Text -- Hebrews 9:16 (NET)

9:16 For where there is a will, the death of the one who made it must be proven.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Heb 9:16

A testament ( diathēkē ).

The same word occurs for covenant (Heb 9:15) and will (Heb 9:16). This double sense of the word is played upon also by Paul in Gal 3:15. We say today "The New Testament"( Novum Testamentum ) rather than "The New Covenant."Both terms are pertinent.

Robertson: Heb 9:16

That made it ( tou diathemenou ).

Genitive of the articular second aorist middle participle of diatithēmi from which diathēkē comes. The notion of will here falls in with klēronomia (inheritance, 1Pe 1:4) as well as with thanatos (death).

Robertson: Heb 9:16

Of force ( bebaia ).

Stable, firm as in Heb 3:6, Heb 3:14.

Robertson: Heb 9:16

Where there hath been death ( epi nekrois ).

"In the case of dead people."A will is only operative then.

Robertson: Heb 9:16

For doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth? ( epei mē pote ischuei hote zēi ho diathemenos ).

This is a possible punctuation with mē pote in a question (Joh 7:26). Without the question mark, it is a positive statement of fact. Aleph and D read tote (then) instead of pote . The use of mē in a causal sentence is allowable (Joh 3:18, hoti mē ).

Vincent: Heb 9:16

For where a testament is ( ὅπου γὰρ διαθήκη )

" The English Version has involved this passage in hopeless obscurity by introducing the idea of a testament and a testator." This statement of Rendall (Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 159) is none too strong. That interpretation, however, is maintained by a very strong array of modern expositors. It is based upon κληρονομία inheritance ; it being claimed that this word changes the whole current of thought. Hence it is said that the new covenant established by Christ is here represented as a testamentary disposition on his part, which could become operative in putting the heirs in possession of the inheritance only through the death of Christ. See Additional Note at the end of this chapter.

Vincent: Heb 9:16

There must also of necessity be the death of the testator ( θάνατου ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου )

Rend. it is necessary that the death of the institutor ( of the covenant ) should be borne . With the rendering testament , φέρεσθαι is well-nigh inexplicable. If covenant the meaning is not difficult. If he had meant to say it is necessary that the institutor die , he might better have used γένεσθαι : " it is necessary that the death of the institutor take place " ; but he meant to say that it was necessary that the institutor die representatively ; that death should be borne for him by an animal victim. If we render testament , it follows that the death of the testator himself is referred to, for which θάνατου φέρεσθαι is a very unusual and awkward expression.

Additional Note on Heb 9:16

Against the rendering testament for διαθήκη , and in favor of retaining covenant , are the following considerations:

(a) The abruptness of the change , and its interruption of the line of reasoning . It is introduced into the middle of a continuous argument, in which the new covenant is compared and contrasted with the Mosaic covenant (8:6-10:18).

(b) The turning-point, both of the analogy and of the contrast, is that both covenants were inaugurated and ratified by death : not ordinary , natural death, but sacrificial, violent death, accompanied with bloodshedding as an essential feature. Such a death is plainly indicated in Heb 9:15. If διαθήκη signifies testament , θάνατον death in Heb 9:16 must mean natural death without bloodshed.

(c) The figure of a testament would not appeal to Hebrews in connection with an inheritance. On the contrary, the idea of the κληρονομία was always associated in the Hebrew mind with the inheritance of Canaan, and that inheritance with the idea of a covenant. See Deu 4:20-23; 1Ch 16:15-18; Psa 105:8-11.

(d) In lxx, from which our writer habitually quotes, διαθήκη has universally the meaning of covenant. It occurs about 350 times, mostly representing áְּøִéú , covenant . In the Apocryphal books it has the same sense, except in Sir. 38:33, where it signifies disposition or arrangement . Διατιθέσθαι to dispose or arrange represents ëָּøַֽú , to cut off , hew , divide . The phrase ëָּøַֽú áְּøִֽú , to cut (i.e., make ) a covenant , is very common. The verb marks a disposing by the divine will, to which man becomes a party by assent; while συντιθέσθαι indicates an arrangement between two equal parties. There is not a trace of the meaning testament in the Greek O.T. In the classics διαθήκη is usually testament . Philo uses the word in the sense of covenant , but also shows how it acquired that of testament ( De Mutatione Nominum , § 6 ff.). The Vulgate has testamentum , even where the sense of covenant is indisputable. See Exo 30:26; Num 14:44; 2Ki 6:15; Jer 3:16; Mal 3:1; Luk 1:72, Act 3:25; Act 7:8. Also in N.T. quotations from the O.T., where, in its translation of the O.T., it uses foedus . See Jer 31:31, cit. Heb 8:8. For διατιθέσθαι of making a covenant, see Heb 8:10; Act 3:25; Heb 10:16.

(e) The ratification of a covenant by the sacrifice of a victim is attested by Gen 15:10; Psa 1:5; Jer 34:18. This is suggested also by the phrase ëָּøַֽú áְּøִֽú , to cut a covenant , which finds abundant analogy in both Greek and Latin. Thus we have ὅρκια τάμνειν to cut oaths , that is, to sacrifice a victim in attestation (Hom. Il . ii. 124; Od . xxiv. 483: Hdt. vii. 132). Similarly, σπονδὰς let us cut ( make ) a league (Eurip. Hel . 1235): φίλια τέμνεσθαι to cement friendship by sacrificing a victim; lit. to cut friendship (Eurip. Suppl . 375). In Latin, foedus ferire to strike a league foedus ictum a ratified league, ratified by a blow ( ictus ).

(f) If testament is the correct translation in Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, the writer is fairly chargeable with a rhetorical blunder; for Heb 9:18 ff. is plainly intended as a historical illustration of the propositions in Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, and the illustration turns on a point entirely different from the matter illustrated. The writer is made to say, " A will is of no force until after the testator's death; therefore the first covenant was ratified with the blood of victims.

Wesley: Heb 9:16

Seeing it is by his death that the benefits of it are purchased. It seems beneath the dignity of the apostle to play upon the ambiguity of the Greek word, as the common translation supposes him to do.

JFB: Heb 9:16

A general axiomatic truth; it is "a testament"; not the testament. The testator must die before his testament takes effect (Heb 9:17). This is a common meaning of the Greek noun diathece. So in Luk 22:29, "I appoint (by testamentary disposition; the cognate Greek verb diatithemai) unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me." The need of death before the testamentary appointment takes effect, holds good in Christ's relation as MAN to us; Of course not in God's relation to Christ.

JFB: Heb 9:16

Literally, be borne": "be involved in the case"; be inferred; or else, "be brought forward in court," so as to give effect to the will. This sense (testament) of the Greek "diathece" here does not exclude its other secondary senses in the other passages of the New Testament: (1) a covenant between two parties; (2) an arrangement, or disposition, made by God alone in relation to us. Thus, Mat 26:28 may be translated, "Blood of the covenant"; for a testament does not require blood shedding. Compare Exo 24:8 (covenant), which Christ quotes, though it is probable He included in a sense "testament" also under the Greek word diathece (comprehending both meanings, "covenant" and "testament"), as this designation strictly and properly applies to the new dispensation, and is rightly applicable to the old also, not in itself, but when viewed as typifying the new, which is properly a testament. Moses (Exo 24:8) speaks of the same thing as [Christ and] Paul. Moses, by the term "covenant," does not mean aught save one concerning giving the heavenly inheritance typified by Canaan after the death of the Testator, which he represented by the sprinkling of blood. And Paul, by the term "testament," does not mean aught save one having conditions attached to it, one which is at the same time a covenant [POLI, Synopsis]; the conditions are fulfilled by Christ, not by us, except that we must believe, but even this God works in His people. THOLUCK explains, as elsewhere, "covenant . . . covenant . . . mediating victim"; the masculine is used of the victim personified, and regarded as mediator of the covenant; especially as in the new covenant a MAN (Christ) took the place of the victim. The covenanting parties used to pass between the divided parts of the sacrificed animals; but, without reference to this rite, the need of a sacrifice for establishing a covenant sufficiently explains this verse. Others, also, explaining the Greek as "covenant," consider that the death of the sacrificial victim represented in all covenants the death of both parties as unalterably bound to the covenant. So in the redemption-covenant, the death of Jesus symbolized the death of God (?) in the person of the mediating victim, and the death of man in the same. But the expression is not "there must be the death of both parties making the covenant," but singular, "of Him who made (aorist, past time; not 'of Him making') the testament." Also, it is "death," not "sacrifice" or "slaying." Plainly, the death is supposed to be past (aorist, "made"); and the fact of the death is brought (Greek) before court to give effect to the will. These requisites of a will, or testament, concur here: (1) a testator; (2) heirs; (3) goods; (4) the death of the testator; (5) the fact of the death brought forward in court. In Mat 26:28 two other requisites appear: witnesses, the disciples; and a seal, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the sign of His blood wherewith the testament is primarily sealed. It is true the heir is ordinarily the successor of him who dies and so ceases to have the possession. But in this case Christ comes to life again, and is Himself (including all that He hath), in the power of His now endless life, His people's inheritance; in His being Heir (Heb 1:2), they are heirs.

Clarke: Heb 9:16

For where a testament is - A learned and judicious friend furnishes me with the following translation of this and the 17th verse: -

"For where there is a covenant, it is necessary that the death of the appointed victim should be exhibited, because a covenant is confirmed over dead victims, since it is not at all valid while the appointed victim is alive.

He observes, "There is no word signifying testator, or men, in the original. Διαθεμενος is not a substantive, but a participle, or a participial adjective, derived from the same root as διατηκη, and must have a substantive understood. I therefore render it the disposed or appointed victim, alluding to the manner of disposing or setting apart the pieces of the victim, when they were going to ratify a covenant; and you know well the old custom of ratifying a covenant, to which the apostle alludes. I refer to your own notes on Gen 6:18 (note), and Gen 15:10 (note). - J. C.

Mr. Wakefield has translated the passage nearly in the same way

"For where a covenant is, there must be necessarily introduced the death of that which establisheth the covenant; because a covenant is confirmed over dead things, and is of no force at all whilst that which establisheth the covenant is alive."This is undoubtedly the meaning of this passage; and we should endeavor to forget that testament and testator were ever introduced, as they totally change the apostle’ s meaning. See the observations at the end of this chapter.

Calvin: Heb 9:16

16.=== For where a testament is, === etc. Even this one passage is a sufficient proof, that this Epistle was not written in Hebrew; for ברית means in Hebrew a covenant, but not a testament; but in Greek, διαθήκη, includes both ideas; and the Apostle, alluding to its secondary meaning, holds that the promises should not have been otherwise ratified and valid, had they not been sealed by the death of Christ. And this he proves by referring to what is usually the case as to wills or testaments, the effect of which is suspended until the death of those whose wills they are.

The Apostle may yet seem to rest on too weak an argument, so that what he says may be easily disproved. For it may be said, that God made no testament or will under the Law; but it was a covenant that he made with the ancient people. Thus, neither from the fact nor from the name, can it be concluded that Christ’s death was necessary. For if he infers from the fact, that Christ ought to have died, because a testament is not ratified except by the death of the testator, the answer may be this, that |berit|, the word ever used by Moses, is a covenant made between those who are alive, and we cannot think otherwise of the fact itself. Now, as to the word used, he simply alluded, as I have already said, to the two meanings it has in Greek; he therefore dwells chiefly on the thing in itself. Nor is it any objection to say, that it was a covenant that God made with his people; for that very covenant bore some likeness to a testament, for it was ratified by blood. ¹⁵²

We must ever hold this truth, that no symbols have ever been adopted by God unnecessarily or unsuitably. And God in establishing the covenant of the law made use of blood. Then it was not such a contract, as they say, between the living, as did not require death. Besides, what rightly belongs to a testament is, that it begins to take effect after death. If we consider that the Apostle reasons from the thing itself, and not from the word, and if we bear in mind that he avowedly takes as granted what I have already stated, that nothing has been instituted in vain by God, there will be no great difficulty.

If anyone objects and says, that the heathens ratified covenants according to the other meaning by sacrifices; this indeed I admit to be true; but God did not borrow the rite of sacrificing from the practice of the heathens; on the contrary, all the heathen sacrifices were corruptions, which had derived their origin from the institutions of God. We must then return to the same point, that the covenant of God which was made with blood, may be fitly compared to a testament, as it is of the same kind and character.

Defender: Heb 9:16

Although not all covenants require death on the part of the one making the covenant before the covenant comes into force, the particular type of covenant involved in a will does, and this is the type of covenant in view here. The first covenant made by God with man (at least the first actually called a covenant) was the unconditional covenant made with Noah after the flood (Gen 9:9, Gen 9:11, Gen 9:12, Gen 9:13, Gen 9:15, Gen 9:16, Gen 9:17) following the sacrifice of clean animals when they came out of the ark (Gen 8:20). Similarly, His unconditional covenant with Abraham followed a sacrifice of five animals (Gen 15:9-10, Gen 15:17-18). When God gave the law to Israel on Mount Sinai, He made a covenant with them (Exo 19:5, Exo 19:6) conditioned on their obedience, and this was accompanied by burnt offerings and peace offerings and the sprinkling of "the blood of the covenant" (Exo 24:5-8). However, all of these offerings of animals were only temporal and typical, prefiguring and prophesying the eternal offering of the blood of Christ and the making of the new covenant. Thus, in the case of these particular covenants made by God with man, death was required to bring them into operation so that the Mosaic covenant and Christian covenant, in effect, become "testaments" or wills. The translators appropriately used this word under these circumstances, and it is altogether fitting that the two divisions of the Bible, centering on the covenants of law and grace, became known as the Old Testament and New Testament.

Defender: Heb 9:16

The word translated "testator" (Greek diatithemai) simply means "the one who made it" (the covenant). Not all covenants require the death of one or both of the covenanters, but the particular covenants being discussed in this section of Hebrews do involve death. The men with whom God was making the covenants all were under the judgment of death because of sin, but God Himself covenanted to die in their place, although they may not have understood its full implications at the time. In prophetic symbolism, both man's merited death and God's future substitutionary death were pictured by the animal sacrifices of the earlier covenants, and then finally fulfilled by the once-for-all death of God in Christ. All of these were sealed, as it were, by "the shedding of blood" (Heb 9:22), and their terms appropriated and effectuated by the faith of the men who received them in the covenant promises of God."

TSK: Heb 9:16

be : or, be brought in, Heb 9:16

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Heb 9:16

For where a testament is - This is the same word - διαθήκη diathēkē - which in Heb 8:6, is rendered "covenant."For the general signification of the word, see note on that verse. There is so much depending, however, on the meaning of the word, not only in the interpretation of this passage, but also of other parts of the Bible, that it may be proper to explain it here more at length. The word - διαθήκη diathēkē - occurs in the New Testament thirty-three times. It is translated "covenant"in the common version, in Luk 1:72; Act 3:25; Act 7:8; Rom 9:4; Rom 11:27; Gal 3:15, Gal 3:17; Gal 4:24; Eph 2:12; Heb 8:6, Heb 8:9, "twice,"Heb 8:10; Heb 9:4, "twice,"Heb 10:16; Heb 12:24; Heb 13:20. In the remaining places it is rendered "testament;"Mat 26:28; Mar 14:24; Luk 22:20; 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6, 2Co 3:14; Heb 7:22; Heb 9:15-17, Heb 9:20; Rev 11:19. In four of those instances (Mat 26:28; Mar 14:24; Luk 22:20, and 1Co 11:25), it is used with reference to the institution or celebration of the Lord’ s Supper. In the Septuagint it occurs not far from 300 times, in considerably more than 200 times of which it is the translation of the Hebrew word בּרית b^e riyt .

In one instance Zec 11:14 it is the translation of the word "brotherhood;"once Deu 9:5, of דּבר daabaar - "word;"once Jer 11:2, of "words of the covenant;"once Lev 26:11), of "tabernacle;"once Exo 31:7, of "testimony;"it occurs once Eze 20:37, where the reading of the Greek and Hebrew text is doubtful; and it occurs three times 1Sa 11:2; 1Sa 20:8; 1Ki 8:9, where there is no corresponding word in the Hebrew text. From this use of the word by the authors of the Septuagint, it is evident that they regarded it as the proper translation of the Hebrew - בּרית b^e riyt , and as conveying the same sense which that word does. It cannot be reasonably doubted that the writers of the New Testament were led to the use of the word, in part, at least, by the fact that they found it occurring so frequently in the version in common use, but it cannot be doubted also that they regarded it as fairly conveying the sense of the word בּרית b^e riyt . On no principle can it be supposed that inspired and honest people would use a word in referring to transactions in the Old Testament which did not "fairly"convey the idea which the writers of the Old Testament meant to express. The use being thus regarded as settled, there are some "facts"in reference to it which are of great importance in interpreting the New Testament, and in understanding the nature of the "covenant"which God makes with man. These facts are the following:

(1) The word διαθήκη diathēkē - "diatheke"- is not what properly denotes "compact, agreement,"or "covenant."That word is συνθήκη sunthēkē - "syntheke"or in other forms σύνθεσις sunthesis and συνθεσίας sunthesias ; or if the word "diatheke"is used in that signification it is only remotely, and as a secondary meaning; see "Passow;"compare the Septuagint in Isa 28:15; Isa 30:1; Dan 11:6, and Wisdom Dan 1:16; 1 Macc. 10:26; 2 Macc. 13:25; 14:26. It is not the word which a "Greek"would have employed to denote a "compact"or "covenant."He would have employed it to denote a "disposition, ordering,"or "arrangement"of things, whether of religious rites, civil customs, or property; or if used with reference to a compact, it would have been with the idea of an "arrangement,"or "ordering"of matters, not with the primary notion of an agreement with another.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 he word properly expressive of a "covenant"or "compact"- συνθήκη sunthēkē - is "never"used in the New Testament. In all the allusions to the transactions between God and man, this word never occurs. From some cause, the writers and speakers in the New Testament seem to have supposed that the word would leave an impression which they did not wish to leave. Though it might have been supposed that in speaking of the various transactions between God and man they would have selected this word, yet with entire uniformity they have avoided it. No one of them - though the word διαθήκη diathēkē - "diatheke"- has been used by no less than six of them - has been betrayed in a single instance into the use of the word συνθήκη sunthēkē - "syntheke,"or has differed from the other writers in the language employed. This cannot be supposed to be the result of concert or collusion, but it must have been founded on some reason which operated equally on all their minds.

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 n like manner, and with like remarkable uniformity, the word συνθήκη sunthēkē - syntheke - is "never"used in the Septuagint with reference to any arrangement or "covenant"between God and man. Once indeed in the Apocrypha, and but once, it is used in that sense. In the three only other instances in which it occurs in the Septuagint, it is with reference to compacts between man and man; Isa 28:15; Isa 30:1; Dan 11:6. This remarkable fact that the authors of that version never use the word to denote any transaction between God and man, shows that there must have been some reason for it which acted on their minds with entire uniformity.

\caps1 (4) i\caps0 t is no less remarkable that neither in the Septuagint nor the New Testament is the word διαθήκη diathēkē - "diatheke"- "ever"used in the sense of "will"or "testament,"unless it be in the case before us. This is conceded on all hands, and is expressly admitted by Prof. Stuart; (Com. on Heb. p. 439), though he defends this use of the word in this passage. - A very important inquiry presents itself here, which has never received a solution generally regarded as satisfactory. It is, why the word διαθήκη diathēkē - "diatheke"- was selected by the writers of the New Testament to express the nature of the transaction between God and man in the plan of salvation. It might be said indeed that they found this word uniformly used in the Septuagint, and that they employed it as expressing the idea which they wished to convey, with sufficient accuracy. But this is only removing the difficulty one step further back.

Why did the Septuagint adopt this word? Why did they not rather use the common and appropriate Greek word to express the notion of a covenant? A suggestion on this subject has already been made in the notes on Heb 8:6; compare Bib. Repository vol. xx. p. 55. Another reason may, however, be suggested for this remarkable fact which is liable to no objection. It is, that in the apprehension of the authors of the Septuagint, and of the writers of the New Testament, the word διαθήκη diathēkē - "diatheke"- in its original and proper signification "fairly"conveyed the sense of the Hebrew word בּרית b^e riyt , and that the word συνθήκη sunthēkē - or "compact, agreement,"would "not"express that; and "that they never meant to be understood as conveying the idea either that God entered into a compact or covenant with man, or that he made a will."They meant to represent; him as making "an arrangement, a disposition, an ordering"of things, by which his service might be kept up among his people, and by which people might be saved; but they were equally remote from representing him as making a "compact,"or a "will."In support of this there may be alleged.

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 he remarkable uniformity in which the word διαθήκη diathēkē - "diatheke"- is used, showing that there was some "settled principle"from which they never departed; and,

\caps1 (2) i\caps0 t is used mainly as the meaning of the word itself. Prof. Stuart has, undoubtedly, given the accurate original sense of the word. "The real, genuine, and original meaning of διαθήκη diathēkē (diatheke) is, "arrangement, disposition,"or "disposal"of a thing."P. 440. The word from which it is derived - διατίθημι diatithēmi - means to place apart or asunder; and then to set, arrange, dispose in a certain order. "Passow."From this original signification is derived the use which the word has with singular uniformity in the Scriptures. It denotes the "arrangment, disposition,"or "ordering"of things which God made in relation to mankind, by which he designed to keep up his worship on earth, and to save the soul. It means neither covenant nor will; neither compact nor legacy; neither agreement nor testament. It is an "arrangement"of an entirely different order from either of them, and the sacred writers with an uniformity which could have been secured only by the presiding influence of the One Eternal Spirit, have avoided the suggestion that God made with man either a "compact"or a "will."

We have no word which precisely expresses this idea, and hence, our conceptions are constantly floating between a "compact"and a "will,"and the views which we have are as unsettled as they are. unscriptural. The simple idea is, that God has made an "arrangement"by which his worship may be celebrated and souls saved. Under the Jewish economy this arrangement assumed one form; under the Christian another. In neither was it a compact or covenant between two parties in such a sense that one party would be at liberty to reject the terms proposed; in neither was it a testament or will, as if God had left a legacy to man, but in both there were some things in regard to the arrangement such as are found in a covenant or compact. One of those things - equally appropriate to a compact between man and man and to this arrangement, the apostle refers to here - that it implied in all cases the death of the victim.

If these remarks are well-founded, they should be allowed materially to shape our views in the interpretation of the Bible. Whole treatises of divinity have been written on a mistaken view of the meaning of this word - understood as meaning "covenant."Volumes of angry controversy have been published on the nature of the "covenant"with Adam, and on its influence on his posterity. The only literal "covenant"which can he supposed in the plan of redemption is that between the Father and the Son - though even the existence of such a covenant is rather the result of devout and learned imagining than of any distinct statement in the volume of inspiration. The simple statement there is, that God has made an arrangement for salvation, the execution of which he has entrusted to his Son, and has proposed it to man to be accepted as the only arrangement by which man can be saved, and which he is not at liberty to disregard.

There has been much difference of opinion in reference to the meaning of the passage here, and to the design of the illustration introduced. If the word used - διαθήκη diathēkē - means "testament,"in the sense of a "will,"then the sense of that passage is that "a will is of force only when he who made it dies, for it relates to a disposition of his property after his death."The force of the remark of the apostle then would be, that the fact that the Lord Jesus made or expressed his "will"to mankind, implied that he would die to confirm it; or that since in the ordinary mode of making a will, it was of force only when he who made it was dead, therefore it was necessary that the Redeemer should die, in order to confirm and ratify what he made. But the objections to this, which appears to have been the view of our translators, seem to me to be insuperable. They are these:

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 he word διαθήκη diathēkē - "diatheke"- is not used in this sense in the New Testament elsewhere; see the remarks above.

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 he Lord Jesus made no such will. He had no property, and the commandments and instructions which he gave to his disciples were not of the nature of a will or testament.

(3)\caps1     s\caps0 uch an illustration would not be pertinent to the design of the apostle, or in keeping with his argument.

He is comparing the Jewish and Christian dispensations, and the point of comparison in this chapter relates to the question about the efficacy of sacrifice in the two arrangements. He showed that the arrangement for blood-shedding by sacrifice entered into both; that the high priest of both offered blood as an expiation; that the holy place was entered with blood, and that consequently there was death in both the arrangements, or dispensations. The former arrangement or dispensation was ratified with blood, and it was equally proper that the new arrangement should be also. The point of comparison is not that Moses made a will or testament which could be of force only when he died, and that the same thing was required in the new dispensation, but it is that the former covenant was "ratified by blood,"or "by the death of a victim,"and that it might be expected that the new dispensation would be confirmed, and that it was in fact confirmed in the same manner. In this view of the argument, what pertinency would there be in introducing an illustration respecting a will, and the manner in which it became efficient; compare notes on Heb 9:18. It seems clear, therefore, to me, that the word rendered "testament"here is to be taken in the sense in which it is ordinarily used in the New Testament. The opinion that the word here means such a divine arrangement as is commonly denoted a "covenant,"and not testament, is sanctioned by not a few names of eminence in criticism, such as Pierce, Doddridge, Michaelis, Steudel, and the late Dr. John P. Wilson. Bloomfield says that the connection here demands this. The principal objections to this view are:

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 hat it is not proved that no covenants or compacts were valid except such as were made by the intervention of sacrifices.

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the word rendered "testator"- διαθεμενος diathemenos - cannot refer to the death of an animal slain for the purpose of ratifying a covenant, but must mean either a "testator,"or a "contractor,"that is, one of two contracting parties.

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the word rendered "dead"Heb 9:17 - νεκροῖς nekrois - means only "dead men,"and never is applied to the dead bodies of animals; (see Stuart on the Hebrew, p. 442.)

These objections to the supposition that the passage refers to a covenant or compact, Prof. Stuart says are in his view insuperable, and they are certainly entitled to grave consideration. Whether the view above presented is one which can be sustained, we may be better able to determine after an examination of the words and phrases which the apostle uses. Those objections which depend wholly on the "philological"argument derived from the words used, will be considered of course in such an examination. It is to be remembered at the outset:

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the word διαθήκη diathēkē - "diatheke"- is never used in the New Testament in the sense of "testament,"or "will,"unless in this place;

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat it is never used in this sense in the Septuagint; and,

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the Hebrew word בּרית b^e riyt - "never"has this signification. This is admitted; see Stuart on the Heb. pp. 439, 440. It must require very strong reasons to prove that it has this meaning here, and that Paul has employed the word in a sense differing from its uniform signification elsewhere in the Bible; compare, however, the remarks of Prof. Stuart in Bib. Repos. vol. xx. p. 364.

There must also of necessity be - ἀνάγκη anagkē - That is, it is necessary in order to confirm the covenant, or it would not be binding in cases where this did not occur. The "necessity"in the case is simply to make it valid or obligatory. So we say now there must "necessarily"be a "seal,"or a deed would not be valid. The fair interpretation of this is, that this was the common and established custom in making a "covenant"with God, or confirming the arrangement with him in regard to salvation. To this it is objected (see the first objection above), that "it is yet to be made out that no covenants were valid execpt those by the intervention of sacrifices."In reply to this, we may observe:

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 hat the point to be made out is not that this was a custom in compacts between "man and man,"but between "man and his Maker."There is no evidence, as it seems to me, that the apostle alludes to a compact between man and man. The mistake on this subject has arisen partly from the use of the word "testament"by our translators, in the sense of "will"- supposing that it must refer to some transaction relating to man only; and partly from the insertion of the word "men"in Heb 9:17, in the translation of the phrase - ἐπὶ νεκροῖς epi nekrois - "upon the dead,"or"over the dead."But it is not necessary to suppose that there is a reference here to any transaction between man and man at all, as the whole force of the illustration introduced by the apostle will be retained if we suppose him speaking "only"of a covenant between man and God. Then his assertion will be simply that in the arrangement between God and man there was a "necessity"of the death of something, or of the shedding of blood in order to ratify it. This view will save the necessity of proof that the custom of ratifying compacts between man and man by sacrifice prevailed. Whether that can be made out or not, the assertion of the apostle may be true, that in the arrangement which God makes with man, sacrifice was necessary in order to confirm or ratify it.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 he point to be made out is, not that such a custom is or was universal among all nations, but that it was the known and regular opinion among the Hebrews that a sacrifice was necessary in a "covenant"with God, in the same way as if we should say that a deed was not valid without a seal, it would not be necessary to show this in regard to all nations, but only that it is the law or the custom in the nation where the writer lived, and at the time when he lived. Other nations may have very different modes of confirming or ratifying a deed, and the same nation may have different methods at various times. The fact or custom to which I suppose there is allusion here, is that of sacrificing an animal to ratify the arrangement between man and his Maker, commonly called a "covenant."In regard to the existence of such a custom, particularly among the Hebrews, we may make the following observations.

