Comentarios bíblicos

CHAPTER 10

Hebrews 10:1 reads in the Recepta: Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων, κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις, ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, οὐδέποτε δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους τελειῶσαι. Instead thereof, Lachm. takes the words Σκιὰν … πραγμάτων as an independent clause, placing a full stop after πραγμάτων. He then, in the stereotype edition, omits the relative before προσφέρουσιν,—while in the larger edition he has again added the ἅς of the Recepta before this verb,—places a comma after προσφἐρουσιν, and writes δύνανται in place of δύναται. This punctuation and form of the text given by Lachm. is in all essential respects to be unhesitatingly rejected. In connection with the breaking off of the opening words of the verse into an independent statement, ἐστίν must be supplemented to ἔχων. Such supplementing, however, would be altogether opposed to the linguistic character of the Epistle to the Hebrews; moreover, it would remain inexplicable, from the very brevity of the clause, how the participle ἔχων should come to be written for the finite tense ἔχει, which naturally suggests itself. In addition to this, the joining to that which precedes by means of γάρ would occasion a difficulty, and the clause following would become an asyndeton. Besides, this following clause, in the absence of any connecting relative, would not even comply with the laws of grammar. The relative before προσφέρουσιν is wanting in A, 2, 7* 17, 47, Syr. utr. Arm., and A** 31, Syr. Philonex. then insert αἵ before old οὐδέποτε. Instead of the Recepta ἃς προσφέρ. there is found, however, in D* L (?), 73, 137, in an ancient fragment with Matthaei, which Tisch., in the edit. 7 (comp. Pars I. p. cxci.), has designated as N, with Theodoret, as well as in a MS. of Chrysostom and in the Latin version of D E: αἷς προσφέρ., and the latter is preferred by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. Yet the Recepta ἅς, which is supported by C D*** E (?) K א, the majority of the cursives, and many Fathers, is to be defended. Since the three words immediately preceding end in αις, ἅς might easily also be changed into αἷς. The Recepta δύναται, finally, is attested by D (* and *) E K L, very many cursives, Vulg. It. Copt, al., Chrys. Theodoret (text), Oecum. (comm.) al., while the plural δύνανται (preferred also by Tisch. 1, and already placed by Griesbach upon the inner margin) is presented by A C D א, about thirty cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret (comm.?), Damasc. Theophyl. al. But the plural is devoid of sense, and can on that account be regarded only as a transcriber’s error, which was occasioned by the foregoing plural προσφέρουσιν.

Hebrews 10:2. Ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο] Elz.: ἐπεὶ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο. Against the decisive authority of all uncial mss., of most cursives, vss. and Fathers.

The preference to the Recepta κεκαθαρμένους is deserved by κεκαθαρισμένους (approved by Grotius, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Delitzsch, Alford), as better attested. In favour of κεκαθαρισμένους pleads not only the testimony of D E K א, 23** 37, 39, al., but also the form which in A C has arisen as a transcriber’s error from the same κεκαθερισμένους, which latter Lachm. has adopted.

Hebrews 10:6. Recepta here and Hebrews 10:8 : εὐδόκησας. Better attested, however, here (by A C D* E, the early fragment in Matth. al.) and Hebrews 10:8 (by A D* [E?], al., Cyr. Theodoret) is the reading, chosen by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, as also approved by Delitzsch: ηὐδόκησας.

Hebrews 10:8. In place of the Recepta θυσίαν καὶ προσφοράν, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford rightly read the plural: θυσίας καὶ προσφοράς, in accordance with A C D* א* 17, 23, 57, al., Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arab. Erp. Cyril. Already commended to attention by Griesbach. The singular is a later change, with a view to its conformation to Hebrews 10:5.

In like manner we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., to delete τόν, which the Recepta adds before νόμον, as not being found in A C, א, 37, 46, 71, 73, al., Sahid. Cyril, Chrys. Theodoret. The insertion of the article was more easily possible than its rejection.

Hebrews 10:9. τοῦ ποιῆσαι] Elz.: τοῦ ποιῆσαι, ὁ θεός. Against A C D E K א* 17, 39, 46, al. mult. It. Copt, al., ὁ θεός is a complementary addition from Hebrews 10:7. Rightly deleted by Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche.

