuel, God with us (Is 7:14-16; 8:1-4; cf. 9:6-7), and this text declared the other children brothers.
2:14-15. Jesus had to become part of humanity, as in Psalm 8:4-6, to become a forerunner, a new Adam for humanity. Ancient literature often spoke of the terrors of death, although many philosophers claimed to transcend this fear. Jewish literature had already connected the devil and death, especially in the Wisdom of Solomon (which this author and his audience probably knew well; here Wisdom of Solomon 2:23-24); some later texts even identify *Satan with the angel of death. Like Heracles in the Greek tradition and perhaps God the divine warrior of Jewish tradition (cf. Is 26:19-21; 44:24-26), Jesus is the “champion” (see comment on Heb 2:10) who has delivered his people.
2:16. Still expounding Psalm 8:4-6, the writer reminds his readers that Christ acted as forerunner for the world to come for God’s people (“Abraham’s seed”; cf. perhaps Is 41:8-9), not for the angels. (The Old Testament called Abraham’s chosen descendants “children of God”—e.g., Deut 32:19; Hos 11:1; the writer is addressing Jewish Christians, members of a people who have long believed that a great destiny awaits them in the future.) Christ is already exalted above the angels (2:7, 9), as his people will be in the age to come (2:5).
2:17-18. The writer here gives a reason for Christ’s becoming human to redeem humanity: identification of the sort that had to characterize a *high priest (see comment on 5:1-3). Such an image might have intrigued many people of antiquity, whose agendas were generally low on the aristocracy’s list of priorities; in the cities, the aristocracies merely kept them pacified with gifts of free food, public games and so forth. On “faithful,” see comment on 3:2 and 5.
3:1. The mention of a “heavenly” calling would have appealed to philosophically minded Jewish thinkers like Philo, who regarded earthly reality as only a shadow of heavenly reality. The writer of Hebrews probably presents Jesus as superior to Moses, who was not a *high priest. (*Samaritan writers saw Moses as an “*apostle,” and some Jewish writers saw the high priest as such, although rarely. The author of Hebrews sees Jesus as an “apostle,” a commissioned messenger of the Father, in a way greater than Moses or an earthly high priest [for a commissioned “agent,” see “apostle” in the glossary]. *Philo regarded Moses as a high priest of sorts, but the *Old Testament and most of Judaism recognized that Aaron filled that role, and the writer of Hebrews probably assumes only the Old Testament perspective on the part of his readers.)
3:2. In verses 2-6 the writer constructs an implicit *midrash on Numbers 12:7-8, expounding the familiar text without directly citing it (cf. also 1 Chron 17:14 LXX). In this passage, God honors Moses above Aaron and Miriam, claiming him to be greater than a normal prophet and noting that “he is faithful in all my household.” Jesus is thus this special kind of prophet “like Moses,” of whom there were no others (Deut 18:15-18).
3:3-4. Comparison (synkrisis) was central to much ancient argumentation; comparing one favorably with another who was already honorable would increase one’s honor further. In many Jewish traditions Moses was the greatest person in history, and in others he was certainly one of the greatest (i.e., next to Abraham). Jewish and Christian writers used the argument that the builder was greater than what was made (v. 3) to note that the Creator was greater than his creation (as in v. 4). This writer identifies Jesus as the Creator. Ancient writers often developed arguments based on wordplays; this writer plays on two senses of “house”: God’s “household” (3:2) and a building (3:3-4).
3:5. Past symbols could testify to future realities in Jewish *apocalyptic literature, the way that earthly “shadows” testified to heavenly realities in writings by Philo and Jews influenced by Platonism. Jewish readers may have recalled the tradition that Moses foresaw and testified of the messianic era (on his special visionary abilities see Num 12:8). A first-century reader could understand Numbers 12:7 the way later *rabbis also did: God was owner of the house, but Moses was the manager of the estate, and like many managers, was a servant.
3:6. A firstborn son was naturally heir and lord over the house, acting on his father’s authority while the father lived and becoming master when his father died. In the Old Testament, God’s household was Israel; here it is the faithful remnant, those who have submitted to God’s truth in Christ.
Here begins an explicit *midrash (commentary) on Psalm 95:7-11, which continues until 4:14, where the midrash on Psalm 110:4 begins. Like other Jewish writers, this author gives attention to the details of the text. Israel was to have “rest” in the Promised Land, but the writer points out that this means not only in this age—when the promise was never completely fulfilled (4:8)—but in its completion in the *age to come.
3:7. Ancient Judaism most often associated the “*Holy Spirit” with *prophecy, and later rabbis and some others particularly associated this prophetic Spirit with the inspiration of Scripture (among other activities; e.g., *Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 8:16; *4 Ezra 14:22).
3:8-11. The author cites Psalm 95:7-11, a text that later became familiar through its regular use in the *synagogue liturgy, but that would have been already known to most first-century Jews who recited the Psalms. This psalm refers to Israel’s rebellion in the wilderness and calls on its hearers not to be like their ancestors. Later Jewish teachers debated whether the wilderness generation might have inherited the life of the world to come, even though they did not enter the Promised Land (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:10-11); these rabbis believed that God’s people could *atone for their sins in this age by suffering. But the psalmist’s words seem like firmer rejection, without ethnicity offering the privilege of salvation; the writer of Hebrews thus contends with good reason that they did not enter the world to come.
3:12-13. Like many ancient Jewish interpreters, the writer points out that the psalmist’s exhortation for “today” was still valid in his own generation.
3:14-15. The psalm states that God’s people could be cut off from the covenant if they refused to heed it; thus the writer warns his readers that they become sharers in Christ’s *kingdom (2:5-16) only if they persevere to the end.
3:16-19. Following Greek argumentative practice, the writer produces a series of *rhetorical questions and their obvious answers, reinforcing his point.
4:1-2. The Israelites rebelled in the wilderness because they did not believe the word Moses gave them; those who rebelled against the word of *Christ were acting like Moses’ generation had.
4:3-5. The writer now attends to grammatical details as Jewish interpreters in his day normally did. What could the psalmist mean by “my rest,” since God had already rested from his works on the seventh day of creation? (Linking texts by a shared key word was a common Jewish exegetical technique; Jewish liturgy later linked these two texts similarly.) Perhaps he uses this text to point to the future too; some Jewish writers (cf., e.g., Mekilta Shabbata 1) believed that the world to come would be the ultimate sabbath rest, the final stage of creation.
4:6-7. All of Moses’ generation failed to achieve “rest” (3:16-19), settlement in the land. Indeed, all subsequent generations from Joshua on, with the notable near-exceptions of David and Josiah, failed to subdue all the land promised to Abraham. Thus the psalmist (Ps 95:7-8) could warn his own and subsequent generations to obey God’s word or the same thing would happen to them. (By the *New Testament period, with Judea under Rome’s authority and no end of the Roman Empire in sight, most Jewish people agreed that the restoration of their *kingdom and consequently rest in the land would come only in the end time, which most hoped was soon.)
4:8-9. “Joshua” and “Jesus” are the same name (these are anglicized forms of the Hebrew and Greek, respectively); perhaps the writer thus intends the first Joshua to point to his later namesake. But his main point is that Joshua was not able to subdue the whole land (4:6-7; Josh 13:1-2); the promise is thus yet to be fulfilled.
4:10-11. Because the *Messiah, the *Spirit and other events that had arrived in Jesus were normally relegated in Judaism to the *age to come, early Christian writers could say that believers in Jesus experienced a foretaste of the future world in their present relationship with God (see comment on 6:5).
4:12-13. God’s word, received by Israel through Moses and by the readers of Hebrews in Christ (4:2), left those who heard it no excuses. Judaism recognized the ability of God to search out every detail of one’s heart and thoughts (e.g., Ps 139:23), and it was natural to apply this property to his word or wisdom.
The Alexandrian Jewish philosopher *Philo spoke of the power of the universal, divine “Word” (the Logos, divine reason that permeated the universe) to subdivide the soul into smaller and smaller units, especially into its rational and irrational components; but he sometimes identified spirit and soul, as the New Testament writers usually do. The point here is not an analysis of human nature, but that the Word searches the heart in such detail that it is like a sharp sword that divides even what is virtually (but not absolutely) indivisible, whether soul and spirit or joints and marrow.
Although *Philo portrays the Logos, the divine Word or reason, as God’s *high priest, this is probably not in the mind of the author of Hebrews. (Indeed, the emphasis on Christ’s participation in people’s humanity contrasts with Philo’s attempt to circumvent the high priest’s full humanity when he interceded for Israel.) Instead, a more obvious source lies at hand: his interpretation of Psalm 110:4, which becomes explicit in Hebrews 5:6. His citation of the first verse of this psalm in 1:13, applied by Jesus to himself (Mk 12:35-37), may have already called Psalm 110:4 to his biblically informed readers’ minds.
4:14. See Psalm 110:4, cited in Hebrews 5:6. *Apocalyptic traditions portray heaven as a place of worship; the imagery of a heavenly temple is especially prominent in the book of Revelation. In later *Samaritan tradition, Moses (who in some Jewish tradition had ascended to heaven to receive the *law) served as heavenly high priest; but the Christian portrait of Jesus fulfilling this role is probably earlier than the Samaritan tradition about Moses.
4:15. The writer continues the theme that *Christ had experienced humanness without compromising his obedience (2:14-18). In the unlikely event that his readers were familiar with the abuses of the high priesthood in Jerusalem, they might have recognized here a contrast with the high priestly aristocracy.
4:16. The ark of the covenant symbolized God’s throne in the *Old Testament (e.g., 2 Sam 6:2; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Is 37:16; cf. Ps 22:3) and in the ancient Near East (where kings or deities were often portrayed as enthroned on winged figures). But the ark was unapproachable, secluded in the most holy part of the temple, which even the high priest could approach only once a year. Christ has opened full access to God to all his followers (10:19-20).
5:1-3. While continuing the theme of 4:15-16, the author also shows Christ’s superiority over other *high priests, who sin (Lev 9:7; 16:6).
5:4. The writer follows the Old Testament law on the high priestly succession; in Palestine in his own day, the office of high priest was a political favor granted by the Romans. Outside Judea, however, this was not an issue; the writer speaks of the system God had appointed in the Bible.
5:5. Citing again Psalm 2:7 (see comment on Heb 1:5), the writer proves from it that Christ’s royal coronation was God’s initiative. In the next verse he links this kingship with the high priesthood.
5:6. Although the Romans had a powerful high priest too (the pontifex maximus), the writer’s model for this high priesthood and all its nuances derive unquestionably from the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. Melchizedek was a Canaanite priest-king (Gen 14:18); to speak of a “priest like Melchizedek” was thus to speak first of all of a priest who was also king. Israel had known a dynasty of priest-kings only in Hasmonean times, after they threw off the Syrian yoke and before they were subdued by Rome; some Jews opposed this combination. The *Dead Sea Scrolls came to separate the anointed high priest from the anointed king *Messiah, which was a necessary distinction so long as one was from Levi and the other from Judah (cf. 7:14). But Melchizedek was not Levitical; one like him would be a priest-king without being descended from the Jewish priestly line.