It was the common mode of ratifying the "covenant"between God and man. That was done over a sacrifice, or by the shedding of blood. So the covenant with Abraham was ratified by slaying an heifer, a she-goat, a ram, a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon. The animals were divided and a burning lamp passed between them; Gen 15:9, Gen 15:18. So the covenant made with the Hebrews in the wilderness was ratified in the same manner; Exo 24:6, seq. Thus, in Jer 34:18, God speaks of the "men that had transgressed his covenant which they had made before him when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof;"see also Zec 9:11. Indeed all the Jewish sacrifices were regarded as a ratification of the covenant. It was never supposed that it was ratified or confirmed in a proper manner without such a sacrifice. Instances occur, indeed, in which there was no sacrifice offered when a covenant was made between man and man (see Gen 23:16; Gen 24:9; Deu 25:7, Deu 25:9; Rth 4:7), but these cases do not establish the point that the custom did not prevail of ratifying a covenant with God by the blood of sacrifice.

Further; the terms used in the Hebrew in regard to making a covenant with God, prove that it was understood to be ratified by sacrifice, or that the death of a victim was necessary כּרת ברית kaarat b^e riyt , "to cut a covenant"- the word כרת kaarat meaning "to cut; to cut off; to cut down,"and the allusion being to the victims offered in sacrifice, and "cut in pieces"on occasion of entering into a covenant; see Gen 15:10; Jer 34:18-19. The same idea is expressed in the Greek phrases ὅρκια τέμνειν , τέμνειν σπονδάς horkia temnein , temnein spondas , and in the Latin "icere foedus ;"compare Virgil, Aeneid viii. 941.

Et caesa jungebant foedera porca .

These considerations show that it was the common sentiment, alike among the Hebrews and the pagan, that a covenant with God was to be ratified or sanctioned by sacrifice; and the statement of Paul here is, that the death of a sacrificial victim was needful to confirm or ratify such a covenant with God. It was not secure, or confirmed, until blood was thus shed. This was well understood among the Hebrews, that all their covenant transactions with God were to be ratified by a sacrifice; and Paul says that the same principle must apply to any arrangement between God and human beings. Hence, he goes on to show that it was "necessary"that a sacrificial victim should die in the new covenant which God established by man through the Mediator; see Heb 9:23. This I understand to be the sum of the argument here. It is not that every contract made between man and man was to be ratified or confirmed by a sacrifice - for the apostle is not discussing that point; but it is that every similar transaction with God must be based on such a sacrifice, and that no covenant with him could be complete without such a sacrifice. This was provided for in the ancient dispensation by the sacrifices which were constantly offered in their worship; in the new, by the one great sacrifice offered on the cross. Hence, all our approaches to God are based on the supposition of such a sacrifice, and are, as it were, ratified over it. We ratify or confirm such a covenant arrangement, not by offering the sacrifice anew, but by recalling it in a proper manner when we celebrate the death of Christ, and when in view of his cross we solemnly pledge ourselves to be the Lord’ s.

The death of the testator - According to our common version, "the death of him who makes a will."But if the views above expressed are correct, this should be rendered the "covenanter,"or "the victim set apart to be slain."The Greek will admit of the translation of the word διαθέμενος diathemenos , "diathemenos,"by the word "covenanter,"if the word διαθήκη diathēkē - "diatheke"- is rendered "covenant."To such a translation here as would make the word refer "to a victim slain in order to ratify a covenant,"it is objected that the "word has no such meaning anywhere else. It must either mean a "testator,"or a "contractor,"that is, one of two covenanting parties. But where is the death of a person covenanting made necessary in order to confirm the covenant?"Prof. Stuart, in loc. To this objection I remark respectfully:

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 hat the word is never used in the sense of "testator"either in the New Testament or the Old, unless it be here. It is admitted of the word διαθήκη diathēkē - by Prof. Stuart himself, that it never means "will,"or "testament,"unless it be here, and it is equally true of the word used here that it never means one "who makes a will."If, therefore, it should be that a meaning quite uncommon, or wholly unknown in the usage of the Scriptures, is to be assigned to the use of the word here, why should it be "assumed"that that unusual meaning should be that of "making a will,"and not that of confirming a covenant?

\caps1 (2) i\caps0 f the apostle used the word διαθήκη diathēkē - "diatheke"- in the sense of "a covenant"in this passage, nothing is more natural than that he should use the corresponding word διαθέμενος diathemenos - "diathemenos"- in the sense of that by which a covenant was ratified. He wished to express the idea that the covenant was always ratified by the death of a victim - a sacrifice of an animal under the Law, and the sacrifice of the Redeemer under the gospel - and no word would so naturally convey that idea as the one from which the word "covenant"was derived. It is to be remembered also that there was no word to express that thought. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek furnished such a word; nor have we now any word to express that thought, but are obliged to use circumlocution to convey the idea. The word "covenanter"would not do it; nor the words "victim,"or "sacrifice."We can express the idea only by some phrase like this - "the victim set apart to be slain to ratify the covenant."But it was not an unusual thing for the apostle Paul to make use of a word in a sense quite unique to himself; compare 2Co 4:17.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 he word διατίθημι diatithēmi - properly means, "to place apart, to set in order, to arrange."It is rendered "appoint"in Luk 22:29; "made,"and "make,"with reference to a covenant, Act 3:25; Heb 8:10; Heb 10:16. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except in the passage before us. The idea of "placing, laying, disposing, arranging,"etc., enters into the word - as to place wares or merchandise for sale, to arrange a contract, &c; see "Passow."The fair meaning of the word here may be, whatever goes to arrange, dispose, or settle the covenant, or to make the covenant secure and firm. If the reference be to a compact, it cannot relate to one of the contracting parties, because the death of neither is necessary to confirm it. But it may refer to that which was well-known as an established opinion, that a covenant with God was ratified only by a sacrifice. Still, it must be admitted that this use of the word is not found elsewhere, and the only material question is, whether it is to be presumed that the apostle would employ a word in a single instance in a special signification, where the connection would not render it difficult to be understood. This must be admitted, that he might, whichever view is taken of the meaning of this passage, for on the supposition that he refers here to a will, it is conceded that he uses the word in a sense which does not once occur elsewhere either in the Old Testament or the New. It seems to me, therefore, that the word here may, without impropriety, be regarded as referring to "the victim that was slain in order to ratify a covenant with God,"and that the meaning is, that such a covenant was not regarded as confirmed until the victim was slain. It may be added that the authority of Michaelis, Macknight, Doddridge, Bloomfield, and Dr. JohnP. Wilson, is a proof that such an interpretation cannot be a very serious departure from the proper use of a Greek word.

Poole: Heb 9:16

For where a testament is : for gives the reason of the Mediator’ s death, even the putting the called into the possession of the bequeathed inheritance, demonstrated by a common, natural law in all nations of the testament’ s effect on the testator’ s death; a testament being a disposition by will nuncupative, or written, of either goods or lands, which are the person’ s own, to be the right and possession of others after his death, whom he nominateth in it: such in proportion is the new covenant, where God gives freely all spiritual good things with a heavenly inheritance, as legacies to all his called ones in Christ, by this last and best will and testament of his, written in his Scripture instrument, witnessed by the prophets and apostles, sealed by the two sacraments, especially the Lord’ s supper, Luk 22:20 .

There must also of necessity be the death of the testator he who maketh a testament by the law of nature, as of nations, must die before the legatees have any profit by the will; the son and heir inherits not but on the father’ s death; then is the testament firm and valid, the time being come for the heir’ s inheriting, and for the will’ s execution, it being now unalterable; the necessity of which is cleared, Heb 9:17 .

Haydock: Heb 9:16

For where there is a testament, the death of the testator, &c. The same Greek word, corresponding to the Hebrew word Berith, is often used both in the books of the old and new Scriptures. The ancient Latin interpreter puts for it testamentum, a testament: but others would rather have the Hebrew and Greek word to signify any agreement, bargain, alliance, or covenant, which last word is generally put in the English Protestant translations, followed also by Mr. N. We do not deny but the Hebrew and Greek word have this signification, but not exclusively: this place of St. Paul shews evidently that they also signify what both in Latin and English is called a testament or last will, which is only of force by the death of the testator. The Protestants, therefore, here find themselves obliged to translate testament, contrary to their custom, and to apply this word not only to the promises and blessings God made to Christians, of which Christ is the mediator, and which were confirmed by his blood and by his death, but also to the former alliance and promises or blessings God made to the Israelites, when he chose them to be his elect people, and gave them his law and his commandments under Moses. It is true God is immortal in his own nature, cannot die, and therefore cannot make a testament that shall be confirmed by his own death. But as for the new alliance, or New Testament, as here it must be called, it was confirmed by the death of the Son of God; that is, of God made man, by which it is true to say that God died for us, though he did not die, nor could die, as God. And as for the former alliance, or first testament, as it is called here, (ver. 18.) that, says St. Paul, (which was only a figure of the second or new testament ) was not made nor ratified without the blood of so many victims as used to be offered and sacrificed. (Witham)

Gill: Heb 9:16

For where a testament is,.... The covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation, is a testament or will. The Jews have adopted the Greek word, here used, into their language, and pronounce it דייתיקי, and by it understand a dying man's last will and testament ^d. Some of them make it to be of Hebrew derivation; as if it was said, דא תהי למיקם, "this shall be to confirm" ^e, or this shall be stable and firm; though others own it to be the same with this Greek word διαθηκη ^f. The covenant of grace, is properly a covenant to Christ, and a testament or will to his people: it is his and their Father's will, concerning giving them both grace and glory; it consists of many gifts and legacies; in it Christ is made heir of all things, and his people are made joint heirs with him; they are given to him as his portion; and they have all things pertaining to life and godliness bequeathed to them, even all spiritual blessings; the witnesses of it are Father, Son, and Spirit; and the seals of it are the blood of Christ, and the grace of the Spirit; and this is registered in the Scriptures by holy men as notaries; and is unalterable and immutable: and this being made,

there must also of necessity be the death of the testator; who is Christ; he has various parts in this will or testament; he is the surety and Mediator of it; and he is the executor of it; what is given in it, is first given to him, in order to be given to others; all things are put into his hands, and he has a power to give them to as many as the Father has given him; and here he is called the "testator": Christ, as God, has an equal right to dispose of the inheritance, both of grace and glory; and as Mediator, nothing is given without his consent; and whatever is given, is given with a view to his "death", and comes through it, and by virtue of it: hence there is a "necessity" of that, and that on the account of the divine perfections; particularly for the declaration of God's righteousness, or by reason of his justice; and also because of his purposes and decrees, which have fixed it, and of his promises, which are yea and amen in Christ, and are ratified by his blood, called therefore the blood of the covenant; and likewise on account of the engagements of Christ to suffer and die; as well as for the accomplishment of Scripture prophecies concerning it; and moreover, on account of the blessings which were to come to the saints through it, as a justifying righteousness, pardon of sin, peace and reconciliation, adoption and eternal life.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Heb 9:16

¹ tn Grk “there is a necessity for the death of the one who made it to be proven.”

Geneva Bible: Heb 9:16

^{( 11 )} For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

^{( 11 )} A reason why the testament must be established by the death of the Mediator, because this testament has the condition of a testament or gift, which is made effective by death, and therefore that it might be effective, it must be that he that made the Testament, should die.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Heb 9:1-28

1 The description of the rites and bloody sacrifices of the law;

11 which are far inferior to the dignity and perfection of the blood and sacrifice of Christ.

Combined Bible: Heb 9:16-22

New Testament   

(Hebrews 9:16-22)   

Having affirmed (Heb. 9:12, 14) that the blood of Christ is the means of the believer’ s redemption, in verse 15, the apostle proceeds to make further proof of this basic and vital truth. His argument here is taken from the design and object of Christ’ s priesthood, which was to confirm the covenant God had made with His people, and which could only be done by blood. First, he affirms that the Savior was "the Mediator of the new testament." Many functions were undertaken by Him. Just as one type could not set forth all that the Lord Jesus did and suffered, so no single office could display all the relations which He sustained and all the benefits He procured for us. That which is done by a prophet, by a priest, by a king, by a surety, by a mediator, by a husband, by a father, that and more has been done by Christ. And the more dearly we observe in Scripture the many undertakings of Christ for us, as seen in His varied relations, the more will He be endeared to our hearts, and the more will faith be strengthened.  

Christ’ s undertaking to be a "Mediator" both procured a covenant to pass between God and men, and also engaged Himself for the performance thereof on both parts. This could only be by a full satisfaction being rendered to Divine justice, by the shedding of blood infinitely valuable as His was. To assure His people of their partaking of the benefits of God’ s covenant, the cross of Christ has turned that covenant into a testament, so that the conditions of the covenant on God’ s part (its requirements: namely, perfect obedience rendered to His law, and thus "everlasting righteousness’’ being brought in: Daniel 9:24; and full satisfaction being taken by the law for the sins of His people) might be so many legacies, which being ratified by the death of the Testator, none might disannul.  

Unspeakably blessed as are the truths expressed (so freely) above, there is another which is still more precious for faith to apprehend and rest on, and that is, that behind all offices (so to speak), lying at the foundation of the whole dispensation of God’ s grace toward His people, is the mystical oneness of Christ and His Church: a legal oneness, which ultimates by the Spirit’ s work in a vital union, so that Christ is the Head and believers are the members of one Person (1 Cor. 12:12, 13). This, and this alone, constituted the just ground for God to impute to Christ all the sins of His people, and to impute to them the righteousness of Christ for their justification of life. What Christ did in obeying the law is reckoned to them as though that obedience had been performed by them; and in like manner, what they deserved on account of their sins was charged to and endured by Him, as though they themselves had suffered it: see 2 Corinthians 5:21.  

The first spring of the union between Christ and His Church lay in that eternal compact between the Father and the Son respecting the salvation of His people contemplated as fallen in Adam. In view of the human nature which He was to assume, the Lord Christ was "predestinated" or "foreordained" (1 Pet. 1:20) unto grace and glory, and that by virtue of the union of flesh unto His Godhead. This grace and glory of the God-man was the exemplary cause and pattern of our predestination: Romans 8:29, Philippians 3:21. It was also the cause and means of the communicating of all grace and glory unto us, for we were "chosen in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). Christ was thus elected (Isa. 42:1) as Head of the Church, His mystical body. All the elect of God were then committed unto Him, to be delivered from sin and death, and brought unto the enjoyment of God: John 17:6, Revelation 1:5, 6.  

In the prosecution of this design of God, and to effect the accomplishment of the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20), Christ undertook to be the "Surety" of that covenant (Heb. 7:22), engaging to answer for all the liabilities of His people and to discharge all their legal responsibilities. Yet was it as Priest that Christ acted as Surety: God’ s "Priest," our "Surety." That is to say, all the activities of Christ were of a sacerdotal character, having God for their immediate object; but as these activities were all performed on our behalf, He was a Surety or Sponsor for us also. As the "Surety" of the covenant, Christ undertook to discharge all the debts of those who are made partakers of its benefits. As our Surety He also merited and procured from God the Holy Spirit, to communicate to His people all needful supplies of grace to make them new creatures, which enables them to yield obedience to God from a new principle of spiritual life, and that faithfully unto the end.  

When considering the administration of the "everlasting covenant’’ in time, we contemplate the actual application of the grace, benefits and privileges of it unto those for whose sakes it was devised and drawn up. For this the death of the Mediator was required, for only through His blood-shedding is the whole grace of the covenant made effectual unto us. This it is which is affirmed in Hebrews 9:15, and which we considered at length in our last article. In the passage which is now to be before us, the apostle does two things: first, he refers to a well known fact which is everywhere recognized among men, namely, that a will or testament requires the death of the testator to give it validity. Second, he refers to an Old Testament type which exemplifies the principle which he is here setting before us.  

"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (verses 16, 17). That which is found in verses 16-23 is really of the nature of a parenthesis, brought in for the purpose of showing why it was necessary for the incarnate Son to die. In verse 24 the apostle returns to his proofs for the superiority of the ministry of Christ over Aaron’ s. What we have in verses 16, 17, is brought in to show both the need for and the purpose of the death of Christ, the argument being drawn from the character and design of that covenant of which He is the Mediator. Because that covenant was also to be a "testament" it was confirmed by the death of the Testator. Appeal is made to the only use of a will or testament among men.  

The method by which the apostle here demonstrates the necessity of Christ’ s death as He was "the mediator of the new testament’’ is not merely from the signification of the word "diatheke" (though we must not lose sight of its force), but as he is speaking principally of the two "covenants" (i.e., the two forms under which the "everlasting covenant" has been administered), it is the affinity which there is between a solemn covenant, and a testament, that he has respect unto. For it is to be carefully noted that the apostle speaks not of the death of Christ merely as it was a death, which is all that is required of a "testament" as such, without any consideration of the nature of the testator’ s death; but he speaks of it also (and primarily) as it was a sacrifice by the shedding of His blood (verses 12, 14, 18-23), which belongs to a Divine covenant, and is in no way required by a "testament." Thus, we see again the needs-be for retaining the double meaning and force of the Greek word here.  

There has been much needless wrangling over the Divine person alluded to under the word "Testator," some insisting it is Christ, some the Father, others arguing the impossibility of the latter because the Father has never died. We believe that, in this case, Saphir was right when he said, "The testator is, properly speaking, God; for we are God’ s heirs; but it is God in Christ." Had he referred the reader to 2 Corinthians 5:19 his statement had been given scriptural confirmation. The "everlasting covenant" or Covenant of Grace has the nature of a "testament" from these four considerations or facts. First, it proceeded from the will of God: He freely made it (Heb. 6:17). Second, it contained various legacies or gifts: to Christ, God bequeathed the elect as His inheritance (Deut. 32:9, Psalm 16:6, Luke 22:29); to the elect themselves, that they should be joint-heirs with Him (Rom. 8:17, Revelation 3:21). Third, it is unalterable (Gal. 3:15), "ordered in all things and sure" (2 Sam. 23:5); having been duly witnessed to (1 John 5:7), hence, being of the nature of a "testament" there are no stipulations for men to fulfill (Gal. 3:18). Fourth, the death of Christ has secured the administration of it.  

A deed is not valid without a seal; a will cannot be probated until the legatee dies, nor were God’ s covenants with men (the historical adumbrations of the "everlasting covenant") ratified except by blood-shedding. Thus it was with His covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15:9, 18); thus it was with His covenant with Israel at Sinai (Ex. 24:6). Thus, unto the confirmation of a "testament" there must be the death of the testator; unto the ratification of a "covenant" the blood of a sacrifice was required. Thereby does the apostle prove conclusively the necessity for the sacrificial death of Christ as the Mediator, both as the Mediator of a "covenant" and as the Mediator of a "testament": for through His sacrificial death, both the promises contained in the "covenant" and the bequeathments of the "testament," are made irrevocably sure to all His seed. We trust, then that we have been enabled to clear up the great difficulty which the word "diatheke" has caused so many, and shown that it has a double meaning and force in this passage.  

It remains for us to point out that the Old Testament supplies us with a most striking type which blessedly illustrates the principle enunciated in this 16th verse. But note first of all that verse 15 opens with "For" and that this comes right after the mention of "the Mediator of the new testament," and the promise of "eternal inheritance" in verse 15. Now the "mediator" of the "Old Testament" was Moses, and it was not until his death, though immediately after it, that Israel entered their inheritance, the land of Canaan! Looked at from the standpoint of God’ s government, the death of Moses was because of his sin (Num. 20:10-12); but considered in relation to his official position, as "the servant over the house of God," it had another and deeper meaning as Deuteronomy 3:26 shows, "the Lord was wroth with me for your sakes"— how blessedly did this foreshadow the reason why God’ s wrath was visited upon Christ: Christ, as Moses, must die before the inheritance could be ours.  

In verse 17 it is not of the making of a testament which is referred to, but its execution: its efficacy depends solely on the testator’ s death. The words "is of force" mean, is firm and cannot be annulled; it must be executed according to the mind of the one who devised it. The reason why it is of "no strength" during his lifetime, is because it is then subject to alteration, according to the pleasure of him who made it. All the blessings of "grace and glory" were the property of Christ, for He was "appointed Heir of all things" (Heb. 1:2): but in His death, He made a bequeathment of them unto all the elect. Another analogy between a human testament and the testamentary character of Christ’ s death is that, an absolute grant is made without any conditions. So is the kingdom of heaven bequeathed to all the elect, so that nothing can defeat His will. Whatever there is in the Gospel which prescribes conditions, that belongs to it as it is a "covenant" and not as a "testament." Finally, the testator assigns the time when his heirs shall be admitted into the actual possession of his goods; so too has Christ determined the season when each shall enter both into grace and glory.  

Perhaps a brief word should be added by way of amplification to the bare statement made above respecting the conditions which the Gospel prescribes unto those who are the beneficiaries of Christ’ s "testament." Repentance and faith are required by the Gospel; yet, strictly speaking they are not "conditions" of our entering into the enjoyment of Christ’ s gifts. Faith is a means to receive and partake of the things promised, repentance is a qualification whereby we may know that we are the persons to whom such promises belong. Nevertheless, it is to be remembered that He who has made the promises works in His elect these graces of repentance and faith: Acts 5:31, Philippians 1:29.  

"It is a great and gracious condescension in the Holy Spirit to give encouragement and confirmation unto our faith, by a representation of the truth and reality of spiritual things, in those which are temporal and agreeing with them in their general nature, whereby they are presented unto the common understandings of men. This way of proceeding the apostle calls, a speaking ‘ after the manner of men’ (Gal. 3:15). Of the same kind were all the parables used by our Savior; for it is all one whether these representations be taken from things real, or from those which, according unto the same rule of reason and right, are framed on purpose for that end" (John Owen).  

"Whereupon neither the first was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission" (verses 18-22).  

In these verses the apostle is still pressing upon the Hebrews the necessity for the blood-shedding of Christ. Their national history witnessed to the fact that when God entered into covenant with their fathers, that covenant was confirmed by solemn sacrifice. In the verses upon which we are now to comment, the apostle is not merely proving that the old covenant or testament was confirmed with blood, for had that been his only object, he could have dispatched it in very few words; rather does he also declare what was the use of blood in sacrifices on all occasions under the law, and thereby he demonstrates the use and efficacy of Christ’ s blood as unto the ends of the new covenant. The ends of the blood under the old covenant were two, namely, purification and pardon, both of which were confirmed in the expiation of sin. Unless the main design of the Spirit in these verses be steadily kept in view, we miss the deeper meaning of many of their details.  

What has just been said above, supplies the explanation of what has seemed a problem to some, namely that in these verses the apostle mentions five or six details which are not found in the historical narrative of Exodus 24. But the Holy Spirit is not here limiting our view to Exodus 24, but gathers up what is found in various places of the law; and that, because He not only designed to prove the dedication of the covenant by blood, but also to show the whole use of the blood under the law, as unto purification and remission of sin. And He does this with the purpose of declaring the virtue and efficacy of the blood of Christ under the new testament, whereunto He makes an application of all the things in the verses which follow. The "Moreover" at the beginning of verse 21 is plain intimation that the Spirit is here contemplating something in addition to that which is found in Exodus 24.  

Verse 18. The opening word is usually rendered "therefore" or "wherefore": it denotes the drawing of an inference; it confirms a general rule by a special instance. In verse 16 the general rule is stated; now, says the apostle, think it not strange that the new testament was confirmed by the death of the Testator, for this is so necessary that, the first one also was confirmed in the same manner; and that, not only by death, but not "without blood," which was required for the ratification of a solemn covenant. That to which reference is made is the "first" testament or covenant. Here the apostle makes clear what he intended by the first or old covenant, on which he had discoursed at large in chapter 8: it was the covenant made with Israel at Horeb. Just a few words on the character of it.  

Its terms had all the nature of a formal covenant. These were the things written in the book (Ex. 24:4, 7) which were an epitome of the whole law, as contained in Exodus 20-23. The revelation of its terms were made by Jehovah Himself, speaking with awful voice from the summit of Sinai: Exodus chapters 19, 20. Following the fundamental rule of the covenant, as contained in the Ten Commandments, were other statutes and rites, given for the directing of their walking with God. The same was solemnly delivered to Israel by Moses, and proposed unto them for their acceptation. Upon their approbation of it, the book was read in the hearing of all the people after it had been duly sprinkled with the blood of the covenant (Ex. 24:7). Thereupon, for the first time, Jehovah was called "The God of Israel" (Ex. 24:10), and that by virtue of the covenant. This formed the foundation of His consequent dealings with them: all His chastening judgments upon Israel were due to their breaking of His covenant.  

While there is a contrast, sharp and clear, between the Old Testament and the new, yet it should not be overlooked that there was also that which bound them together. This was ably expressed by Adolph Saphir: "The promise given to Abraham, and not to Moses, was not superseded or forgotten in the giving of the law. When God dealt with Israel in the wilderness, He gave them the promise that they should be a peculiar treasure unto Him above all people: ‘ for all the earth is Mine’ ; and that they should possess the land as an inheritance (Ex. 19:5, 6; 23:30; Deuteronomy 15:4). Based upon this promise, and corresponding with the Divine election and favor, is the law which God gave to His people. As He had chosen and redeemed them so that they were to be a holy people, and to walk before Him, even as in the Ten Commandments the gospel of election and redemption came first: ‘ I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of Egypt.’ Hence this covenant or dispensation, although it was a covenant, not of grace and Divine gifts and enablings, but of works, was connected with and based upon redemption, and it was dedicated, as the apostle emphatically says, not without blood.  

"Both the book, or record of the covenant, and all the people, were sprinkled with the blood of typical sacrifices. For without blood is no remission of sins, and the promises of God can only be obtained through atonement. But we know that this is a figure of the one great Sacrifice, and that therefore all the promises and blessings under the old dispensation, underlying and sustaining it, were through the prospective death of the true Mediator. When therefore the spiritual Israelite was convinced by the law of sin, both as guilt and as a condition of impurity and strengthlessness, he was confronted by the promise of the inheritance, which always was of grace, unconditional and sure, and in a righteous and holy manner through expiation."  

Verse 19. The one made use of for the dedication of the covenant was Moses. On God’ s part he was immediately called unto this employment: Exodus 3. On the part of the people, he was desired and chosen to transact all things between God and them, because they were not able to bear the effects of His immediate presence: Exodus 19:19, Deuteronomy 5:22-27; and this choice of a spokesman on their part, God approved (verse 27). Thus Moses became in a general way a "mediator" between God and men in the giving of the law (Gal. 3:19). Thereby we are shown that there can be no covenant between God and sinful men, but in the hands of a Mediator, for man has neither meetness, merits, nor ability to be an undertaker of the terms of God’ s covenant in his own person.  

Moses spake "every precept unto the people." This intimates the particular character of the Old Testament. It consisted primarily of commandments of obedience (Eph. 2:15), promising no assistance for the performance of them. The "new testament" is of another nature: it is one of promises, and although it also has precepts requiring obedience, yet is it (as a covenant) wholly founded in the promise, whereby strength and assistance for the performance of that obedience are given to us. Moses’ reading "every precept unto the people" emphasizes the fact that all the good things they were to receive by virtue of the covenant, depended on their observance of all that was commanded them; for a curse was denounced against every one that "continued not in all things written in the law to do them" (Deut. 27:26). Obviously, such a "covenant" was never ordained for the saving of sinners: its insufficiency for that end is what the apostle demonstrates in the sequel.  

We are again indebted to the exposition of John Owen for much of the above, and now give in condensed form some of his observations on the contents of verse 19. Here, for the first time, was any part of God’ s Word committed to writing. This book of the law was written that it might be read to all the people: it was not to be restricted to the priests, as containing mysteries unlawful to ,be divulged. It was written and read in the language which the people understood and spake, which condemns Rome’ s use of the Latin in her public services. Again; God never required the observance of any rites or duties of worship, without a previous warrant from His Word. How thankful should we be for the written Word!  

That which Moses performed on this occasion was to sprinkle the blood. Exodus 24:6 informs us that he took "half of the blood" and sprinkled it "on the altar" (on which was the book); the other half on the people. The one was God’ s part; the other theirs. Thereby the mutual agreement of Jehovah and the people was indicated. Typically, this foreshadowed the twofold efficacy of Christ’ s blood, to make salvation God-wards and to save man-wards; or, to the remission of our sins unto justification, and the purification of our persons unto sanctification. The "scarlet wool," probably bound around the "hyssop" (which was a common weed), was employed as a sprinkler, as that which served to apply the blood in the basons upon the people; "water" being mixed with the blood to keep it fluid and aspersible. In like manner, the communication of the benefits of Christ’ s death unto sanctification, is called the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:2). To avail us, the blood must not only be "shed," but "sprinkled."  

The mingling of the "water" with the "blood" was to represent the "blood and water" which flowed from the pierced side of the Savior (John 19:34,35), the spiritual "mystery" and meaning of which is profound and blessed. In 1 John 5:6 the Holy Spirit has particularly emphasized the fact that the Christ came "by water and blood." He came not only to make atonement for our sins by His blood that we might be justified, but also to sprinkle us with the efficacy of His blood in the communication of the Spirit unto sanctification, which is compared unto "water": see John 7:38, 39, Titus 3:5. The application of the blood to the "book" of the covenant was an intimation that atonement could be made by blood for the sins against its precepts, and the application of the "water" to it told of its purity. The sprinkler pointed to the humanity of Christ, through which all grace is communicated to us: the "scarlet wool" speaking of His personal glory (Dan. 5:7 etc.), and the "hyssop," the meanest of plant-life (1 Kings 4:33), being a figure of His lowly outward appearance.  