Hebrews 10:10. Instead of the mere διά in the Recepta, Matthaei and Tisch. 2 and 7 read, after the precedent of the Edd. Complutens. Erasm. Colin. Stephan.: οἱ διά. Bloomfield places οἱ within brackets. But οἱ (sc. ἡγιασμένοι) is wanting in A C D* E* א, 31, 47, al., Chrys. Theodoret, and owes its origin to an error of the eye, in that the termination σμένοι in ἡγιασμένοι gave rise to the writing of ἐσμὲν οἱ.

In place of τοῦ σώματος in the Recepta, D* E, with their Latin translation, have τοῦ αἵματος. Mistaken emendation, since τοῦ σώματος, Hebrews 10:10, was chosen in manifest correspondence to the citation σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, Hebrews 10:5.

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] Elz.: τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. But the article has against it the testimony of all the uncials, many cursives and Fathers, and is rightly rejected by Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford.

Hebrews 10:11. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Reiche read: πᾶς μὲν ἱερεύς. Defended also by Böhme, Tholuck, and Delitzsch. The preference, however, is deserved by the reading: πᾶς μὲν ἀρχιερεύς, which is furnished by A C, 31, 37, 46, al., Syr. utr. (yet in the Philonex. with an asterisk) Basm. Aeth. Arm. Theodoret (text), Cyril Euthal. al., was already adopted in the Editt. Complut. Plantin. Genev., and more recently has been restored by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, and Alford. If the ordinary Levitical priests had been intended, οἱ ἱερεῖς would, as is rightly observed by Bleek, have been written instead of πᾶς ἱερεύς, since each single Levitical priest had by no means daily to offer sacrifice. Less unsuitable, on the other hand, is the statement of the daily presentation of sacrifice in regard to the high priest, since that which was true of the Levitical priests in general could indeed be ascribed to the high priest as the head and representative of the same. In any case we have here, at the close of the argument, and because of the parallel with the person of Christ, to expect not so much the mention of the ordinary Jewish priest, as the mention of the Jewish high priest. The reading: πᾶς μὲν ἱερεύς, is therefore to be looked upon as a later correction, made on account of the following καθʼ ἡμέραν, since this stood in apparent contradiction to πᾶς μὲν ἀρχιερεύς.

Hebrews 10:12. οὗτος δέ] Elz. Matthaei, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: αὐτὸς δέ. But οὗτος δέ (recommended by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, Reiche; approved also by Delitzsch) is demanded by the preponderating authority of A C D* E א, 67** 80, 116, al., Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Damasc. al.

Instead of the Recepta: ἐν δεξιᾷ, Lachm. had written in the stereotype edition: ἐκ δεξιῶν, which, however, is only feebly attested by A, 31 (א* has ἐκ δεξιᾷ, which by א*** was changed into ἐν δεξιᾷ). Rightly, therefore, has Lachm. returned in his larger edition to the Recepta.

Hebrews 10:15. μετὰ γὰρ τὸ εἰρηκέναι] Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Reiche: μετὰ γὰρ τὸ προειρηκέναι. Against decisive witnesses (A C D E א, l7, 31, 47, al. m. Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. It. Vulg. Chrys. Theoph. Ambrose, Sedul.). Already held suspected by Griesbach.

Hebrews 10:16. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche: ἐπὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, after D** and *** E K L, most cursives and vss., Chrys. Theodoret, al., Ambrose, al. On the other hand, A C D* א, 17, 31, 47, al., Vulg. (Amiat. Havlej.* Tolet.) have: ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν. Approved by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading.

Hebrews 10:17. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield: μνησθῶ. More correctly, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after A C D* E א* Hebrews 17: μνησθήσομαι, which Griesbach has placed upon the inner margin. μνησθῶ was carried over from Hebrews 8:12.

Hebrews 10:22. Recepta: ἐῤῥαντισμένοι. After A C D* א* Lachm. writes: ῥεραντισμένοι, Tisch. and Alford: ῥεραντισμένοι.

Hebrews 10:29. The words ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη are deleted by Lachm. in the stereotype edition; but are rightly, since they are omitted only by A and Chrysostom, retained by him in the larger edition.