Rabbis later contended that Psalm 110:4 meant that God transferred Melchizedek’s priesthood from Melchizedek to Abraham; they may have argued this point to counteract Christian claims that it referred to Jesus. Melchizedek appears in some other Jewish traditions (in the 11Q13 Dead Sea Scrolls) as a heavenly figure, perhaps Michael, and is sometimes associated in Jewish literature with the end time. The writer does not appeal to this extrabiblical tradition, however, which could play into the hands of those wishing to reduce Christ to angelic status (Heb 2:5-18); the plain statement of Psalm 110:4 is sufficient for his case.
5:7. Judaism stressed that God heard the pious; God answered Jesus’ prayers by the *resurrection, however, not by escape from death. Although the writer’s source here could be Psalm 22:5 and 24, it is more likely that he and his readers are acquainted with the tradition of Jesus’ struggle and commitment in Gethsemane (Mk 14:36, 39).
5:8-10. Discipline, including beatings, was a standard part of most Greek education. Classical Greek writers stressed learning through suffering, and the Old Testament and later Jewish wisdom traditions portray divine chastisement as a sign of God’s love. The Greek paronomasia here, emathen aph’ hon epathen “learned from the things he suffered,” was already a common play on words in ancient literature. But the writer here challenges the Greek philosophic idea that the supreme God (with whom the writer in some sense identifies the Son—1:9; 3:3-4) was incapable of feeling, pain or true sympathy. Jesus’ participation in human suffering qualified him to be the ultimate high priest; the *Septuagint applies the word used here for “made perfect” to the consecration of priests (v. 9).
The writer complains that his readers’ knowledge of the Bible is inadequate to follow the rest of his argument. But he insists that they must become more biblically informed if they wish to persevere—and he proceeds to give them the rest of his argument anyway (6:13–7:28).
5:11-12. Many Greek writers used “much to say” to indicate how important their topic was. Even philosophers agreed that one must begin with simple matters before leading students to the more difficult; but they were not above complaining about their pupils’ slowness to learn. Greek moralists also used “milk” and “solid food” figuratively, contrasting basic and advanced instruction. The “elementary principles” (NASB) or “elementary truths” (NIV) are the rudiments or basics (summarized in 6:1-2); Greek writers often applied the term to the alphabet. Some writers frequently reproved their readers in similar ways (“You should be teachers by now!”) to stir them to learn what they should already know.
5:13. Some philosophers, such as Pythagoras, distinguished between elementary and advanced students, calling them “babes” (NASB, KJV) and “mature” (cf. v. 14; “perfect”—KJV) respectively.
5:14. Whereas Platonists disparaged mere sensory knowledge and Skeptics (another philosophical school) valued it even less, *Stoics believed that one’s senses (of which there were five, as in *Aristotle) were useful, and *Epicureans in particular trusted them. Those who thought the senses at all reliable, like *Seneca and Philo, wanted them trained for moral sensibility. The ability to differentiate critically between good and bad, i.e., between truth and falsehood, was important to Greco-Roman writers in general, although the specific application to moral sensibilities is more often Jewish (2 Sam 14:17; 1 Kings 3:9; Ezek 44:23). The writer borrows the language of Greek ethics, which would impress his *Diaspora Jewish readers, and uses it to call them to study the Bible more thoroughly.
6:1. They had to get past the basics to biblical maturity (5:11-14), or they would fall away (6:4-8). The writer probably chooses these items as the “basics” because they were the basic sort of instructions about Jewish belief given to converts to Judaism, which all the author’s readers would have understood before becoming followers of Jesus. These items represented Jewish teachings still useful for followers of Christ. Judaism stressed *repentance as a regular antidote for sin, and a once-for-all kind of repentance for the turning of pagans to Judaism; Judaism naturally stressed faith as well. Although “dead” works could echo the common Jewish denunciation of idols as dead, that specific an allusion is unlikely in this context; cf. 9:14.
6:2-3. “*Baptisms” probably refers to the various kinds of ceremonial washings in Judaism, of which the most relevant to Christianity was *proselyte baptism as an act of conversion washing away the former impurity of a pagan life. Jewish worshipers laid hands on certain sacrifices, and Jewish teachers laid hands on *disciples to ordain them; the latter was more relevant to Christian practice. The *resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment were standard Jewish doctrines, though embarrassing to some Hellenized elements in Judaism.
6:4. Early Judaism severely limited possession of the *Spirit. The *Dead Sea Scrolls limit the activity of the Holy Spirit to the congregation of the children of light, that is, those who agree with them; but besides these and Christian texts, others viewed the Spirit as even rarer. Later *rabbis most emphasized the Spirit’s rareness; they generally report that the Spirit was so rare that even when someone was worthy to receive it, the unworthiness of his generation prevented him from doing so.
“Illumined” or “enlightened” clearly means converted, as in 10:32; the Dead Sea Scrolls similarly speak of their teachers as the “illuminators” and their adherents as “children of light.” “Tasted” also normally meant “experienced” (2:9), and both the use of “heavenly” in the letter (cf. 3:1; 8:1-5) and the limitation of the *Holy Spirit to Christians in early Christian literature also indicate that this person was genuinely converted.
6:5. Most of Judaism regarded the present age as under sin, but believed that God would rule the coming age unchallenged, after he raised the dead and judged them. Christians recognized that they had begun to experience the life of the future world; they were the vanguard of the future *kingdom (see comment on 4:10-11). On the “word,” see comment on 4:2 and 12.
6:6. God had a higher standard for those who should have known better (Num 14:22-23). Judaism generally believed that some people could rebel against God so brazenly, aware that they were doing so, that they would become unable to repent; the offense had to be extremely serious, however. (Later rabbis were not unanimous; Rabbi Meir is said to have insisted that the notorious apostate Elisha ben Abuya could repent, for example. But the majority opinion seems to have been that some could go too far, including King Manasseh. The Dead Sea Scrolls also attest that one who had been part of the community for ten years—and thus knew full well what he was doing—and then turned away was never allowed to return. But as some writers have pointed out, this verse refers to intentional apostasy, not a single sin or drifting away that can be addressed by repentance; drifting away may be covered under Jas 5:19-20.) The point here is not that God does not accept the repentant, but that some hearts become too hard to consider repenting, because they refuse to acknowledge Christ, the only means of repentance. By willfully choosing the kind of belief that nailed Jesus to the cross, they accept responsibility again for killing him.
6:7-8. Others had also used ground choked with thorns and thistles as an image for the wicked and their spiritual destination in barrenness and death (e.g., Is 5:6). Judaism treated apostates as spiritually dead, as did *Pythagoreans and some other groups.
6:9. Greco-Roman moralists often presented their exhortations as reminders, thereby toning down the possible harshness of their words and making them more palatable: “We know, of course, that you would never do something like that.” When they did think that their readers were likely to pursue such a course, however, they would state matters more harshly, rebuking them. The writer has some reason for confidence in his hearers, stated in 6:10.
6:10. “Ministry to the *saints” (KJV, NASB) probably refers to financial help. Some suggest that it might refer to a continuing effort to help the poor Jerusalem Christians that Paul had initiated (Rom 15:25); by A.D. 68, however, with Jerusalem surrounded and the Christians having escaped safely to the wilderness, such monies would have to be sent elsewhere, even if in Judea. On charity see, for example, comment on Matthew 6:2-4.
6:11-12. Ancient moral exhortation often emphasized imitating positive role models (some of whom this writer will list in chap. 11). As Israel “inherited” the land, so Judaism said that the righteous would “inherit” the world to come.
The writer compares the promise (continuing the theme of 6:12) God made to Abraham with the promise he had made to one who would be *high priest after the order of Melchizedek. Although he does not quote here Psalm 110:4, which states this promise, he expects his readers to understand this point presupposed by his exposition (cf. Heb. 5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21).
6:13-17. God swore this “by himself” (Gen 22:16; Ex 32:13), just like the promise to the one who would be high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4).
This oath is one of several by God in the *Old Testament. God had sworn an oath to David (Ps 89:35, 49; 132:11), which Jewish people expected to be fulfilled in the *Messiah; he swore to judge Israel for their sins, and he did so (Ps 106:26). But the greatest human oaths were oaths sworn “by God,” and when God swore “by himself” his words were guaranteed, especially in the few instances where the oath included a promise not to change his mind (Ps 110:4; Is 45:23). God swore by himself and would not change his mind that everyone would have to acknowledge him in the day of judgment (Is 45:23); he likewise swore by himself judgment on the royal house of Judah (Jer 22:5), on the Jewish refugees in Egypt (Jer 44:26), on Israel (Amos 4:2; 6:8), on Edom (Jer 49:13) and on Babylon (Jer 51:14). (*Philo claimed that God alone was worthy to bear witness to his own veracity, although he also decided that any of God’s words had the force of an oath, hence he had not literally sworn by himself.) The accumulation of standard legal terms in this context is not surprising, given the legal force and common courtroom use of oaths.
6:18. Although God swore more than these two promises, the writer emphasizes here the two he has just mentioned: the one to Abraham and the one to the priest like Melchizedek. Greek philosophers believed that the gods were immutable, unchangeable; most Jewish people believed that their God was absolute and unchangeable in his character, yet he dealt with human beings as they were (Ps 18:25-26). The oath is thus important, although both Jews and Greek philosophers believed that the one who was truly God (as opposed to the mythical antics of Greek gods) did not lie.
6:19. The “anchor” was a frequent metaphor in Greco-Roman literature, often for the secure hold on hope which moral qualities produced. “Inside the veil” means that believers have a secure hope in the “holy of holies” (cf. Lev 16:2), which only the high priest could enter once a year. (Later rabbinic texts also portray God as “behind the veil,” from which he utters his decrees. Although this parallel may illustrate that the readers of Hebrews would have caught the author’s Jewish expression for God’s presence in heaven, the Old Testament is his direct source.) The writer means not the earthly but the spiritual holy of holies, in the heavenly temple (see comment on 8:1-5).
6:20. Jesus appears as forerunner often in the book (compare the idea in 2:10; 5:9); the term could be applied to a military vanguard, to firstfruits, to the first-place runner and so forth. It always signifies that the rest of the company is coming afterward.
Because Scripture declares David’s lord to be a priest like Melchizedek (Ps 110:4, in Heb 5:6), a Jewish interpreter would naturally ask, In what ways is he like Melchizedek? The writer’s point is to show that Jesus’ priesthood is greater than and so supersedes the Levitical priesthood of contemporary Judaism. Psalm 110 invites the reader to look for traits of the ultimate king in Genesis 14.
7:1. Here the author summarizes Genesis 14:17-24, in which the Canaanite priest-king of the city that later became Jerusalem blessed Abram. (The identification of Salem with Jerusalem is corroborated by Ps 76:2 and Egyptian execration texts, and assumed in *Josephus, the *Dead Sea Scrolls and the *rabbis.)
7:2. *Philo and others commonly interpreted *Old Testament names allegorically. Jews like Philo and Josephus also interpreted Melchizedek’s name as the writer of Hebrews does (as melek, “king,” plus tsedeq, “righteousness”).