Verse 20. In these words Moses reminded Israel of the foundation of their acceptance of the covenant, which foundation was the authority of God requiring them so to do; the word "enjoined" also emphasized the nature of the covenant itself: it consisted principally not of promises which had been given to them, but of "precepts" which called for hearty obedience. By quoting here these words of Moses "this is the blood of the testament," the apostle proves that not only death, but a sacrificial death, was required in order to the consecration and establishment of the first covenant. The blood was the confirmatory sign, the token between God and the people of their mutual engagements in that covenant. Thus did God from earliest times teach His people, by type and shadow, the supreme value of the blood of His Son. These words of Moses were plainly alluded to by the Savior in the institution of His "supper": "This is My blood of the new testament" (Matthew 26:28) i.e., this represents My blood, by the shedding of which the new testament is confirmed.  

Verse 21. The apostle now reminds the Hebrews that, not only was the Old Testament itself dedicated with blood, but that also all the ways and means of solemn worship were purified by the same. His purpose in bringing in this additional fact was to prove that not only was the blood of Christ in sacrifice necessary, but also to demonstrate its efficacy in the removing of sins and thereby qualifying sinners to be worshippers of the most holy God. The historical reference here is to what is found in Leviticus 16:14, 16, 18. The spiritual meaning of the tabernacle’ s furniture being sprinkled with blood was at least twofold: first, in themselves those vessels were holy by God’ s institution, yet in the use of them by polluted men, they became defiled, and needed purging. Second, to teach the Israelites and us that, the very means of grace which we use, are only made acceptable to God through the merits of Christ’ s sacrifice.  

What we have just sought to point out above, brings before us a most important and humbling truth. In all those things wherein we have to do with God, and whereby we approach unto Him, nothing but the blood of Christ and the Spirit’ s application of it unto our consciences, gives us a gracious acceptance with Him. The best of our performances are defiled by the flesh; our very prayers and repentances are unclean, and cannot be received by God except as we plead before Him the precious blood of Christ. "The people were hereby taught that, God could not be looked to for salvation, nor rightly worshipped, except faith in every case looked to an intervening blood. For the majesty of God is justly to be dreaded by us, and the way to His presence is nothing to us but a dangerous labyrinth, until we know that He is pacified towards us through the blood of Christ, and that this blood affords to us a free access. All kinds of worship are then faulty and impure until, Christ cleanses them by the sprinkling of His blood . . . If this thought only came to our mind, that what we read is not written so much with ink as with the blood of Christ, that when the Gospel is preached, His sacred blood distils together with the voice, there would be far greater attention as well as reverence on our part" (John Calvin).  

Verse 22. "By the law" signifies "according unto the law," that is, according to its institution and rule, in that way of faith and obedience which the people were obligated unto. This has been shown by the apostle in the verses preceding. His design being to prove both the necessity for the death of Christ and the efficacy of His blood unto the purging of sins, whereof the legal institutions were types. The qualifying "almost" takes into consideration the exceptions of "fire" (Num. 31:23) and "water" (Lev. 22:6, 7, etc.): but let it be carefully noted that these exceptions were of such things as wherein the worship of God was not immediately concerned, nor where the conscience was defiled; they were only of external pollutions, by things in their own nature indifferent, having nothing of sin in them; yet were they designed as warnings against things which did defile. The "almost" also takes note of the exception in Leviticus 5:11.  

The last clause of verse 22 enunciates an axiom universally true, and in every age. The curse of the law was, and still is, "the soul that sinneth it shall die" (Ezek. 18:20). But whereas there is no man "that sinneth not" (Ecclesiastes 7:20), God, in His grace, provided that there should be a testification of the remission of sins, and that the curse of the law should not be immediately executed on them that sinned. This He did by allowing the people to make atonement for those sins by the blood of sacrifices: Leviticus 17:11. Thereby God made known two things. First, to the Israelites that, by the blood of animals there should be a political or temporal remission of their sins granted, so that they should not die under the sentence of that law which was the rule of government over their nation. Second, that a real spiritual and eternal forgiveness should be granted unto faith in the sacrifice of Christ, which was represented by the slain animals. The present application of this verse is that, no salvation is possible for any soul that rejects the sacrifice of Christ.  

  

  

MHCC: Heb 9:15-22

The solemn transactions between God and man, are sometimes called a covenant, here a testament, which is a willing deed of a person, bestowing legacies on such persons as are described, and it only takes effect upon his death. Thus Christ died, not only to obtain the blessings of salvation for us, but to give power to the disposal of them. All, by sin, were become guilty before God, had forfeited every thing that is good; but God, willing to show the greatness of his mercy, proclaimed a covenant of grace. Nothing could be clean to a sinner, not even his religious duties; except as his guilt was done away by the death of a sacrifice, of value sufficient for that end, and unless he continually depended upon it. May we ascribe all real good works to the same all-procuring cause, and offer our spiritual sacrifices as sprinkled with Christ's blood, and so purified from their defilement.

Matthew Henry: Heb 9:15-22

In these verses the apostle considers the gospel under the notion of a will or testament, the new or last will and testament of Christ, and shows the necessity and efficacy of the blood of Christ to make this testament valid and effectual.

I. The gospel is here considered as a testament, the new and last will and testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is observable that the solemn transactions that pass between God and man are sometimes called a covenant, here a testament. A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties about things that are in their own power, or may be so, and this either with or without a mediator; this agreement takes effect at such time and in such manner as therein declared. A testament is a voluntary act and deed of a single person, duly executed and witnessed, bestowing legacies on such legatees as are described and characterized by the testator, and which can only take effect upon his death. Now observe, Christ is the Mediator of a New Testament (Heb 9:15); and he is so for several ends and purposes here mentioned. 1. To redeem persons from their transgressions committed against the law or first testament, which makes every transgression a forfeiture of liberty, and makes men debtors, and slaves or prisoners, who need to be redeemed. 2. To qualify all those that are effectually called to receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. These are the great legacies that Christ by his last will and testament has bequeathed to the truly characterized legatees.

II. To make this New Testament effectual, it was necessary that Christ should die; the legacies accrue by means of death. This he proves by two arguments: - 1. From the general nature of every will or testamentary disposition, Heb 9:16. Where a testament is, where it acts and operates, there must of necessity by the death of the testator; till then the property is still in the testator's hand, and he has power to revoke, cancel, or alter, his will as he pleases; so that no estate, no right, is conveyed by will, till the testator's death has made it unalterable and effectual. 2. From the particular method that was taken by Moses in the ratification of the first testament, which was not done without blood, Heb 9:18, Heb 9:19, etc. All men by sin had become guilty before God, had forfeited their inheritance, their liberties, and their very lives, into the hands of divine justice; but God, being willing to show the greatness of his mercy, proclaimed a covenant of grace, and ordered it to be typically administered under the Old Testament, but not without the blood and life of the creature; and God accepted the blood of bulls and goats, as typifying the blood of Christ; and by these means the covenant of grace was ratified under the former dispensation. The method taken by Moses, according to the direction he had received from God, is here particularly related (1.) Moses spoke every precept to all the people, according to the law, Heb 9:19. He published to them the tenour of the covenant, the duties required, the rewards promised to those who did their duty, and the punishment threatened against the transgressors, and he called for their consent to the terms of the covenant; and this in an express manner. (2.) Then he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and applied this blood by sprinkling it. This blood and water signified the blood and water that came out of our Saviour's pierced side, for justification and sanctification, and also shadowed forth the two sacraments of the New Testament, baptism and the Lord's supper, with scarlet wool, signifying the righteousness of Christ with which we must be clothed, the hyssop signifying that faith by which we must apply all. Now with these Moses sprinkled, [1.] The book of the law and covenant, to show that the covenant of grace is confirmed by the blood of Christ and made effectual to our good. [2.] The people, intimating that the shedding of the blood of Christ will be no advantage to us if it be not applied to us. And the sprinkling of both the book and the people signified the mutual consent of both parties, God and man, and their mutual engagements to each other in this covenant through Christ, Moses at the same time using these words, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. This blood, typifying the blood of Christ, is the ratification of the covenant of grace to all true believers. [3.] He sprinkled the tabernacle and all the utensils of it, intimating that all the sacrifices offered up and services performed there were accepted only through the blood of Christ, which procures the remission of that iniquity that cleaves to our holy things, which could not have been remitted but by that atoning blood.

Barclay: Heb 9:15-22

This is one of the most difficult passages in the whole letter, although it would not be difficult to those who read the letter for the first time, for its methods of argument and expression and categories of thought would be familiar to them.

As we have seen, the idea of the covenant is basic to the thought of the writer, by which he meant a relationship between God and man. The first covenant was dependent on man's keeping of the law; as soon as he broke the law the covenant became ineffective. Let us remember that to our writer religion means access to God. Therefore, the basic meaning of the new covenant, which Jesus inaugurated, is that men should have access to God or, to put it another way, have fellowship with him. But here is the difficulty. Men come to the new covenant already stained with the sins committed under the old covenant, for which the old sacrificial system was powerless to atone. So, the writer to the Hebrews has a tremendous thought and says that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is retroactive. That is to say, it is effective to wipe out the sins of men committed under the old covenant and to inaugurate the fellowship promised under the new.

All that seems very complicated but at the back of it there are two great eternal truths. First, the sacrifice of Jesus gains forgiveness for past sins. We ought to be punished for what we have done and shut out from God; but because of what Jesus did the debt is wiped out, the breach is forgiven and the barrier is taken away. Second, the sacrifice of Jesus opens a new life for the future. It opens the way to fellowship with God. The God whom our sins had made a stranger, the sacrifice of Christ has made a friend. Because of what he did the burden of the past is rolled away and life becomes life with God.

It is the next step in the argument which appears to us a fantastic way in which to argue. The question in the mind of the writer is why this new relationship with God should involve the death of Christ. He answers it in two ways.

(i) His first answer is--to us almost incredibly--founded on nothing other than a play on words. We have seen that the use of the word diatheke (1242) in the sense of covenant is characteristically Christian, and that its normal secular use was in the sense of will or testament. Up to Heb 9:16the writer to the Hebrews has been using diatheke (1242) in the normal Christian sense of covenant; then, suddenly and without warning or explanation, he switches to the sense of will. Now a will does not become operative until the testator dies; so the writer to the Hebrews says that no diatheke (1242), will, can be operative until the death of the testator so that the new diatheke (1242), covenant, cannot become operative apart from the death of Christ. That is a merely verbal argument and is quite unconvincing to a modern mind; but it must be remembered that this founding of an argument on a play between two meanings of a word was a favourite method of the Alexandrian scholars in the time when this letter was written. In fact this very argument would have been considered in the days when the letter to the Hebrews was written an exceedingly clever piece of exposition.

(ii) His second answer goes back to the Hebrew sacrificial system and to Lev 17:11: "The life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement." "Without the shedding of blood there can be no atonement for sin," was actually a well-known Hebrew principle. So the writer to the Hebrews goes back to the inauguration of the first covenant under Moses, the occasion when the people accepted the law as the condition of their special relationship with God. We are told how sacrifice was made and how Moses "took half of the blood and put it in basins; and half of the blood he threw against the altar." After the book of the law had been read and the people had signified their acceptance of it, Moses "took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, 'Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words' " (Exo 24:1-8). It is true that the memory of the writer to the Hebrews of that passage is not strictly accurate. He introduces calves and goats and scarlet and hyssop which come from the ritual of The Day of Atonement and he talks about the sprinkling of the Tabernacle, which at that time had not yet been built; but the reason is that these things are so much in his mind. His basic idea is that there can be no cleansing and no ratification of any covenant without the shedding of blood. Why that should be so he does not need to know. Scripture says it is so and that is enough for him. The probable reason is that blood is life, as the Hebrew saw it, and life is the most precious thing in the world; and man must offer his most precious thing to God.

All that goes back to a ritual which is only of antiquarian interest. But behind it there is an eternal principle--Forgiveness is a costly thing. Human forgiveness is costly. A son or a daughter may go wrong and a father or a mother may forgive; but that forgiveness brings tears, whiteness to the hair, lines to the face, a cutting anguish and then a long dull ache to the heart. It does not cost nothing. Divine forgiveness is costly. God is love but he is also holiness. He least of all can break the great moral laws on which the universe is built. Sin must have its punishment or the very structure of life disintegrates. And God alone can pay the terrible price that is necessary before men can be forgiven. Forgiveness is never a case of saying: "It's all right; it doesn't matter." It is the most costly thing in the world. Without the shedding of heart's blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. Nothing brings a man to his senses with such arresting violence as to see the effect of his sin on someone who loves him in this world or on the God who loves him for ever, and to say to himself: "It cost that to forgive my sin." Where there is forgiveness someone must be crucified.

Constable: Heb 5:11--11:1

III. The High Priestly Office of the Son 5:11--10:39

The transition from exposition (4:15-5:10) to exhortation (5:11-6:20) marks the beginning of a new division in this sermon. The structure of this division is as follows.¹⁵⁸

a Preliminary exhortation (5:11-6:20)

A The priest like Melchizedek (7:1-28)

B The single, personal sacrifice for sins (8:1-9:28)

C The achievement of eternal salvation (10:1-18)

a' Concluding exhortation (10:19-39)

A central theme of Hebrews, redemptive sacrifice, comes into prominence in this section of the text.

Constable: Heb 7:1--10:19

C. The Son's High Priestly Ministry 7:1-10:18

The great resource of Christians when tempted to apostatize is our high priest, Jesus Christ. The writer therefore spent considerable time and space expounding His high priesthood to enable his readers to benefit from their resource. This section of the book continues to glorify Jesus Christ so the readers would appreciate Him sufficiently and not turn from. Him.

"In Hebrews 7, the writer argued that Christ's priesthood, like Melchizedek's, is superior in its order. In Hebrews 8, the emphasis is on Christ's better covenant; in Hebrews 9, it is His better sanctuary; and Hebrews 10 concludes the section by arguing for Christ's better sacrifice."²¹¹

Constable: Heb 8:1--9:28

2. The work of our high priest chs. 8-9

The writer developed in this new section of the text topics that he had announced thematically in 7:26-28.

"The unit introduced in 8:1-2 consists entirely of exposition. Its limits are indicated by an inclusio: corresponding to the statement in 8:3 that every high priest is appointed to offer (prospherein) gifts and sacrifices is the complementary declaration that Christ was offered (prosenechtheis) once to take away the sins of the people in 9:28. These limits are confirmed by the observation that the theme of Christ's entrance into the heavenly sanctuary, which is announced in 8:1-2, is actually developed in 9:11-28. The new unit extends from 8:1-9:28 and constitutes the central section within the compositional structure of the sermon. Its place at the center indicates the importance that the writer ascribed to this facet of his message . . ."²³⁵

The ministry of Jesus Christ as our High Priest involves a particular kind of service that includes a covenant, a sanctuary, and a sacrifice. The writer explained the service that Jesus Christ renders to help his readers understand His adequacy as our High Priest. The writer moved from explaining the person of our great High Priest to expounding His work. In all this he was contrasting the superiority of Christianity with the inferiority of Judaism.

One writer observed a chiastic structure in 8:1-9:28.²³⁶

A The old worship, earthly and figurative (8:1-6)

B The first covenant, imperfect and provisioned (8:7-13)

C The old and powerless institution of worship (9:1-10)

C' The new, efficacious institutions (9:11-14)

B' The new covenant (9:15-23)

A' The entrance to heaven (9:24-28)

Constable: Heb 9:11-28

The final purging of sin 9:11-28

The writer now focused on the issue of sacrifice.

"The argument moves a stage further as the author turns specifically to what Christ has done. The sacrifices of the old covenant were ineffectual. But in strong contrast Christ made an offering that secures a redemption valid for all eternity. In the sacrifices, a good deal pertained to the use of blood. So in accord with this, the author considers the significance of the blood of animals and that of Christ."²⁶⁶

In verses 11-14 the writer introduced Christ's high priestly ministry, which climaxes in verse 15. Verses 16-22 are parenthetical explaining verse 15. Then verses 23-28 resume the discussion of Jesus' priestly ministry in heaven.

"The conception of Christ's death as a liturgical high priestly action is developed as a major argument in 9:11-28. Prior to this point in the homily, the high priesthood tended to be linked with Christ's present activity as heavenly intercessor (cf. 2:18; 4:15-16; 7:25; 8:1-2)."²⁶⁷

9:11 A better translation might be, "He entered in connection with the greater . . . tabernacle." Jesus Christ did not pass through heaven in the sense of going on to some other place. He is there now.

9:12 Blood is a symbol of life (Lev. 17:11). The point is that the lives of innocent animal substitutes were sufficient only to cover sin temporarily. However the life of Jesus Christ because He was a perfect human substitute adequately paid for the redemption of all people forever. Having died "once for all" (7:27; 10:10) He was able to enter God's presence "once for all."

"There have been expositors who, pressing the analogy of the Day of Atonement beyond the limits observed by our author, have argued that the expiatory work of Christ was not completed on the cross--not completed, indeed, until He ascended from earth and made atonement "for us" in the heavenly holy of holies by the presentation of His efficacious blood'."²⁶⁸

9:13-14 Old Covenant sacrifices for sin on the Day of Atonement only provided temporary cleansing, but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ provided permanent cleansing. The reference to "the eternal Spirit" is unique in Scripture. The Holy Spirit had empowered and sustained Jesus in His office.

"It seems that the writer has chosen this unusual way of referring to the Holy Spirit to bring out the truth that there is an eternal aspect to Christ's saving work."²⁶⁹

Notice that all three persons of the Trinity had a part in redemption (v. 14). The "dead works" in view are evidently those of the Mosaic Covenant (cf. 6:1), though some commentators take them as referring to works that result in spiritual defilement.²⁷⁰ They are dead in that they did not impart spiritual life but only covered sin. Thus there is a contrast between ceremonial and conscience cleansing as well as between temporary and permanent cleansing in these verses. We should not feel conscience-bound to follow the Old Covenant in view of Jesus Christ's perfect sacrifice but should serve God under the terms of the New Covenant.

". . . for the author of Hebrews syneidesis [conscience] is the internal faculty within man that causes him to be painfully aware of his sinfulness and, as a result, to experience a sense of guilt."²⁷¹

"The sacrifice that inaugurated the new covenant achieved the cleansing of the conscience that all worshipers lacked under the former covenant and that all had sought through prescribed gifts and offerings (10:1-2 . . .).²⁷²

9:15 Since we have obtained "eternal redemption" (v. 12) through the death of our Mediator and the "eternal [Holy] Spirit" (v. 14), we can have hope in an "eternal inheritance." In contrast, believers under the Old Covenant enjoyed mainly temporary blessings.

"With a play on the double meaning of diatheke (both a covenant' and a testament'), the author goes on to bring out the necessity for the death of Christ just as the death of the testator is required if a will is to come into force."²⁷³

The readers should not feel guilty about abstaining from the rituals of the Old Covenant. Instead they should appreciate the accomplishments of Jesus Christ's death.²⁷⁴ They should also turn their attention to obtaining what God had promised them as a future inheritance and continue to follow the Lord faithfully and patiently (6:12).

The New Testament revelation concerning the inheritance that believers can merit by faithful perseverance in the faith and good works is extensive. Some passages indicate that it involves participation in the wedding banquet at the beginning of the messianic kingdom (e.g., Matt. 25:1-13; et al.). Others describe it as prizes that overcomers will receive (Rev. 2-3). Some present it as involving a specially honorable resurrection (Luke 20:35; Phil. 3:10-14). Still other passages speak of it as reigning with Christ (Matt. 19:27-28; Luke 19:17-19; 22:28-30; Rom. 8:17-21) or as treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:19-21, 29; 19:21; Luke 12:32-33; 1 Tim. 6:17-19). It also involves receiving praise and honor from Jesus Christ and the Father (Matt. 6:1, 5, 16; 25:21; John 12:26; 1 Cor. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:6-7; 2 Pet. 1:10-11). These honors are sometimes spoken of as crowns (Phil. 4:1; 1 Cor. 9:24-27; 1 Thess. 2:19; 2 Tim. 4:6-8; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:1-4; Rev. 2:10; 4:9-10).²⁷⁵

9:16-17 In certain respects the covenants God made with humankind are similar to wills. As is true with all wills, the person who made the will must die before the beneficiaries experience any effects of the will.

9:18-21 The Old Covenant went into effect when the Levitical priests shed the blood of animal substitutes and applied that blood to the covenant beneficiaries. The beneficiaries were the Israelites (Exod. 24:6-8) and the tabernacle (cf. Exod. 40:9-15). The New Covenant went into effect when God shed Jesus Christ's blood and applied it to its beneficiaries spiritually (cf. Matt. 26:28).

"The central thrust of the argument is that there is an intimate relationship between covenant and sacrificial blood."²⁷⁶

9:22 The exception to which the writer alluded was God's provision for the poor in Israel. He allowed them to bring a flour offering in place of an animal if they could not afford two doves (Lev. 5:11; cf. Num. 16:46; 31:22-23; 31:50). As a principle, God required the shedding of blood for forgiveness under the Mosaic Law. The Israelites saw this most clearly on the Day of Atonement. The principle expressed is true of the New Covenant as well. Blood is essential for decisive purgation.

9:23 Whereas animal blood adequately cleansed the prototype on earth under the Old Covenant, a better sacrifice was necessary to cleanse the realities in heaven (cf. 8:5; 9:24). Thus Jesus Christ's death was essential. The "heavenly things" may refer to the consciences of men and women.²⁷⁷ It seems more likely, however, that they refer to the things connected with the heavenly tabernacle. This may include angels that need cleansing (cf. Job 4:18; 15:15)²⁷⁸ and or "wickedness beyond this earth"²⁷⁹ (cf. Rom. 8:38-39; 1 Cor. 2:8; Eph. 6:12; Col. 1:20; 2:15).

"As sinful pilgrims on their way to the heavenly city, God's people defile all they touch, even their meeting place' with God, and they need the constant efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ their High Priest to remove that defilement."²⁸⁰

9:24-26 Jesus Christ's ministry required a once-for-all, sufficient sacrifice. The "consummation" refers to the end of the Old Covenant. Jesus Christ entered the presence of God rather than an earthly tabernacle (v. 24). He made His offering only once rather than repeatedly (v. 25). Furthermore He put away sins forever rather than covering them only temporarily (v. 26; cf. 1 Pet. 1:20).

"Copy" (v. 24) is the Greek word typos ("type"). The writer identified a type (a divinely intended illustration) here. The holy place in the tabernacle and temple was a type of heaven.²⁸¹

"At His ascension Christ was formally installed as High Priest and began His present high priestly work. In the heavenly tabernacle today He represents His people (i.e., He secures their acceptance with God); obtains free access for them into God's presence; intercedes in prayer for them and grants them help; mediates their prayers to God and God's strength to them; anticipates His return to earth to reign; and, at the end of the present session, will bless His people by bringing them deliverance into the kingdom."²⁸²

9:27-28 Because Jesus Christ died for our sins we do not need to fear condemnation after death (v. 27; cf. Rom. 8:1), but we can look forward to ultimate deliverance (v. 28). He provided the first benefit of salvation, deliverance from the penalty of sin, at the end of His first advent. He will provide the second, deliverance from the presence of sin, at the end of His second advent.

"There is a finality about it [death] that is not to be disputed. But if it is the complete and final end to life on earth, it is not, as so many in the ancient world thought, the complete and final end. Death is more serious than that because it is followed by judgment. Men are accountable, and after death they will render account to God."²⁸³

This is one of only two references to sin-bearing in the New Testament (cf. 1 Pet. 2:24), but the concept is common in the Old Testament (cf. Num. 14:34; Isa. 53:11-12; Ezek. 18:20).

"Reference to the many' is not . . . to be understood as limiting the effects of Christ's sacrifice to those who accept it in faith. The implied contrast, as in Is. 52:12; Heb. 2:10; Mk. 10:45; 14:24||, is rather between the one sacrifice and the great number of those who benefit from it."²⁸⁴

When the Lord returns at the Rapture all Christians will enter into His presence, but only believers who have remained faithful to Him will enter into their full inheritance (cf. 1:14; 3:14; 9:15). "Those who eagerly await Him" (v. 28) evidently refers to faithful believers.²⁸⁵ Specifically what will take place is that at the Rapture all believers will go to be with Christ. However only those who have not apostatized will receive a full reward at the judgment seat of Christ (1 Cor. 3:14-15; cf. 1 Thess. 5:9-10).²⁸⁶

". . . his appearance will confirm that his sacrifice has been accepted and that he has secured the blessings of salvation for those whom he represented. For those who are the heirs of salvation (1:14; cf. 2:3, 10; 5:9; 6:9), it will mean full enjoyment of their inheritance. The parousia is thus the key event in the realization of salvation."²⁸⁷

"On one day of the year alone only the high priest could pass through the curtain to appear before God (9:7). That he must do so year after year indicated that the atonement he secured was merely provisional in character. The sacrifices he offered were inadequate to accomplish a decisive purgation of the defilement of sin. Against this backdrop the writer contrasts the efficacy of the unrepeatable action of Christ, whose single offering secured eschatological salvation and provided access to the inaccessible presence of God. The key to the typological exposition of salvation in 9:11-28 is that entrance into the heavenly sanctuary pertains to an eschatological and eternal order of salvation.

"The writer's primary concern in this section is with objective salvation. The exposition is focused upon the saving work of Christ in relation to God in behalf of the redeemed community rather than upon salvation realized subjectively in Christians."²⁸⁸

The New Covenant sanctuary is superior for five reasons. It is heavenly (v. 11), and its ministry is effective in dealing with sin (vv. 12-15). Its ministry also rests on a more costly sacrifice (vv. 16-23), represents fulfillment (v. 24), and is final and complete (vv. 25-28).²⁸⁹

College: Heb 9:1-28

HEBREWS 9

VI. JESUS' SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF IS SUPERIOR TO THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD COVENANT AND SETS US FREE FROM SIN (9:1-10:39)

The new covenant, which is superior to the old covenant, stands at the center of Hebrews (ch. 8). Its two main features, according to Hebrews, are its superior high priest (chs. 5-7) and its superior sacrifice (chs. 9-10). The sacrifice of the new covenant is discussed in three stages. First, the old covenant system at the tabernacle is presented as a background picture to help explain what Jesus did in the new covenant (9:1-10). Second, the effectiveness of the blood of Christ is described in detail (9:11-28). Finally, the sacrifice of Christ is exhibited as being made once, but effective for all time (10:1-18). The "therefore" of 10:19 introduces a section of exhortation based on this three staged discussion of Christ's sacrifice.

The central Old Testament quotation for this section is found in 10:5-7 and is taken from Psalm 40:6-8. Most sections of Hebrews place the major Old Testament quotation at the beginning of the section. Only the discussion of the covenant in chapter 8 and this discussion of the sacrifice in chapters 9-10 place the Old Testament quotation near the end.

A. THE TABERNACLE AND ITS TOOLS (9:1-5)

¹ Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. ² A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. ³ Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, ⁴ which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. ⁵ Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. ^a But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

^a 5 Traditionally the mercy seat

9:1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary.

Our author explains that "the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary." He discusses them in the reverse order, beginning with the tabernacle and its tools (vv. 1-5), and then proceeding to the central ceremony and its meaning (vv. 6-10). The Greek text ties this section closely to chapter eight by using the conjunction ou ( oun , "therefore"). The NIV does not translate this word in six of its thirteen appearances in Hebrews. This is in keeping with Bauer's suggestion that "at times it may be left untranslated." The KJV may be more satisfactory on this point by translating the word each time it is used.

9:2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place.

In a table below we will describe the major utensils of worship in the tabernacle. The plans and construction of the tabernacle and its furnishings are recorded in Exodus 25-40. Hebrews only lists the lampstand and the table with its bread in "the Holy Place" and the altar of incense and the ark in "the Most Holy Place." Detailed descriptions of other items can be found in Exodus: the upright boards for the sides of the tabernacle and the various curtains covering it; the courtyard with its altar of burnt offering, its wash basin and the numerous posts and curtains surrounding it; oil; incense; and priests' clothing. To carry on the worship as described in the Old Testament would have required many other items not named. There would have been facilities for cooking, dining and sleeping inside the courtyard; storage compartments for wood, incense, salt, wine and water; storage for knives, hooks, basins and carts. These items were all holy and whatever touched them became holy (Exod 30:22-29).

Before our author describes the main ceremony of "the Day of Atonement" ( Yom Kippur ) and its unique entrance into the Most Holy Place, he reviews the layout and furniture of the tabernacle for his readers. The tabernacle had two rooms. The first room was "called the Holy Place" and housed the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread. They are presented as three separate items, although the bread was placed on the table.