Hebrews 10:30. The addition following ἀνταποδώσω in the Recepta: λέγει κύριος, is rejected by Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, after D* א* 17, 23* 67** Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Arab. Erp. Ambr. Bede, and is regarded by Mill (Prolegg. 496), Bengel, Griesbach, and others as probably a gloss. Bloomfield encloses it within brackets. It is nevertheless protected by A D*** E K L א*** etc., Syr. Philonex. al., and many Fathers. Rightly, therefore, has it been received again by Tisch. into the edit. vii. Delitzsch, Alford, and Reiche also have lately decided in favour of its genuineness.

The Recepta κύριος κρινεῖ we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A D E K א* 31, 73, al., Vulg. It. Syr. utr. Aeth. Theodoret (semel), to transpose into κρινεῖ κύριος. Bleek and Delitzsch read, after D E, 55, 71, Vulg. It. Theodoret (sem.): ὅτι κρινεῖ κύριος. Quite similarly, LXX. Deuteronomy 32:36; Psalm 135:14.

Hebrews 10:34. τοῖς δεσμίοις] Thus we have to read, with Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, and others, after A D* [as Cod. B breaks off at Hebrews 9:14, so also Hebrews 10:24 to Hebrews 12:15 is wanting in Cod. C] 47, 67** 73, al, Syr. utr. Arab. Erpen. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Antioch. Damasc. Theodoret (comm.), Oecum. (comm.) Pelag. Ambrose, al. From τοῖς δεσμίοις arose, by a slip on the part of the copyist, τοῖς δεσμοῖς, which is found with Origen, Exhort. ad martyr. 44, and to which the vinculis eorum of the Latin translation in D E corresponds; while, then, τοῖς δεσμοῖς was completed by means of a gloss into the Recepta, still defended by Matthaei, Bloomfield, M‘Caul, and Hofmann: τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου (D*** E K L א, etc.), in that Paul was regarded as the author of the epistle, and thus was found expressed an acknowledgment of the sympathy manifested by the Palestinian Christians towards himself during his imprisonment.

In that which follows, the reading: ἔχειν ἑαυτοῖς, very strongly confirmed by D E K L, almost sixty cursives, Chrys. Theodoret, Isidor. iii. 225, Damasc. Theoph., already adopted into the Editt. Complut. Erasm. 1, Steph. 1 and 2, and later preferred by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, is to be held the original one, inasmuch as from this reading the rise, as well of the Recepta: ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς (which, as it would seem, rests only upon a few cursives), as also of the reading afforded by A א, four cursives, the early fragment in Matthaei, Vulg. It. al., and followed by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and Hebrews 8 : ἔχειν ἑαυτούς, is to be explained.

The addition: ἐν οὐρανοῖς after ὕπαρξιν in the Recepta is wanting in A D* א* 17, in the early fragment with Matthaei in the text, in Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It., with Clem. Al. Bed., and stands with Theodoret only after μένουσαν. Elucidatory gloss, suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 1208) and Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford.

Hebrews 10:35. Recepta: μισθαποδοσίαν μεγάλην. With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford, we have to transpose into μεγάλην μισθαποδοσίαν, after A D E א, the early fragment in Matthaei, 73, 116, al., Clem. Al. Orig. Eus. It. Vulg. Copt. al.

Hebrews 10:38. The Recepta omits the μον, which is found in most MSS. of the LXX. after πίστεως. D* Syr. utr. Copt., the Latin version in D E, Eus. Theodoret (alic.), Cypr. Jerome have it after πίστεως. On the other hand, it is found after δίκαιος in A א, Arm. Vulg., in the early fragment with Matthaei by the first hand, with Clem. Al. Eus. (alic.) Theodoret (alic.), Proc. Sedul. Bed. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have adopted it at this latter place, and probably the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews so read, inasmuch as it is found with the LXX. at this place in Cod. A.