7:3. One Jewish interpretive principle (used when convenient) was that what was not mentioned did not happen. (Philo especially, though not exclusively—cf. the rabbis—exploited this technique. Thus, for instance, Philo argued that the wise man’s family consisted of his virtues, because at one point Moses listed virtues instead of listing all ancestors. Similarly, because Cain’s death is not mentioned, Cain did not die [for Philo, Cain represents deathless folly]. This technique of arguing from silence was applied selectively, of course, because most possible details were not mentioned in a text.) The writer of Hebrews can thus argue that Melchizedek, for the purpose of the comparison, was without parents, because Genesis 14 does not mention them, and Genesis supplies parentage and genealogy for other important representatives of God. To Greek readers, to be without beginning or end was to be divine (e.g., an argument by the philosopher Thales).
7:4. Tithing was already an ancient Near Eastern custom before it was mandated in the Old Testament, and a form of it is also attested in Greco-Roman literature. Here the author refers to Genesis 14:20, its first occurrence in the Bible.
7:5-6. Under Old Testament *law, the tithes went to the descendants of Levi, who was a descendant of Abraham (e.g., Num 18:26; 2 Chron 31:4-6; Neh 10:37-38; 13:5, 12); but Abraham tithed to someone else.
7:7-10. The writer’s point is that Melchizedek (and thus the one who has inherited his priesthood—5:6) is greater than Abraham and thus greater than Levi, for Abraham is greater than Levi. Seeking to get around this argument, later rabbis said that God withdrew the priesthood from Melchizedek (for blessing Abram before blessing God) and gave it to Abraham in Psalm 110:4; but Psalm 110 clearly refers to the ultimate priest-king who would rule over the nations, not to Abraham. Like Philo, the writer of Hebrews believes that the perfect priest is eternal; but this writer can prove his case from Genesis 14 (or even better, from Ps 110 on Jewish premises about the future *Messiah and the *resurrection of the dead).
The writer of Hebrews had a difficult task. Although history was ultimately on his side—as the destruction of the temple not long after proved—he wanted all the Bible on his side too, and the Bible said that the Levitical priesthood was “perpetual” (e.g., Ex 40:15). Although some *narratives in Scripture could undermine a literal construal of that phrase (e.g., Ex 32:10), and one could interpret the old priesthood allegorically (as some Jewish people in the writer’s day did) or recognize eternal principles merely expressed in transitory, culturally relevant forms (as do many interpreters today), the writer of Hebrews had a more useful approach for his own audience. For him, the new and superior priesthood clearly promised in Scripture makes the old priesthood obsolete.
7:11-19. The *Dead Sea Scrolls eventually recognized two “anointed” figures: a warrior *messiah descended from David, hence of Judah, and an anointed priest from the tribe of Levi. But Psalm 110 allows this writer to view both roles as fulfilled by one future figure; a priest “like Melchizedek” need not be descended from Levi, and was, in fact, greater than Levi (7:4-10).
Philo spoke of the “perfection” of Levi as a model of the perfect priesthood; the author of Hebrews disagrees. Like *Plato and his successors, this writer notes that what changes is imperfect, for the perfect by nature does not need to change. Yet God had promised another priesthood, an eternal and hence changeless one (7:17; cf. 7:3), which renders the first, imperfect one obsolete. (The term for “setting aside” in v. 18 was even used in business documents for a legal annulment.)
7:20-21. This priesthood is also greater than the Levitical priesthood because, unlike the latter, it is guaranteed with a divine oath (see comment on 6:13-18). This point constitutes a partial answer for any possible appeal to the *Old Testament claim that the Levitical prescriptions were perpetual ordinances; God changed some points in the *law when such changes were necessary to accomplish his original, eternal purpose in the law (e.g., Jer 3:16; cf. 2 Kgs 18:4), but in this case he had sworn and promised not to change his mind.
7:22-25. On the eternal priest’s superiority to temporal ones, see also 7:11-19. In the unlikely event that his readers are familiar with the politics of the Jerusalem aristocracy, they would think of the Romans’ appointing and deposing of priests. More likely, however, the only issue here is the priests’ mortality. The term for “guarantee” (NASB, GNT) or “surety” (KJV) in verse 22 was used in business documents for a deposit, a security guaranteeing that one would carry through on one’s word or obligation, or someone who made such a guarantee.
7:26. Levitical priests were to avoid defilement, and special precautions were taken to avoid the *high priest’s defilement before the Day of Atonement. This was the one day a year on which the high priest would enter the holy of holies (although he may have entered several times on that day; cf. Lev 16:13-16). Even though later rabbis’ views may be stricter than the actual practice of the Jerusalem high priests, their elaborate care to avoid the high priest’s defilement is instructive (he was secluded for the week preceding that day; precautions were taken to avoid a nocturnal emission the night before; etc.). But such earthly high priests could never compare with the heavenly high priest, just as the earthly tabernacle was only a shadow of the perfect one in heaven (see comment on 3:1; 8:1-5).
7:27. High priests did not directly offer up the daily offerings, but they were responsible for the priestly service that did offer them. Fire was to burn on the altar continually; Israel’s sacrifices were offered day after day; priests offered daily morning and evening sacrifices on behalf of the whole nation in the temple. The writer may be conflating the duties of the whole priesthood with the duties of the high priest on the Day of Atonement, thus stressing the necessity of repetition in the Levitical cultus. Or he might mean “daily” hyperbolically for “continually,” year after year. Under the law, only on the Day of Atonement did the high priest make an offering for his sins and then for those of the nation (Lev 16:6, 11, 15-16).
7:28. By Jesus’ *resurrection he naturally qualifies for the “eternal” priesthood like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4 (Heb 7:17). Many ancient thinkers accepted only what was eternal as “perfect.” (The writer cites the promise given after the law, hence a statement that the law could not supersede. Addressing a different line of reasoning in Gal 3, Paul speaks of a promise that came before the law and that the law cannot annul. Thus Paul and the author of Hebrews assert promise over law from different directions.)
Parallels between the heavenly and earthly were common in some Jewish sources (e.g., the heavenly and earthly court or Sanhedrin), as elsewhere in ancient thought (e.g., the heavenly temple corresponding to the Babylonian temple of Marduk, called Esagila, and the Canaanite temple of Baal). (Some ancient Near Eastern temples and later Mithraea were also designed to reflect the structure of the whole cosmos, signifying the deity’s universal rule. *Philo naturally applied the principle of heavenly prototype and earthly copy even more broadly, following Platonic models. When specifically comparing the heavenly and earthly temples, Philo allegorized in great detail, regarding the ideal heavenly temple as virtue, its altar as ideas, its linen as earth, etc.) Given the ancient Middle Eastern setting, correspondences between heavenly and earthly temples were probably intended even in Exodus 25:8-9, part of which is cited in Hebrews 8:5.
Much of Judaism, from Hellenized wisdom traditions (Wisdom of Solomon 9:8) to *apocalyptic visionaries and writers and later *rabbis, spoke of the earthly temple as an imitation of the heavenly one. The eternality and value of the old temple are relativized by comparing it with the true temple in heaven.
8:1. Jesus’ seat at God’s right hand was proved by Psalm 110:1 (Heb 1:13), which clearly addressed the same person as the priest like Melchizedek (Ps 110:4, cited in Heb 5:6; 7:17).
8:2-5. See on the introduction to 8:1-5. Like followers of *Plato (including, on this point, Philo), the writer of Hebrews sees the earthly as a “copy and shadow” of the heavenly reality (8:5). (The word for “copy” means “sketch” [NRSV] or “plan, outline,” as in the *LXX of Ezek 42:15, which deals with the temple of the world to come; many of its details the author of Hebrews might interpret symbolically, an approach not necessarily out of harmony with the symbolic language of Ezekiel elsewhere, e.g., 31:2-9.) Unlike Plato, the writer of Hebrews does not see the heavenly reality only as an ideal world to be apprehended by the mind: Jesus really went there. Jewish apocalyptic writers sometimes also spoke of the future *kingdom (which generally included a magnificent temple) as a present reality (at least as a prototype) in heaven.
The writer produces here an extended citation from Jeremiah 31:31-34 to demonstrate his case that the Bible itself predicted a change in the *law. This text was also stressed by the *Qumran sectarians who probably wrote the *Dead Sea Scrolls; they saw themselves as the people of this “new covenant.” But they interpreted Moses’ law more strictly, whereas this writer would have been considered a more liberal Jew on this point than Philo was (13:9), valuing the principles as eternal but the forms as cultural and temporary.
8:6-7. The author picks up a hint he dropped in 7:12: the old priesthood was tied with the old law and its covenant, and both were shown to be imperfect if they were superseded.
8:8-9. The phrase generally rendered “new” covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 could also be translated “renewed” covenant. The first covenant was meant to be written on people’s hearts (Deut 30:11-14), and the righteous actually had it there (Ps 37:31; 40:8; 119:11; Is 51:7); but according to Jeremiah, most of Israel did not have it in their hearts (cf., e.g., Deut 5:29). The difference between the former and the new covenant would be precisely that whereas the Israelites broke the first covenant (Jer 31:32), the new law would be written within them, and they would know God (Jer 31:33-34).
8:10-12. Jeremiah echoes the language of the first covenant: “I will be their God, and they will be my people” (e.g., Lev 26:12). “Knowing” God was also covenant language, but on a personal level it referred to the sort of intimate relationship with God that the prophets had.
8:13. The writer undoubtedly says “about to disappear” because the temple service had not been directly discontinued by Jesus’ exaltation, but it was at that time on the verge of disappearing. If, as appears likely, this letter was written in the late 60s A.D. (see introduction), many in the *Diaspora recognized that the Romans might soon crush Jerusalem and the temple. Apart from a few groups not very dependent on the Jerusalem temple (such as the *Essenes), most Palestinian Jews were forced to make major readjustments in cultic practice after the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.
On the principle of correspondence between the heavenly and earthly tabernacles, see comment on 8:1-5. The writer follows the *Old Testament carefully in his description in 9:1-10, not conforming it at all to the modifications of his day. (Verses 4-5 were no longer true in his own day, elements having been removed. In many Jewish traditions, they would be restored in the end times.) The altar in 9:4 is connected grammatically to the holy of holies; even though some traditions favor the view that the incense altar was inside the holy of holies, the author probably means instead that it belonged to the holy of holies but was not inside, as the ark was. The Old Testament text plainly places the altar of incense in the sanctuary outside the holiest place. The Old Testament itself elsewhere—the Hebrew of 1 Kings 6:22—can put the matter ambiguously, however; but the author of Hebrews says that these items “belong to” it, not “are in” it.
Most of the details of the original tabernacle were meant to communicate something within its ancient Near Eastern culture. Some features simply informed the Israelites that this was a “temple.” The three-part structure of the tabernacle, with the holy of holies in the back approached in a direct line from the front entrance of the tabernacle, was the standard design of Egyptian temples in Moses’ day. The placement of the most expensive materials (such as pure gold) and dyes nearest the ark was an ancient way of glorifying the holiness of the deity and signifying that one must approach this deity with awe and reverence. Some other features of the tabernacle signify merely that God was being practical: whereas the later temple was built of cedar wood (like normal Canaanite temples), the tabernacle was built from acacia wood—the only wood available in the Sinai desert. Tent shrines were also known among nomadic peoples.