The "lampstand" was on the south side, opposite the table (Exod 26:35). It was solid gold (Exod 25:31; 37:22-23). The table and the altar of incense were completely overlaid with gold (Exod 25:24; 20:3). The lampstand was made of one talent of gold, i.e., about 65 pounds. God wanted the best for his worship. It must have been an impressive sight. Since only a small amount of light would penetrate the thick coverings and the cracks around the edges of the curtains, the seven lamps of the lampstand provided the primary source of light. Its lamps were "tended continually" (Lev 24:4). In the days of Rehoboam the ten lampstands of Solomon's temple were lit every evening (2 Chr 13:11). A solid gold lampstand with oil supplied continuously from two trees formed one of Zechariah's night visions (Zech 4) to show that God's plans would not be achieved by might or power "but by my Spirit."

The "table" was on the north side opposite the lampstand. When the tabernacle was erected, this table was put in it first, then the lampstand, and then the altar of incense (Exod 40:4, 22-27). On this table, twelve fresh loaves of "consecrated bread" were placed each Sabbath, one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The priests were to eat the old bread "in a holy place' (Exod 25:30; Lev 24:5-9). It was left on the table even when the people were on the move at God's direction (Num 4:7). This table was evidently used for nothing but holding these loaves. It came to be called "the table for setting out the consecrated bread" (2 Chr 29:18). It is not difficult to see a connection between this weekly replenishing of bread and the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper in the early church (Luke 22:14-20; 1 Cor 11:23-34; Acts 2:42; 20:7).

These items were housed in "the Holy Place." The terms for various places in the tabernacle are a bit confusing. The whole tabernacle is called the "earthly sanctuary" (tov a{gion kosmikovn , to hagion kosmikon ) in 9:1 and "the first tent" (th'" prwvth" skhnh'" , tçs prôtçs skçnçs ) in 9:8. "First" (in v. 8) contrasts the old and new covenants just as "first" and "second" do in 10:9. Konig says,

This sanctuary of YHWH (Ex. xxv.8) was in the nature of things called the "dwelling" par excellence ( ha-mishkan ) and the "tent" par excellence ( ha-ohel ); but its most frequent designation is ohel mo'ed ( ib . xxvii.21 et seq. ). This term means "tent of mutual appointment," that is "place of meeting [of God with Moses and his successors]" ( ib .xxv.22).

The two components of the tent of worship are called "the outer room" (9:6, tçn prôtçn skçnçn , lit., "the first tent") and "the inner room" (9:7, thΙn deutevran , tçn deuteran , lit., "the second [tent]"). With curtains rather than wooden doors, each of the two parts of the tent would look like a separate tent (see 9:3, 6). The outer room was also called "the Holy Place" (a{gia , hagia , in 9:2).

9:3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place,

The inner room ("the second [tent]," 9:7) was "behind the second veil" (9:3). It was also known as "the Holy of Holies" (a{gia a{giwn , hagia hagiôn ), i.e., "the Most Holy Place" (9:3). In 9:8 the designation is shortened to "the holies" (tw'n aJgivwn ) in the phrase "the way of holies" (thΙn tw'n aJgivwn oJdoΙn , tçn tôn hagiôn hodon , NIV "the way into the Most Holy Place"). Its counterpart, which Jesus entered in heaven, is designated in 9:12 as "the Most Holy Place" ( ta hagia ).

A summary look at the layout of the tabernacle might be as follows:

9:4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 9:5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

Two items of furniture are associated with the inner room: the altar of incense and the ark of the covenant. The ark of the covenant was located within the Most Holy Place and behind the curtain. The altar was placed in front of the curtain that was before the ark (Exod 30:6). Both glistened with their golden overlay. Bauer suggests that qumiathvrian (thymiatçrian ) refers to "a place or vessel for the burning of incense . . . a censer" although he suggests the translation "altar of incense" for 9:4. In the LXX, both 2 Chronicles 26:29 and Ezekiel 8:11 use the word of a censer held in someone's hand. However, the ordinary word for censer in the LXX was purei'on ( pyreion ), a word which does not appear in the New Testament, and which may be understood as a firepot of some sort (Lev 10:1; 16:12; Num 16:6, 17-18; etc.). Liddell and Scott suggest "firesticks" for the plural form or "an earthen pan for coals" for the singular. Gooding and Wiseman explain:

Its form was usually . . . a bowl mounted on a pedestal . . . Small stone incense altars with concave bowls on legs are commonly found, or depicted in ancient art . . . Some censers were portable and made of bronze . . . or gold . . . and used for carrying a few burning coals.

In giving the original plan for this altar, Exodus 30:1-10 used a different word (LXX qusiasthvrion qumiavmato" , thysiastçrion thymiamato s , "an altar of incense"). Later, when it was constructed, the LXX says that Bezalel "made the copper altar (toΙ qusiasthvrion toΙ calkou'n , to thysiastçrion to chalkoun ) out of the copper censers (tw'n purei'wn tw'n cavlkwn , tôn pyreiôn tôn chalkôn ), which belonged to the men who rebelled with the assembly of Core" (Exod 38:22).

Three items were in the "ark of the covenant": the jar of manna, Aaron's rod and the stone tablets which contained the ten commandments. The lid with its cherubim rested on top.

The NIV says the ark "contained" (ejn h|/ , en hç , lit., "in which were") the jar, the rod and the tablets. Numbers 17:10 says that Aaron's rod was put "in front of the [ark of the] Testimony." The ark was about 4.5¥ 2.25¥ 2.25 feet in size (Exod 25:10). Was Aaron's rod, including its budded branches, short enough to fit inside the ark, or did it simply lay in front of it? The Old Testament also reports that Aaron put the jar of manna "in front of the Testimony" (Exod 16:34), whereas Hebrews locates it "in" the ark. Both Deuteronomy 10:5 and Hebrews 9:4 indicate that the tablets of stone were "in" the ark but Deuteronomy 31:26 says they were "beside the ark of the covenant." When Solomon placed the ark in the newly completed temple, the Scripture reports that "there was nothing in the ark except the two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb" (1 Kgs 8:9).

The phrase en hç ("in which") is used in 9:2 to describe the outer room "in which" were the lampstand, the table and the bread (the NIV reads, "In its first room were"). The altar of incense is not named among these items, but is listed among those in the inner room. What might the word "in" imply? Bauer defines ejn ( en , "in") with a range of meanings that point to close relationship as well as physical location. Thus Aaron's rod may be "in" the ark in the sense that it has a close relationship to the ark, though not physically located inside of it. Likewise, the altar of incense may be "in" the inner room by being associated with it, while not being actually "in" its physical space. This seems to make sense even though the inner room is described in 9:3 as "behind the curtain." Accompanying his article on the tabernacle in the Jewish Encyclopedia , Konig has printed the title page from a Hebrew book by Yom-Tob Zahalon, She'elot u-Teshubot ("Questions and Answers"), published in Venice in 1691 in which the altar of incense is placed just inside the door of the tabernacle at the opposite end of the room from the curtain concealing the Most Holy Place. The conceptual location appears to be more important to Zahalon than the physical location.

The table below lists the major items in the tabernacle and a possible New Testament counterpart for each. It may be misleading to talk about a "tabernacle item" and its "New Testament counterpart" since Hebrews calls the old covenant a "copy" or "shadow" of that which is under Christ (8:5; 9:24; 10:1), not an "allegory" or a "parable." Nevertheless, our author's method would appear to be typlogical. It is probably also worth noting that, although some see the influence of Philo here, Hebrews actually parts company with Philo who appears to extend many of the features of the old covenant sacrificial system into a much more fully described heavenly counterpart.

Tabernacle Item New Testament Counterpart altar of burnt offerings the cross and death of Jesus basin baptism and daily cleansing Holy Place the church lamp the Bible and the Holy Spirit table fellowship with God and man bread Lord's Supper altar of incense prayers veil Body of Christ ark presence of God manna provision of God staff leaders of God's choice tablets laws of God cherubim ministering angels of God atonement cover reconciliation to God B. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT (9:6-10)

⁶ When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. ⁷ But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. ⁸ The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. ⁹ This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. ¹⁰ They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings - external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

9:6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry.

Now that he has described the tabernacle and its furnishings, our writer turns his attention to the second element of that first covenant mentioned in 9:1 - the "regulations for worship" in the tabernacle. Yet he is not particularly interested in the day to day rituals for he summarizes them in short order (v. 6) and then devotes his attention to the central ceremony of tabernacle worship which also happens to form the heart of his description of Jesus' sacrifice: the annual Day of Atonement. The main activities of that ceremony are described in v. 7 and its significance in vv. 8-10. Nevertheless, this is a tightly integrated section for it represents one very long and extremely complicated sentence in the Greek text.

9:7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.

The author focuses on those parts of the ceremony which are relevant for his argument, and many of the other, related activities are not expounded upon in any New Testament description of the atoning work of Christ. The rituals of the Day of Atonement ( Yom Kippur ), however, are fully described in Leviticus and can be summarized as follows:

Ritual of the Day of Atonement according to Leviticus 16

General Requirements

The high priest may only enter the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement (v. 2)

No one is to be in the Tent when the high priest enters the Most Holy Place (v. 17)

On this day all Israelites must fast and do no work ( vv. 29-31)

Clothes

Remove ordinary priestly garb

Bathe (v. 4)

Put on special attire for the day of atonement (v. 4)

Linen tunic, linen undergarments, linen sash, linen turban (v. 4)

Present offerings for the day : two goats for sin offering and ram for burnt offering (v. 5)

Offer bull as a sin offering for himself (vv. 6, 11-14)

Slaughter it (and catch its blood; v. 11)

Take censer with two handfuls of incense behind the curtain (vv. 12-13)

Sprinkle bull's blood on and in front of the atonement cover (v. 14)

Two goat ceremony (vv. 7-8)

Cast lots to choose: one for the Lord, one for a scapegoat (v. 8)

Offer goat as a sin offering for the people (v. 15)

Slaughter it (and catch its blood; v. 15)

Do as with bull's blood (take censer with incense, etc.; v. 15)

Sprinkle goat's blood on and in front of the atonement cover (v. 15)

(Explanation of the significance of these rituals - vv. 16, 17)

Cleansing of the sanctuary (vv. 16-19)

Cleanse the tent of meeting with blood (v. 16)

Cleanse the main altar with blood (vv. 18-19)

Scapegoat ceremony (vv. 20-22)

Lay hands on the goat and confess all Israel's sins (v. 21)

Send the goat away into the desert (v. 21)

The chosen man shall release the goat in the desert (v. 22)

Clothes

Remove special attire for the day of atonement (v. 23)

Bathe (v. 24)

Put on ordinary priestly garb (v. 24)

Present burnt offering for self and then for people (vv. 24, 25)

Hides, flesh and offal are taken outside the camp and burned (v. 27)

Finishing (vv. 26-28)

The man who released the scapegoat must wash clothes and self (v. 26)

The man who burned hides, flesh and offal must wash clothes and self (v. 28)

These two verses (9:6-7) are organized around a series of contrasts:

Day-to-Day Rituals Day of Atonement

priests (plural) the high priest only (singular)

regularly once a year

outer room (lit., "first tent") inner room (lit., "second [tent]")

Each of these contrasts can be seen as prefiguring the priestly ministry of Jesus: (1) he is unrivaled in his superiority, the one and only high priest of the believer (4:14; 7:26; 8:1), (2) his work is "once for all" (7:27; 9:12, 18), and (3) he takes us behind the curtain into the presence of God (4:14, 16; 6:20). Yet the final feature of our writer's description, which has no counterpart in the series of contrasts, will become the most significant feature in the parallel with Christ - it was "never without blood" that the high priest entered the inner room. We now read for the third time in the letter that the high priest had to offer sacrifices "first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people" (5:3; 7:27; cf. Lev 9:7; 16:6). We have also read that, unlike previous high priests, Jesus had no need to offer a sacrifice for himself (7:27). However, this is the first explicit reference to "blood" (ai{ma , haima ) in this connection.

Haima appears no less than eighteen times in this letter - eight times in 9:7-25 alone. The significant role of blood in both covenants will be described in subsequent verses and our writer's choice of the word here anticipates the approaching discussion. Two important observations can be made here nonetheless.

First, we see that the shedding of blood is a condition for any human to enter into the presence of God. The phrase "never without blood" translates a double negative - a particularly strong expression - in the Greek text. It was between the two cherubim, above the cover of the ark, where God had promised to meet his people (Exod 25:22).

Second, we see that the blood was shed for sin. =Agnohvma (agnoçma , "sins committed in ignorance") occurs only here in the New Testament. In the papyri, it is used in the sense of an "error" which is distinguished from a "crime" (e.g., in a proclamation of amnesty). Our author has used the verb form in 5:2 (see comments on 5:2). The noun here (just as the verb in 5:2) probably refers to the "unintentional sin" described in Leviticus 4. The idea is probably not so much that any isolated instance of deliberate sin (since many of our sins involve an element of choice) cannot be covered by the blood sacrifice ("weakness" is accounted for in the sacrifice, 5:2-3) but that the kind of consistent, perpetual choice of a lifestyle of sin (such as the sort described by the customary present tense of 10:26) which indicates a deliberate disregard and disrespect for the sacrifice (10:29) removes one from the protection of his covenant relationship with God. For such, repentance is the missing element (6:1, 6).

9:8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing.

Having described the unique dimensions of the priestly ministry on the Day of Atonement, our writer now proceeds to explain their greater significance. The "Holy Spirit" was responsible for the pattern provided by the old covenant. The similarities are no accident, no mere coincidence. God had planned them and made them in order to "show" us something. Dhlovw (dçloô , "make clear, show,") is also used in 12:27 ("indicate"). In both instances our author uses it of what can be "shown" from an Old Testament passage.

What the Spirit has shown us is that "the way into the Most Holy Place had not been disclosed." Even after the rituals performed on the Day of Atonement, the curtain would remain, separating the inner and outer rooms. No one would be permitted to enter. A year later, more sacrifices would be offered, yet the curtain would still remain. Nothing permanent was accomplished.

This was true "so long as the first tabernacle was still standing." Here, "first tabernacle" translates the identical phrase (tçs prôtçs skçnçs ) translated "outer room" in v. 6. In verses 6-7, however, it was clear that our writer was describing the two different rooms inside of the old tabernacle ("outer" and "inner"). It is difficult to see how the phrase could carry the same meaning in the present context, however - the destruction of only the outer room would not remove the curtain which separated the Holy and Most Holy Places, even less affect any real change in our ability to enter God's presence. Here the phrase is best taken as the NIV renders it, as the earthly representation of the "true" tabernacle in heaven (8:1-2; 9:1). This is a sign argument: the need for and the continuation of both the tabernacle (and later the temple) and its ritual are proof that these are not enough to enable us to approach God.

9:9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 9:10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings - external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

Rather than providing a solution for our need, it served as "an illustration for the present time." "This" refers to "tabernacle" (v. 8) and we read that it is a parabovlh (parabolç , "comparison." Our writer also uses this word in 11:19 to describe the "figurative" sense in which Abraham received Isaac back from the dead and the sense of "type" or "figure" seems to best describe our writer's method here as well. Elsewhere in the New Testament, the term is used (with one exception) only in the Gospels of the parables told by Jesus. The term itself is used quite broadly, taking in a wide variety of comparative sayings - narrative parables, allegories, similitudes, types, symbols, proverbs, riddles and various figures of speech.

The phrase "for the present time" translates a perfect participle which is somewhat ambiguous (KJV, "the time then present"). The NIV, RSV ("for the present age") and NASB ("for the present time") all represent a rendering more natural to the syntax of the sentence.

How the phrase is rendered may make little difference, however, for the point indicated remains clear. The "gifts and sacrifices" (see comments on 5:1) offered under the old covenant were "not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper." The word translated "clear" is teleiovw (teleioô ), usually translated "perfect." Its significance here must be understood in light of the key role the term plays throughout the letter (see comments on 6:1; 7:11, 19, 28). Most recently, in chapter seven, our writer elaborated upon how neither the Levitical priesthood nor the Law could make anything perfect, how the perfection of Jesus in his role as priest makes possible the perfection of believers, and the subsequent difference this makes in our ability to "draw near to God" (7:19). Here we see that the real barrier to our access to God has never been "external" (v. 10) but internal ("conscience," v. 9). The use of suneivdhsi" (syneidçsis , "moral consciousness") anticipates 9:14 (where we read that the blood of Christ can accomplish precisely what the old gifts and sacrifices could not) but here the word functions opposite "external." Its use with teleioô indicates that it is not merely the removal of our subjective feelings of guilt which enables our access to God, but the removal of that guilt which is an objective state, incurred by our sin ("acts that lead to death," cf. 9:14; Rom 6:23). Our "justification," made possible by the cross, can also set us free from the burden of guilty feelings. But, as we will read, it is the change in our standing before God accomplished by Jesus' sacrifice which enables us to draw near to God. This is the "new order" (diorqwvsi" , diorthôsis , "improvement," "reformation") ushered in by the cross.

C. JESUS' SACRIFICE CLEANSES OUR CONSCIENCE (9:11-14)

¹¹ When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, ^a he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. ¹² He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. ¹³ The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. ¹⁴ How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, ^b so that we may serve the living God!

^a 11 Some early manuscripts are to come ^b 14 Or from useless rituals

Now that our author has described that which is an "illustration for the present time" (9:9) - the tabernacle and rituals of the first covenant (9:1) - he now proceeds, in that light, to describe the superiority of Jesus' blood sacrifice. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to three major accomplishments of the shed blood of Christ: (1) the cleansing of our conscience (vv. 11-14), (2) the inauguration of the new covenant (vv. 15-22), and (3) our complete purification from sin (vv. 23-28).

9:11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

The KJV, RSV and NASB all begin with a conjunction - "But" - which is present in the Greek text but not translated by the NIV. What happened "when Christ came as high priest," then, is compared to what the other priests and high priests did "when everything had been arranged" in the earthly tabernacle (9:6).

It is difficult to say whether our writer refers to "good things that are already here" (NIV, cf. RSV "that have come") or to "good things to come" (KJV, NASB) since these different translations reflect a variant in the Greek text for which the manuscript evidence is not clear. Metzger defends the choice of that reading which is rendered by the NIV and RSV on the basis of (1) the age and diversity of the manuscripts which support it and (2) the likelihood that the variant rendered by the KJV and NASB was a copyist error influenced by the appearance of the same phrase in 10:1. Just what the "good things" are is not clear but most probably this is a general reference to the superior accomplishments of the new covenant.

Jesus, too, entered the Most Holy Place through a tabernacle, but his was "not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation." Ceiropoivhto" (cheiropoiçtos ) is a compound word (ceivr , cheir , "hand" and poievw , poieô , "make" hence, "made with hands," KJV, RSV, NASB) which echoes 8:2 ("not [set up] by man") just as ktivsew" (ktiseôs , "creation") echoes 9:1 (kosmikov" , kosmikos , "earthly"). Earlier we read that Jesus was "a great high priest who has gone through the heavens" where "the throne of grace" is (4:14, 16) and who "sat down at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven" (8:1). This is where he "serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle" (8:2) and thus it is in this sense that his tabernacle is "greater" (9:11). It is also "more perfect," a phrase which applies to the true tabernacle the same term so prominent in our writer's description of the believer's perfection (in a salvific sense) and the perfection of Jesus himself in his vocation as our high priest. The perfect high priest serves in a perfect tabernacle to make perfect those who believe in him.

The use of the title "Christ" may be more than a stylistic variation here since it appears more frequently in this chapter than in any other and is the exclusive manner of referring to Jesus in this chapter. Throughout, the Messianic expectation was an important dimension of our writer's exposition of Psalm 110:4 (see notes on 7:1-3, especially 7:2) and it may be that our writer considers the Messianic title most appropriate for his explanation of the role which Christ's death played in putting the new covenant into effect.

9:12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

Following his description of the true and heavenly tabernacle, our writer turns to Christ's means of entry. On the Day of Atonement, before the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place where God himself appeared in the cloud over the atonement cover, he had to offer two sacrifices: a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering (Lev 16:3). The bull was sacrificed to make atonement for the high priest and his household (Lev 16:6). Two goats were taken from the Israelite community (Lev 16:5). Lots were cast to choose one to be offered as a sin offering for the people (Lev 16:15) while the other was also used for making atonement in a different way - by being sent into the desert as a scapegoat (Lev 16:10). Hebrews says nothing about the scapegoat but the focus of our writer here is upon the use to which the blood was put. The blood of the bull, and then later that of the goat, were both to be taken into the Most Holy Place and sprinkled on and in front of the atonement cover (Lev 16:14). The blood was then to be applied to the tent itself and to the altar (Lev 16:16, 18-19). Even as the high priest entered the Most Holy Place to make atonement for his own sins, he was to enter with burning incense so that its smoke would conceal the atonement cover, lest he die (Lev 16:13). The blood of atonement was the difference between life and death when entering the presence of God.

Under the old covenant, the high priest entered the Most Holy Place "only once a year" (9:7) but Christ enters it "once for all" (9:12). Although it is true that he offered his life for all people (Rom 5:15-19; Heb 9:27), ejfavpax ( ephapax ) denotes "once for all time." The point of our writer is that Christ's single sacrifice was completely sufficient and did not need to be repeated as did those offered by the other priests (9:25-27; 10:11-12). The reason, of course, is that he presented "his own blood" and subsequent verses will explain the significance of the difference.

The RSV suggests that "eternal redemption" followed as a result ("thus securing an eternal redemption") whereas the KJV, NASB and NIV all suggest that it had been obtained previously ("having obtained"). The adverbial participle describes the relationship of "obtaining" to the act of "entering" rather than to the offering of the blood, and its tense (aorist) indicates that it preceded this act. Just as with the high priest on the Day of Atonement, the blood made atonement prior to the entry. Luvtrwsi" (lytrôsis ) means "ransom," "release" or "redeem." In the papyri, this word and its cognates were used of the purchase money for manumitting slaves or for the redemption of property. Our writer uses apolytrôsis in 11:35 to describe the "release" of those Old Testament heroes who were tortured for their faith. However, its use in the immediate context, where the NIV renders it with two terms ("ransom" and "set free," 9:15), is more determinative here. Christ's blood was a ransom price, paid to set us free from sin's guilt - finally and forever.

9:13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.

The thrust of the chapter to this point is now summed up in this lesser to greater argument. Verse 13 actually begins with eij ( ei , "if") which is not translated by the NIV. The "how much more" of v. 14 provides the conclusion and completes the thought.

According to Numbers 19, the ashes of a heifer were to be mixed as needed with the water of cleansing which was applied to those who were unclean for their purification from sin (Num 19:9ff.). People became unclean by what they touched and made anything else they touched unclean as well (Num 19:22). The unclean person was to be sprinkled on the third and seventh days and then washed and bathed for cleansing on the seventh (Num 19:19). It is in this sense that they were cleansed "ceremonially" and "outwardly" (lit., "of the flesh," Heb 9:13).

ΤAgiavzw (hagaizô , "sanctify") is sometimes translated "make holy" in the NIV and is usually reserved for what could only be accomplished by the sacrifice of the blood of Jesus (in which "purify" could also be an acceptable translation). Only here in Hebrews is it used in reference to the sacrifices of the old covenant and, for the sake of his lesser to greater argument, our writer admits that such rituals were effective for their intended purpose (outward and cermonial purity).

9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

But "how much more" was accomplished by the blood of Christ! His sacrifice was able to do what the others could not (9:9) - "cleanse our consciences." Kaqarivzw (katharizô ) is capable of a stronger translation, "purge" (KJV), but the object of the verb is the real point of contrast here. The effects of Christ's sacrifice were not merely "outward." It removed, in truth and fact, sin's guilt from our lives so that we now live with clean consciences. We no longer have to fear the consequences of "acts that lead to death" (lit., "dead works," see also the comments on 6:1). A footnote in the NIV offers "useless rituals" as an alternative translation but this does not fit the context. It is difficult to explain why one would have needed to be "cleansed from" these. They may have been ineffectual for the plight of the sinner yet created no guilt themselves for they had been commanded by God for their intended purpose.

What Jesus offered for our cleansing was "himself unblemished." "Amwmo" (amômos ) is the same word used in the LXX to describe "the absence of defects in sacrificial animals" (Num 6:14; 19:2; etc.; see also Lev 22:19ff. where the defects which make a sacrifice unacceptable are described). It is used nowhere else in Hebrews but Peter uses it in the same sense that our writer does here when he refers to "the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect" (1 Pet 1:19). Of course, the "unblemished" character of Jesus' sacrifice is of even greater significance since he was the only one who could have ever presented himself as an acceptable sacrifice. We know that he was without sin (4:15) while no other human has ever been (Rom 3:23) yet "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21).

D. JESUS' DEATH INAUGURATES THE NEW COVENANT (9:15-22)

¹⁵ For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

¹⁶ In the case of a will, ^a it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, ¹⁷ because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. ¹⁸ This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. ¹⁹ When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. ²⁰ He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." ^{b 21} In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. ²² In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

^a 16 Same Greek word as covenant ; also in verse 17 ^b 20 Exodus 24:8

9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

We now read about the second of the three major accomplishments of the shed blood of Christ: the inauguration of the new covenant (vv. 15-22). Some suggest that "for this reason" may look backwards, i.e., grounding Christ's mediatorship in the thrust of vv. 11-14 - the ability of his shed blood to cleanse our conscience. There is no reason to protest this as a matter of fact, but the syntax of the sentence suggests that the phrase probably anticipates what will follow, since the phrase "that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance" is a clause of purpose rather than result.

On Christ as the mediator of the new covenant, see comments on 8:6. The remainder of the verse describes what we can receive under the new covenant, why we are able to receive it, and who is able to receive it.

Within the new covenant we "receive the promised eternal inheritance." As we have noted, inheritance terminology is frequent in Hebrews . It last appeared in 6:17 as part of the forensic/legal terminology employed in our writer's description of the encouragement offered to believers by God's oath. Here, it anticipates the legal analogy of vv. 16-18, employed to demonstrate the necessity of Jesus' death for inaugurating the new covenant. Since the inheritance is described here as "eternal," the eschatological dimension of the believer's hope is probably more pronounced here than elsewhere (see comments on 6:17). In Hebrews, promise terminology is also prominent and encompasses the full scope of God's redemptive plan which began with his promises to Abraham as well as their typological, soteriological and eschatological significance for believers (see comments on "what is promised" in 8:6).

We are able to receive our promised eternal inheritance because Jesus "has died as a ransom" so that we might be "set free" from sin. The KJV ("by means of death") and the RSV, NASB ("since a death has occurred/taken place") offer slightly different readings of the adverbial participle (the former interprets it as modal, the latter as causal). The NIV offers the least interpretive rendering, indicating only the antecedent time relationship suggested by the aorist tense of the participle ("now that he has died"). There seems to be little difference between the modal and causal senses in the context, however, for it is clear from the preceding discussion that men can now receive what they formerly could not, and the difference is the death of Christ. Though our writer uses the word "death" rather than "blood" as in 9:12, the word here rendered "ransom" and "set free" by the NIV (ajpoluvtrwsin , apolytrôsin ) is a cognate of the same word rendered "redemption" (lytrôsin ) in that verse and the idea is the same (see comments on 9:12 for a discussion of these words).

Finally, this verse indicates that Christ's death makes it possible for the entire community of faith, old and new, to receive this inheritance. Those whose sins were "committed under the first covenant" were set free not by the sacrifices and gifts of that covenant but only by the sacrifice of Jesus. Yet the inheritance can also yet be received by "those who are called" - the NIV employs the present tense to stress the abiding dimension of the Greek perfect tense which describes a past action continuing into the present.

9:16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it,

We have read that Christ's death makes it possible for us to receive the promised eternal inheritance. Now we read why his death was necessary to make it possible. For proof of the absolute necessity of Christ's death to inaugurate the new covenant, our writer first advances a parallel case argument and then returns to the Old Testament type for scriptural authority.

It is quite natural that the new covenant should be compared to a "will," since the word elsewhere translated "covenant" (diaqhvkh , diathçkç , as recently as 9:15) was also the word used of a will (as it is translated here) in legal contexts. It can mean "last will and testament," "ordinance," "decree," "compact" or "contract." In Hebrews it is used exclusively of God's redemptive covenants with men and an extensive discussion of its key role in the letter can be read in the comments on 8:6. The only exception is the present case in which it is nevertheless used to introduce an analogy to explain the relationship between the death of Christ and the new covenant.

9:17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.

In addition to diathçkç , the parallel case employs other terms frequent in legal contexts (bebaivo" , bebaios , "in force" - see 6:16 comments - and ijscuvw , ischyô , "take effect"). The central point of the comparison is still clear in the light of practices in our own day. A person might prepare and sign a legally binding will which names benefactors and assigns an inheritance. Unless changed, it is a promise which will be enforced by law. Until the testator dies, however, it remains no more than a promise for the future. Only the death of the testator changes the promised inheritance into a legal possession. Until then the will is only a piece of paper. Only then is it "put into force."