Hebrews 10:1. Establishment of the ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 9:28, as being the main thought lying in Hebrews 9:25-28, by making good the opposite state of the case in the province of the O. T. theocracy: “For since the law contains only a shadow of the future good things, not the actual likeness of the things, it is not able by means of the same sacrifices every year, which are unceasingly offered, ever to make perfect them that draw nigh.” The emphasis of the proposition rests partly upon the characterization of the law as σκιὰν ἔχων κ.τ.λ., partly upon κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις, ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. The author, however, cannot thereby mean, as the words at first hearing might seem to imply, that the law, in case its contents were no mere σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, would in reality effect the τελείωσις by means of its ever-repeated expiatory sacrifices. For, as is shown by Hebrews 10:2-3, the author already bases upon the very fact of the yearly repetition of the Mosaic expiatory sacrifices the proof for their inadequacy. We must therefore suppose that two independent particulars of thought have been blended together into a single statement. One can resolve the matter either in such wise that οὐδέποτε δύναται τελειῶσαι is looked upon as the common predicate for both particulars: the law is incapable of leading to τελείωσις, because it contains a mere σκιά κ.τ.λ.; and certainly it is incapable, by means of its ever-repeated sacrifices, of leading to τελείωσις. Or in such wise that the second particular is thought of originally as an inference from the first, from which the οὐδέποτε δύναται κ.τ.λ. is then progressively derived: because the law contains a mere σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, there is found in its domain an unceasing repetition of the same expiatory sacrifices; by this unceasing repetition, however, it is never able to lead to perfection. The latter analysis is to be preferred, because by means of it the opposition, required by the course of the argument, between the once offered and the ofttimes repeated expiatory sacrifice, comes out clearly and definitely in all its severity; while the characterization of the νόμος, on the other hand, as σκιὰν ἔχων κ.τ.λ., is made only that which here, in harmony with the context, it alone can be, i.e. a mere subsidiary factor in the argument.

σκιάν] a shadow, which is unsubstantiated, melts away into obscurity, and only enables us to recognise the external outlines. Opposite to this is the εἰκών, the image or impress, which sets before us the figure itself, sharply and clearly stamped forth. See on Hebrews 8:5. Freely, but not incorrectly, does Luther translate: “the very substance of the good things.”

τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν] see at Hebrews 9:11.

τῶν πραγμάτων] different from τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν only as respects the more general form of expression.

κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν] belongs neither to οὐδέποτε δύναται (Ebrard, Delitzsch, Hofmann, Schrifibew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 446; Alford) nor to ἃς προσφέρουσιν (Calvin, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Heinrichs, Bleek, de Wette, Bloomfield, and others), in which latter case the words would have to be resolved by ταῖς θυσίαις, ἃς κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν τὰς αὐτὰς προσφέρουσιν, or something similar. But κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν is rather to be taken in intimate combination with ταῖς αὐταῖς: with the same sacrifices every year. The author forebore writing ταῖς αὐταῖς κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν θυσίαις, in order that he might accentuate each notion equally strongly. As, moreover, with κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν in this place, so also elsewhere with adverbs which in point of meaning may be compared with it, such as ἀεί, πολλάκις, etc., a transposing is nothing rare. Comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 514 f.

ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις] Those meant are, as is required by κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν (comp. also Hebrews 10:4), only the sacrifices on the great day of atonement, not also the daily sacrifices of propitiation (Hebrews 10:11), as Böhme, Stein, and others suppose.

προσφέρουσιν] sc. the Levitical high priests. Wrongly Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 446), who in general has entirely failed in his interpretation of the statement:[96] the προσερχόμενοι.

εἰς τὸ διηνεκές] Note of time to προσφέρουσιν. If we should seek, with Paulus, Lachmann, and Hofmann, l.c., to conjoin εἰς τὸ διηνεκές with that which follows, the relative clause ἃς προσφέρουσιν would be deprived of all signification.

τοὺς προσερχομένους] those who approach God through the medium of the Levitical priests, thus identical with τοὺς λατρεύοντας, Hebrews 10:2; Hebrews 9:9.

[96] Namely, in that he brings out as the sense of the same, “the propitiatory sacrifice, which is, as it were, offered by the law itself, because offered at its direction and by the high priest for the congregation,” is here “convinced of its manifest incapacity for effecting real and abiding purity of conscience for the individuals. This conviction is wrought by the fact that, notwithstanding this sacrifice has been offered every year for the whole congregation, the individuals still continue throughout the year to offer sacrifices for themselves”!