But the greatest teachings of the tabernacle lay in its contrasts with the shrines of surrounding cultures. Like most ancient Near Eastern temples, God’s temple had an altar of sacrifice, an altar of incense (to overpower the stench of flesh burning from the sacrifices), a table and so on. But pagan temples often had a bed and similar apparatus for the image of the god, which was dressed, “fed” and entertained each day. Yet God’s house had none of this—he was not an idol. Similarly, larger Egyptian temples often had shrines on either side for tutelary deities, but this feature is missing in God’s temple—he was the only true God. The holiest place in ancient Near Eastern temples was what corresponded to the ark, on which would be mounted (sometimes enthroned on winged creatures like the cherubim) the image of the deity. But the climax of God’s temple is that, where one would expect an image, there was none, because nothing could adequately represent his glory.
In suggesting that the details of the present, earthly tabernacle are significant (he believes they point to a heavenly tabernacle), the writer of Hebrews is not distorting the text. His modest suggestions are quite in contrast with the allegorizing of Philo, who explains each detail as a symbol of something that none of Moses’ original readers would have guessed (linen as earth, dark red as air, the seven-branched candelabrum as the seven planets, etc.). Unlike the writer of Hebrews, however, some popular readers of the Old Testament today follow Philo’s more fanciful method of interpretation.
Under Old Testament *law, sin could technically be expiated—God’s anger appeased by substitution—only by bloodshed.
9:11. In typical first-century thought, the heavens were pure, perfect and changeless; the heavenly tabernacle, then, would be the perfect prototype for the earthly and the only one that was ultimately needed. On the temple “not made with hands,” see comment on Acts 7:40-41 and 48-50.
9:12. The *high priest on the annual Day of Atonement brought the blood of a bull for himself and that of a goat for the people (Lev 16:6, 11, 14, 15-16). According to the *Qumran War Scroll, “eternal redemption” arrives only at the time of the end, after the final battle; here it is inaugurated through the permanently satisfactory offering of the eternal high priest (cf. Dan 9:24).
9:13-14. Had the author wished to cite a particular proof text for a priest offering himself up, he might have compared the one who sprinkles (as the *Old Testament priests did) the nations in Isaiah 52:15 with the following context of this person carrying the sins of Israel (Is 53:4-6, 8-12); but he is content to argue instead on the basis of his comparison with the Levitical offerings. He reasons by means of a “how much more” argument (a standard argument especially used by Jewish interpreters): if the blood of sacrifices on the Day of Atonement can remove sin (hypothetically; cf. 10:4), how much more effective is the blood of Christ.
9:15. Here the author brings together the “new covenant” (see comment on 8:6-13), redemption and an “eternal” inheritance (as opposed to the temporal inheritance their ancestors had sought in the land—chaps. 3–4; the Old Testament image of “inheriting” the Promised Land was applied in ancient Judaism to inheriting the world to come).
9:16-17. “Covenant” (NASB) can also be translated “testament” (KJV) or “will” (NIV, NRSV, GNT), and ancient writers often argued their points by plays on words. “Testaments” were sealed documents, opened only on the testator’s death; “covenants” were agreements between parties or imposed by a greater party on a lesser one. (Some scholars have drawn a connection between the two in terms of the suzerain-vassal treaty form reflected in God’s covenant with Israel. Because these covenants would be maintained in force dynastically—the suzerain’s son would execute it after his father’s death—the covenant could perhaps be understood in some sense as a testament. But this connection involves a different cultural world from the one in which the author of Hebrews usually moves, and it is not likely that he would have this connection in mind.) Regardless of the play on words (puns were used in antiquity for argumentation as well as wit), his point makes good sense: ancient covenants were normally inaugurated with blood (e.g., Gen 31:54).
9:18-20. See Exodus 24:6-8. One of the writer’s minor changes in wording is attested elsewhere (Philo), but that may be only coincidence; ancient interpreters normally felt free to modify the text in minor ways to make more intelligible its relation to the writer’s point. A more significant change is the addition of water, bright red wool, and hyssop: the writer apparently *midrashically connects Exodus 24 with Leviticus 14:6 or Numbers 19:6, to arouse the association of purification—in the latter case, from sin (Num 18:9).
9:21-22. See, for example, Exodus 29:37, Leviticus 8:15 and 16:16-20. To the Old Testament *Josephus added that even the priests’ garments, the sacred utensils and so on were cleansed with blood; while the writer of Hebrews may not go this far, the whole cultus was in some sense dedicated through sacrifice. Blood was officially necessary for *atonement under the law (Lev 17:11); ritual exceptions were permitted for the poorest Israelites (Lev 5:11-13), but the general rule established the principle. (Jewish tradition also interpreted the sprinkled blood of Ex 24:8 as blood for atonement.)
9:23. The writer returns to the parallel between earthly and heavenly tabernacles (see comment on 8:1-5; 9:1-10): if the earthly sanctuary could be dedicated only by blood (9:11-22), so also the heavenly sanctuary. But a perfect sacrifice was necessary for the perfect sanctuary.
9:24-26. The “eternal” priesthood of one like Melchizedek (7:17; Ps 110:4) was not based on annual sacrifices; had “eternal” involved perpetual sacrifices, they would have had no beginning as well as no ending. But his priesthood is based on a once-for-all, finished sacrifice on the cross. Jewish people frequently divided history up into many ages (they proposed a number of different schemes), but the most basic was the division between the present age and the *age to come. The “consummation of the ages” (NASB) thus refers to the goal of history, climaxing in the coming of God’s reign; in the decisive act of Christ, the writer recognizes that the future age has in some sense invaded history (cf. 6:5).
9:27-28. The author’s point here is that just as people die only once (a commonplace even of Greek classical literature, though *Plato taught reincarnation), *Christ had to offer himself for sin only once. When he appears (cf. v. 24) again, it will be to consummate the future salvation (just as the emergence of the priest into the outer court traditionally assured the people that the sacrifice had been accepted and their sins forgiven; cf. 1:14). “Bear the sins of many” is from Isaiah 53:12.
Although Josephus and probably some other Jewish thinkers dabbled with the language of reincarnation in Plato’s writings (in Josephus’s case, seeking to make the Pharisaic belief in *resurrection intelligible to Greeks), the vast majority of first-century Judeans expected instead one death, then resurrection and judgment (the sequence of the latter two varied in different Jewish accounts). Like the *Old Testament (Ezek 18:21-32), Jewish people often felt that death was the cutoff point for judgment. (Thus a late-first-century *rabbi warned *disciples to repent one day before death; those being executed should say, “May my death *atone for all my sins” [but cf. Ps 49:7-9, 15]; those who were dying often expected to be judged immediately—e.g., the story of Johanan ben Zakkai’s pious fear when he was on his deathbed; one tradition said that the righteous were escorted by good angels and the wicked by evil ones; etc. But other Jewish traditions did allow for temporary punishments that expiated one’s remaining sins: the view that the corpse’s decomposition helped atone for sin, the placing of a rock on a coffin to symbolize the execution of one who died before being executed, and the view that no Israelite could spend more than a year in *Gehenna. These views of posthumous expiation have no clear parallel in the Old or *New Testament.) This writer follows the frequent Jewish and unanimous New Testament consensus (among those sources that comment on the question) that death ended one’s opportunity for reconciliation with God.
Only *Christ could be a sufficient sacrifice for the heavenly sanctuary (9:23-28).
10:1. *Plato spoke of the earthly world, perceived by sensory knowledge (by the earthly senses), as consisting merely of shadows of the real world, apprehended by reason alone. By the first century, even many Jewish writers (in the *Diaspora) spoke of the heavens above as pure and perfect, and the earthly as bound by corruption. Such writers often spoke of the need of the soul to escape back to the upper regions from which it originally came. Without adopting a thoroughgoing Platonic worldview, the writer of Hebrews agrees that the earthly tabernacle, at least, is a shadow of the heavenly one (he has scriptural proof for this thesis—8:5), but he also echoes the view of Jewish *apocalyptic writers: heaven reveals what the world to come will be like. For this writer, however, the first stage (9:24, 28) of that future time had already invaded history (6:5).
10:2-3. The author again plays on the idea that what is perfect need not be changed or supplemented. *Rhetorical questions were commonly used in ancient reasoning. “Reminder” may mean that the annual Day of Atonement sacrifices remind people of their sins the way Passover reminded them of God’s redemptive acts (Ex 12:14; cf. Lev 16:21)—in contrast to the policy of the new covenant (8:12).
10:4. Palestinian Judaism argued that the Day of Atonement, conjoined with *repentance, was necessary for the forgiveness of most violations of the *law.
Many philosophers had revolted against the idea of blood sacrifice, which they felt was unreasonable in a perfect temple focused on the mind. That is not the premise of this writer, however, who like people in a wide range of cultures in human history recognized the need for blood sacrifice (10:19); he merely felt that animal sacrifices were inadequate for human redemption in the heavenly sanctuary (9:23), and thus unnecessary now that Christ had come. He has plenty of *Old Testament precedent for relativizing the actual value of animal sacrifices (e.g., 1 Sam 15:22; Ps 51:16; Prov 21:3; Is 1:11; Jer 11:15; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21-27), as he points out in his sample citation (Heb 10:5-7).
Before A.D. 70, many Diaspora Jews and some Palestinian Jews emphasized the spiritual, figurative use of sacrificial imagery, but only a few denied the necessity of sacrifices altogether. Everyone in the ancient world, whether they had visited Jerusalem’s temple or not, was familiar with animal sacrifices, which were a standard part of religion; some philosophers opposed it, but most ancient temples included it. This writer saw their past value as symbolic, pointing to the perfect sacrifice of Christ (9:23).
10:5-7. Here the author cites Psalm 40:6-8, following a common Greek version.
10:8-9. The author proceeds to expound the text he has just cited. Not only has God not desired sacrifices, but the offering of sacrifices can be distinguished from God’s actual will; the latter is what the psalmist came to do.
10:10. Although the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and some *Aramaic, most first-century Jews scattered throughout the Roman world read the Old Testament in its Greek translation. Where the extant Hebrew text says “you have opened my ears,” most Greek versions read “you have prepared me a body” (to do God’s will). Jewish interpreters generally chose whichever reading they needed to make their point (some interpreters even changed readings slightly to make their point); both the writer of Hebrews and his audience are using the Greek version here. Consequently he expounds: “Not sacrifices, but rather a body to do God’s will”—the ultimate sacrifice of Christ’s body. Such argumentation fit ancient Jewish exegetical standards and is carried out quite skillfully.
10:11-14. The author returns to his basic text, Psalm 110:1, presupposing also 110:4. An eternal priest like Melchizedek (Ps 110:4) who was to remain seated until his enemies were put down (and the enemies were yet to be put down—Heb 2:8), must have already offered his once-for-all sacrifice; priests did not offer sacrifices in a seated position.
10:15-17. Like Christians, Jewish writers attributed the inspiration of Scripture to the “*Holy Spirit,” who was viewed in most circles of ancient Judaism as the Spirit of *prophecy. The author returns here to one of his earlier texts, Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Heb 8:8-12), a practice commonly used to expound more recently cited texts.
10:18. If the new covenant (8:6-13) involves forgiveness of sins and sins being remembered no more (8:12; 10:17), then there is no longer a need to *atone for sins. The writer does not address the image of sin offerings or guilt offerings in Ezekiel’s future temple (Ezek 40:39; 42:13; 43:18-27; 44:29). He would presumably have interpreted it symbolically, in view of the sufficiency of Christ’s death (Is 53, etc.), Christ offering even more than Ezekiel’s vision of hope.