9:18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

To supplement the analogy of vv. 16-17, our writer turns to the example provided by the first covenant and the tabernacle which has been expounded as a type of Christ's ministry as high priest. Whereas he employed the term "death" in vv. 15-16, he now returns to the term "blood" introduced in v. 12. The rituals commanded for consecration of the tabernacle used the blood of the sacrifices and a cleansing power is accorded to blood (v. 22).

9:19 When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 9:20 He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."

Exodus 24 records the inauguration of the first covenant. When "Moses went and told the people all the Lord's words and laws" which had been told to him on Mt. Sinai, they agreed to do everything the Lord had said (v. 3). Burnt offerings were made and young bulls were sacrificed as fellowship offerings (v. 5). Moses then read the Book of the Covenant to the people and when they again pledged their obedience, Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people. Exodus makes no mention of the use of water or hyssop mentioned here or of Moses sprinkling the scroll. The silence does not prohibit the possibility, however, and there is thus no reason to question the accuracy of our writer's description. In Numbers 19 we read that the blood used for cleansing was mixed with water and hyssop and so this may well have been the customary practice.

9:21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Some suggest that the Old Testament does not refer to the sprinkling of blood upon all the things mentioned by our writer in v. 21. However, "in the same way" must anticipate an event which took place at a later time since the tabernacle did not yet exist when the events of Exodus 24 transpired. When the tabernacle was set up, the tabernacle and everything in it was anointed with oil (Exod 40:6). Yet the Lord also commanded Moses to "consecrate it and all its furnishings and it will be holy" (Exod 440:9). Earlier, when the priests were consecrated, both blood and anointing oil were sprinkled upon them (Exod 429:21) and it is reasonable to assume that the rituals would have been similar.

The Exod 2quote contained in verse 20 was echoed by the words of Jesus in the Gospels ("This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins," Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). The precise significance of the genitive ("of") here is suggested by the context. Ellingworth suggests that is not merely "the blood associated with the covenant" but "the blood which seals" (TEV), "constitutes, or establishes the covenant, by virtue of the life poured out in sacrifice." As to the relationship between blood, covenant and forgiveness suggested by Jesus himself, our writer describes it in a climactic expression: "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." ΤAimatekcusiva ( haimatekchysia ) is a compound word (ai|ma , haima , "blood" and ejkcuvnnw , ekchynnô , "to pour out") which may have been coined by our writer to express "the surpassing potency of blood . . . for dealing with defilement." Lane suggest that the term a[fesi" ( aphesis ), used alternatively with kaqarivzw (katharizô , "cleanse," v. 22a and then again in v. 23, "purified"), "signals a definitive putting away of defilement or a decisive purgation" and "is a comprehensive term covering both the 'subjective' and 'objective' benefits of Christ's blood."

E. JESUS' SACRIFICE WAS ONCE AND FOR ALL (9:23-28)

²³ It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. ²⁴ For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. ²⁵ Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. ²⁶ Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. ²⁷ Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, ²⁸ so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

9:23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

The word ou ( oun , "then") is capable of being translated "therefore" (KJV, NASB) and serves to continue the parallel case begun in vv. 16ff., yet it also marks the transition from the other case (will) and the older example (old testament) to the new and present covenant. Once again, the tabernacle and its tools are described as "copies" (uJpovdeigma , hypodeigma ) of what is in heaven (cf. 8:5). As before, it is an appropriate metaphor for describing his typological exegesis. The word translated "purified" (kaqarivzw , katharizô ) is the same word translated "cleanse" in both v. 14 and v. 22. The repetition of the verbs makes the parallel more obvious in the Greek text. The better hope (7:7) offered by the better covenant (7:22; 8:6) looks forward to receiving better promises (8:6) because it was inaugurated by a better sacrifice (9:23).

9:24 For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.

Our writer now proceeds to delineate those differences which distinguish Christ's sacrifice as better. Christ did not enter the "man-made sanctuary" (cheiropoiçtos , as in v. 11, cf. also 8:2), the "copy" (here ajntivtupo" , antitypos , "antitype, representation"), but the "true one" which is nothing less than heaven itself. Even as Solomon prayed for the temple he built, he had said, "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!" (1 Kgs 8:27). No building could ever contain the presence of God and so there will be no more vain attempts. Christ is now in heaven itself, in the very presence of God.

9:25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.

Christ is not forced to leave and return again for he is able to remain in God's presence. The difference is in the blood. Each former priest had entered with blood "not his own," a description which echoes the statement of v. 12 that Christ "entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood" and anticipates the statement in v. 26 that "he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself."

9:26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

This is the climactic statement of the chapter. Its argument proceeds from contrary condition and turns on two contrasts: "many times" vs. "once" and "since the creation of the world" vs. "at the end of the ages." If Christ's single sacrifice were not sufficient for atonement, he would have had to do exactly what the other, earthly priests had always done. But it was not required for him to do so. Thus his single sacrifice must have been sufficient.

Bruce suggests that the phrase "end of the ages" should be understood in the sense of "time of fulfilment." It is true that Christ first came when "the time had fully come" for him to be sent (Gal 4:4) and the verb form of the word translated "end" (suntevleia [ synteleia ], verb suntelevw [synteleô ]) can also mean "fulfill." Alternatively, aijwvn can simply mean "a very long time" and could be taken as referring to that period of time during which the old covenant was in effect. Christ put an end to it but lived through the end of it. Yet another possibility is that the phrase is similar in meaning to the nearly identical phrase used by Jesus in his parables about the weeds (Matt 13:39-40) and the net (Matt 13:49), in the Olivet discourse (Matt 24:3) and in the Great Commission (Matt 28:20) - all of which are usually understood in an eschatological sense. In this case, the phrase would reflect (1) the reference to Christ's second appearing in v. 28 and (2) an understanding on the part of the author that the "time" of Christ's coming encompasses both his first and second appearings as well as the interim period.

=Aqevthsi" (athetçsis , "do away with") is a forceful term which appears in the technical legal formula of the papyri, meaning to "annul" or "cancel." The cancellation of sin's debt (our death, Rom 6:23) by the ransom paid (Christ's death) is both forceful and final.

9:27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 9:28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

The "just as . . . so" construction suggests how incomprehensible it is that Christ would have ever suffered as the previous verse theorized. What is true for other men was also the case for Christ - like other men, he was "destined to die once." But this was enough to "take away the sins of many people." The complete sacrifice makes possible a complete salvation. Not only does our salvation reach into our past for the forgiveness of our sins; its consummation lies ahead in our future. He will not then need to bear sin, however. The sacrifice of his first appearing was sufficient for that purpose.

This verse contains both a promise and a warning. As Christians, we say "maranatha!" ("Come, Lord Jesus!" Rev 22:20) for we desire to be with him. Yet it is a matter of utmost importance that, in an age when people rarely expect to be held accountable for how they live their lives, two truths are yet certain. All men die. And all men will face judgment. On that day, only one decision will matter - whether we have embraced the Christ who sacrificed himself for our sins and our salvation.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Hebrews

By Way of Introduction

Unsettled Problems

Probably no book in the New Testament presents more unsettled problems than does the Epistle to the Hebrews. On that score it ranks with the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse of John, and Second Peter. But, in spite of these unsolved matters, the book takes high rank for its intellectual grasp, spiritual power, and its masterful portrayal of Christ as High Priest. It is much briefer than the Fourth Gospel, but in a sense it carries on further the exalted picture of the Risen Christ as the King-Priest who reigns and pleads for us now.

The Picture of Christ

At once we are challenged by the bold stand taken by the author concerning the Person of Christ as superior to the prophets of the Old Testament because he is the Son of God through whom God has spoken in the new dispensation (Heb_1:1-3), this Son who is God’s Agent in the work of creation and of grace as we see it stated in Phi_2:5-11; Col_1:13-20; John 1:1-18. This high doctrine of Jesus as God’s Son with the glory and stamp of God’s nature is never lowered, for as God’s Son he is superior to angels (Heb 1:4-2:4), though the humanity of Jesus is recognized as one proof of the glory of Jesus (Heb_2:5-18). Jesus is shown to be superior to Moses as God’s Son over God’s house (Heb 3:1-4:13), But the chief portion of the Epistle is devoted to the superiority of Jesus Christ as priest to the work of Aaron and the whole Levitical line (Heb 4:14-12:3). Here the author with consummate skill, though with rabbinical refinements at times, shows that Jesus is like Melchizedek and so superior to Aaron (Heb 4:14-7:28), works under a better covenant of grace (Heb_8:1-13), works in a better sanctuary which is in heaven (Heb_9:1-12), offers a better sacrifice which is his own blood (Heb 9:13-10:18), and gives us better promises for the fulfilment of his task (Heb 10:19-12:3). Hence this Epistle deserves to be called the Epistle of the Priesthood of Christ. So W. P. Du Bose calls his exposition of the book, High Priesthood and Sacrifice (1908). This conception of Christ as our Priest who offered himself on the Cross and as our Advocate with the Father runs all through the New Testament (Mar_10:46; Mat_20:28; Joh_10:17; Mat_26:28; Rom_8:32; 1Pe_1:18.; 1Jo_2:1.; Rev_5:9, etc.). But it is in Hebrews that we have the full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as our Priest and Redeemer. The Glory of Jesus runs through the whole book.

The Style

It is called an epistle and so it is, but of a peculiar kind. In fact, as has been said, it begins like a treatise, proceeds like a sermon, and concludes like a letter. It is, in fact, more like a literary composition than any other New Testament book as Deissmann shows: " It points to the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its more definitely artistic, more literary language (corresponding to its more theological subject matter), constituted an epoch in the history of the new religion. Christianity is beginning to lay hands on the instruments of culture; the literary and theological period has begun" ( Light from the Ancient East , pp. 70f.). But Blass ( Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa , 1905) argues that the author of Hebrews certainly and Paul probably were students of Greek oratory and rhetoric. He is clearly wrong about Paul and probably so about the author of Hebrews. There is in Hebrews more of " a studied rhetorical periodicity" (Thayer), but with many " parenthetical involutions" (Westcott) and with less of " the impetuous eloquence of Paul." The eleventh chapter reveals a studied style and as a whole the Epistle belongs to the literary Koiné rather than to the vernacular. Moulton ( Cambridge Biblical Essays , p. 483) thinks that the author did not know Hebrew but follows the Septuagint throughout in his abundant use of the Old Testament.

The Author

Origen bluntly wrote: " Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul’s while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in Heb_11:32 ( me diēgoumenon ) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply Pros Hebraious as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

The Recipients

If the title is allowed to be genuine or a fair interpretation of the Epistle, then it is addressed to Jewish (Hebrew) Christians in a local church somewhere. Dr. James Moffatt in his Commentary (pp. xv to xvii) challenges the title and insists that the book is written for Gentile Christians as truly as First Peter. He argues this largely from the author’s use of the lxx. For myself Dr. Moffatt’s reasons are not convincing. The traditional view that the author is addressing Jewish Christians in a definite locality, whether a large church or a small household church, is true, I believe. The author seems clearly to refer to a definite church in the experiences alluded to in Heb_10:32-34. The church in Jerusalem had undergone sufferings like these, but we really do not know where the church was. Apparently the author is in Italy when he writes (Heb_13:24), though " they of Italy" ( hoi apo tēs Italias ) can mean those who have come from Italy. These Jewish Christians may even have lived in Rome itself.

The Date

Here again modern scholars differ widely. Westcott places it between a.d. 64 and 67. Harnack and Holtzmann prefer a date between a.d. 81 and 96. Marcus Dods argues strongly that the Epistle was written while the temple was still standing. If it was already destroyed, it is hard to understand how the author could have written Heb_10:1.: " Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in Heb_8:13 " nigh to vanishing away" ( eggus aphanismou ) is only intelligible with the temple service still going on. The author makes use of the tabernacle instead of the temple because the temple was patterned after the tabernacle. On the other hand, the mention of Timothy in Heb_13:23 as being " set free" ( apolelumenon ) raises an inquiry concerning Paul’s last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (2Ti_4:11-13). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Nero’s own death (June 8, a.d. 68), there is left only the years 67 to 69 a.d. as probable or even possible. It is thus the last of the New Testament books before the Johannine Writings all of which come towards the close of the century and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Purpose

The author states it repeatedly. He urges the Jewish Christians to hold fast the confession which they have made in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour. Their Jewish neighbours have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism. The Judaizers tried to make Jews out of Gentile Christians and to fasten Judaism upon Christianity with a purely sacramental type of religion as the result. Paul won freedom for evangelical and spiritual Christianity against the Judaizers as shown in the Corinthian Epistles, Galatians, and Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion tried to dilute Christianity with their philosophy and esoteric mysteries and here again Paul won his fight for the supremacy of Christ over all these imaginary aeons (Colossians and Ephesians). But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy) in truth from the living God. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. The author turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God’s Son and man’s Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed. Moffatt terms it " a profound homily."

JFB: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP.--CLEMENT OF ROME, at the end of the first century (A.D), copiously uses it, adopting its words just as he does those of the other books of the New Testament; not indeed giving to either the term "Scripture," which he reserves for the Old Testament (the canon of the New Testament not yet having been formally established), but certainly not ranking it below the other New Testament acknowledged Epistles. As our Epistle claims authority on the part of the writer, CLEMENT'S adoption of extracts from it is virtually sanctioning its authority, and this in the apostolic age. JUSTIN MARTYR quotes it as divinely authoritative, to establish the titles "apostle," as well as "angel," as applied to the Son of God. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA refers it expressly to Paul, on the authority of Pantænus, chief of the Catechetical school in Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, saying, that as Jesus is termed in it the "apostle" sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through humility, does not in it call himself apostle of the Hebrews, being apostle to the Gentiles. CLEMENT also says that Paul, as the Hebrews were prejudiced against him, prudently omitted to put forward his name in the beginning; also, that it was originally written in Hebrew for the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, whence the style is similar to that of Acts. He, however, quotes frequently the words of the existing Greek Epistle as Paul's words. ORIGEN similarly quotes it as Paul's Epistle. However, in his Homilies, he regards the style as distinct from that of Paul, and as "more Grecian," but the thoughts as the apostle's; adding that the "ancients who have handed down the tradition of its Pauline authorship, must have had good reason for doing so, though God alone knows the certainty who was the actual writer" (that is, probably "transcriber" of the apostle's thoughts). In the African Church, in the beginning of the third century, TERTULLIAN ascribes it to Barnabas. IRENÆUS, bishop of Lyons, is mentioned in EUSEBIUS, as quoting from this Epistle, though without expressly referring it to Paul. About the same period, Caius, the presbyter, in the Church of Rome, mentions only thirteen Epistles of Paul, whereas, if the Epistle to the Hebrews were included, there would be fourteen. So the canon fragment of the end of the second century, or beginning of the third, published by MURATORI, apparently omits mentioning it. And so the Latin Church did not recognize it as Paul's till a considerable time after the beginning of the third century. Thus, also, NOVATIAN OF ROME, CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, and VICTORINUS, also of the Latin Church. But in the fourth century, HILARY OF POITIERS (A.D. 368), LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI (A.D. 371), AMBROSE OF MILAN (A.D. 397) and other Latins, quote it as Paul's; and the fifth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) formally reckons it among his fourteen Epistles.

As to the similarity of its style to that of Luke's writings, this is due to his having been so long the companion of Paul. CHRYSOSTOM, comparing Luke and Mark, says, "Each imitated his teacher: Luke imitated Paul flowing along with more than river fulness; but Mark imitated Peter, who studied brevity of style." Besides, there is a greater predominance of Jewish feeling and familiarity with the peculiarities of the Jewish schools apparent in this Epistle than in Luke's writings. There is no clear evidence for attributing the authorship to him, or to Apollos, whom ALFORD upholds as the author. The grounds alleged for the latter view are its supposed Alexandrian phraseology and modes of thought. But these are such as any Palestinian Jew might have used; and Paul, from his Hebræo-Hellenistic education at Jerusalem and Tarsus, would be familiar with PHILO'S modes of thought, which are not, as some think, necessarily all derived from his Alexandrian, but also from his Jewish, education. It would be unlikely that the Alexandrian Church should have so undoubtingly asserted the Pauline authorship, if Apollos, their own countryman, had really been the author. The eloquence of its style and rhetoric, a characteristic of Apollos' at Corinth, whereas Paul there spoke in words unadorned by man's wisdom, are doubtless designedly adapted to the minds of those whom Paul in this Epistle addresses. To the Greek Corinthians, who were in danger of idolizing human eloquence and wisdom, he writes in an unadorned style, in order to fix their attention more wholly on the Gospel itself. But the Hebrews were in no such danger. And his Hebræo-Grecian education would enable him to write in a style attractive to the Hebrews at Alexandria, where Greek philosophy had been blended with Judaism. The Septuagint translation framed at Alexandria had formed a connecting link between the latter and the former; and it is remarkable that all the quotations from the Old Testament, excepting two (Heb 10:30; Heb 13:5), are taken from the Septuagint. The fact that the peculiarities of the Septuagint are interwoven into the argument proves that the Greek Epistle is an original, not a translation; had the original been Hebrew, the quotations would have been from the Hebrew Old Testament. The same conclusion follows from the plays on similarly sounding words in the Greek, and alliterations, and rhythmically constructed periods. CALVIN observes, If the Epistle had been written in Hebrew, Heb 9:15-17 would lose all its point, which consists in the play upon the double meaning of the Greek "diathece," a "covenant," or a "testament," whereas the Hebrew "berith" means only "covenant."

Internal evidence favors the Pauline authorship. Thus the topic so fully handled in this Epistle, that Christianity is superior to Judaism, inasmuch as the reality exceeds the type which gives place to it, is a favorite one with Paul (compare 2Co 3:6-18; Gal 3:23-25; Gal 4:1-9, Gal 4:21-31, wherein the allegorical mode of interpretation appears in its divinely sanctioned application--a mode pushed to an unwarrantable excess in the Alexandrian school). So the Divine Son appears in Heb 1:3, &c., as in other Epistles of Paul (Phi 2:6; Col 1:15-20), as the Image, or manifestation of the Deity. His lowering of Himself for man's sake similarly, compare Heb 2:9, with 2Co 8:9; Phi 2:7-8. Also His final exaltation, compare Heb 2:8; Heb 10:13; Heb 12:2, with 1Co 15:25, 1Co 15:27. The word "Mediator" is peculiar to Paul alone, compare Heb 8:6, with Gal 3:19-20. Christ's death is represented as the sacrifice for sin prefigured by the Jewish sacrifices, compare Rom 3:22-26; 1Co 5:7, with Heb. 7:1-10:39. The phrase, "God of Peace," is peculiar to Paul, compare Heb 13:20; Rom 15:33; 1Th 5:23. Also, compare Heb 2:4, Margin, 1Co 12:4. Justification, or "righteousness by faith." appears in Heb 11:7; Heb 10:38, as in Rom 1:17; Rom 4:22; Rom 5:1; Gal 3:11; Phi 3:9. The word of God is the "sword of the Spirit," compare Heb 4:12, with Eph 6:17. Inexperienced Christians are children needing milk, that is, instruction in the elements, whereas riper Christians, as full-grown men, require strong meat, compare Heb 5:12-13; Heb 6:1, with 1Co 3:1-2; 1Co 14:20 Gal 4:9; Col 3:14. Salvation is represented as a boldness of access to God by Christ, compare Heb 10:19, with Rom 5:2; Eph 2:18; Eph 3:12. Afflictions are a fight, Heb 10:32; compare Phi 1:30; Col 2:1. The Christian life is a race, Heb 12:1; compare 1Co 9:24; Phi 3:12-14. The Jewish ritual is a service, Rom 9:4; compare Heb 9:1, Heb 9:6. Compare "subject to bondage," Heb 2:15, with Gal 5:1. Other characteristics of Paul's style appear in this Epistle; namely, a propensity "to go off at a word" and enter on a long parenthesis suggested by that word, a fondness for play upon words of similar sound, and a disposition to repeat some favorite word. Frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and quotations linked by "and again," compare Heb 1:5; Heb 2:12-13, with Rom 15:9-12. Also quotations in a peculiar application, compare Heb 2:8, with 1Co 15:27; Eph 1:22. Also the same passage quoted in a form not agreeing with the Septuagint, and with the addition "saith the Lord," not found in the Hebrew, in Heb 10:30; Rom 12:19.

The supposed Alexandrian (which are rather Philon-like) characteristics of the Epistle are probably due to the fact that the Hebrews were generally then imbued with the Alexandrian modes of thought of Philo, &c., and Paul, without coloring or altering Gospel truth "to the Jews, became (in style) as a Jew, that he might win the Jews" (1Co 9:20). This will account for its being recognized as Paul's Epistle in the Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches unanimously, to the Hebrews of whom probably it was addressed. Not one Greek father ascribes the Epistle to any but Paul, whereas in the Western and Latin churches, which it did not reach for some time, it was for long doubted, owing to its anonymous form, and generally less distinctively Pauline style. Their reason for not accepting it as Paul's, or indeed as canonical, for the first three centuries, was negative, insufficient evidence for it, not positive evidence against it. The positive evidence is generally for its Pauline origin. In the Latin churches, owing to their distance from the churches to whom belonged the Hebrews addressed, there was no generally received tradition on the subject. The Epistle was in fact but little known at all, whence we find it is not mentioned at all in the Canon of Muratori. When at last, in the fourth century, the Latins found that it was received as Pauline and canonical on good grounds in the Greek churches, they universally acknowledged it as such.

The personal notices all favor its Pauline authorship, namely, his intention to visit those addressed, shortly, along with Timothy, styled "our brother," Heb 13:23; his being then in prison, Heb 13:19; his formerly having been imprisoned in Palestine, according to English Version reading, Heb 10:34; the salutations transmitted to them from believers of Italy, Heb 13:24. A reason for not prefixing the name may be the rhetorical character of the Epistle which led the author to waive the usual form of epistolary address.

DESIGN.--His aim is to show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, in that it was introduced by one far higher than the angels or Moses, through whom the Jews received the law, and in that its priesthood and sacrifices are far less perfecting as to salvation than those of Christ; that He is the substance of which the former are but the shadow, and that the type necessarily gives place to the antitype; and that now we no longer are kept at a comparative distance as under the law, but have freedom of access through the opened veil, that is, Christ's flesh; hence he warns them of the danger of apostasy, to which Jewish converts were tempted, when they saw Christians persecuted, while Judaism was tolerated by the Roman authorities. He infers the obligations to a life of faith, of which, even in the less perfect Old Testament dispensation, the Jewish history contained bright examples. He concludes in the usual Pauline mode, with practical exhortations and pious prayers for them.

HIS MODE OF ADDRESS is in it hortatory rather than commanding, just as we might have expected from Paul addressing the Jews. He does not write to the rulers of the Jewish Christians, for in fact there was no exclusively Jewish Church; and his Epistle, though primarily addressed to the Palestinian Jews, was intended to include the Hebrews of all adjoining churches. He inculcates obedience and respect in relation to their rulers (Heb 13:7, Heb 13:17, Heb 13:24); a tacit obviating of the objection that he was by writing this Epistle interfering with the prerogative of Peter the apostle of the circumcision, and James the bishop of Jerusalem. Hence arises his gentle and delicate mode of dealing with them (Heb 13:22). So far from being surprised at discrepancy of style between an Epistle to Hebrews and Epistles to Gentile Christians, it is just what we should expect. The Holy Spirit guided him to choose means best suited to the nature of the ends aimed at. WORDSWORTH notices a peculiar Pauline Greek construction, Rom 12:9, literally, "Let your love be without dissimulation, ye abhorring . . . evil, cleaving to . . . good," which is found nowhere else save Heb 13:5, literally, "Let your conversation be without covetousness, ye being content with," &c. (a noun singular feminine nominative absolute, suddenly passing into a participle masculine nominative plural absolute). So in quoting Old Testament Scripture, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes it as a Jew writing to Jews would, "God spoke to our fathers," not, "it is written." So Heb 13:18, "We trust we have a good conscience" is an altogether Pauline sentiment (Act 23:1; Act 24:16; 2Co 1:12; 2Co 4:2; 2Ti 1:3). Though he has not prefixed his name, he has given at the close his universal token to identify him, namely, his apostolic salutation, "Grace be with you all"; this "salutation with his own hand" he declared (2Th 3:17-18) to be "his token in every Epistle": so 1Co 16:21, 1Co 16:23; Col 4:18. The same prayer of greeting closes every one of his Epistles, and is not found in any one of the Epistles of the other apostles written in Paul's lifetime; but it is found in the last book of the New Testament Revelation, and subsequently in the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This proves that, by whomsoever the body of the Epistle was committed to writing (whether a mere amanuensis writing by dictation, or a companion of Paul by the Spirit's gift of interpreting tongues, 1Co 12:10, transfusing Paul's Spirit-taught sentiments into his own Spirit-guided diction), Paul at the close sets his seal to the whole as really his, and sanctioned by him as such. The churches of the East, and Jerusalem, their center, to which quarter it was first sent, received it as Paul's from the earliest times according to Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 349). JEROME, though bringing with him from Rome the prejudices of the Latins against the Epistle to the Hebrews, aggravated, doubtless, by its seeming sanction of the Novatian heresy (Heb 6:4-6), was constrained by the force of facts to receive it as Paul's, on the almost unanimous testimony of all Greek Christians from the earliest times; and was probably the main instrument in correcting the past error of Rome in rejecting it. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church is peculiarly valuable, for it was founded by Mark, who was with Paul at Rome in his first confinement, when this Epistle seems to have been written (Col 4:10), and who possibly was the bearer of this Epistle, at the same time visiting Colosse on the way to Jerusalem (where Mark's mother lived), and thence to Alexandria. Moreover, 2Pe 3:15-16, written shortly before Peter's death, and like his first Epistle written by him, "the apostle of the circumcision," to the "Hebrew" Christians dispersed in the East, says, "As our beloved brother Paul hath written unto you" (2Pe 3:15), that is, to the Hebrews; also the words added, "As also in all his Epistles" (2Pe 3:16), distinguish the Epistle to the Hebrews from the rest; then he further speaks of it as on a level with "other Scriptures," thus asserting at once its Pauline authorship and divine inspiration. An interesting illustration of the power of Christian faith and love; Peter, who had been openly rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:7-14), fully adopted what Paul wrote; there was no difference in the Gospel of the apostle of the circumcision and that of the apostle of the uncircumcision. It strikingly shows God's sovereignty that He chose as the instrument to confirm the Hebrews, Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 11:13); and on the other hand, Peter to open the Gospel door to the Gentiles (Act 10:1, &c.), though being the apostle of the Jews; thus perfect unity reigns amidst the diversity of agencies.

Rome, in the person of CLEMENT OF ROME, originally received this Epistle. Then followed a period in which it ceased to be received by the Roman churches. Then, in the fourth century, Rome retracted her error. A plain proof she is not unchangeable or infallible. As far as Rome is concerned, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not only lost for three centuries, but never would have been recovered at all but for the Eastern churches; it is therefore a happy thing for Christendom that Rome is not the Catholic Church.

It plainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which would have been mentioned in the Epistle had that event gone before, compare Heb 13:10; and probably to churches in which the Jewish members were the more numerous, as those in Judea, and perhaps Alexandria. In the latter city were the greatest number of resident Jews next to Jerusalem. In Leontopolis, in Egypt, was another temple, with the arrangements of which, WIESELER thinks the notices in this Epistle more nearly corresponded than with those in Jerusalem. It was from Alexandria that the Epistle appears first to have come to the knowledge of Christendom. Moreover, "the Epistle to the Alexandrians," mentioned in the Canon of Muratori, may possibly be this Epistle to the Hebrews. He addresses the Jews as peculiarly "the people of God" (Heb 2:17; Heb 4:9; Heb 13:12), "the seed of Abraham," that is, as the primary stock on which Gentile believers are grafted, to which Rom 11:16-24 corresponds; but he urges them to come out of the carnal earthly Jerusalem and to realize their spiritual union to "the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb 12:18-23; Heb 13:13).

The use of Greek rather than Hebrew is doubtless due to the Epistle being intended, not merely for the Hebrew, but for the Hellenistic Jew converts, not only in Palestine, but elsewhere; a view confirmed by the use of the Septuagint. BENGEL thinks, probably (compare 2Pe 3:15-16, explained above), the Jews primarily, though not exclusively, addressed, were those who had left Jerusalem on account of the war and were settled in Asia Minor.