Hebrews 10:1-4. Presentation in a clearer light of the necessity for Christ’s offering Himself only once for the expiation of sins (Hebrews 9:25-28), by pointing to the ineffectiveness of the expiatory sacrifices continually repeated within the domain of Judaism. This constant repetition attests that sins are still ever present, as indeed a cancelling of sin by the blood of bullocks and of goats is impossible.

Hebrews 10:2. Proof for the κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐτ. θυσ. οὐδέποτε δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους τελειῶσαι in the form of a question: for otherwise would not their presentation have ceased? because the worshippers, so soon as they have once been really purged from sin, have no more consciousness of sins, and thus no more need of an expiatory sacrifice. In connection with the Recepta ἐπεὶ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο, the sense itself would remain unchanged, only the words would then have to be taken as an assertory statement (“for their presentation would have come to an end, because,” etc.); by which, however, the discourse would suffer in point of vivacity (observe also the ἀλλά, Hebrews 10:3, corresponding to the question of Hebrews 10:2). But the process is not a natural one, when Beza, edd. 1 and 2, Wetstein, Matthaei, Stein, and others (comp. already Theodoret) will have the proposition of Hebrews 10:2 regarded as an assertory statement, even with the retention of the οὐκ. They then explain either (and thus ordinarily): for otherwise their presentation would not have ceased, sc. by the coming in of the New Covenant (Beza: alioqui non desiissent offerri; Matthaei: non cessavissent, non sublata essent; comp. Theodoret: Διὰ τοῦτο τέλος ἐκεῖνα λαμβάνει, ὡς οὐ δυνάμενα συνείδησιν καθαρὰν ἀποφῆναι), or, in that ἐπεὶ … προσφερόμεναι, is closely attached to the main verb of Hebrews 10:1, and διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν κ.τ.λ. is regarded as belonging to the whole proposition, Hebrews 10:1-2 : the law was not able by its sacrifices to lead to perfection, since their presentation was an endless one; because those who are once purified have no longer any consciousness of sins. So Wetstein, who, however, will write—what in that case, no doubt, would be necessary and perfectly justified

οὐκ ἀνεπαύσαντο instead of οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο (… “quum non cessarent offerri. Ita quidem, ut haec verba, sublata distinctione majori, jungantur iis, quae praecedunt, deinde sequatur totius sententiae confirmatio: quia sacrificantes,” etc.). But against the last-mentioned mode of explanation it is decisive, that the relation of the members of the sentence to each other would become obscure, and the arrangement cumbrous; against the first-mentioned, the presupposition, underlying the ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, Hebrews 10:1, as well as the epistle in general (Hebrews 9:9, al.), that the Jewish sacrificial ritual was still in continuance at the time of our author’s writing.

ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι] sc. αἱ θυσίαι. The construction of παύεσθαι, with the participle is the ordinary one, in classic as well as in Hellenistic Greek. Comp. Ephesians 1:16; Colossians 1:9; Acts 5:42, al.; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 771; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 323 f.

τοὺς λατρεύοντας] see at Hebrews 9:9.

Hebrews 10:3. Contrast to τὸ μηδεμίαν ἔχειν ἔτι συνείδησιν ἁμαρτιῶν τοὺς λατρεύοντας. In such wise, however, that the offerers should have no more consciousness of guilt, the matter does not stand; on the contrary, there lies in the yearly repetition of the sacrifices the yearly reminder that sins are still remaining, and have to be expiated.[97] Comp. Philo, de Victim. p. 841 A (with Mangey, II. p. 244): Εὔηθες γὰρ τὰς θυσίας μὴ λήθην ἁμαρτημάτων, ἀλλʼ ὑπόμνησιν αὐτῶν κατασκευάζειν.

De plantat. Noë, p. 229 B (I. p. 345): αἱ … θυσίαι … ὑπομιμνήσκουσαι τὰς ἑκάστων ἀγνοίας τε καὶ διαμαρτίας.

Vit. Mos. 3. p. 669 E (II. p. 151): Καὶ γὰρ ὁπότε γίνεσθαι δοκοῦσιν (sc. the θυσίαι, and ΕὐΧΑΊ of the impious), Οὐ ΛΎΣΙΝ ἉΜΑΡΤΗΜΆΤΩΝ ἈΛΛʼ ὙΠΌΜΝΗΣΙΝ ἘΡΓΆΖΟΝΤΑΙ.