10:19-20. The sanctuary was reserved for the service of the priests, but the most holy place (the Semitic expression is “holy of holies”)—which is probably in view here—could be entered by the *high priest alone, and even he could enter only one day a year. But Jesus the forerunner (6:20; cf. 2:10; 5:9) had dedicated the heavenly sanctuary (9:23-28), so that his followers could join him in the full presence of God (cf. comment on Rev 21:16). The veil (see comment on 6:20; cf. Mk 15:38) had separated even the priests from the full holiness of God symbolized by the most holy place, but now believers in Jesus had complete and perfect access to God’s presence (Heb 4:16). God dwelling among his people in the tabernacle had pointed to a personal relationship available to those who sought him even then (Ex 33:11), despite some limitations (Ex 33:23; 34:30-35).
10:21. This verse alludes to Jesus’ superiority over Moses (Num 12:7); see comment on Hebrews 3:6.
10:22. “Drawing near” could be sacrificial or moral language in the *Old Testament; here it means entering the presence of God (10:19-20) and into relationship with God (7:19, 25) through Jesus the great high priest. “Hearts sprinkled” (9:13; see, e.g., Lev 14:7; cf. Ex 24:8 quoted in Heb 9:19-20) and “bodies washed” (e.g., Lev 14:9) are imagery from the Levitical order, but the writer has a spiritual cleansing in view (Ezek 36:25-29).
Like many other *Diaspora Jewish writers, the writer of Hebrews may accept the need for both inner and outer cleansing; but the bodily cleansing here is apparently initiatory (a perfect participle here in Greek) and thus presumably refers to *baptism. *Gentile converts to Judaism were baptized to free them from Gentile impurity; the *Qumran sect required everyone to be baptized (as the first of many washings) to forsake former worldly impurities; Christians baptized new believers as a mark of initiation into a wholly new life. The symbolic value of Christian baptism would not have been lost on Jewish observers.
The conjunction of faith, hope and love as the primary virtues (10:22-24) appears to have been a specifically Christian formulation (e.g., 1 Cor 13:13; Col 1:4-5; 1 Thess 1:3).
10:23. This exhortation to “hold fast” is important given the opposition the readers face. Their critics insist that they return to the ritual observances practiced by other Jews in their city and compromise the absolute sufficiency of Christ. (Paul was not opposed to Christians engaging in sacrifices as a means of cultural identification, worshiping by thank-offerings, etc.—see, e.g., Acts 21:26; but like this author he would no doubt deny that sacrifices were necessary for *atonement—Rom 3:24-26. Because these readers were Diaspora Jews who probably could go to the Jerusalem temple only rarely, and no one in their community had gone to the temple since the war had started in A.D. 66, it is more the principle than the practice that is at issue here anyway. The issue is whether they will regard Jesus as an appendage to their Judaism or as its fulfillment who supersedes previous mandatory forms of practicing the *law.) As the Israelites of old should have trusted God to bring them into the Promised Land, so should this author’s hearers. The “faithful” one in this case might be not God the Father (11:11) but Jesus (3:2, 5).
10:24. Some ancient groups like the *Epicureans engaged in mutual exhortation; it was a standard practice of early Christianity (Rom 15:14; 1 Thess 5:14).
10:25. Greek moralists often lectured on “concord” or “harmony,” warning against individualism. Jewish teachers also warned against a spirit of separatism, and even Jewish separatists (such as the *Essenes) stuck together among themselves. Diaspora *synagogues functioned as community centers, and Jews gathered there especially on the Sabbath to read Scripture and to pray together. Those rarely in attendance would thereby exclude themselves from the active life of their community; given the hostile reception most Jews in many places received from the Gentile community, community cohesion was an important coping response.
Religious associations in the Greco-Roman world met together at various intervals, normally about once a month. Jewish people in the Diaspora could use their synagogues at any time, but especially gathered on weekly sabbaths (e.g., Acts 13:14, 42; 16:13). Christians seem to have gathered at least weekly (cf. the “fixed day” in Pliny, Epistles 10.96, an early-second-century description of Asian Christians from a pagan governor). But persecution (cf. Heb 10:32-39; 12:4) may have dissuaded some people from attending even relatively private house *churches; the Romans were suspicious of private meetings, although they would not be investigated in the East unless brought to the authorities’ attention by a delator (accuser).
Those who do not engage in the true worship, who do not continue to persevere (10:19-25), would ultimately fall away and be lost.
10:26. Judaism had long distinguished intentional and unintentional sin (Num 15:29-31; cf., e.g., Lev 4:2, 22); one who knew better would be punished more strictly than one who was ignorant. Sacrifices *atoned for sins of ignorance, but Judaism taught that no sacrifice availed for the person who knowingly rejected the authority of God’s *law. (For such persons, many Jewish teachers insisted that *repentance, the Day of Atonement and death were all necessary. Jewish teachers also observed that those who sinned presuming that they would be automatically forgiven were not genuinely repentant and hence were not forgiven.) In the *Dead Sea Scrolls, slight transgressions required temporary penance, but deliberate rebellion against God’s law demanded expulsion from the community. The sin in this context is unrepentant, thorough apostasy (10:29).
10:27. Here the author borrows the language of Isaiah 26:11, referring to the day of the Lord (for which believers hoped to be prepared—Heb 10:25). The context in Isaiah includes the raising of the righteous (Is 26:19).
10:28. The law of witnesses is Deuteronomy 17:6-7 and 19:15; apostasy from obedience to the true God is addressed in Deuteronomy 13:6-11 and 17:2-7. Jewish teachers recognized that everyone sinned in some ways; but a sin by which a person declared “I reject parts of God’s Word” was considered tantamount to rejecting the whole law and was reckoned as apostasy.
10:29. Compare 2:2-3; here the author uses a “how much more” argument. Garbage could be “trampled down,” but what was sacred was to be approached only with reverence, and trampling it underfoot was the ultimate disrespect (e.g., Is 63:18; Mt 7:6). It was a great sin to treat the holy as merely profane or as unclean; Christians had been sanctified by Christ’s blood (see comment on 9:19-22), but other Jews would simply regard Jesus’ dead body as an unclean corpse (Deut 21:23). Insulting the *Spirit invited judgment (Is 63:10).
10:30. The author cites Deuteronomy 32:35-36, reading the first line of verse 36 with verse 35 instead of with what follows, to reinforce the contextual point that God had promised this vengeance against his own people. Unlike most of his citations, this one is closer to the original Hebrew form than to that of the extant Greek versions.
10:31. David had preferred falling “into God’s hands,” depending on his mercy, but the mercy was preceded by severe and rapid judgment (2 Sam 24:14-16; this was the prescribed judgment of the law in Ex 30:12). “Falling into [someone’s] hands” and “living God” were both regular Jewish expressions.
Although apostasy was a genuine possibility (10:26-31), the writer is confident that his readers, who have already endured much, will not apostatize (cf. comment on 6:9).
10:32-33. The athletic language of “conflict” (v. 32 NIV) or “struggle” (NRSV; see comment on 12:1-3) conjoined with “being made a public spectacle” (v. 33 NASB) or “publicly exposed” (NIV) could imply that the readers were subjected to the gladiatorial games. Although the writer probably does not mean this reference literally (since they were still alive—12:4), the image suggests the intensity of their struggle. It is not possible to identify the specific persecution involved without identifying the location of the letters’ recipients (a difficult task; see introduction).
10:34. The confiscation of Christians’ goods might match a situation presupposed in Macedonia (2 Cor 8:2), where both the Thessalonian and Philippian Christians were persecuted; but we do not know where the particular persecution described here occurred. That it could happen in the Roman Empire is beyond dispute: Jews were expelled from Rome under Tiberius and Claudius, although (apart from those drafted by Tiberius) they could have taken moveable property with them. Disputes over the equality of some elite Alexandrian Jews as citizens led to a Jewish revolt in the early second century, a massacre of the Jewish population there and confiscation of their property; in the first century, many Jews there had been driven out or killed and their homes looted during urban violence. Still considered a small Jewish sect, Christians were even more susceptible to public hostility.
The readers had remained faithful despite this persecution (cf. Tobit 1:20; 2:7-8). On the “prisoners” (no doubt fellow Christians detained in jails), see 13:3; cf. 11:36. For the “better possession,” see comment on 11:10.
10:35-36. Both Judaism and Christianity (11:26) spoke of the reward for perseverance for God. On the promise, cf., e.g., 6:13-20; 11:9, 13 and 39-40.
10:37. This is a citation of Habakkuk 2:3, the wording slightly adapted to apply more specifically to the writer’s point about the return of *Christ (possibly reworded by combination with part of Is 26:20, from the context of which the author took words in Heb 10:27).
10:38. Here the author quotes Habakkuk 2:4, on which see comment on Romans 1:17. He follows the *Septuagint (which speaks of drawing back) almost exactly, except that he reverses the order of clauses, mentioning the righteous first. (Also, like Paul, he omits the “my” in front of “faith,” joining it instead to “righteous one.” Although the most common Greek version had “my” faith, i.e., God’s faithfulness, the Hebrew had “his” faith, presumably that of the righteous, as Paul and this writer take it.)
10:39. The writer expounds Habakkuk 2:4 (quoted in the previous verse) in inverse order, to end (as was normal in ancient rhetoric) on the desired note: perseverance by faith rather than apostasy. In the following chapter he defines genuine persevering faith.
After defining faith in 11:1 and introducing his thesis in 11:2, the writer surveys biblical history for samples of the kind of faith he is addressing. Faith as defined by this chapter is the assurance in God’s future promises, an assurance that enables one to persevere (10:32-39).
In form, the chapter is a literary masterpiece. It follows the frequent literary practice called historical retrospective, a summary of Jewish history to make a particular point, as in texts like Acts 7, 1 Maccabees 2:49-69 and Sirach 44–50. (Ancient moralists often used examples of people who embodied the virtue they advocated, and sometimes wrote entire biographies for this purpose.) The writer builds the chapter around a literary device called anaphora (repetition of an opening word or words), beginning each new account with the same Greek word, “by faith.”
11:1. The author defines faith in terms of future reward, as in 10:32-39 (the Greek word often translated “now” in this verse is literally “but” or “and”). Jewish people defined ultimate “hope” in terms of the future day of the Lord. This hope is, however, an unshakable conviction in the present: “assurance” (NASB, NRSV; “confidence”—NIV) appears in Greek business documents with the meaning “title deed.” To the Greek reader, what was “not seen” was what was eternal, in the heavens; here it also means what was yet to happen, as in Jewish *apocalyptic expectation (11:7; cf. 11:27).
11:2. “Gained approval” (NASB) is literally “gained testimony,” as in 11:4, 5 and 39: the evidence of their lives and God’s advocacy guaranteed that they would be declared righteous on the day of judgment.
11:3. The *Old Testament often taught this principle (e.g., Prov 3:19-20), but because the writer starts at the beginning of biblical history, here he refers to the creation in Genesis 1. In Greek cosmology (e.g., Hesiod, Empedocles), as opposed to many of the Jewish sources (e.g., 2 Maccabees 7:28), the universe was formed out of preexisting matter in a state of chaos; *Plato and *Philo believed the visible universe was formed from visible matter. Yet Philo and many Jewish teachers believed that the material universe was formed according to God’s invisible, ideal pattern, embodied in his “word” or his “wisdom.” Although this view may betray some Greek philosophical influence, it was also rooted in and defended by means of the Old Testament (e.g., Prov 8:22-31).