The notion of its having been originally in Hebrew arose probably from its Hebrew tone, method, and topics. It is reckoned among the Epistles, not at first generally acknowledged, along with James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation. A beautiful link exists between these Epistles and the universally acknowledged Epistles. Hebrews unites the ordinances of Leviticus with their antitypical Gospel fulfilment. James is the link between the highest doctrines of Christianity and the universal law of moral duty--a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount--harmonizing the decalogue law of Moses, and the revelation to Job and Elias, with the Christian law of liberty. Second Peter links the teaching of Peter with that of Paul. Jude links the earliest unwritten to the latest written Revelation. The two shorter Epistles to John, like Philemon, apply Christianity to the minute details of the Christian life, showing that Christianity can sanctify all earthly relations.

JFB: Hebrews (Outline)

• THE HIGHEST OF ALL REVELATIONS IS GIVEN US NOW IN THE SON OF GOD, WHO IS GREATER THAN THE ANGELS, AND WHO, HAVING COMPLETED REDEMPTION, SITS ENTHRONED AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND. (Heb 1:1-14)
• DANGER OF NEGLECTING SO GREAT SALVATION, FIRST SPOKEN BY CHRIST; TO WHOM, NOT TO ANGELS, THE NEW DISPENSATION WAS SUBJECTED; THOUGH HE WAS FOR A TIME HUMBLED BELOW THE ANGELS: THIS HUMILIATION TOOK PLACE BY DIVINE NECESSITY FOR OUR SALVATION. (Heb. 2:1-18)
• THE SON OF GOD GREATER THAN MOSES, WHEREFORE UNBELIEF TOWARDS HIM WILL INCUR A HEAVIER PUNISHMENT THAN BEFELL UNBELIEVING ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS. (Heb. 3:1-19)
• THE PROMISE OF GOD'S REST IS FULLY REALIZED THROUGH CHRIST: LET US STRIVE TO OBTAIN IT BY HIM, OUR SYMPATHIZING HIGH PRIEST. (Heb. 4:1-16)
• CHRIST'S HIGH PRIESTHOOD; NEEDED QUALIFICATIONS; MUST BE A MAN; MUST NOT HAVE ASSUMED THE DIGNITY HIMSELF, BUT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY GOD; THEIR LOW SPIRITUAL PERCEPTIONS A BAR TO PAUL'S SAYING ALL HE MIGHT ON CHRIST'S MELCHISEDEC-LIKE PRIESTHOOD. (Heb 5:1-14)
• WARNING AGAINST RETROGRADING, WHICH SOON LEADS TO APOSTASY; ENCOURAGEMENT TO STEADFASTNESS FROM GOD'S FAITHFULNESS TO HIS WORD AND OATH. (Heb 6:1-14)
• CHRIST'S HIGH PRIESTHOOD AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC SUPERIOR TO AARON'S. (Heb. 7:1-28)
• CHRIST, THE HIGH PRIEST IN THE TRUE SANCTUARY, SUPERSEDING THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD; THE NEW RENDERS OBSOLETE THE OLD COVENANT. (Heb 8:1-13)
• INFERIORITY OF THE OLD TO THE NEW COVENANT IN THE MEANS OF ACCESS TO GOD: THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND GOATS OF NO REAL AVAIL: THE BLOOD OF CHRIST ALL-SUFFICIENT TO PURGE AWAY SIN, WHENCE FLOWS OUR HOPE OF HIS APPEARING AGAIN FOR OUR PERFECT SALVATION. (Heb. 9:1-28)
• PROOF OF AND ENLARGEMENT ON, THE "ETERNAL REDEMPTION" MENTIONED IN. Heb 9:12 (Heb. 9:13-28)
• CONCLUSION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT. THE YEARLY RECURRING LAW SACRIFICES CANNOT PERFECT THE WORSHIPPER, BUT CHRIST'S ONCE-FOR-ALL OFFERING CAN. (Heb. 10:1-39) Previously the oneness of Christ's offering was shown; now is shown its perfection as contrasted with the law sacrifices.
• DEFINITION OF THE FAITH JUST SPOKEN OF (Heb 10:39): EXAMPLES FROM THE OLD COVENANT FOR OUR PERSEVERANCE IN FAITH. (Heb. 11:1-40) Description of the great things which faith (in its widest sense: not here restricted to faith in the Gospel sense) does for us. Not a full definition of faith in its whole nature, but a description of its great characteristics in relation to the subject of Paul's exhortation here, namely, to perseverance.
• EXHORTATION TO FOLLOW THE WITNESSES OF FAITH JUST MENTIONED: NOT TO FAINT IN TRIALS: TO REMOVE ALL BITTER ROOTS OF SIN: FOR WE ARE UNDER, NOT A LAW OF TERROR, BUT THE GOSPEL OF GRACE, TO DESPISE WHICH WILL BRING THE HEAVIER PENALTIES, IN PROPORTION TO OUR GREATER PRIVILEGES. (Heb. 12:1-29)
• EXHORTATION TO VARIOUS GRACES, ESPECIALLY CONSTANCY IN FAITH, FOLLOWING JESUS AMIDST REPROACHES. CONCLUSION, WITH PIECES OF INTELLIGENCE AND SALUTATIONS. (Heb. 13:1-25)

TSK: Hebrews 9 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Heb 9:1, The description of the rites and bloody sacrifices of the law; Heb 9:11, which are far inferior to the dignity and perfection of the blood and sacrifice of Christ.

Poole: Hebrews 9 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 9

MHCC: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

This epistle shows Christ as the end, foundation, body, and truth of the figures of the law, which of themselves were no virtue for the soul. The great truth set forth in this epistle is that Jesus of Nazareth is the true God. The unconverted Jews used many arguments to draw their converted brethren from the Christian faith. They represented the law of Moses as superior to the Christian dispensation, and spoke against every thing connected with the Saviour. The apostle, therefore, shows the superiority of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Son of God, and the benefits from his sufferings and death as the sacrifice for sin, so that the Christian religion is much more excellent and perfect than that of Moses. And the principal design seems to be, to bring the converted Hebrews forward in the knowledge of the gospel, and thus to establish them in the Christian faith, and to prevent their turning from it, against which they are earnestly warned. But while it contains many things suitable to the Hebrews of early times, it also contains many which can never cease to interest the church of God; for the knowledge of Jesus Christ is the very marrow and kernel of all the Scriptures. The ceremonial law is full of Christ, and all the gospel is full of Christ; the blessed lines of both Testaments meet in Him; and how they both agree and sweetly unite in Jesus Christ, is the chief object of the epistle to the Hebrews to discover.

MHCC: Hebrews 9 (Chapter Introduction)

(Heb 9:1-5) The Jewish tabernacle and its utensils.

(Heb 9:6-10) Their use and meaning.

(Heb 9:11-22) These fulfilled in Christ.

(Heb 9:23-28) The necessity, superior dignity, and power of his priesthood and sacrifice.

Matthew Henry: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Epistle to the Hebrews

Concerning this epistle we must enquire, I. Into the divine authority of it; for this has been questioned by some, whose distempered eyes could not bear the light of it, or whose errors have been confuted by it; such as the Arians, who deny the Godhead and self-existence of Christ; and the Socinians, who deny his satisfaction; but, after all the attempts of such men to disparage this epistle, the divine original of it shines forth with such strong and unclouded rays that he who runs may read it is an eminent part of the canon of scripture. The divinity of the matter, the sublimity of the style, the excellency of the design, the harmony of this with other parts of scripture, and its general reception in the church of God in all ages - these are the evidences of its divine authority. II. As to the divine amanuensis or penman of this epistle, we are not so certain; it does not bear the name of any in the front of it, as the rest of the epistles do, and there has been some dispute among the learned to whom they should ascribe it. Some have assigned it to Clemens of Rome; other to Luke; and many to Barnabas, thinking that the style and manner of expression is very agreeable to the zealous, authoritative, affectionate temper that Barnabas appears to be of, in the account we have of him in the acts of the Apostles; and one ancient father quotes an expression out of this epistle as the words of Barnabas. But it is generally assigned to the apostle Paul; and some later copies and translations have put Paul's name in the title. In the primitive times it was generally ascribed to him, and the style and scope of it very well agree with his spirit, who was a person of a clear head and a warm heart, whose main end and endeavour it was to exalt Christ. Some think that the apostle Peter refers to this epistle, and proves Paul to be the penman of it, by telling the Hebrews, to whom he wrote, of Paul's having written to them, 2Pe 3:15. We read of no other epistle that he ever wrote to them but this. And though it has been objected that, since Paul put his name to all his other epistles, he would not have omitted it here; yet others have well answered that he, being the apostle of the Gentiles, who were odious to the Jews, might think fit to conceal his name, lest their prejudices against him might hinder them from reading and weighing it as they ought to do. III. As to the scope and design of this epistle, it is very evident that it was clearly to inform the minds, and strongly to confirm the judgment, of the Hebrews in the transcendent excellency of the gospel above the law, and so to take them off from the ceremonies of the law, to which they were so wedded, of which they were so fond, that they even doted on them, and those of them who were Christians retained too much of the old leaven, and needed to be purged from it. The design of this epistle was to persuade and press the believing Hebrews to a constant adherence to the Christian faith, and perseverance in it, notwithstanding all the sufferings they might meet with in so doing. In order to this, the apostle speaks much of the excellency of the author of the gospel, the glorious Jesus, whose honour he advances, and whom he justly prefers before all others, showing him to be all in all, and this in lofty strains of holy rhetoric. It must be acknowledged that there are many things in this epistle hard to be understood, but the sweetness we shall find therein will make us abundant amends for all the pains we take to understand it. And indeed, if we compare all the epistles of the New Testament, we shall not find any of them more replenished with divine, heavenly matter than this to the Hebrews.

Matthew Henry: Hebrews 9 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle, having declared the Old Testament dispensation antiquated and vanishing away, proceeds to let the Hebrews see the correspondence there was between the Old Testament and the New; and that whatever was excellent in the Old was typical and representative of the New, which therefore must as far excel the Old as the substance does the shadow. The Old Testament was never intended to be rested in, but to prepare for the institutions of the gospel. And here he treats, I. Of the tabernacle, the place of worship (Heb 9:1-5). II. Of the worship and services performed in the tabernacle (Heb 9:6, Heb 9:7). III. He delivers the spiritual sense and the main design of all (Heb 9:8 to the end).

Barclay: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS

God Fulfils Himself In Many Ways

Religion has never been the same thing to all men. "God," as Tennyson said, "fulfils himself in many ways." George Russell said: "There are as many ways of climbing to the stars as there are people to climb." There is a well-known saying which tells us very truly and very beautifully that "God has his own secret stairway into every heart." Broadly speaking, there have been four great conceptions of religion.

(i) To some men it is inward fellowship with God. It is a union with Christ so close and so intimate that the Christian can be said to live in Christ and Christ to live in him. That was Paulconception of religion. To him it was something which mystically united him with God.

(ii) To some religion is what gives a man a standard for life and a power to reach that standard. On the whole that is what religion was to James and to Peter. It was something which showed them what life ought to be and which enabled them to attain it.

(iii) To some men religion is the highest satisfaction of their minds. Their minds seek and seek until they find that they can rest in God. It was Plato who said that "the unexamined life is the life not worth living." There are some men who must understand or perish. On the whole that is what religion was to John. The first chapter of his gospel is one of the greatest attempts in the world to state religion in a way that really satisfies the mind.

(iv) To some men religion is access to God. It is that which removes the barriers and opens the door to his living presence. That is what religion was to the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews. With that idea his mind was dominated. He found in Christ the one person who could take him into the very presence of God. His whole idea of religion is summed up in the great passage in Heb_10:19-23 .

"Therefore, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith."

If the writer to the Hebrews had one text it was: "Let us draw near."

The Double Background

The writer to the Hebrews had a double background into both of which this idea came. He had a Greek background. Ever since the time of Plato, five hundred years before, the Greeks had been haunted by the contrast between the real and the unreal, the seen and the unseen, the temporal and the eternal. It was the Greek idea that somewhere there was a real world of which this was only a shadowy and imperfect copy. Plato had the idea that somewhere there was a world of perfect forms or ideas or patterns, of which everything in this world was an imperfect copy. To take a simple instance, somewhere there was laid up the pattern of a perfect chair of which all the chairs in this world were inadequate copies. Plato said: "The Creator of the world had designed and carried out his work according to an unchangeable and eternal pattern of which the world is but a copy." Philo, who took his ideas from Plato, said: "God knew from the beginning that a fair copy could never come into being apart from a fair pattern; and that none of the objects perceivable by sense could be flawless which was not modelled after an archetype and spiritual idea, and thus, when he prepared to create this visible world, he shaped beforehand the ideal world in order to constitute the corporeal after the incorporeal and godlike pattern." When Cicero was talking of the laws men know and use on earth, he said: "We have no real and life-like likeness of real law and genuine justice; all we enjoy is a shadow and a sketch."

The thinkers of the ancient world all had this idea that somewhere there is a real world of which this one is only a kind of imperfect copy. Here we can only guess and grope; here we can work only with copies and imperfect things. But in the unseen world there are the real and perfect things. When Newman died they erected a statue to him, and on the pedestal of it are the Latin words: Ab umbris et imaginibus ad veritatem, "Away from the shadows and the semblances to the truth." If that be so, clearly the great task of this life is to get away from the shadows and the imperfections and to reach reality. This is exactly what the writer to the Hebrews claims that Jesus Christ can enable us to do. To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been trying to get from the shadows to the truth. That is just what Jesus Christ can enable you to do."

The Hebrew Background

But the writer to the Hebrews also had a Jewish background. To the Jew it was always dangerous to come too near to God. "Man," said God to Moses, "shall not see me and live" (Exo_33:20 ). It was Jacobastonished exclamation at Peniel: "I have seen god face to face and yet my life is preserved" (Gen_32:30 ). When Manoah realised who his visitor had been, he said in terror to his wife: "We shall surely die, for we have seen God." The great day of Jewish worship was the Day of Atonement. That was the one day of all the year when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies where the very presence of God was held to dwell. No man ever entered in except the High Priest, and he only on that day. When he did, the law laid it down that he must not linger in the Holy Place for long "lest he put Israel in terror." It was dangerous to enter the presence of God and if a man waited too long he might be struck dead.

In view of this there entered into Jewish thought the idea of a covenant. God, in his grace and in a way that was quite unmerited, approached the nation of Israel and offered them a special relationship with himself. But this unique access to God was conditional on the observance by the people of the law that he gave to them. We can see this relationship being entered into and this law being accepted in the dramatic scene in Exo_24:3-8 .

So then Israel had access to God, but only if she kept the law. To break the law was sin, and sin put up a barrier which stopped the way to God. It was to take away that barrier that the system of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices was constructed. The law was given; man sinned; the barrier was up; the sacrifice was made; and the sacrifice was designed to open the closed way to God. But the experience of life was that this was precisely what sacrifice could not do. It was proof of the ineffectiveness of the whole system that sacrifice had to go on and on and on. It was a losing and ineffective battle to remove the barrier that sin had erected between man and God.

The Perfect Priest And The Perfect Sacrifice

What men needed was a perfect priest and a perfect sacrifice, someone who was such that he could bring to God a sacrifice which once and for all opened the way of access to him. That, said the writer to the Hebrews, is exactly what Christ did. He is the perfect priest because he is at once perfectly man and perfectly God. In his manhood he can take man to God and in his Godhead he can take God to man. He has no sin. The perfect sacrifice he brings is the sacrifice of himself, a sacrifice so perfect that it never needs to be made again. To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been looking for the perfect priest who can bring the perfect sacrifice and give you access to God. You have him in Jesus Christ and in him alone."

To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for the way from the shadows to reality; you will find it in Jesus Christ." To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for that perfect sacrifice which will open the way to God which your sins have closed; you will find it in Jesus Christ." Jesus was the one person who gave access to reality and access to God. That is the key-thought of this letter.

The Riddle Of The New Testament

So much is clear but when we turn to the other questions of introduction Hebrews is wrapped in mystery. E. F. Scott wrote: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is in many respects the riddle of the New Testament." When it was written, to whom it was written, and who wrote it are questions at which we can only guess. The very history of the letter shows how its mystery is to be treated with a certain reserve and suspicion. It was a long time before it became an unquestioned New Testament book. The first list of New Testament books, The Muratorian Canon, compiled about A.D. 170, does not mention it at all. The great Alexandrian scholars. Clement and Origen, knew it and loved it but agreed that its place as scripture was disputed. Of the great African fathers, Cyprian never mentions it and Tertullian knows that its place was disputed. Eusebius, the great Church historian, says that it ranked among the disputed books. It was not until the time of Athanasius, in the middle of the fourth century, that Hebrews was definitely accepted as a New Testament book, and even Luther was not too sure about it. It is strange to think how long this great book had to wait for full recognition.

When Was It Written?

The only information we have comes from the letter itself. Clearly it is written for what we might call second generation Christians (Heb_2:3 ). The story was transmitted to its recipients by those who had heard the Lord. The community to whom it was written were not new to the Christian faith; they ought to have been mature (Heb_5:12 ). They must have had a long history for they are summoned to look back on the former days (Heb_10:32 ). They had a great history behind them and heroic martyr figures on which they ought to look back for inspiration (Heb_13:7 ).

The thing that will help us most in dating the letter is its references to persecution. It is clear that at one time their leaders had died for their faith (Heb_13:7 ). It is clear that they themselves had not yet suffered persecution, for they had not yet resisted to the point of shedding their blood (Heb_12:4 ). It is also clear that they have had ill-treatment to suffer for they have had to undergo the pillaging of their goods (Heb_10:32-34 ). And it is clear from the outlook of the letter that there is a risk of persecution about to come. From all that it is safe to say that this letter must have been written between two persecutions, in days when Christians were not actually persecuted, but were none the less unpopular with their fellow-men. Now the first persecution was in the time of Nero in the year A.D. 64; and the next was in the time of Domitian about A.D. 85. Somewhere between these dates this letter was written, more likely nearer to Domitian. If we take the date as A.D. 80 we shall not be far wrong.

To Whom Was It Written?

Once again we have to be dependent on such hints as we get from the letter itself. One thing is certain--it cannot have been written to any of the great Churches or the name of the place could not have so completely vanished. Let us set down what we know. The letter was written to a long-established Church (Heb_5:12 ). It was written to a Church which had at some time in the past suffered persecution (Heb_10:32-34 ). It was written to a Church which had had great days and great teachers and leaders (Heb_13:7 ). It was written to a Church which had not been directly founded by the apostles (Heb_2:3 ). It was written to a Church which had been marked by generosity and liberality (Heb_6:10 ).

We do have one direct hint. Amongst the closing greetings we find the sentence, as the Revised Standard Version translates it: "Those who come from Italy send you greetings" (Heb_13:24 ). Taken by itself that phrase could mean either that the letter was written from Italy or that it was written to Italy, the greater likelihood is that it was written to Italy. Suppose I am in Glasgow and am writing to some place abroad. I would not be likely to say, "All the people from Glasgow greet you." I would be much more likely to say, "All the people in Glasgow greet you." But suppose I am somewhere abroad where there is a little colony of Glaswegians, I might well say, "All the people from Glasgow send you their greetings." So then we may say that the letter was written to Italy; and if it was written to Italy it was almost certainly written to Rome.

But quite certainly it was not written to the Church at Rome as a whole. If it had been it would never have lost its title. Furthermore, it gives the unmistakable impression that it was written to a small body of like-minded persons. Moreover, it was obviously written to a scholarly group. From Heb_5:12 we can see that they had long been under instruction and were preparing themselves to become teachers of the Christian faith. Still further, Hebrews demands such a knowledge of the Old Testament that it must always have been a book written by a scholar for scholars.

When we sum it all up, we can say that Hebrews is a letter written by a great teacher to a little group or college of Christians in Rome. He was their teacher; at the moment he was separated from them and was afraid that they were drifting away from the faith; and so he wrote this letter to them. It is not so much a letter as a talk. It does not begin like Paulletters do, although it ends with greetings as a letter does. The writer himself calls it "a word of exhortation."

By Whom Was It Written?

Perhaps the most insoluble problem of all is the problem of its authorship. It was precisely that uncertainty which kept it so long on the fringes of the New Testament. The title in the earliest days was simply, "To the Hebrews." No authorname was given, no one connected it directly with the name of Paul. Clement of Alexandria used to think that Paul might have written it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it, for the style is quite different from that of Paul. Origen made a famous remark, "who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews only God knows for certain." Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Jerome said the Latin Church did not receive it as Pauland speaking of the author said, "the writer to the Hebrews whoever he was." Augustine felt the same way about it. Luther declared that Paul could never have written it because the thought was not his. Calvin said that he could not bring himself to think that this letter was a letter of Paul.

At no time in the history of the Church did men ever really think that Paul wrote Hebrews. How then did it get attached to his name? It happened very simply. When the New Testament came into its final form there was of course argument about which books were to be included and which were not. To settle it one test was used. Was a book the work of an apostle or at least the work of one who had been in direct contact with the apostles? By this time Hebrews was known and loved throughout the Church. Most people felt like Origen that God alone knew who wrote it, but they wanted it. They felt it must go into the New Testament and the only way to ensure that was to include it with the thirteen letters of Paul. Hebrews won its way into the New Testament on the grounds of its own greatness, but to get in it had to be included with the letters of Paul and come under his name. People knew quite well that it was not Paulbut they included it among his letters because no man knew who wrote it and yet it must go in.

The Author Of Hebrews

Can we guess who the author was? Many candidates have been put forward. We can only glance at three of the many suggestions.

(i) Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Barnabas was a native of Cyprus; the people of Cyprus were famous for the excellence of the Greek they spoke; and Hebrews is written in the best Greek in the New Testament. He was a Levite (Act_4:36 ) and of all men in the New Testament he would have had the closest knowledge of the priestly and sacrificial system on which the whole thought of the letter is based. He is called a son of encouragement; the Greek word is paraklesis (G3874); and Hebrews calls itself a word of paraklesis (G3874) (Heb_13:22 ). He was one of the few men acceptable to both Jews and Greeks and at home in both worlds of thought. It might be that Barnabas wrote this letter, but if so it is strange that his name should vanish in connection with it.

(ii) Luther was sure that Apollos was the author. Apollos, according to the New Testament mention of him, was a Jew, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures (Act_18:24 ; 1Co_1:12 ; 1Co_3:4 ). The man who wrote this letter knew the scriptures; he was eloquent; and he thought and argued in the way that a cultured Alexandrian would. The man who wrote Hebrews was certainly a man like Apollos in thought and in background.

(iii) The most romantic of all conjectures is that of Harnack, the great German scholar. He thought that maybe Aquila and Priscilla wrote it between them. Aquila was a teacher (Act_18:26 ). Their house in Rome was a Church in itself (Rom_16:5 ). Harnack thought that that is why the letter begins with no greetings and why the writername has vanished--because the main author of Hebrews was a woman and a woman was not allowed to teach.

But when we come to the end of conjecture, we are compelled to say as Origen said seventeen hundred years ago, that only God knows who wrote Hebrews. To us the author must remain a voice and nothing more; but we can be thankful to God for the work of this great nameless one who wrote with incomparable skill and beauty about the Jesus who is the way to reality and the way to God.

FURTHER READING

Hebrews

J. Moffatt, Hebrews (ICC; G)

W. Neil, Hebrews (Tch: E)

J. H. Robinson, Hebrews (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Hebrews 9 (Chapter Introduction)

The Glory Of The Tabernacle (Heb_9:1-5)

The Only Entry To The Presence Of God (Heb_9:6-10)

The Sacrifice Which Opens The Way To God (Heb_9:11-14)

The Only Way In Which Sins Can Be Forgiven (Heb_9:15-22)

The Perfect Purification (Heb_9:23-28)

Constable: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical background

The writer said that he and those to whom he wrote had come to faith in Jesus Christ through the preaching of others who had heard Jesus (2:3-4). Apparently those preachers had since died (13:7). The original readers had been Christians for an extended period of time (5:12). So probably the earliest possible date of composition was about A.D. 60.

Some scholars believe that the book must have been written before A.D. 70 since the writer spoke of the sacrifices as being offered when he wrote (7:27-28; 8:3-5; 9:7-8, 25; 10:1-3, 8; 13:10-11). However, the writer showed no interest in the temple but spoke of the sacrifices as the Israelites offered them when the tabernacle stood. He evidently used the present tense to give these reference a timeless quality rather than indicating that temple worship was still in practice. Nevertheless a date of composition before A.D. 70 seems probable.¹

"The best argument for the supersession of the old covenant would have been the destruction of the Temple."²

The reference to Timothy's release from imprisonment (13:23) appears to date the book later in the life of that outstanding man.³ No other New Testament writer mentioned his imprisonment. The imprisonment of Christians seems to have been a well-known fact of life (10:34; 13:3). This was true after Nero launched an empire-wide persecution in A.D. 64. All of these factors when taken together seem to point to a writing date near A.D. 68-69.

As to authorship, most students of this subject are not dogmatic or even certain for good reason.⁴ As early as Origen, the Alexandrian church father who died about A.D. 255, no one knew who the writer was for sure. After careful study of the authorship of Hebrews, Origen wrote, "But who it was that really wrote the epistle, God only knows."⁵

"The language of the Epistle is both in vocabulary and style purer and more vigorous than that of any other book of the New Testament.

". . . The vocabulary is singularly copious. It includes a large number of words which are not found elsewhere in the apostolic writings, very many of which occur in this book only among the Greek Scriptures . . ."⁶

"All that can be said with certainty is that Hebrews was composed by a creative theologian who was well trained in the exposition of the Greek Scriptures. . . . He was surely a hellenistic Jewish-Christian."⁷

Commentators have made cases for the writer being Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, Luke, Peter, Jude, Stephen, Silvanus (Silas), Epaphras (Epaphroditus), Philip the Evangelist, Priscilla, Mary the mother of Jesus, Clement of Rome, Aristion, and others.⁸ None of these suggestions has found enthusiastic general reception for various reasons. Probably we should be content to share Origen's agnosticism on this question and look forward to getting the answer in heaven.⁹

The early Christians originally accepted all the New Testament books as inspired by God because they contained apostolic teaching. For this reason the writer was probably either an apostle or a close associate of at least one of the apostles (cf. 13:23).

The original recipients of the epistle are also unknown. The title "The Epistle to the Hebrews" implies that they were Jewish Christians. This title is ancient and is probably a safe guide to the identity of the first readers. References in the epistle also suggest that the original readers were mainly Jewish. The writer assumed that they were very familiar with the institutions of Judaism. The warnings against turning away from Jesus Christ back to the Old Covenant also imply this identity. Other indications are the emphasis on the superior priesthood of Jesus and the many appeals to the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. However the brand of Judaism in view seems to have been Hellenistic rather than Palestinian.

The reference to the generosity of the readers and their helping other believers (6:10) suggests that the original audience did not live in Palestine. The Palestinian churches had a reputation for needing material assistance rather than for giving it to other Christians (cf. Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:3). Probably they were Jews of the Diaspora therefore. This conclusion has support in the writer's consistent use of the Septuagint Old Testament version. Hellenistic Jews used this translation widely, but Palestinian Jews did not use it as much.¹⁰

In most of the New Testament churches there was a mixture of Jewish and Gentile believers. The appeal of this epistle would certainly have been great to Gentiles tempted to return to paganism as it would have been to Jews facing temptation to return to Judaism. However the writer's primary concern appears to have been that his Jewish readers were failing to appreciate that Christianity is the divinely revealed successor to Judaism. He did not want them to abandon Christianity and return to Judaism.

Probably the letter originally went to a house-church outside Palestine that had a strong Hellenistic Jewish population. This church may have been in or near Galatia in view of conditions that existed there that the Epistle to the Galatians reflects. However they may very well have lived in another area. Many scholars believe that the letter went first to a church in or near Rome.¹¹

In view of 13:24b it has seemed to some scholars that the writer was in Italy when he sent this epistle, perhaps in Rome. However the expression "from Italy" in that verse probably refers to those living outside Italy, such as Priscilla and Aquilla who were Jews forced to leave Rome by Emperor Claudius' edict in A.D. 49 (Acts 18:2).¹² This expression suggests that the writer was not in Italy when he wrote.

Purpose

Many students of the book have observed that Hebrews is more of a sermon in written form than an epistle in the traditional New Testament sense.¹³ The writer even described it as a "word of exhortation" (13:22). He urged the original readers to persevere in their faith rather than turning from Christianity and returning to Judaism. A note of urgency and pastoral concern permeates the whole letter. This tone comes through especially strongly in the five warning passages and in the encouragements that follow these warnings.

". . . the purpose of the writer to the Hebrews is not to give us an interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. . . . Using material not from the prophets but primarily from the Psalms, with other materials added to elaborate the argument, the writer's goal was to establish the superiority of the gospel in contrast to all that went before, particularly the levitical system. The primary evidence of the supremacy of Christianity is presented in its finality. Coming to Christ means final access to God without any barrier."¹⁴

". . . Hebrews is a sermon rooted in actual life. It is addressed to a local gathering of men and women who discovered that they could be penetrated by adverse circumstances over which they exercised no control. It throbs with an awareness of the privilege and the cost of discipleship. It is a sensitive pastoral response to the sagging faith of older and tired individuals who were in danger of relinquishing their Christian commitment. It seeks to strengthen them in the face of a new crisis so that they may stand firm in their faith. It warns them of the judgment of God they would incur if they were to waver in their commitment. Exhortations to covenant fidelity and perseverance are grounded in a fresh understanding of the significance of Jesus and his sacrifice."¹⁵

Message¹⁶

We could summarize the message of this epistle in the following words. We will only realize our full eternal reward as believers if we appreciate the greatness of Jesus Christ and continue to trust God rather than turning away from Him in this life.