ἘΝ ΑὐΤΑῖς] sc. ταῖς θυσίαις.

ἀνάμνησις] not: commemoratio (Vulgate, Calvin, Clarius, al.) or commemoratio publica (Bengel and others), so that we must think of the confession of sin (tract. Jom. iv. 2, iii. 8, vi. 2) which the high priest made on the great day of atonement with regard to himself and the whole people (Schlichting, Grotius, Braun, al.); but: reminding, recalling to memory. Comp. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25; Luke 22:19.

[97] To join on the words of ver. 3 to those of ver. 1, and then to look upon ver. 2 as a parenthesis (Kurtz, Hofmann), is inadmissible, even—apart from the ἀλλά, of frequent use after a question—because ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν, ver. 3, points back to the kindred συνείδησιν ἁμαρτιῶν, ver. 2.

Hebrews 10:4. Proof that it cannot be otherwise, drawn from the matter itself which is under consideration. By a rudely sensuous means we cannot attain to a high spiritual good.

Hebrews 10:5. Διό] Wherefore, i.e. in accordance with the impossibility declared at Hebrews 10:4.

λέγει] He saith. As subject thereto is naturally supplied Christ, although He was not mentioned again since Hebrews 9:28. This determination of the subject is already placed beyond doubt by the whole connection, but not less by the pointing back of τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Hebrews 10:10, to σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, Hebrews 10:5. According to the view of our author, Christ is speaking[98] in the person of the psalmist. The psalm itself, indeed, as is almost universally acknowledged, refuses to admit of the Messianic interpretation (comp. especially Hebrews 10:13 [12]). The present λέγει, moreover, might be placed, because the utterance is one extending into the present, i.e. one which may still be daily read in the Scripture.

εἰσερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον] at His coming into the world, i.e. on the eve of coming (see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 249) into the world[99] (sc. by His incarnation). This determining of time is taken from the ἥκω, Hebrews 10:7. According to Bleek, who is preceded therein by Grotius, and followed by de Wette, as more recently by Maier and Beyschlag, die Christologie des Neuen Testaments, Berl. 1866, p. 192, the author in penning the words εἰσερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμοΝ was thinking “less of the moment of the incarnation and birth than of the public coming forth upon earth to the work assigned to Him by the Father, in connection with which His entrance into the world first became manifested to the world itself.” But in that case ΕἸΣΕΛΘΏΝ must have been written, and the formula ΕἸΣΕΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς ΕἸς ΤῸΝ ΚΌΣΜΟΝ (John 1:9; John 6:14; John 11:27; Romans 5:12; 1 Timothy 1:15, al.) would lose its natural signification. The same applies against Delitzsch, who, bringing in that which lies very remote, will have the words explained: “incarnate, and having entered upon the years of human self-determination, signified Isaiah 7:16,”—an exposition which is not any the more rendered acceptable, when Delitzsch adds, with a view to doing justice to the participle present: “we need not regard the εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον as a point; we can also conceive of it as a line.”[100] For the author cannot possibly have thought of Christ’s εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον, and His λέγειν temporally therewith coinciding, as something constantly repeated and only progressively developed.

θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας] sacrifice and offering (bloody and un-bloody sacrifices) Thou didst not will. Kindred utterances in the O. T.: Psalm 50:7-15; Psalm 51:18 ff. [16 ff.]; Isaiah 1:11; Jeremiah 6:20; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21 ff.; 1 Samuel 15:22. That, however, the author founded his Scripture proof precisely upon Psalms 40, was occasioned principally by the addition, very important for his purpose: σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, which is found there.

σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι] but a body hast Thou prepared me, sc. in order to be clothed with the same, and by the giving up of the same unto death to fulfil Thy will. Comp. Hebrews 10:7. Thus, without doubt, the author found in his copy of the LXX. But that the Hebrew words: אָזְנַיִם כָּרִיתָ לִּי (the ears hast Thou digged to me, i.e. by revelation opened up religious knowledge to me), were even originally rendered by the LXX. by ΣῶΜΑ ΔῈ ΚΑΤΗΡΤΊΣΩ ΜΟΙ, as is contended by Jac. Cappellus, Wolf, Carpzov, Tholuck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others, is a supposition hardly to be entertained. Probably the LXX. rendered the Hebrew words by ὨΤΊΑ ΔῈ ΚΑΤΗΡΤΊΣΩ ΜΟΙ, as they are still found in some ancient MSS. of that version, and ΣῶΜΑ ΔῈ ΚΑΤΗΡΤΊΣΩ ΜΟΙ arose, not “from the translator being unable to attach any satisfactory meaning to the words ‘the ears hast thou digged to me,’ and therefore altering them with his own hand” (Kurtz); but only from an accidental corruption of the text, in that Σ, the final letter of the ἨΘΈΛΗΣΑς immediately preceding, was wrongly carried over to the following word, and instead of ΤΙ the letter Μ was erroneously read.

[98] Arbitrarily does Kurtz place in λέγει a double sense, in that he will have it understood on the part of the psalmist of a speaking in words, on the part of Christ of a speaking by deeds.

[99] Without reason do Delitzsch and Alford object against this interpretation, that the following σῶμα κατηρτίσω μοι is not in harmony therewith. See the exposition of the words.

[100] So, in accord with Delitzsch, also Alford, who observes: “It expresses, I believe, the whole time during which the Lord, being ripened in human resolution, was in intent devoting Himself to the doing of His Father’s will: the time of which that youthful question, ‘Wist ye not that I must be ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου?’ was one of the opening announcements.”

Hebrews 10:5-10. Scripture proof, from Psalm 40:7-9 [6–8], that deliverance from sins is to be obtained, not by animal sacrifices, but only by the fulfilling of the will of God. On the ground of this fulfilment of God’s will by Christ are we Christians sanctified.

Hebrews 10:6. In burnt-offerings and sin-offerings hadst Thou no pleasure.

LXX. Cod. Vatic.: ὁλοκαύτωμα … οὐκ ᾒτησας; Cod. Alex.: ὁλοκαυτώματα … οὐκ ἐζήτησας.

καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας] Oecumenius: τουτέστι προσφορὰν περὶ ἁμαρτίας. Elsewhere also occasionally (Leviticus 7:37; Numbers 8:8, al.) the LXX. denote the sin-offering by the mere περὶ ἁμαρτίας, in that the additional notion of sacrifice is naturally yielded by the context. Stein’s expedient for avoiding all supplementing of the idea, in translating καί by “also” (“Thou hast also no pleasure in offerings for sin”), is grammatically inadmissible.

εὐδοκεῖν] with the accusative also not rare elsewhere in Hellenistic Greek. Comp. LXX. Genesis 33:10; Leviticus 26:34; Leviticus 26:41; Psalm 51:18-19, al. Besides this in the Hellenistic εὐδοκεῖν ἐν (Hebrews 10:38), with Greek writers εὐδοκεῖν τινι.

Hebrews 10:7. Τότε εἶπον] then said I. In the sense of the writer of the epistle: then, when Thou hadst prepared for me a body. In the sense of the composer of the psalm: then, when such deeper knowledge was revealed to me. Contrary to the usage of the language, Carpzov, Stein, and others take τότε as equivalent to ideo, propterea, while just as capriciously Heinrichs makes it redundant as a particle of transition.

ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ] is a parenthesis; so that τοῦ ποιῆσαι depends not on γέγραπται, as Paulus thinks, but upon ἥκω: Lo, I come to do, O God, Thy will. Comp. Hebrews 10:9. Otherwise truly with the LXX. (and in the Hebrew), where τοῦ ποιῆσαι is governed by the closing verb ἠβουλήθην, which is omitted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημά σου, ὁ θεός μου, ἠβουλήθην: to do Thy will, O God, is my delight).

ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ is in the Hebrew differently connected and applied. In the sense of our author: in the prophecies of the O. T. it is written of me.

κεφαλίς, little head, then the knob at the end of the staff, around which the manuscript roll was wound in antiquity. κεφαλὶς βιβλίου consequently denotes the book-roll, volume. Elsewhere also the LXX. translated the Hebrew מְגִלָּה (volumen), with and without the addition of βιβλίου, by κεφαλίς. Comp. Ezekiel 2:9; Ezekiel 3:1-3; Ezra 6:2.

τὸ θέλημα] in the sense of our author: the obedient presentation of the body as a sacrifice for the redemption of mankind.