11:4. Jewish literature praises its martyrs and offers Abel as the first example of martyrdom. (See, e.g., *4 Maccabees 18:10-19; Mt 23:35. In the Testament of Abraham, a *pseudepigraphic work of uncertain date, Abel even replaces the Greek Minos as the human judge of the dead [the role belongs to Enoch in *Jubilees]. The Ascension of Isaiah and the Apocalypse of Moses, also Jewish works of uncertain date, extolled Abel among the righteous. In Philo, Cain’s love of self leads him to eternal corruption; other early Jewish traditions, e.g., Jubilees and *1 Enoch, provide him with other punishments.) That he still speaks is evident from the writer’s implicit use of Genesis 4:10 in Hebrews 12:24.
11:5. Jewish tradition came to be divided on Enoch. The most Hellenized Jews identified him as Atlas or other figures. More prominently, *Essene and other traditions glorified Enoch as the most righteous saint and one who had never died (e.g., Sirach, 1 Enoch, *Qumran’s Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees). Reacting against this consensus, many *rabbis eventually interpreted “God took him” as “God killed him” so he could die in a righteous state, since (they claimed) he alternated between righteous and unrighteous behavior.
The writer of Hebrews follows the most common Jewish interpretation, which was also the most natural interpretation of Genesis 5:21-24: God took Enoch alive to heaven, because he “walked with him”—i.e., was pleasing to him. Like some writers (such as *Pseudo-Philo), the writer of Hebrews follows the biblical account here exactly, omitting later elaborations.
11:6. Moralists characteristically drew morals from the examples they cited; here, if Enoch was pleasing to God, it is clear that he had faith. The moral that the author of Hebrews draws from the Enoch story (v. 5) is well adapted to the context in his own letter: besides faith, cf. “draws near” (10:22), “reward” (10:35; 11:26) and possibly “seeks” (13:14; cf. 12:17).
11:7. Noah was likewise a renowned hero of early Judaism, although later rabbis emphasized him less than early storytellers did, transferring the stories about his miraculous birth to Moses.
11:8. Judaism always extolled Abraham’s faith (see the introduction to Rom 4:1-22). Historically, Abraham may have been part of a larger migration (cf. Gen 11:31-32), but his own obedience to God’s call, leaving his home and relatives behind, was an act of faith (Gen 12:1, 4). Abraham’s obedience was applied as a model of faith as early as the writing of Genesis, when Moses called his people to turn their backs on Egypt; the writer of Hebrews calls his readers to be ready to forsake the favor of their own families.
11:9-10. *Diaspora Judaism often described God as “architect” and “builder” (cf. 3:4) of the world. Like philosophers who could compare the cosmos with a city, Philo saw heaven (or virtue or the Logos, the divine Word) as the “mother city,” designed and constructed by God; one could not look for the heavenly Jerusalem on earth. Other Jewish people saw the new Jerusalem as the city of God for the future age (*Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.; see comment on Gal 4:26); on its foundations, see comment on Revelation 21:14. Compare also Hebrews 13:14. Old Testament texts like Psalm 137:5-6 and *New Testament texts like this one suggest that Christians’ future hope is inseparably connected with Israel’s history, and Christians do biblical tradition a great disservice to cut it loose from its historical moorings in ancient Israel.
11:11. Sarah was a woman of faith in the Old Testament just as Abraham was a man of faith; subsequent Jewish texts also came to extol her greatness as a matriarch.
11:12. Here the author quotes Genesis 22:17, often echoed subsequently in the Old Testament.
11:13-16. The Jewish people in the Diaspora saw themselves only as “sojourners” among the nations; the language here has Old Testament precedent (especially Gen 23:4; cf. Lev 25:23). Like Philo, this writer believes that earth is not the home of the righteous; heaven is. But he envisions this idea in more traditionally Jewish terms than Philo, looking for a future city (see also comment on 11:9-10; cf. Rev 21:2).
11:17-19. The offering of Isaac, after years of waiting for the promise of this son, was Abraham’s ultimate test of faith (Gen 22), and is often stressed in Jewish sources. This act was regarded as a model of faith to be emulated when necessary (see 4 Maccabees 14:20; 15:28; 16:20). Although Jewish tradition also noted Isaac’s willingness to be sacrificed (as early as Pseudo-Philo), the writer of Hebrews does not add to the biblical *narrative, except to expound the nature of Abraham’s confidence (that God would raise him from the dead if need be; God’s power to raise the dead was celebrated daily in Jewish prayers). “Only” son (cf. Gen 22:2, Hebrew text and Jewish traditions) was sometimes used, especially with regard to Isaac, to mean “specially loved” (*LXX, other Jewish traditions), even though Isaac was never Abraham’s only son.
11:20. Jewish readers recognized that Isaac’s blessings were inspired and that they included predictions of the future (Gen 27:28-29, 39-40).
11:21. Genesis 49 was also regarded as prophetic, and Jewish writers later expanded the predictions (also writing testaments for each of the twelve patriarchs to the patriarchs’ children).
11:22. See Genesis 50:24-25. Joseph’s faith provided a hope in a promise that transcended his own mortality.
11:23. The writer of Hebrews follows the biblical account here (in its LXX form—the Hebrew mentions only the mother’s decision to rescue him—Ex 2:2-3), but many Jewish writers expanded the story of Moses’ birth, especially his beauty, into reports that his glory illumined the room at birth and so forth. These stories became very popular as time went on.
11:24-25. Although the author here draws a moralist application, he does not go beyond the biblical account. Many Jewish stories of this period, especially Diaspora Jewish stories, portrayed Moses as an Egyptian military hero and stressed his great learning and knowledge (see comment on Acts 7:22). Yet the writer of Hebrews might allow the view affirmed by Philo—that Moses as son of Pharaoh’s daughter was his heir. If this is the case (following a Roman understanding of adoption), Moses’ rejection of this status to maintain his identification with his oppressed people (11:26) is all the more significant. (Of course, his sacrifice is significant enough in any case.) Greek philosophers and moralists commonly stressed the superiority of enduring hardship over succumbing to the rule of pleasure, as Jewish tradition stressed honoring God above all else.
11:26. Forsaking riches for something greater, like piety or wisdom, was a common moral in Jewish and Greco-Roman stories, and the biblical story of Moses’ life certainly illustrated that motif.
11:27. Exodus 2:14-15 indicates that Moses was afraid of the king; if this text refers to Moses’ first flight from Egypt after slaying the Egyptian, perhaps the writer means a particular kind of fear (i.e., Moses was not afraid enough to deny his people), or perhaps he relativizes that fear by emphasizing Moses’ faith in the unseen God (other writers, like Philo and *Josephus, minimize or eliminate fear as the cause of Moses’ escape). But he may refer to Moses’ second departure from Egypt, with Israel following him; verse 28 also speaks of him (singular) keeping the Passover, although it is clear that all Israel kept it. Diaspora Judaism often called God “the Invisible.”
11:28. Compare Exodus 12, with which all Jewish people were familiar, especially from the annual Passover celebration. Because the nature of his account is biographical, the author yields only reluctantly to describing the general experience of Israel, as opposed to Moses (v. 29).
11:29. Compare Exodus 14:29 and Nehemiah 9:11. Exodus reports the completion of Israel’s faith after the miracle (Ex 14:31), but Moses and his people had to act in some faith to enter the basin (cf. Ex 14:10-22). Jewish teachers debated the immediate cause of the exodus, some affirming Israel’s faith but many attributing the miracle to the faith or merit of their ancestors (see, e.g., Mekilta Pisha 16.165-68; Mekilta Beshalach 4.52-57).
11:30. Compare Joshua 6. Some scholars have complained that the site of Jericho was uninhabited in Joshua’s period, because, in the areas excavated, little remains of the city from that time. But the excavator reasonably attributed the loss of this level of the city’s ruins to erosion; mounds are normally formed, and ruins preserved, only when city walls exist. If Jericho’s walls fell down, one would expect most of that stratum of ruins to have eroded away.
11:31. Later Jewish literature often praises Rahab’s beauty and sometimes sees her as a prophetess and as a model convert to Judaism; but although Josephus speaks favorably of her, Philo and most earlier Jewish literature comment little on her. Hebrews, like James 2:25, follows the biblical account.
11:32. The writer’s theme is still “by faith,” but like Philo, *Seneca and other *rhetorically trained writers, he remarks that he could go on but will not do so, settling instead for a quick summary. This remark gives the impression (in this case quite accurate) that he could provide much more evidence or many more examples; but he determines not to strain the readers’ patience by continuing long after he has made his point (as some ancient rhetoricians were known to do even in law courts, displaying their eloquence for several hours without a break). By mentioning what he protests he cannot describe, however, he outlines what he would have covered. This too was a standard rhetorical device, allowing him to hurry while mentioning what he claims he cannot mention.
He names several of the judges (commanded to shepherd Israel—1 Chron 17:6): David, the ideal king; Samuel, founder of the schools of the prophets and overseer of the transition from judges to monarchy; and he mentions other prophets. That Barak replaces Deborah in the list fits later rabbinic tradition’s tendency to play down biblical prophetesses (contrast Pseudo-Philo 30-33), although the *Old Testament mentions neither Deborah nor Barak outside Judges 4–5. From the perspective of some first-century readers, Barak would be official victor even though Deborah was the main leader of faith.
11:33. The first three statements in the verse are general, but the fourth applies specifically to Daniel (Dan 6:16-24; cf. 1 Maccabees 2:60); although this story was amplified in early tradition (Bel and the Dragon 31-32), the writer of Hebrews follows the biblical account. Other Jewish writers also presented the endurance of Daniel and his friends before the lions and the flame as models to be emulated (for martyrs see *4 Maccabees 13:9; 16:3, 21-22).
11:34. Quenching the power of fire refers especially to Daniel’s three friends (Dan 3:23-27; 1 Maccabees 2:59; *3 Maccabees 6:6; cf. Is 43:2), although Jewish tradition also transferred elements of that story to Abraham (*Pseudo-Philo and later rabbis). “Were strengthened from their state of weakness” may refer particularly to Samson’s regaining his strength (Judg 16:28-31), or it may be a general statement like several that follow. Much of the language of this verse comes from 1 Maccabees, which contains much historical material about pious Jewish defenders of the *law after the Old Testament period and before the New Testament period. It was widely known among Jewish people throughout the ancient world.
11:35-36. Women received their dead back to life under Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:21-24; 2 Kings 4:35-37). “And others” marks a transition: faith does not always bring deliverance (cf. Dan 3:18), as the author’s readers already knew (Heb 10:32-39) and might learn further (12:4). Nearly all Jews knew the stories of Maccabean martyrs, who were tortured in various ways: scalded to death, having skin flayed off, stretched on the wheel and so on. Regular torture practices of the Greeks included fire, thumbscrews and (what is probably meant by “tortured” here) stretching on a wheel to break the person’s joints, then beating the victim to death (sometimes pounding the stomach as if it were a drum) in that helpless position. The Maccabean martyrs were scourged, a punishment that the Romans had continued to use as well. All Jewish sources that addressed the issue agreed that martyrs would receive preferential treatment at the *resurrection, and 2 Maccabees declares that this was the hope that enabled the martyrs to endure.