The ultimate goal that the writer had in view was our full eternal reward as believers. I do not believe it was the conversion of the unsaved members of his audience. He addressed his readers consistently as believers. He wrote to encourage Christians to persevere faithfully so we will receive all that God wants to give us at the judgment seat of Christ. Our rewards are at issue in this letter. He did not want us to suffer loss but to enter into our full inheritance, our full rest, our full salvation.

To do this he wrote that we must know one thing and do two things, one positive and one negative.

We must know the greatness of Jesus Christ. In this epistle the writer presented Him as the greatest revelation that God has given mankind. God's revelation in His Son is superior to all other revelations He has given in three respects.

1. It supersedes all other revelations: God's revelation through angels (the Mosaic Law), His revelation through humans (the prophets), and His revelation through rituals (the Old Covenant). When Jesus Christ came to reveal God, He brought revelation that superseded what had preceded Him.

2. God's revelation in His Son is sufficient to meet every basic human need. God spoke through His Son, so the need for a prophet (a revealer of God) no longer exists. He established a new Covenant, so the need for a priest (a mediator for man) no longer exists. Moreover He exalted His Son to His right hand, so the need for a king (a righteous ruler) no longer exists.

3. God's revelation in His Son insures final victory in every basic sphere. The individual (the human order) attains perfection through the Son. Society (the social order) will experience perfection through the Son. The universe (the cosmic order) will reach perfection through the Son.

This is what we need to know objectively to do subjectively what is necessary to gain our full reward as believers.

What we must do is continue to trust God. Hebrews places great emphasis on the importance of living by faith. It teaches us three things about faith.

1. Hebrews defines faith. Faith is volitional surrender and obedience to God regardless of appearances. It is not just intellectual conviction. It is the action of the will that expresses intellectual conviction. This epistle regards unbelief as disobedience as does all of Scripture. People in the past who lived by faith made decisions and acted because they believed God in spite of appearances (ch. 11).

2. Hebrews also illustrates faith. It describes faith as doing, as suffering, and as waiting. These are the primary activities of faith that the writer of Hebrews emphasized. They are progressively more difficult. It is harder to suffer persecution for our faith than it is to obey God when obedience does not involve suffering. It is most difficult to keep on trusting God when suffering does not end. Waiting for God to fulfill His promises is hardest of all when our hopes do not materialize (e.g., Christ's return).

3. In addition, Hebrews vindicates faith. It assures us of the ultimate triumph of faith. People in the past who acted in faith achieved. People who suffered for their faith triumphed. People who waited in faith received their reward.

On the positive side we need to continue to trust God to realize our full reward as believers.

What we must not do is turn away from God. This is the negative responsibility that the letter also stresses. If we apostatize, we will lose our full reward. Hebrews teaches us three things about apostasy (as it does about faith).

1. This epistle defines apostasy descriptively. It is the opposite of faith. It consists of disobedience because of appearances (e.g., the 10 spies; cf. Jude). Apostasy for a Christian is turning away from faith having previously embraced faith. An apostate, however, can be a believer or an unbeliever.

2. Hebrews also illustrates apostasy in the same three ways it illustrates faith. Apostasy acts. It involves a deliberate turning away. It also suffers, not now but in the future because of what the apostate loses. It also waits, even though it lives for the present rather than for the future.

3. Likewise Hebrews condemns apostasy. It assures us of the ultimate tragedy of apostasy. Apostates may achieve what they want in the present, namely success, but they lose what is far more valuable in the future. They may avoid suffering now, but later they will be sorry. They may not want to wait for their reward now, but they will wait forever for it later and never get it.

This is the central message of the epistle. We will only realize our full eternal reward as believers if we appreciate the greatness of Jesus Christ and continue to trust God rather than turning away from Him.

The writer urged his readers to persevere in faith by using two appeals, one negative and one positive.

The first appeal is negative: the warnings. There are five warning passages in Hebrews. Each one warns of the danger of apostasy from a different angle.

1. The first passage (2:1-4) warns of the danger of drifting away from the truth (2:1). It pictures a ship dragging its anchor. The tides of our age can draw us away from our moorings. We need to keep on standing firm in faith (cf. Col. 1:23).

2. The second passage (3:7-19) warns of the danger of disbelief (3:12). Disbelief results in heart hardening (3:13). We need to keep on believing rather than ceasing to believe (cf. Luke 17:3).

3. The third passage (5:11-6:12) warns of the danger of immaturity (5:12). When we do not put truth into practice, we do not just remain in the same spiritual state. We regress. Therefore we need to keep on growing (cf. 2 Pet. 3:18).

4. The fourth passage (10:19-39) warns of the danger of willful sinning (10:26-27). If we abandon confidence in the efficacy of Jesus Christ's sacrifice, there is no other sacrifice that can protect us from God's judgment as believers. We need to keep on submitting to God (cf. Rom. 6:16).

5. The fifth passage (12:14-29) warns of the danger of unresponsiveness (12:25). The message of this letter demands positive response. If we do not respond positively, we will lose part of our reward (12:17). We need to keep on obeying God (cf. Titus 3:8).

The second appeal is positive: the encouragements. Accompanying each of the warning passages is at least one word of encouragement. The writer balanced his negative warnings with positive words of encouragement.

1. The first passage (2:1-4) encourages with a reminder of God's confirming His promises with miracles in the apostolic age (2:3b-4).

2. The second passage (3:7-19) encourages by reminding us of Jesus' example of faithfulness (3:1-6) and our resources as believers (4:12-16).

3. The third passage (5:11-6:12) encourages with a reminder of the readers' past faithfulness (6:9-12) and God's firm promises (6:13-20).

4. The fourth passage (10:19-39) also encourages with a reminder of the readers' past perseverance (10:32-39).

5. The fifth passage (12:14-29) encourages by reminding us of Jesus' example of perseverance (12:1-2) and the divine reason for discipline (12:3-11).

By way of application let me make three observations based on the three major revelations in the epistle.

1. An appreciation for Jesus Christ is foundational to faithful perseverance. The reason many Christians turn away from the Lord is that they do not appreciate His greatness. Preach Christ in your ministry.

2. We need to emphasize the Christian's hope more in our ministries. We live in a present oriented culture that values immediate self-gratification. Many Christians are apostatizing because they do not appreciate the reward they will receive if they remain faithful to the Lord. This life is preparation for the next.

3. We need to realize that God will judge Christians who apostatize. We will not lose our salvation, but we will lose much that we will wish we never gave up if we stop walking by faith.

Outline¹⁷

I. The culminating revelation of God 1:1-2:18

A. The agent of God's final revelation 1:1-4

B. The superiority of the Son 1:5-14

C. The danger of negligence (the first warning) 2:1-4

D. The humiliation and glory of God's Son 2:5-9

E. The Son's solidarity with humanity 2:10-18

II. The high priestly character of the Son 3:1-5:10

A. The faithfulness of the Son 3:1-6

B. The danger of disbelief (the second warning) 3:7-19

C. The possibility of rest for God's people 4:1-14

D. The compassion of the Son 4:15-5:10

III. The high priestly office of the Son 5:11-10:39

A. The danger of immaturity (the third warning) 5:11-6:12

1. The readers' condition 5:11-14

2. The needed remedy 6:1-3

3. The dreadful alternative 6:4-8

4. The encouraging prospect 6:9-12

B. The basis for confidence and steadfastness 6:13-20

C. The Son's high priestly ministry 7:1-10:18

1. The person of our high priest ch. 7

2. The work of our high priest chs. 8-9

3. The accomplishment of our high priest 10:1-18

D. The danger of willful sinning (the fourth warning) 10:19-39

1. The three-fold admonition 10:19-25

2. The warning of judgment 10:26-31

3. The encouragement to persevere 10:32-39

IV. The proper response 11:1-12:13

A. Perseverance in faith ch. 11

1. Faith in the antediluvian era 11:1-7

2. Faith in the patriarchal era 11:8-22

3. Faith in the Mosaic era 11:23-31

4. Faith in subsequent eras 11:32-40

B. Demonstrating necessary endurance 12:1-13

1. The example of Jesus 12:1-3

2. The proper view of trials 12:4-11

3. The need for greater strength 12:12-13

V. Life in a hostile world 12:14-13:25

A. The danger of unresponsiveness (the fifth warning) 12:14-29

1. The goal of peace 12:14-17

2. The superiority of the New Covenant 12:18-24

3. The consequences of apostasy 12:25-29

B. Life within the church ch. 13

1. Pastoral reminders 13:1-21

2. Personal explanations 13:22-25

Constable: Hebrews

Hebrews

Bibliography

Andersen, Ward. "The Believer's Rest (Hebrews 4)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):31-38.

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Hebrews. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1963.

Bateman, Herbert W., IV. "Two First-Century Messianic Uses of the OT: Heb 1:5-13 and 4QFlor 1.1-19." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):11-27.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Author of Hebrews' Use of Melchizedek from the Context of Genesis." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Black, David Alan. "A Note on the Structure of Hebrews 12, 1-2." Biblica 68:4 (1987):543-51.

_____. "The Problem of the Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation and a Proposal." Grace Theological Journal 7:2 (Fall 1986):163-77.

Blaising, Craig A. "The Fulfillment of the Biblical Covenants." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 174-211. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Bligh, John. "The Structure of Hebrews." Heythrop Journal 5 (April 1964):170-77.

Blomberg, Craig L. "Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35:2 (June 1992):159-72.

Bornkamm, Gunther. Early Christian Experience. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

_____. "The Kerygma of Hebrews." Interpretation 23:1 (January 1969):3-19.

Burns, J. Lanier. "A Reemphasis on the Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527 (July-September 1975):242-49.

Casey, J. M. "Eschatology in Heb 12:14-29: An Exegetical Study." Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven, 1977.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48.

Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Okla.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1986.

Cockerill, G. L. The Melchizedek Christology in Heb. 7:1-28. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International, 1979.

Cole, Timothy J. "Enoch, a Man Who Walked with God." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:591 (July-September 1991):288-97.

Colijn, Brenda B. "Let Us Approach': Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):571-86.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

____. "The Substitutionary Death of Christ in Hebrews." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966.

Cosby, M. R. "The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11 in Light of Example-lists in Antiquity." Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 1985.

Cross, Frank M. "The Tabernacle." Biblical Archaeologist 10:3 (September 1947):45-68.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Revised ed. Translated by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.

Custer, Stewart. "The Awfulness of Apostasy (Hebrews 6)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):45-50.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305; 608 (October-December 1995):431-56.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to the," by F. S. Marsh.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to," by A. B. Bruce.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Norton, 1965.

Dunham, Duane A. "An Exegetical Examination of the Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Th.D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1974.

Dunn, J. D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Translated by Christian Frederick Cruse. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1993.

Elliott, J. H. Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

English, E. Schuyler. Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1976.

Estes, Daniel J. "Looking for Abraham's City." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:588 (October-December 1990):399-413.

Fanning, Buist M. "A Theology of Hebrews." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 369-415.

Farrar, F. W. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge: University Press, 1894.

Filson, Floyd V. "Yesterday": A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13. Studies in Biblical Theology 2nd series 4. Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1967.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gleason, Randall C. "The Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7-4:11." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:627 (July-September 2000):281-303.

_____. "The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4-8." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):62-91.

Glenn, Donald R. "Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2: A Case Study in Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 39-51. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Gourgues, M. "Lecture christologique du Psaume CX et fête de la Pentecôte." Revue Biblique 83 (1976):5-24.

Govett, Robert. Entrance into the Kingdom. Reprint ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Conley and Schoettle, 1978.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert G. Stand Bold in Grace. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.

Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):333-40.

Hay, D. M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973.

Hewitt, Thomas. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

Hodges, Zane C. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "Hebrews." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 777-813. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

Horning, Estella B. "Chiasmus, Creedal Structure, and Christology in Hebrews 12:1-2. Biblical Research 23 (1978):37-48.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. "The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):99-109; 519 (July-September 1973):195-212; 520 (October-December 1973):305-14; 131:521 (January-March 1974):26-33.

_____. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. "Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Peril of Apostasy." Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973):137-55.

Hughes, R. Kent. Hebrews: An Anchor for the Soul. 2 vols. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993.

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to the," by T. Rees.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):135-50.

Kendall, R. T. Once Saved, Always Saved. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

_____. Hebrews 9-13. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

Lang, G. H. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Paternoster Press, 1951.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol 11: Galatians--Hebrews, by Otto Schmoller, Karl Braume, C. A. Auberlen, C. J. Riggenbach, J. J. Van Oosterzee, and Carl Bernhard Moll. Translated by C. C. Starbuck, M. B. Riddle, Horatio B. Hackett, John Lillie, E. A. Washburn, E. Harwood, George E. Day, and A. C. Kendrick.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and The Epistle of James. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1976.

_____. The Problem of Pain. 1940. Reprint ed. London: Collins Press, Fontana Books, 1959.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Lovelace, Richard F. Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

_____. Hebrews. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

MacDonald, William. Hebrews from Shadow to Substance. Moody Correspondence Course series. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1962.

Mackay, Cameron. "The Argument of Hebrews." Church Quarterly

Review 168 (1967):325-38.

MacLeod, David J. "The Cleansing of the True Tabernacle." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:605 (January-March 1995):60-63.

_____. "The Doctrinal Center of the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:583 (July-September 1989):291-300.

_____. "The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):185-97.

_____. "The Present Work of Christ in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):184-200.

_____. "The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction, Prolegomena, and Doctrinal Center." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987.

MacRae, G. W. "Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews." Semeia 12 (1978):179-99.

Man, Ronald E. "The Value of Chiasm for New Testament Interpretation." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:562 (April-June 1984):146-57.

Manson, W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951.

Marshall, I. Howard. Kept by the Power of God. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1969.

_____. "New Wine in Old Wine-Skins: V. The Biblical Use of the Word Ekklesia.'" Expository Times 84:12 (1973):359-64.

Master, John R. "The New Covenant." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 93-110. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Mauro, Philip. God's Pilgrims. Revised ed. New York: Gospel Publishing House, n.d.

McCullough, J. C. "The Impossibility of a Second Repentance in Hebrews." Biblical Theology 20 (1974):1-7.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Millar, Merland Ray. "What Is the Literary Form of Hebrews 11?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:4 (December 1986):411-17.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. International Critical Commentary series. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963.

Montefiore, H. W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Black, 1964.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. "Hebrews." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Mugridge, Alan. "Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Reformed Theological Review 46:3 (September-December 1987):74-82.

Neal, Marshall. "The New Covenant (Hebrews 8)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):59-65.

Neighbor, R. E. If They Shall Fall Away. Reprint ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Conley and Schoettle, 1984.

Newell, William R. Hebrews Verse by Verse. Chicago: Moody Press, 1947.

Oberholtzer, Thomas Kem. "The Warning Passages in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):83-97; 578 (April-June 1988):185-96; 579 (July-September 1988):319-28; 580 (October-December 1988):410-19; 146:581 (January-March 1989):67-75.

Parsons, Mikael C. "Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews." Evangelical Quarterly 60:3 (July 1988):195-215.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Apostles' Use of Jesus' Predictions of Judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 134-43. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. A Faith That Endures. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers. 1992.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press, Victor Books, 1990.

Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom. 3 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972.

Peterson, D. G. "An Examination of the Concept of Perfection' in the Epistle to the Hebrews.'" Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester, 1978.

_____. "The Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Argument of Hebrews." Reformed Theological Review 38 (1979):74-81.

Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Reich, Max I. The Glories of Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Moody Correspondence Course series. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1960.

Rhee, Victor (Sung Yul). "Chiasm and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 11." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):327-45.

_____. "Christology and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 5:11-6:20." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):83-96.

Rice, George E. "Apostasy As a Motif and Its Effect on the Structure of Hebrews." Andrews University Seminary Studies 23:1 (Spring 1985):29-35.

Ridout, Samuel. Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 6th ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1943.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Robinson, S. E. "The Apocraphal Story of Melchizedek." Journal for the Study of Judaism 18:1 (June 1987):26-39.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):71-84.

Ross, Robert W. "Hebrews." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1401-27. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Ryken, Leland. The Literature of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Scofield, C. I., ed. The Scofield Reference Bible. New ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1909.

Scott, Brett R. "Jesus' Superiority over Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:618 (April-June 1998):201-10.

Scott, J. Julius, Jr. "Archegos in the Salvation History of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:1 (March 1986):47-54.

Selby, Gary S. "The Meaning and Function of Suneidesis in Hebrews 9 and 10." Restoration Quarterly 28:3 (Third Quarter 1985/86):145-54.

Sharp, Jeffrey R. "Typology and the Message of Hebrews." East Asia Journal of Theology 4:2 (1986):95-103.

Smith, T. C. "An Exegesis of Hebrews 13:1-17." Faith and Mission 7:1 (Fall 1989):70-78.

Soden, John. "The Use of Psalm 45:7-8 (6-7) in Hebrews 1:8-9." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):51-70.

Spencer, William David. "Christ's Sacrifice as Apologetic: An Application of Heb 10:1-18." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:2 (June 1997):189-97.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stedman, Ray C. What More Can God Say? Bible Commentary for Laymen series. Reprint ed. Glendale, Calif.: Gospel Light Publications, Regal Books, 1977.

Swete, H. B. The Ascended Christ. London: Macmillan and Co., 1916.

Swetnam, James. "Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6." Biblica 53 (1972):368-85.

_____. "Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13." Biblica 55 (1974):333-48.

Tenney, Merrill C. "A New Approach to the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (July-September 1966):230-36.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Fredrich. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1964-74. S. V. "aphistemi, apostasia, dichostasia," by Heinrich Schlier, 1 (1964):512-14.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Thompson, J. W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 13. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Exchatology of the Warning Passages in the Book of Hebrews." Grace Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1982):67-80.

Trotter, Andrew H., Jr. Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews. Guides to New Testament Exegesis series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997.

Vanhoye, Albert. A Structureal Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by James Swetnam. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

Walvoord, John F. Major Bible Prophecies. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

_____. The Millennial Kingdom. Revised ed. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.

Ware, Bruce A. "The New Covenant and the People(s) of God." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 68-97. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Wills, L. "The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity." Harvard Theological Review 77 (1984):277-99.

Wright, G. Ernest. "The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East. Part III: The Temple in Palestine-Syria." Biblical Archaeologist 7:4 (December 1944):65-77.

Wuest, Kenneth S. "Hebrews Six in the Greek New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 119:473 (January-March 1962):45-53.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE HEBREWS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Catholic Church hath received and declared this Epistle to be part of the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament, though some doubted of it in the first ages [centuries], especially in the Latin Church, witness St. Jerome on the 8th chap. of Isaias; Luther and most of his followers reject it, but the Calvinists and the Church of England have received it. Others, who received this Epistle in the first ages [centuries], doubted whether it was written by St. Paul, but thought it was written by St. Barnabas, or by St. Clement, or St. Luke, or at least that St. Paul only furnished the matter and the order of it, and that St. Luke wrote it, and St. Paul afterwards read it and approved it. It was doubted again, whether this Epistle was first written in Hebrew (that is, in Syro-Chaldaic, then spoken by the Jews) or in Greek, as Estius pretends. The ancient writers say it was written in Hebrew, but that it was very soon after translated into Greek either by St. Luke or St. Clement, pope and martyr. Cornelius a Lapide thinks the Syriac which we have in the Polyglot to have been the original; but this is commonly rejected. See Tillemont on St. Paul, Art. 46, and note 72; P. Alleman on the first to the Hebrews, &c. St. Paul wrote this letter about the year 63, and either at Rome or in Italy. See Chap. xii. 24. He wrote it to the Christians in Palestine, who had most of them been Jews before. This seems the reason why he puts not his name to it, nor calls himself their apostle, his name being rather odious to the Jews, and because he was chosen to be the apostle of the Gentiles. The main design is to shew that every one's justification and salvation is to be hoped for by the grace and merits of Christ, and not from the law of Moses, as he had shewn in his Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans, where we many observe this kind of difference: To the Galatians he shews, that true justice cannot be had from circumcision and the ceremonies of the law: to the Romans, that even the moral precepts and works of the law were insufficient without the grace of Christ: and in this to the Hebrews, he shews that our justice could not be had from the sacrifices of the old law. As to the chief contents: He exhorts them to the faith of Christ, by shewing his dignity and pre-eminence above the Angels, and above Moses, Chap. i, ii, iii.; that Christ's priesthood was above that of Aaron, from the 4th to the 8th chap. ver. 6; that the new law and testament is preferable to the old, form thence to the middle of chap. x.; he commends faith by the example of the ancient Fathers, Chap. xi. and in the beginning of the twelfth; then he exhorts them to patience, constancy, brotherly love, &c. The like exhortations are mixed in other parts of this Epistle. (Witham) --- We must here remark, that our separated brethren, relying solely upon tradition, admit in general this Epistle into their canon of Scriptures, though they are necessitated to allow that for some centuries great doubts were entertained on the subject. According to Mr. Rogers, in his Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles, whilst several among the Protestants have rejected as apocryphal the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the 2nd and 3rd of John, and Jude, others have as strenuously maintained that they ought to be admitted into the sacred canon. The Catholic Church admits them as deutero-canonical books, and of equal authority with the proto-canonical books....After the arguments had been justly weighed on both sides, they seem to have been admitted by the general consent of the Latin Church, as they had all along been admitted by the Greek Church. The canon, as it now stands, both of the Old and New Testament, we find enumerated in Pope Innocent's letter to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, an. 405 [the year A.D. 405], in St. Augustine, (lib. ii. de doct. christ. chap. viii.) and in the decrees of an African Council, an. 419 [the year A.D. 419], consisting of 217 bishops, who declare that in giving a catalogue of the Holy Scriptures, they only confirm and ratify what they have received from their Fathers. This canon is attributed to the third Council of Carthage, an. 397 [the year A.D. 397]. Dr. Cosin, an eminent Protestant divine, tells us in his canon of Scripture, p. 4, "that to know the books of Scripture, there is no safer course to be taken than to follow the public voice and the universal testimony of the Church." The sixth of the thirty-nine articles gives a similar rule, which excludes private judgment. And "what is this," asks Hooker, "but to acknowledge ecclesiastical tradition?" The mind of man, naturally fickle and unsettled, stands in need of a guide in the road to eternal life. I shall never hesitate, says a spirited author, to take for my guide the Catholic Church, which contains in herself the authority of past and future ages. The Syriac version of the Old and New Testament, which is deservedly allowed to be of greatest antiquity and authority, comprises the same deutero-canonical books as the canon of the Council of Trent; a convincing proof that the Church of Syria, immediately after the times of the apostles, considered them as part of the sacred canon, no less than the Catholics of the present day. For a very satisfactory account respecting the authenticity and inspiration of this Epistle, as also for an excellent commentary with notes moral, doctrinal, and critical, see a late work entitled, An Explanation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, by the Rev. Henry Rutter. --- What can be the reason why Protestants admit the deutero-canonical books of the New and reject those of the Old Testament? --- This Epistle merits the particular attention of Christians of every denomination, since it points out to them their various duties in respect to the necessity of faith and the practice of a holy life. In opposition to the Socinians, it tends to shew not only the divinity of Jesus Christ, but also that his death was a true and real sacrifice of atonement for the sins of mankind. See Chap. i, ver. 5, &c. In opposition to other sectarists, it proves that the bloody sacrifice of Christ, once offered on the cross, though a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of redemption, does not exclude the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, by which he is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. See Chap. v, &c. It is no less applicable to Catholics, in order to confirm them in the faith once delivered to the saints, and to point out the dreadful consequences of abandoning that religion which Jesus Christ came to establish in the world. The just man lives by faith; but if he draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. Let us, therefore, hold fast the confession of our hope, without wavering, or forsaking our assembly, the Catholic Church, as many have done to follow Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and other separatists. But we, says the apostle, are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them who have faith unto the saving of the soul. (Hebrews x. 39.)

====================

Gill: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREWS

That this epistle was written very early appears from hence, that it was imitated by Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians, who took whole sentences out of it; and therefore it could not be a new work, as Eusebius ^a observes: it has been denied to be authentic by some heretics, as the Marcionites and Arians, but has been generally received as such by the orthodox: some indeed doubted of it, because it was not received by the Roman church, as an epistle of the Apostle Paul ^b; though others, who have thought it was not his, as Origen, yet looked upon it as genuine ^c. It has been ascribed to different persons, as to Barnabas, to Apollos, to Luke the Evangelist, and to Clement of Rome, but without any just reason. Clement of Alexandria, a very ancient writer, asserts it to be the Apostle Paul's ^d; and his name stands in the title of it, in all R. Stephens's exemplars, and in all Beza's copies, excepting one, and so it does in the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions; and that it is his, is highly probable from the agreement there is between this, and other epistles of his; compare Heb 1:2 with Col 1:15 and Heb 5:12 with 1Co 3:1 and Heb 12:1 with 1Co 9:24 and Heb 13:7 with 1Th 5:11, and Heb 13:9 with Eph 4:14 and Heb 13:18 with 2Co 1:12 and Heb 13:20 with Rom 15:13 and many other places; and also from the order and method of it, first treating of doctrines, and then proceeding to practical exhortations, which is the common form of Paul's epistles: to which may be added various circumstances; as that it was written from Italy, where Paul was a prisoner; and the mention the author of it makes of his bonds, and of Timothy, as well known unto him, who was Paul's companion; besides, the token of his epistles appears in this, namely, his usual salutation to the churches; see Heb 13:23. But above all, the testimony of the Apostle Peter is greatly in favour of its being his, 2Pe 3:15 from whence it clearly appears, that the Apostle Paul did write an epistle to the Hebrews; for to them Peter wrote; see 1Pe 1:1 and what epistle could it be but this? and what Peter refers to is to be found in it; see Heb 10:25 and which is written with great wisdom; in none of Paul's epistles is there a greater discovery of his knowledge of divine mysteries than in this; and in it also are things hard to be understood, Heb 5:11. The common objections to its being his are, its not bearing his name, the diversity of its style, and the author of it seeming to be not an apostle, but a disciple of the apostle's: as to his not setting his name to it, the reasons might be, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, and not so much of the Jews; and because of the prejudice of the Jews against him, both believers, and unbelievers; wherefore had his name been to it, it might have prevented the usefulness of it to the one, and have stirred up the rage of the other: as to the difference of style, different subjects require a different style; and yet in many things there is a likeness, as before observed: and as to the author's not being an apostle, which is concluded from Heb 2:3 the word "us" there is to be understood of the believing Hebrews, the disciples of the apostle, and not inclusive of the author, by a figurative way of speaking often used by Paul; and besides, the apostle received a confirmation of the Gospel from Ananias, who might have been an hearer of Christ, though he was at first taught it by Christ himself; add to this, that whoever was the writer of it, it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and when several of the apostles were living, and therefore he could never design by those words to put himself in a succeeding generation. The persons to whom this epistle was written were Hebrews, or Jews; so called, as some think, from the name of Abraham, the father of them; or, as others, from his passing over the river Euphrates, when he came out of Chaldea into Palestine. So Abram the Hebrew, in Gen 14:13 is by the Septuagint rendered, perathv, "one that passes over", taking it to come from the word rbe, which signifies to "pass over"; with this compare Jos 24:3 and this is the opinion of some of the Jewish Rabbins ^e; though it seems rather that they were called so from Heber, who lived at the time of the confusion of languages; see Gen 10:21. And this is the sense of many Jewish writers, ancient and modern, of Josephus ^f, of Jonathan ben Uzziel ^g, of R. Nehemiah ^h, of Aben Ezra ⁱ, and Kimchi ^k, and others; 2Co 11:22. And these were the Hebrews that dwelt in the land of Judea, and particularly at Jerusalem; nor were they the unbelieving inhabitants of those parts, but believers in Christ, who were embodied in a Gospel church state, It was a tradition of the ancients ^l, that this epistle was written originally in Hebrew, and was translated into Greek, either by Luke the Evangelist, or by Clement of Rome. But for this there is no foundation; no Hebrew copy can be produced; Munster's edition of it in Hebrew is a translation from the Greek, in which it was, no doubt, originally written, that being the common language, and well known to the Jews; and which appears from the citations in it out of the Old Testament, which are made, not from the Hebrew text, but from the Greek version; and besides, had it been written in Hebrew, the writer would not have interpreted the Hebrew words, Melchizedek and Salem, as he does, in Heb 7:1. The time of its writing was before the destruction of Jerusalem, which in this book is signified by the coming of the Lord, and the day approaching; and after Timothy was released from prison, and some time within the two years of his own imprisonment at Rome; when he hoped for a release, as his epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon show. Dr. Lightfoot places it in the year 62, and in the eighth of Nero. And the occasion and design of it is, to set forth the superior excellency of Christ to angels and men, to Moses, to Joshua, to Aaron, and his sons, and the preferableness of his priesthood and sacrifice to the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices; to teach the Hebrews the true knowledge of the mysteries of their law; to point out to them the design, use, and abrogation of its ceremonies; and to prepare them for what afflictions and persecutions they would be called to endure for Christ; and to exhort them to perseverance, and to strengthen them against apostasy, as well as to instruct them in the various duties of religion.