11:37. “Sawn in two” fits a Jewish tradition that was popular in the second century A.D. and later but probably already known in the writer’s time. According to this story, when Isaiah hid in a tree the wicked king Manasseh had it—and Isaiah—sawed in half. Those stoned to death include a prophet named Zechariah (2 Chron 24:20-22; Mt 23:35); some Jewish traditions added Jeremiah. Prophets who lived outside society sometimes wore coarse animal skins (see the *LXX for Elijah’s “mantle”); Elijah and similar prophets also wandered in the wilderness, and the *Maccabees were later forced to live in such circumstances.
11:38. The Maccabean guerrillas hid out in caves in the Judean mountains, as David’s band had in the time of Saul long before. Elijah and other prophets were sometimes forced to live in the wilderness. The idea of righteous persons of whom the world was unworthy has many partial parallels, although this formulation appears to be the author’s own.
11:39. This verse is the concluding summary of 11:3-38, part of it rehearsing the author’s thesis in 11:2. Concluding summaries of one’s thesis were standard *rhetorical practice.
11:40. “Made perfect” here refers to the consummation of salvation (1:14), the resurrection of the dead (11:35). All the righteous would be raised together at the very end of the age (Dan 12:2, 13).
The image in 12:1-3 and possibly in 12:12-13 is that of runners disciplining themselves for the race. Athletic contests were a common image in Greco-Roman literature, often used for the moral battle waged by the wise person in this world; the *Hellenistic Jewish work *4 Maccabees sometimes applied the image to martyrs. This passage (Heb 12:1-3) is the climax of the narration of past heroes of the faith (chap. 11).
12:1. “Witnesses” can function as those watching a race (“cloud” was often applied figuratively to a crowd), but the particular witnesses here may be those who testified for God or received his “testimony” that they were righteous (the Greek of 11:2, 4, 5, 39). (The image could be that of a heavenly court made up of faith heroes of the past, who would judge those now vying for the same honors; the image of the heavenly court appears elsewhere in ancient Jewish sources. The idea does not correspond to the picture sometimes found in some writers such as, for example, the second-century *Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius [cf. Philo], where souls of the departed floated around for awhile after death before being resolved into the fire.) “Laying aside weights” (KJV) may refer to removing artificial weights used in training but not in races, but more likely it refers to the Greek custom of stripping off clothes to run unencumbered. The image would represent anything that would hinder his readers from winning their race (ancient writers sometimes used “weights” figuratively for vices); this encouragement is significant, for like Israel of old in the wilderness, they may be tempted to turn back.
12:2. On “author” or “pioneer,” see comment on 2:10; for “perfecter,” see 9:9, 11 and 10:14. Like most ancient moralists, the writer uses human models to illustrate his chosen virtue, but his climactic illustration of the virtue of faith is the initiator and fulfiller of faith, who suffered in the hope of future reward, as these readers are to do (10:32-39). Maccabean martyrs were said to have “looked to” (same word as here, NRSV) God, thus enduring tortures to the point of death (4 Maccabees 17:10). The cross was an instrument of “shame” in both Roman and Jewish (cf. Deut 21:23; Josh 10:26-27) thought.
12:3. The verbs translated “grow weary” and “lose heart” were sometimes used for the exhaustion a runner could face. (The call to endurance in 12:1 reflects the language of long-distance races.)
Rather than questioning their faith when they are persecuted, the readers are to embrace the suffering as a gracious opportunity to learn God’s heart better.
12:4. Although some Jewish teachers said that one could violate most biblical laws if necessary to save one’s life, provided that one did not profane the name of God, the earlier martyrs felt that compromising the commandments to save one’s life constituted public profanation of God’s name. Jesus, the ultimate hero of their faith, had shed his blood (12:2-3; cf. 9:12); his followers have to be prepared to do the same. The ultimate test of Greek athletic contests (12:1-3) was boxing, which often drew blood; but the language here indicates the ultimate test that Jesus portrayed as an expected part of Christian discipleship (Mk 8:34-38): martyrdom.
12:5-7. This quotation is from Proverbs 3:11-12 but has many biblical (e.g., Deut 8:5; Ps 94:12) and postbiblical (e.g., *Psalms of Solomon 3:4; 7:3; 8:26; 10:1-3; 13:9-10; 14:1-2; 18:4) Jewish parallels; *Philo and some *rabbis used Proverbs 3 similarly. In the context of Jewish wisdom literature, discipline was a sign of a father’s love for his children, his concern that they would go in the right way; some Jewish teachers felt that God purged the sins of his children by sufferings designed to *atone and to produce *repentance. Although this writer would deny that any person’s sufferings could have atoning value, except for those of God in the flesh (7:25-28; cf. Ps 49:7-9), he undoubtedly agrees that they can help lead one to repentance or to a deeper relationship with God (Ps 119:67, 71, 75).
In the Greek world, the term translated “discipline” (NIV, NASB) was the most basic term for “education” (although this usually included corporal discipline), so the term naturally conveyed the concept of moral instruction. Some philosophers like *Seneca also used the image of God disciplining his children for their good, just as Jewish writers did.
12:8. In antiquity, calling someone an “illegitimate child” (not born from a married union) was a grievous insult; “illegitimacy” negatively affected one’s social status as well as one’s inheritance rights. Fathers were more concerned for their heirs and usually invested little time in sons unable to inherit.
12:9. God was often called “Lord of spirits” (i.e., Lord over the angels); here he is called “Father of spirits” in contrast to “earthly fathers.” Jewish people developed the *Old Testament image of God as Israel’s father (e.g., Ex 4:22), often speaking of him in these terms. This argument is a standard Jewish “how much more” argument: if we respect earthly fathers, how much more should we respect the superhuman one?
12:10-11. Jewish teachers recognized that God’s discipline, even the suffering experienced in martyrdom, was temporary, and that he would afterward reward the righteous greatly (e.g., in the *Apocrypha: Wisdom of Solomon 3:5; cf. 2 Maccabees 6:13-17; 7:18, 32-33). They also believed that whereas he disciplined his people, he punished the wicked more severely (Wisdom of Solomon 12:22) or would do so in the time to come (most rabbis, *apocalyptic visionaries and writers, etc.).
12:12. “Weak hands” and “feeble knees” were common descriptions of weakening and slackness (cf. Is 13:7; 35:3; Jer 47:3; 50:43; Ezek 7:17; 21:7; Zeph 3:16), applied to moral or religious concerns in the *Dead Sea Scrolls, in Sirach 25:23 and elsewhere. It may apply to the imagery of the race in Hebrews 12:1-3.
12:13. “Make straight paths for your feet” suggests the quickest course in a race; the words are taken from the *Septuagint of Proverbs 4:26 with few changes.
Turning away from Jesus was worse than Esau’s shortsighted apostasy (12:16-17) and more serious than rejecting the revelation of God at Sinai (12:18-21), for Jesus is greater than Moses and greater than Abel (12:24)—he is the true and rightful leader of Israel (12:23). The vast majority of ancient Jews sought to keep the *law and were embarrassed by the rebellion of many of their ancestors in the wilderness; the writer warns that if his readers turn their backs on Christ, they are even worse than their ancestors.
12:14-15. The image of a bitter root that can spread to infect many is from Deuteronomy 29:18, although many texts use similar images (1 Maccabees 1:10; a *Qumran hymn; the rabbis). The text in Deuteronomy is quite appropriate, for it refers to apostasy, as the writer of Hebrews does.
12:16. Here the author refers to Genesis 25:31-34. Philo regarded Esau as enslaved by sensual and temporal desires because of actions such as this one. Esau did not act as if he viewed life from a long-range perspective, much less an eternal one (the rabbis inferred from this text that he denied the future *resurrection of the dead). “Immoral” here is literally “sexually immoral” (NIV; cf. “fornicator”—KJV), the view of Esau that prevailed in Jewish tradition, undoubtedly based on his initial preference for *Gentile wives (Gen 26:34-35; cf. 28:9), which dismayed his parents (26:35; 28:8).
12:17. Despite the “tears,” which reflect Genesis 27:38, Esau was unable to persuade his father Isaac to change his mind, probably because the first blessing could not be annulled. (One commentator points out that the expression “place for *repentance” was used in Roman legal documents as “an occasion to reverse a previous decision.” Although neither the author nor his readers would be thinking in terms of legal terminology, it might reflect a more general idea, which could apply to Isaac’s choice [although the commentator applies it to Esau].) Esau’s disinheritance from the promise (cf. Heb 6:12-18) was settled. (According to one nonbiblical Jewish tradition, Jacob later killed Esau in a war [*Jubilees 38:2], but the writer of Hebrews does not go beyond the biblical account.)
12:18. Here the author describes Mount Sinai at the giving of the law (Ex 19:16; Deut 4:11-12).
12:19. In Exodus 20:18-21, when God had given the Ten Commandments, the people were afraid of God’s awesome holiness. They wanted Moses to mediate for them, fearing that if God spoke to them directly, they would die (Ex 20:19; Deut 5:25-27), for he came as a consuming fire (Deut 4:24; 5:24-25). But God’s purpose was to scare enough sense into them to get them to stop sinning (Ex 20:20).
12:20. Here the author uses Exodus 19:12-13. God was so unapproachably holy that violation of his command not to approach the mountain from which he gave the law was punishable by death, even for animals that happened to wander that way unwittingly (cf. Num 17:13).
12:21. When God became angry at Israel for violating his prohibition of idolatry, even Moses was afraid of God’s anger (Deut 9:19).
12:22. Mount Zion (Jerusalem or the Temple Mount in Jerusalem), as opposed to Mount Sinai, was to be the place of the giving of the new law in the end time (Is 2:1-4). On the heavenly Jerusalem see comment on 11:9-10; everyone in antiquity would regard a heavenly place of revelation as superior to an earthly place, no matter how glorious (12:18-21) the latter was.
Jewish tradition stressed the vast number of angels present at the giving of the law (eventually claiming thousands per Israelite); the writer of Hebrews probably takes the angels from Deuteronomy 33:2 or Psalm 68:17, a text that probably refers to the giving of the law, as later Jewish tradition also understood it.
12:23. Long before the first century, the *Septuagint applied the term translated “*church” to the “assembly” (NRSV) or “congregation” of Israel in the Hebrew Old Testament; thus the writer of Hebrews here contrasts the congregation led by Jesus with the one led by Moses (12:19). (On the “firstborn,” see comment on 1:6; because the reference is in the plural, it may refer to God’s people as a whole here—e.g., Ex 4:22). “Enrolled” (NASB, NRSV) means that their names were “written” (KJV, NIV, GNT) on the list in heaven; the Jewish images of heavenly tablets and the book of life were common (see comment on Phil 4:3; Rev 20:12). In *apocalyptic texts such as *1 Enoch, “spirits” or “souls” referred to the righteous dead in heaven (various texts apply it even more commonly to angels, but that connection would not make sense in regard to “spirits of righteous men,” which was a usual designation for the righteous dead, not for guardian angels). Many *Diaspora Jews believed that the righteous finally attained perfection in death (or in resurrection; cf. Heb 11:40; it has been suggested that the righteous of 12:23 include the heroes of chap. 11).
12:24. Moses was considered mediator of the first covenant. As mediator of a new covenant (9:15; see comment on 8:6-13), Jesus had to inaugurate it through the sprinkling of blood (see comment on 9:15-22). Abel’s blood spoke, bringing condemnation against his murderer (Gen 4:10; cf. Prov 21:28; see comment on Heb 11:4). (In rabbinic tradition, the blood of all the descendants who would have been born from Abel cried out to God against Cain, and Cain thus had no share in the world to come. Blood crying out is also found in the *Sibylline Oracles, 2 Maccabees 8:3 and elsewhere; cf. Deut 21:1-9. See comment on Mt 23:35 for the traditions about Zechariah’s blood testifying; other rabbinic stories also suggested that they believed the blood of a murdered person kept seething till it had been avenged.) Jesus’ blood, dedicating a new covenant of forgiveness, thus speaks “better things” than Abel’s blood.
12:25. The comparison between Mount Sinai and a heavenly Mount Zion returns to the writer’s standard qal vahomer or “how much more” argument (a fortiori arguments, “from lesser to greater”—here worked in converse—were common, especially in Jewish argumentation, but also appear in Greco-Roman and other argumentation; cf. Prov 15:11). If the law was glorious, and profaning it was something to fear, “how much more” to be feared is profaning the more awesome glory of the new covenant given from heaven (12:25-29).
12:26. The land quaked when God came to give the law on Mount Sinai (Ex 19:18; cf. *2 Baruch 59:3); later Jewish tradition amplified this point to say that God shook the whole world. The idea of a great end-time earthquake has Old Testament (Is 13:13) and later Jewish parallels (e.g., 2 Baruch 32:1), but the writer quotes Haggai 2:6 (cf. 2:21) directly.
12:27. The author expounds the text he has just cited. Because Haggai 2:5 mentioned a promise God made when he brought Israel out of Egypt, and “once more” in 2:6 refers to a particular previous shaking, it was natural to read the first shaking of 2:6 as what happened at Sinai. The second shaking was clearly the future one when God would subdue the nations and fill his temple with glory (2:7). The writer of Hebrews adds to this text an interpretive perspective he shares with his readers, a perspective stressed in Greek philosophy but not incongruent with the Old Testament: what cannot be changed is truly eternal.
12:28. Like many Jewish writers, the author of Hebrews uses the language of sacrificial offerings figuratively for the appropriate attitude of worship (cf. 13:15; see comment on Rom 12:1). For the unshakable *kingdom, cf. perhaps Psalm 96:10 (especially in the *LXX, numbered 95:10).
12:29. The author takes over Deuteronomy 4:24 directly; cf. also Deuteronomy 9:3 and Exodus 24:17. Deuteronomy 4:24 goes on to call God “a jealous God”; Hebrews 12:29 is clearly a warning against taking his ultimate revelation for granted.
Parenesis, an ancient *rhetorical and literary style especially consisting of moral exhortations loosely fitted together, could be conjoined with other literary elements. Moral exhortations often followed argumentation, as in many of Paul’s letters (e.g., Rom 12–14; Gal 5–6; Eph 4–6).
13:1. See comment on 10:25; cf. 12:14. The bonds of Christian community would also hinder apostasy from that community.
13:2. Hospitality normally involved housing and caring for travelers; the greatest example of this virtue cited in Jewish texts was Abraham, who welcomed the three visitors (Gen 18). Because at least two of them turned out to be angels, this account is the most natural referent of the present exhortation. (Other stories, like the early Jewish story of Tobit or Greek stories about gods visiting people in disguise, are of more secondary value, but illustrate how readily ancient readers might have received the exhortation.)
13:3. By the second century, Christians were known for their care for the imprisoned. Some philosophers regarded visiting those who were in prison as a virtue, although Palestinian Judaism was largely silent on the issue, compared to its emphasis on visiting the sick or helping the economically oppressed (except for visiting Jews captured or enslaved by pagans). “The prisoners” probably refers to some Christians imprisoned for their faith or for practices related to it (as in 13:23). Roman law used prison as detention until punishment rather than as punishment itself; sometimes prisoners had to depend on outside allies for food.
13:4. Many ancient writers spoke of honoring the “(marriage) bed” (the “bed” was a euphemism for intercourse); one story goes so far as to emphasize a virgin’s purity by noting that no one had ever even sat on her bed. Male sexual immorality was rife in Greco-Roman society, which also accepted prostitution. Pedophilia, homosexual intercourse and sex with female slaves were common Greek practices until a man was old enough for marriage. A few Greek philosophers even thought marriage burdensome but sexual release necessary. The writer accepts not typical Greek values, but God’s values represented in Scripture and also upheld by Jewish circles in his day.
13:5. The author draws this quotation especially from Deuteronomy 31:6, 8 and Joshua 1:5, although the idea was common in the *Old Testament (cf. 2 Chron 15:2; Ps 37:28). Moses spoke it to all Israel in the third person, but the writer, who regards all Scripture as God’s inspired Word, uses Joshua 1:5 (an assurance oracle, one form of Old Testament *prophecy, to Joshua) to adapt it to the first person. The reference to love of money is characteristic of general parenesis (moral exhortation) of the day but may be particularly related to the economic consequences of following Jesus in a hostile culture (Heb 10:34; 11:26).
13:6. Here the author cites Psalm 118:6; cf. Psalm 56:11. The author may add this quotation to Deuteronomy 31:6 and 8 as an implicit gezerah shavah (linking of texts with a common key word or phrase), because Deuteronomy 31:6 and 8 say that the hearers should not be afraid (although the writer of Hebrews does not quote that line).
13:7. Public speakers and moralists generally cited examples for imitation, especially those most closely known to both writer and readers. The past tense of the verbs here may suggest that some of them have died (though apparently not by martyrdom in their location—12:4). “Led” probably refers to local leaders rather than someone like Paul, who was likely martyred a few years before this letter was sent.
13:8. *Philo and probably many *Diaspora Jews particularly emphasized the Old Testament picture of God’s changelessness (Ps 102:27; Mal 3:6; cf. Is 46:4), because they had to communicate the truth about God to Greeks, who felt that only what was changeless was truly eternal.
13:9. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:3-20 listed “unclean” foods that Jewish people were to avoid, thus differentiating them from the nations around them. Philo allegorized these food laws but argued that one should still keep them literally; at the same time, he also testifies that some extremely Hellenized Jewish people in his day viewed them as only symbolic and did not practice them. The writer of Hebrews does not reject them by interpreting them nonliterally; he simply believes that a new time has come, and the foods previously forbidden did not directly benefit those who abstained, making the prohibitions no longer necessary.
13:10. Now the author addresses a special kind of food in the Old Testament: the priests’ portion in the tabernacle/temple (see comment on 1 Cor 9:13). Believers, he says, serve as priests (13:15) at a different kind of altar (cf. 7:13).
13:11. Burning sacrifices outside the camp was part of several different rituals (cf. Lev 9:11; Num 19:3; the phrase is common in Leviticus and Numbers and appears in the *Dead Sea Scrolls), but the reference here is to the Day of Atonement, when the priest went into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifice (Lev 16:27). This is the sacrifice Jesus fulfilled for the heavenly altar mentioned previously in Hebrews.
13:12-13. Blood was sprinkled to “sanctify” (set apart as holy) or “cleanse” things under the *law (9:22). (That Jesus could cleanse by his own blood may indicate his superiority to the Old Testament *high priest, who had to wash himself before returning to the camp after the sacrifice—Lev 16:28.) That Jesus was crucified and buried outside Jerusalem’s walls fits both the Gospel accounts and the Jewish requirement that the dead be buried outside the city (so as to avoid contracting ritual uncleanness caused by contact with graves; cf., e.g., Lev 24:14; Num 15:35-36; Deut 17:5; 22:24). Roman law also required that crucifixions occur “outside the gate.” (Some commentators have also noted that the sin offerings of the Day of Atonement were burned outside the camp—Lev 16:27—but it should be observed that they were also sacrificed in the temple or tabernacle—Lev 16:5-19.) Leaving the camp for these Jewish-Christian readers may imply being willing to be expelled from the Jewish community whose respect they value, to follow the God of Israel wholeheartedly (cf. Heb 11:13-16).
13:14. See comment on 11:10 for the hope of the eternal Jerusalem in ancient Judaism.
13:15-16. The Dead Sea Scrolls often use sacrificial language for praises, as do other ancient writers (see comment on Rom 12:1); Hebrews is probably especially dependent, however, on Hosea 14:2 here (cf. also the Hebrew text of Is 57:19). For spiritual sacrifices, cf. also Psalm 4:5; 27:6; 40:6; 50:7-15; 51:17; 54:6; 69:30-31; 119:108 and Proverbs 21:3. *Pharisees also stressed God’s acceptance of piety as a spiritual offering, a factor that may have helped Pharisaism survive the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70; only a few of the special Palestinian Jewish movements, such as Pharisaism’s successors and the Jewish Christians, survived without the temple.
13:17. The writer urges his readers to submit to present leaders (probably as they did to former ones—13:7), whom he presents as “watchmen” (see Ezek 3:17; 35:7; cf. Is 21:8; Hab 2:1). A theme of Greco-Roman moralists had long been advice to peoples on how to submit to rulers; this author gives a brief exhortation that functions as a sort of “letter of recommendation” (on these, see comment on 2 Cor 3:1), placing his own authority behind that of their *church’s leaders. This author is not as leader-centered as some other groups like the *Qumran community were, however; the Dead Sea Scrolls report that the leaders of the community would determine members’ progress or lack of it, affecting members’ standing in the community, hence before God (cf., e.g., CD 13.11-12; 4Q416-17).
13:18-19. This might be the prayer request of one unjustly imprisoned; but cf. 13:23.
13:20-21. On Jesus as the “shepherd,” see comment on the introduction to John 10:1-18. The *Septuagint of Isaiah 63:11 says that God “brought up the shepherd of the sheep” (Moses) from the sea. The prophets had also prophesied a new exodus (which could include coming up from the sea), which was fulfilled in *Christ (on comparing coming up from the sea and the *resurrection, see comment on Rom 10:7).
The first covenant was inaugurated by “the blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:8), sometimes called the “eternal covenant” (*Psalms of Solomon 10:4; Dead Sea Scrolls). But the new covenant would also be called “eternal” (Is 55:3; Jer 32:40; Ezek 37:26), and it was the blood of this covenant to which the author of Hebrews refers (9:11-22).
13:22. Philosophers and moralists provided “messages of exhortation.” Such spoken messages could also be given in writing, especially in letter-essays like Hebrews. Professional public speakers (*rhetoricians) often remarked that they had spoken briefly or poorly when such was clearly not the case, to claim for themselves less than was obvious.
13:23. If, as is likely, Timothy was arrested under Nero in Rome, he may well have been released on Nero’s death, because the Praetorian Guard and the Roman aristocracy had long before lost faith in Nero’s policies. This background would set the letter in the late 60s (see introduction).
13:24-25. “Those from Italy” could mean people from Italy now living elsewhere, possibly sending greetings back to Italy; most commentators who take this view think it refers to Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2). More likely—especially given the probable place of Timothy’s imprisonment (13:23)—is the view that the author sends greetings from *saints in Italy, and that the letter is written from Rome to a different location, probably to a city in the eastern Mediterranean region.