Gill: Hebrews 9 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREWS 9

The apostle having, in the former chapter, taken notice of the first covenant, in this proceeds to show what belonged to it, that it had service performed under it, and a place in which it was performed, Heb 9:1 and he begins with the latter, which he distinguishes into two parts, and shows what was in each of them; in the first, which was the holy place, were a candlestick, table, and shewbread; in the second, which was the holiest of all, were a golden censer, the ark of the covenant, the golden pot of manna, Aaron's rod, the tables of the covenant, and the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat, Heb 9:2. And next he speaks of the service performed in these places; in the first, the holy place, the common priests entered every day, doing service, as offering sacrifice, &c. Heb 9:6 and in the second, the holy of holies, only the high priest entered into, and that but once a year, with blood of slain beasts, which he offered for his own sins, and the sins of the people, Heb 9:7 and this being shut up, and entered into but once a year, was an indication from the Holy Ghost, that the way into the holiest of all, which this was then a figure of, was not yet made manifest, while the tabernacle or temple was standing, in which sacrifices were offered, which could not perfect the offerer of them, or remove guilt from his conscience, Heb 9:8 which shows the imperfection of that priesthood, it consisting of meats, drinks, baptisms, and carnal ordinances imposed on the Jewish nation until the times of the Messiah, Heb 9:10 which are now come, and in which there is an accomplishment of all those types and figures; Christ was typified by the high priest; and he is come as such, and the good things, the law was a shadow of, are come by him; who came into the world by the assumption of human nature, a more perfect tabernacle than the type of it was; and now having obtained eternal redemption for his people, he is gone into heaven, the most holy place, not as the high priest, with the blood of slain beasts, but with his own blood, Heb 9:11 the efficacy of which blood is argued from the lesser to the greater, that if the blood of beasts, and water of separation, sanctified and purified externally, then much more must the blood of Christ purge the conscience from sin, that it may serve God, since Christ offered himself to God without spot, through the eternal Spirit, Heb 9:13. The necessity of Christ's shedding his blood, or of his death, is proved from his being the Mediator of the new covenant, which required the redemption of transgressions under the first testament, that called ones might have the promise of the eternal inheritance, Heb 9:15. And this is reasoned from the nature of testaments or wills among men, which make the death of the testator necessary, they being of no force while he lives, only after his death, Heb 9:16. And this is further illustrated by the first testament being dedicated by blood, and everything belonging to it purged by it, the book, the people, the tabernacle, and all the vessels of it; nor is there any remission of sin, whether typical or real, without shedding of blood, Heb 9:18 wherefore, as it was necessary that the patterns and types of heavenly things should be purified in this manner; it must be more so, that the antitypes should be purified with better sacrifices, even with the sacrifice of Christ, Heb 9:23 and accordingly Christ is entered into heaven itself, of which the holy places in the tabernacle were figures, there to present and plead his sacrifice on account of his people, Heb 9:24 not that it was necessary that he should offer up himself again, or often, as the high priest, his type, went every year into the holy place with the blood of others; for then he must have often suffered since the world began, of which there was no need, since his appearing once in the end of the world, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, is sufficient, Heb 9:25 for as it is the appointment of God, that men should die but once, and then come to judgment, so it was only necessary that Christ should be offered once to bear the sins of all his people, and then appear a second time without any sin at all upon him, to the salvation of those that look for him, Heb 9:27.

College: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

It is difficult to overestimate the significance of Hebrews for understanding the nature of the new covenant. No other document in the New Testament canon comments as directly and extensively upon this covenant as does Hebrews. Its description of Jesus as the great high priest of the believer is a unique contribution to New Testament Christology.

Yet Hebrews is perhaps as well known for the difficulties it presents as it is for its distinctive contributions to our understanding of the ministry of Jesus and the nature of our salvation. It is difficult to be certain about who wrote it, when and to whom. It is a letter and not quite a letter. Many find its line of argument intricate and complex, its theology abstract and obscure, and its use of the Old Testament puzzling if not problematic. This commentary will begin by addressing some of these considerations.

AUTHORSHIP

Over the years, most of the debate about the authorship of Hebrews has focused on whether or not Paul wrote this letter. Arguments have been made for other possible authors as well. What we can know for certain about the author is best gleaned from the letter itself, but many will want to know how this debate affects our confidence in the authority and inspiration of the letter.

Did Paul write the Letter to the Hebrews?

Though few defend Pauline authorship of Hebrews today, in the past this view has enjoyed the support of significant church leaders and traditions. The earliest extant copy of Hebrews (early third century) has been received as part of a collection of Paul's letters, in which it was placed after Romans. Pauline authorship was defended by notable church fathers in the East, e.g., Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) and Origen (185-253) who, despite reservations, defended it as essentially Pauline, at least in part on the weight of what was then received tradition. Later, Jerome and Augustine helped to shift opinion in the West and the Sixth Synod of Carthage (419) established a tradition of support for Pauline authorship which lasted until the Reformation.

However, the weight of the evidence - both historical and texual - is far from clear. Early church opinion was far from universal. In the West, prior to Jerome and Augustine, such leaders as Irenaeus and Hippolytus of Rome did not accept Hebrews as Pauline. The Muratorian Canon (a list of documents accepted as New Testament Scripture, c. 170) included thirteen letters identified as Pauline but excluded Hebrews. When reformers such as Calvin and Luther reexamined the question centuries later, neither concluded that Paul was its author. Contemporary critics consider Pauline authorship implausible in light of clear differences between the vocabulary and style of Hebrews and epistles known to be Pauline. Further, it has been argued as improbable for Paul to refer to himself as the author does in 2:3 ("This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him") in light of what he says of himself in Galatians 1:11-12 ("I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ").

Who else could have written the letter to the Hebrews?

As early as the second century, Tertullian identified Barnabas as the author of the letter. Barnabas was a Levite (Acts 4:26), and there is much about levitical ritual in the epistle. He was also a Hellenistic Jew, a member of the Jerusalem church and a missionary partner of Paul (Acts 9:27; 11:30; 12:1-14:28). All of this evidence is circumstantial, however, and nothing but Tertullian's opinion connects him to the letter directly.

Clement of Alexandria first suggested that Luke translated a Hebrew text written by Paul. Calvin affirmed this possiblity centuries later. There are some similarities in the Greek style of Luke-Acts and Hebrews. But there is little other evidence and there are also some differences in style. Calvin also suggested Clement of Rome as a possibility. However, Clement of Rome widely quoted from the letter himself. It is unlikely that he would quote himself and his use of the Old Testament is often at variance with that in Hebrews.

Luther was the first to suggest Apollos as the possible author of Hebrews, a view which continues to enjoy some popularity. He was a "learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures" who "vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" (Acts 18:24-28). Presumably, he would have been capable of the careful handling of the LXX found in Hebrews. Also, he probably had some connection to the Pauline mission (1 Corinthians 1-4). But concluding that he was therefore the author of Hebrews is, at best, conjecture.

Among others, arguments have been made for Peter, Jude, Stephen, Aristion, Priscilla, Silas, Timothy, Epaphras, Philip and Mary the mother of Jesus as possible authors of Hebrews. Two other possibilities remain. An associate of Paul could have written the letter for him (a view first suggested by Origen in 220). It is also possible that Hebrews was written by some other anonymous Christian unknown to us. The letter itself does not clearly identify its author. Perhaps the fairest conclusion is that advanced by Origen, in spite of his inclination to defend Pauline authorship: "who wrote the Epistle, God only knows the truth."

How does the debate about authorship affect our view of the letter?

It is important to note that, although the debate over authorship has extended over the centuries, the question of the letter's canonicity (i.e., its inspiration and authority) has not. Even though church fathers in the East may have had doubts about its authorship, there is no evidence that they ever questioned its canonicity. Though the Muratorian Canon excluded Hebrews (as well as James and 1-2 Peter), all four books were included in the New Testament canon by the Synod of Hippo (393) and the Third (397) and Sixth (419) Synods of Carthage. Subsequent questions about its authorship during the Reformation had no effect at all upon the reformers' view of its authority or inspiration.

It is clear that apostolicity, as well as other issues such as universality and the "rule of faith," were important in the early decisions about the New Testament canon. We must keep in mind, however, that a document's "canonical" status is the result of a human process which does not bestow divine authority or inspiration upon a document but recognizes the authority and inspiration which it inherently possesses because it has been "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). In other words, if it is true that Hebrews is a divinely inspired and authoritative document, its inspiration and authority remain factual in an objective sense apart from our own inability to clearly discern the identity of its author. In his providence, God bore witness to the inspiration and authority of this letter in a manner that left little room for doubt, as Hebrews persistently silenced the questions of men who soon found that it "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17).

What do we know about the author?

Though the question of authorship is not determinative of either the letter's inspiration or authority, it is significant for our interpretation of Hebrews. Knowing as much as we can about the author can be helpful for discerning the meaning of a text. We may not be able to know the identify of our author with any degree of certainty, but there is much that we can know about him.

He was probably a Hellenistic Jew for he was both steeped in the LXX and possessed of an excellent vocabulary and a polished style for writing in the Greek language. Presumably, then, he was well educated. He was probably a second generation Christian (2:3) but one with direct connection to apostolic influence since he was a companion of Timothy (13:23) and thus possibly an associate of Paul. It is possible that he wrote from Italy, although 13:24 could also be taken to mean that the recipients were in Italy and some in his own party were from there as well. The rhetoric of the letter and his description of it as "my word of exhortation" (13:22) suggest that he was probably a preacher. His "short letter" reveals a compassionate pastor, a keen theologian and a superior logician who applies all the resources of revelation and rhetoric at his command so that his dear friends will "not drift away" (2:1).

DATE, DESTINATION AND PURPOSE

Three important facts suggest at least a general date for the letter. First, Clement of Rome cited Hebrews frequently. 1 Clement was written in A.D. 95 or 96 and thus Hebrews would not only have been completed but well circulated by this date. Second, there is thus little reason to doubt that the Timothy of 13:23 was the associate of Paul referred to elsewhere in the New Testament. Though we do not know how old Timothy was when he joined Paul in his work, it is unlikely that this reference would place the letter very late in the first century. Finally, much is made of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70. Although it is possible that the author would not have referred to this event if it had happened by the time of writing, it seems improbable that he would omit reference to an event that not only had a significant effect on the lives of first-century Jews (including Christians) but would have added great force to his own argument. Further, he refers to old covenant worship rituals in the present tense (8:4-5; 10:1-3).

Other considerations as to the probable date of the letter pertain to the identity and location of its recipients. The title "To the Hebrews" may have been added later and reflect later opinions about its contents but it accompanies the letter in all of the oldest Greek manuscripts and there is no evidence that the letter ever bore any other title. Some suggest that the phrase could be translated "against the Hebrews" but it is the same formula used in Paul's letters which were hardly "against" the Romans, Galatians, etc. The title of the letter thus suggests that its recipients were Jewish, and the content that they were both Jewish and Christian.

The letter itself indicates that its recipients were enduring persecution (10:33-34; 12:4; 13:3, 23). The more natural reading of 13:24 suggests that the author wrote to Italy rather than from Italy (for which the expression "those in Italy send you their greetings" would have been more appropriate). The Edict of Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome in 49 but many had returned by the time of the persecution begun by Nero in 64. Since our earliest quotes of Hebrews come to us from Clement of Rome, its circulation there was likely at an early date. The cumulative evidence thus suggests that the letter was addressed to Jewish Christians in Rome who suffered under the persecutions of Nero.

The combination of these circumstances and statements in the letter suggest its purpose. Though some have suggested that Hebrews was written foremost to combat an early Jewish perversion of Christian doctrine or as a generic tract to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity, key verses in the letter suggest that it was addressed to a particular community with a view to responding to an urgent need. The following verses are all suggestive:

Passage Exhortation End in View

2:1 We must pay more careful attention so that we do not . . . to what we have heard drift away

3:1 fix your thoughts on Jesus (cp. 12:2)

3:6 hold on to our courage and the

3:6 hope of which we boast

3:12 See to it . . . that none of you has a

. . . heart that turns away from the

living God

3:13 encourage one another daily so that none of you

may be hardened by

sin's deceitfulness

3:14 . . . if we hold firmly till the end the We have come to

confidence we had at first share in Christ . . .

4:1 let us be careful that none of you be

found to have fallen

short of it [rest]

4:11 Let us . . . make every effort to enter so that no one will

that rest fall

4:14 let us hold firmly to the faith we

profess

6:11 show this same diligence to the very in order to make your

end hope sure

10:23 Let us hold unswervingly to the

hope we profess

10:35 So do not throw away your it will be richly

confidence rewarded

10:36 You need to persevere so that when you

have done the will of

God, you will receive

what he has promised.

12:1 Let us run with perseverance the

12:1 race marked out for us

12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus (cp. 3:1)

12:3 Consider him who endured such so that you will not

opposition from sinful men grow weary and lose

heart

Hebrews is, without doubt, a theologically valuable document which presents a well arranged argument in defense of the superiority of the new covenant. Yet these verses suggest that the author had an immediate purpose in mind for his theology and his rhetoric - the encouragement of Christian brothers and sisters who, suffering under persecutions which threatened even martyrdom, were tempted to abandon their strength. In the midst of their suffering, our author sends his "short letter" and "word of exhortation" (13:22) that they might fix their eyes on Jesus (3:1; 12:2), whose greatness he demonstrates from their own beloved Scriptures and cherished heritage.

FORM AND STRUCTURE

Since Hebrews includes some of the formal features of an epistle (e.g., personal greetings and closing formula) but not others (e.g., typical introductory greeting or address), there has been much debate as to whether it is more of a letter or a sermon. However, this particular formulation of the genre question probably reads a sharper distinction between written and oral communication back into an era when rhetoric rarely made such a rigid separation. Other epistles in the New Testament were clearly written in the knowledge that they would be read in the presence of congregations. It is thus possible to argue that, though written, they should be viewed primarily as oral documents. Writing lengthy treatises with significant oral features was a typical "rhetorical" practice for the ancients (e.g., the "template" or model speeches of Isocrates and others). Hence, Hebrews could well have been constructed as a "written homily," i.e., a letter with sermonic features.

This is to propose a variation of Deissmann's suggestion that Hebrews could have been an example of Christian literary art (i.e., a kind of treatise). Guthrie's criticism - that the writer's purpose was too serious to be regarded in this light - assumes that literary art cannot be addressed to particular communities and urgent occasions, when in fact, rhetoric is chiefly defined by (1) its "addressed" nature and (2) its "contingent" character. The fact that it is addressed to specific communities, their circumstances and the demands of those circumstances is precisely what, according to Aristotle, distinguishes "rhetoric" from its counterpart "dialect." It is quite in keeping with at least one significant ancient rhetorical tradition to regard Hebrews as a written homily - an extended written treatise with significant oral features, addressed to a particular community with a view to responding to an urgent need.

Of what import is this conclusion? There is little value in examining Hebrews for exact correspondence to any particular classical scheme of rhetoric as some have done for (1) a strong case has been made that there is no single classical tradition of rhetoric and (2) our uncertainty about the identity of the author makes it impossible for us to do anything more than speculate about the possible significance of any such similarities.

There are several values, however, in recognizing the "rhetorical" nature of the document. First, this encourages us to keep in mind that, above all, Hebrews is an attempt to persuade its recipients (to take action, i.e., a case of deliberative rhetoric). Close attention should thus be paid to its argumentative dimensions. Also, as we attempt to follow the writer's development of thought, we should be alert for the use of rhetorical devices which signal transitions from argumentative sections to hortatory sections that address the contingiences of the community's situation. Further, apart from the complexities which separated competing rhetorical traditions in the ancient world, it is not inappropriate to look for evidence of the kinds of topoi (argumentative commonplaces) more widely employed and with which a well educated author was likely to be familiar. This should aid our understanding of the nature of the proofs employed by our author. Finally, it reminds us to seek the relevance of the subject matter of Hebrews in relationship to particular sets of life circumstances (persecution, suffering, temptation, and discouragement among them).

Hebrews is organized around a series of quotations from the Old Testament which are not only presented as argument but also developed with a variety of exegetical procedures (see below). If we use these quotations as a guideline for discerning its structure, the following picture of Hebrews emerges.

Chapter One is an introduction. This chapter is full of Old Testament quotations demonstrating Jesus' superiority over angels.

Chapter Two appeals to Psalm 8. Jesus rescues man by coming down beneath angels, joining man in flesh and blood, dying, and then returning to his place of exaltation above the angels. All who cling to him in faith return with him to the throne.

Chapters Three and Four deal with Psalm 95. God offers rest to all who trust him. The land of Canaan was not that rest, for this Psalm spoke of a rest long after the Israelites who wandered in the desert hardened their hearts and lost the rest which God offered to them. God's rest is still available for all who believe him.

Chapters Five, Six and Seven are organized around Psalm 110. Jesus is a priest like Melchizedek, who was also superior to the priesthood of the old covenant. Jesus, in fact, is a priest forever by God's oath.

Chapter Eight introduces Jeremiah 31. The new covenant, created by Jesus our great high priest, is superior to the old covenant. It is founded on better promises than the old covenant, which was a mere copy and shadow of this new covenant.

Chapters Nine and Ten treat Psalm 40. Jesus' living sacrifice of himself through obedience is far superior to the Old Testament sacrifices of dead bulls and goats repeatedly offered in the old tabernacle. Jesus took this sacrifice into the very presence of God, thus fully taking away sins and cleansing our consciences.

Chapter Eleven develops a theme from Habakkuk 2, that the righteous will live by faith. This principle by which we live is illustrated by numerous examples of people living by faith.

Chapter Twelve treats Proverbs 3. We must accept the discipline God brings upon us, for God disciplines those he loves.

Chapter Thirteen is the conclusion. It is full of exhortations on how to give ourselves to God in the life of faith.

Remove the introductory and concluding chapters for a moment and an interesting picture of the structure of the main body of thought emerges. The new covenant (chapter 8) is central, tying together his priesthood (chapters 5-7) and his sacrifice (chapters 9-10). This is prepared for by the offer of rescue (chapter 2) and rest (chapters 3-4) and followed by the re

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aristotle. The "Art" of Rhetoric . Loeb Classical Library. Translated by J. H. Freese. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926.

____________ . On Rhetoric . Edited and translated by George A. Kennedy. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews . Hermeneia Commentaries. Edited by Helmut Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Translated by William Arndt and F.W. Gingrich. 2nd ed. Revised and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. "Baptism." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Vol. 1. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Bietenhard, H. "Name." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Vol. 2. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Blowers, Paul. "Patterns of Perfection in Hebrews." Unpublished paper presented to a Fellowship of Professors at Johnson Bible College in Knoxville, Tennessee, September. 21, 1990.

Boatman, Don Earl. Helps From Hebrews . Bible Study Textbook. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1960.

Bromiley, Geoffery, ed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia . 4 Vols. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Brown, Colin, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . 3 Vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Brown, Francis, et al . The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon . Lafayette, IN: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., 1980.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews . New International Critical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Calvin, John. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews . Trans. by William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Chamberlain, William. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1941. Reprinted 1979.

Crouch, Owen. God Has Spoken: Expository Preaching and Teaching - Hebrews . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1983. Reprinted 1990.

Davidson, A.B. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.

Dods, Marcus. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Vol. IV in The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910.

Douglas, J.D., ed. The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd. Ed. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1992.

Ellingworth, Paul. Commentary on Hebrews . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Elwell, Walter, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Enos, Theresa, ed. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication From Ancient Times to the Information Age . New York: Garland Pub., 1996.

Fant, Clyde E. and Pinson, William E., eds. Twenty Centuries of Great Preaching: An Encyclopedia of Preaching . 23 Vols. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1971.

Feinberg, C.L. "Tithe." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 5. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Fensham, F.C. "Oath." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Vol. III, ed. by G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Fiensy, David. New Testament Introduction . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

Gooding, D.W. and D.J. Wiseman. "Censer." The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd ed. Edited by J.D. Douglas. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1982.

Gregory, T.M. "Oath." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 4. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Guthrie, Donald. "Epistle to the Hebrews," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Vol. 2. Edited by G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

____________ . Hebrews . Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

____________ . New Testament Introduction . 3rd ed. rev. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1970.

Hatch, Edwin and Henry Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint . Two Volumes including supplement. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck - Univ. Verlagstalt, 1954.

Héring, Jean. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Epworth Press, 1970.

Josephus. Jewish Antiquities . Books I-IV. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930.

____________ . The Jewish War . Books IV-VII. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928.

Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . 10 Vols. Translated and edited by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews . New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Konig, Eduard. "Tabernacle." The Jewish Encyclopedia . Ed. by Isadore Singer. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., n.d.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1-8 . Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47A. Edited by David A. Hubbard, John D. W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

____________ . Hebrews 9-13 . Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47A. Edited by David A. Hubbard, John D.W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James . Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1966.

Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon . 9th ed. Rev. and augmented by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940.

Lindars, Barnabas. "The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews." New Testament Studies Vol. 35 (1989), pp. 382-406.

Louw, Johannes and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains . 2 Vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.

Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students . 2 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek Testament . New York, London: United Bible Societies, 1971, corrected edition, 1975.

Meyer, F.B. The Way into the Holiest: Expositions of the Epistle to the Hebrews . Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1982.

Milligan, R. Epistle to the Hebrews . The New Testament Commentary, Vol. IX. Cincinnati: Standard Pub., n.d.

Moffat, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews . The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924. Reprinted 1968.

Montefiore, Hugh. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1964. Reprinted 1987.

Morris, Leon, et al. The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Volume 12. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Moule, Charles F. Idiom Book of New Testament Greek . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Moulton, James H. and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930. Reprinted 1980.

Moulton, James H., Wilbert F. Howard and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek . 4 Vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963-79.

Moulton, W.F. and A.S. Geden. A Concordance to the Greek Testament . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897. 5th ed., 1978.

Nairne, A. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921.

Paterson, J. H. "Sea." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 5. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta . 2 vols. in 1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel Stiftung, 1935.

Schiappa, Edward. "Protagoras." Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication . ed. by Theresa Enos. New York: Garland Pub., 1996.

Silva, Moises. "Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews." Westminster Theological Journal . Vol. 39 (1976), pp. 60-71.

Singer, Isadore, ed. The Jewish Encyclopedia . New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., n.d.

Spicq, C. L'Épitre Aux Hebreux . Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1952.

Soulen, Richard. Handbook of Biblical Criticism . 2nd ed. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976, 1981.

Swetnam, J. "Sacrifice and Revelation in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Observations and Surmises on Hebrew 9, 26." Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 30 (1968), pp. 227-254.

Tenney, Merrill C., ed. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . 5 Vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974-76.

Thayer, Joseph. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament . 4th Edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901.

Thompson, James. The Letter to the Hebrews . The Living Word Commentary. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet Co., 1971.

Trotter, Andrew H., Jr. Interpeting the Epistle to the Hebrews . Guides to New Testament Exegesis. Edited by Scot McKnight. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Waltke, B.K. "Melchizedek." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 4. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975-76.

Westcott, B.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews . 2nd Edition. 1892. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994.

Wiseman, D.J. "Weights and Measures." The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd ed. Ed. By J.D. Douglas. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1982.

Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament . Rev. ed. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Press, 1993.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

BAGD Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek Lexicon (2nd. ed.)

BDB New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English

Lexicon

BDF Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek Grammar

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Bromiley)

KJV King James Version

LN Louw & Nida's Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains

LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon

LXX Septuagint

MHT Moulton-Howard-Turner Greek Grammar

MM Moulton & Milligan's Vocabulary of Greek Testament

NASB New American Standard Bible

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament

Theology

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by

Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich

ZPED Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Hebrews (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. JESUS IS SUPERIOR TO THE ANGELS - 1:1-14

A. The Preeminence of the Son - 1:1-4

B. The Son Superior to the Angels - 1:5-14

II. JESUS RESCUES MAN - 2:1-18

A. Warning Not to Ignore Such a Great Salvation - 2:1-4

B. Jesus Became a Man to Bring Men to Glory - 2:5-18

III. GOD OFFERS REST TO ALL WHO TRUST HIM - 3:1-4:16

A. Jesus Is Superior to Moses - 3:1-6

B. Psalm 95:7-11 - 3:7-11

C. Hold Firm to the End - 3:12-15

D. Unbelieving Israelites Fell in the Desert - 3:16-19

E. A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God - 4:1-5

F. A Sabbath-Rest Remains - 4:6-11

G. The Message from God Does Its Part to Save Us - 4:12-13

H. Jesus, the Great High Priest - 4:14-16

IV. JESUS IS SUPERIOR TO THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE OLD COVENANT AND A PRIEST FOREVER BY GOD'S OATH - 5:1-7:28

A. Requirements of the High Priest - 5:1-4

B. Jesus Fulfills the Requirements and Offers Eternal Salvation - 5:5-10

C. [Excursus: Responding to God] - 5:11-6:12

1. Still Infants - 5:11-14

2. On to Maturity - 6:1-3

3. Those Who Fall Away - 6:4-8

4. Confident of Better Things - 6:9-12

D. God's Oath Makes His Purpose Sure - 6:13-20

E. Melchizedek Like the Son of God - 7:1-3

F. Melchizedek Greater than Abraham - 7:4-10

G. Jesus Is High Priest Based on His Resurrection which Introduces a Better Hope - 7:11-19

H. Jesus Is High Priest Based on God's Oath which Produces a Better Covenant - 7:20-22

I. Jesus' Resurrection Creates a Permanent Priesthood - 7:23-25

J. Jesus' Death Provides the Perfect Sacrifice - 7:26-28

V. THE NEW COVENANT BROUGHT BY JESUS OUR HIGH PRIEST IS SUPERIOR TO THE OLD COVENANT - 8:1-13

A. Our High Priest Reigns and Serves in the True Tabernacle, Prefigured by Old Testament Shadows - 8:1-5

B. Our High Priest Is Mediator of the New Covenant, Promised through the Prophet Jeremiah - 8:6-13

VI. JESUS' SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF IS SUPERIOR TO THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD COVENANT AND SETS US FREE FROM SIN - 9:1-10:39

A. The Tabernacle and Its Tools - 9:1-5

B. The Day of Atonement - 9:6-10

C. Jesus' Sacrifice Cleanses Our Conscience - 9:11-14

D. Jesus' Death Inaugurates the New Covenant - 9:15-22

E. Jesus' Sacrifice Was Once for All - 9:23-28

F. Old Covenant Sacrifices Could Not Take Away Sin - 10:1-4

G. Christ Offered His Body to Make Us Holy - 10:5-10

H. Our High Priest Now Reigns - 10:11-14

I. Witness of the Holy Spirit through Jeremiah - 10:15-18

J. Let Us Draw Near to God and Spur One Another On - 10:19-25

K. The Judgment of God on Those Who Keep Sinning - 10:26-31

L. Reminder of Earlier Suffering - 10:32-34

M. The Need to Persevere - 10:35-39

VII. GOD EXPECTS US TO SHOW FAITH - 11:1-40

A. The Nature of Faith - 11:1-3

B. Faith Illustrated by Abel, Enoch, and Noah - 11:4-7

C. Faith Illustrated by Abraham - 11:8-19

D. Faith Illustrated by Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph- 11:20-22

E. Faith Illustrated by Moses - 11:23-28

F. Faith Illustrated in Israel - 11:29-38

G. God Planned to Make Them Perfect with Us - 11:39-40

VIII. GOD EXPECTS US TO ENDURE DISCIPLINE - 12:1-29

A. A Call to Perseverance - 12:1-3

B. The Word of Encouragement - 12:4-6

C. God Disciplines His Children - 12:7-11

D. Practical Actions - 12:12-17

E. Terrifying Mt. Sinai - 12:18-21

F. Mt. Zion, the Heavenly Jerusalem - 12:22-24

G. A Kingdom which Cannot Be Shaken - 12:25-29

IX. CONCLUDING EXHORTATIONS - 13:1-25

A. Keep Loving Each Other - 13:1-3

B. Stay Pure - 13:4-6

C. Remember Your Leaders - 13:7-8

D. Counterparts to Old Covenant Practices - 13:9-16

E. Obey Your Leaders and Pray for Us - 13:17-19

F. Benediction and Closing Exhortations - 13:20-22

G. Personal Greetings - 13:23-25

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV